[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48009-48044]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28322]
RIN 2127-AL00

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

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On December 4, 2007, NHTSA published a final rule that amended
the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment with an effective date of September
1, 2008. In response, the agency received thirteen petitions for
reconsideration. The effective date of the final rule was delayed in
subsequent notices to December 1, 2012. This document corrects several
technical errors in the final rule and completes the agency's response
to the issues raised in the submitted petitions for reconsideration.

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is effective December 1, 2012.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December
1, 2012.
    Compliance Date: Voluntary early compliance is permitted beginning
August 8, 2011.
    Petitions for Reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than September 22, 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, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building, Ground Floor, Docket Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical issues: Mr. Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards (NVS-121), NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For legal issues: Mr. Thomas Healy, Office of the Chief Counsel
(NCC-112), NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Petitions for Reconsideration
    A. Definitions
    B. Technical Amendments
    C. Claims of Substantive Amendment
    D. Amendments To Improve Clarity
IV. Agency Analysis and Response
    A. Definitions
    B. Technical Amendments
    C. Claims of Substantive Amendment
    D. Amendments To Improve Clarity
    E. Preemptive Effect of FMVSS No. 108
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    On December 4, 2007 NHTSA published a final rule \1\ that amended
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
reflective devices, and associated equipment. That final rule
reorganized the regulatory text and explicitly added to the text
existing requirements from third-party standards that had previously
been incorporated by reference. In rewriting the standard NHTSA sought
not to make any substantive changes or impose new requirements on
regulated parties. The objectives of the rewrite were to: (1) Make
requirements easier to find and comprehend; (2) present performance
requirements and test procedures together in one place, instead of
obliging the user to locate the relevant provisions of third-party
documents previously incorporated by reference; and (3) update FMVSS
No. 108 to reflect significant letters of interpretation. The rewrite
of FMVSS No. 108 was considered administrative in nature because the
standard's existing requirements and obligations were not increased,
decreased, or substantively modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 72 FR 68234, (Dec. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency received several petitions for reconsideration which
stated some aspects of the final rule failed to adhere to the agency's
stated goal of not substantively modifying the standard's existing
requirements. Also, the agency received petitions for reconsideration
that identified formatting and grammatical errors. In addition to the
petitions addressing the technical aspects of the standard, the agency
also received a submission questioning the discussion of the preemptive
effect of FMVSS No. 108 included in the preamble of the final rule.
After careful review and consideration of the petitions for
reconsideration, the agency is amending FMVSS No. 108 in order to
correct technical errors within the final rule and is providing a
partial response to petitions for reconsideration including the
submission addressing the preemptive effect of the rule. The remaining
items in the petitions for reconsideration, which include substantive
issues and are not addressed within this partial response, will be
addressed in a separate notice. We expect to publish that notice before
the final rule effective date of December 1, 2012.

II. Background

    NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on December
30, 2005 \2\ proposing to reorganize FMVSS No. 108 and improve the
clarity of the standard's requirements, thereby increasing its utility
for regulated parties. The proposed administrative rewrite attempted to
make the standard more understandable by adopting a simplified
numbering scheme to improve organization; by grouping related materials
in a more logical and consistent sequence; and by reducing the
certification burden of regulated parties who previously needed to
review a few dozen third-party documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 70 FR 77454, (Dec. 30, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From a regulatory perspective, it was the agency's intention, as
expressed in the NPRM, that the administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108
would neither result in any current obligations being diminished, nor
any new obligations being imposed. In other words, the substantive
requirements of the standard would be identical to those of the
currently-applicable version of FMVSS No. 108 and underlying documents
incorporated by reference. Therefore, we stated that regulated parties
would not need to make any changes to their respective products or
production processes if our proposal were made final.
    The agency considered comments received on the NPRM and published a
final rule on December 4, 2007. The final rule incorporated some of the
comments received in response to the NPRM by further consolidating test
procedures and performance requirements from multiple tables to single
paragraphs, incorporating additional Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) documents directly

into the regulatory text, and further consolidating marking
requirements. The final rule also added additional tables and figures
and changed the structure of the standard to present the requirements
in a more standardized and user-friendly manner. The final rule amended
FMVSS No. 108 by: (1) Reorganizing the regulatory text so that it
provides a more straightforward and logical presentation of the
applicable regulatory requirements; (2) incorporating important agency
interpretations of the existing requirements; and (3) reducing reliance
on third-party documents incorporated by reference. The preamble of the
final rule again stated that it was not the agency's intention to
create any substantive changes to the standard through the
administrative rewrite.

III. Petitions for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received thirteen timely petitions for reconsideration from
automotive manufacturers, lighting suppliers, motorcycle manufacturers,
material manufacturers, a testing laboratory, and a trial bar
association.\3\ The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), Ford
Motor Company (Ford), Nissan North America (Nissan), Toyota Motor North
America (Toyota), Koito Manufacturing Co. LTD (Koito), Valeo Lighting
Systems (Valeo), Grote Industries LLC (Grote), Harley-Davidson Motor
Company (Harley-Davidson), GE Consumer & Industrial--Lighting (GE),
SABIC Innovative Plastics (SABIC), Calcoast, and American Association
for Justice (AAJ) submitted petitions for reconsideration of the final
rule. The Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), the
Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI), and the Motor Vehicle
Lighting Council (MVLC), collectively the Associations, submitted a
joint petition for reconsideration. Several of the petitions claimed
that the final rule imposed new substantive requirements that were not
previously included in the old standard. Many of the petitions pointed
out grammatical and formatting issues contained in the final rule. The
petitions also requested that the agency make additional technical
changes and amend the format of some areas of the final rule to further
advance the goals of the rewrite. Other petitions claimed that the
final rule failed to accurately transpose previously referenced
documents or interpretation letters into the regulation text. The
petition submitted by AAJ challenged the preemptive language of the
final rule preamble. The remaining petitions requested substantive
changes to the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA also received several petitions for reconsideration
after the January 18, 2008 deadline specified in the final rule. It
is the agency's policy to treat untimely petitions for
reconsideration as petitions for rulemaking. See 49 CFR 553.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The matters raised in the petitions fall generally into four
categories and will be answered as follows: (1) Requests that
additional definitions be added to the final rule; (2) requests for
technical amendments to the final rule to correct grammar, formatting,
and technical issues; (3) claims that the agency added new substantive
requirements to the standard during the rewrite; and (4) requests for
amendments to the standard to improve readability or clarify certain
language. The petitions requesting substantive amendments to the rule
will be addressed in another notice.

A. Definitions

    Several petitioners requested that the agency add new definitions
to clarify terms used in the text of the final rule. AAM and Nissan
requested that the definition of a clearance lamp be modified to remove
the language containing the mounting and spacing requirements for the
lamp. AAM and Nissan claimed that the mounting and spacing requirements
are contained elsewhere in FMVSS No. 108, therefore, it was not
necessary that these requirements be included in the definition. Nissan
claimed that removing the mounting and spacing requirements would make
the definition more consistent with the definitions of other lamps
regulated by the standard. Similarly, both petitioners requested that
language regarding mounting and spacing requirements be removed from
the definitions of identification and side marker lamps. AAM and Nissan
suggested a definition that would eliminate the mounting location
description and spacing requirements from each of these three lamp
definitions.
    The Associations, Grote, and Valeo suggested creating a definition
for the term ``headlamp system.'' Each of these petitioners suggested
the following definition: ``A vehicle-based headlighting system which
is composed of headlamps mounted on opposite sides of and symmetrical
to the centerline of the vehicle.''
    Nissan suggested a definition for the term ``multiple compartment
lamp.'' Nissan suggested the following definition: ``Multiple
compartment lamp means a device which gives its indication by two or
more areas, illuminated by separate light sources, which are joined by
one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens.'' Nissan pointed
out that this definition was similar to the definition used in an
interpretation letter to Al Cunningham on November 3, 1988 \4\ that
responded to his request for clarification as to the meaning of the
term ``multiple compartment lamp.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/3135o.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Associations pointed out that the agency placed the definitions
for all of the various headlamp types, except ``combination headlamp,''
in the definition section of the final rule. They suggested the
following definition be added to the definitions section: ``Combination
headlamp system: For a two lamp system, a combination of two different
headlamps chosen from: Type F, an integral beam headlamp, or a
replaceable bulb headlamp and for a four lamp system, any combination
of four different headlamps chosen from: Type F, an integral beam
headlamp, or a replaceable bulb headlamp.'' The Associations and Grote
recommended replacing the terms ``lamps section'' or ``compartments''
with a universal term ``lighted sections.''

B. Technical Amendments

    The petitions requested various technical amendments to the
standard to amend formatting and grammatical issues. Nissan stated that
the agency referenced an American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) specification in the final rule in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> yet this
specification was not listed in paragraph S5.
    Nissan pointed out a grammatical error in paragraph S6.4.4. Nissan
suggested changing the phrase ``* * * overall width, that are * * *''
to ``* * * overall width, that is * * *''
    AAM requested that the ``DOT marking'' requirement for headlamps
located in paragraph S6.5.1 be moved to paragraph S6.5.3 so that it
would be located with the other headlamp markings.
    The Associations and AAM noted that paragraph S6.5.3 occurs twice,
once marked Headlamp markings and once marked Trademark. They requested
that the Trademark paragraph numbering change to S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    AAM requested that the format of ``SEALED BEAM,'' as shown in
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, be standardized with the format as it appears in
Table III, which is not fully capitalized. AAM requested that the
phrase be modified to ``Sealed Beam'' in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1.
    AAM stated that in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, FMVSS No. 108's revised
text uses the term ``compartments'' even though the preamble to that
rule stated

that this term would be used in the singular form.
    AAM recommended adding a qualifying statement ``provided that the
requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> are met'' to paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, similar
to the statements used in paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, S<IP_ADDRESS>, and
S<IP_ADDRESS>, in order to clarify the requirements for multiple
compartment lamps.
    Nissan requested that the phrase ``generated by a 1.0 radius around
* * *'' be changed to ``generated by a 1.0 degree radius around * * *''
in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.4.
    AAM recommended a modification to paragraph S7.2.9, which deals
with taillamp markings. AAM requested that the agency change the
pointing statement in that paragraph to point to the specific
subparagraph S<IP_ADDRESS> rather than paragraph S6.5. AAM also requested
that a more specific pointer be added for paragraphs S7.3.9, S7.4.9,
S7.5.9, S7.6.9, S7.7.9, S7.8.9, S7.9.9, S7.10.9, S7.11.9, and S8.1.9.
    AAM requested that S7.7.4 be changed from pointing to Tables I (a-
c) that state ``No requirement,'' to simply state within that text ``No
Requirement.'' AAM pointed out that this is consistent with other areas
of the regulatory text such as in paragraphs S7.7.7 and S7.7.8.
    The Associations requested that the paragraph numeration be
corrected in the subparagraphs of S7.9.14. They stated that the
paragraph structure contains S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 and S<IP_ADDRESS>.2, however, it
does not contain a paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    Nissan noted a grammatical error in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2. It
requested that the wording be modified from ``* * * of multiple
compartment lamp or * * *'' to ``* * * of multiple compartment lamps or
* * *''.
    Toyota requested that paragraph S14.3.1 be modified to use the
abbreviation ``in.'' for the unit inch instead of the abbreviation
``in'' without a period.
    GE and the Associations requested a modification to paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, which they pointed out incorrectly converts 176 degrees
Fahrenheit to 60 degrees Celsius. They requested the Celsius number be
changed to 80 degrees.
    Nissan and AAM stated that within Table I-a, the subtitle
Additional Lamps, Required on All Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
(MPV), Trucks, and Buses, 2032 MM or More in Overall Width appears
twice. AAM and Nissan also requested that the activation criteria text
be moved to the Device Activation column from the Mounting Height
column for the lower beam headlamp, which is currently blank. In
addition, Nissan requested that the activation specifications for the
upper beam headlamp read: ``Steady burning, except may be flashed for
signaling purposes.'' Nissan also requested that English units of
measurement be added to the Mounting Height column of Table I-a for the
lower and upper beam headlamps. AAM requested that all measurements in
Tables I-a, I-b, and I-c be displayed in both English and metric units.
AAM requested that a horizontal line be placed above the DRL subtitle.
Both Nissan and AAM requested that the mounting location and color
information be moved to the appropriate column for reflex reflectors in
Table I-a. Nissan asked that the subtitle for additional lamps required
for wide vehicles change the word ``truck'' to ``trucks.'' AAM and
Nissan requested that the turn signal truck tractor exception be moved
to a new line.
    AAM noted that a billing code is inappropriately located after
Table I-c. AAM requested that, within the mounting location column for
the upper beam headlamp, a note be added that states: ``See additional
requirements in S10.14.1, S<IP_ADDRESS>, and S<IP_ADDRESS>,'' to reference
additional mounting requirements for motorcycle headlamps. AAM also
noted that the same column for the lower beam headlamp points to
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1.3, however, this paragraph does not exist. The
Associations and AAM requested that the word ``between'' be added to
the turn signal minimum edge to edge distance.
    AAM claimed that the term ``Motorcycle Headlamp'' in Table III
should read ``Motorcycle Replaceable Bulb Headlamp'' so that it agrees
with paragraph S10.17.2. AAM also suggested adding the word
``Optional'' in the markings of the Table III column for Lamps (Other
Than Headlamps), Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. AAM also
stated it found an incorrect pointing statement to S<IP_ADDRESS> for the
replaceable bulb headlamp in the Requirement column of Table III. AAM
believed that the pointer should instead point to paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1.
AAM also pointed out that Table III does not contain the marking
requirements for a replaceable lens headlamp called out in paragraph
5.8.11 of the existing FMVSS No. 108. Finally, AAM requested that the
phrase ``See requirements'' be added to the sealed beam headlamp type
designation in the Marking Location column.
    For Table V-a, Nissan requested that the measurements for the
required visibility for the backup lamp should be in both metric and
English units.
    The Associations, Nissan, and AAM pointed out that the alignment of
lighting device functions to their corner points is incorrect in Table
V-b. AAM requested the elimination of the billing code from the bottom
of that table.
    Nissan requested that the word ``zone'' be replaced with the word
``group'' in footnote 2 in Table VIII. Nissan also requested that the
word ``group'' replace the word ``zone'' in footnote 4 of Table XII.
Nissan made the same request of footnote 2 of Tables XIV and XV. Nissan
requested that the agency amend footnote 2 of Table XVI to replace the
word ``zone'' with the word ``group.''
    AAM requested that the agency amend footnote 6 of Table IX so that
the photometric intensity requirements for stop lamps combined with
taillamps correspond with SAE J1398 (MAY 1985), Stop Lamps for Use on
Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width, incorporated by
reference in the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108. AAM
stated that footnote 6 of Table IX should be changed to ''values
followed by a slash * * *'' (in contrast to the current ``Values
preceded by a slash'') for the H-5L test point so that the standard
required the correct photometric multiplier for wide vehicles.
    In Table XV, Nissan noted that the test points columns should be
listed as horizontal first and vertical second.
    The Associations claimed that the final rule had an error in Figure
8, ``Replaceable Light Source Detection Test Setup,'' and requested
that dimension ``A'' be replaced with the term ``Light Center Length.''
The Associations also requested that Figure 14 be changed. They stated
that the material specification for the ``Disc. arm Brace & Clamp''
should appear as ``SAE-AA-6061 T6 or equiv,'' and the ``Coil Spring and
Level Clip'' should appear as ``Spring Steel SAE 1858 -Cadmium Plate.''
Also, they stated that in Figure 14, ``5.00 Bubble movement'' should be
replaced by ``5.88 Bubble movement'' and the screw ``Typ. 18''
should be ``Typ. 10.'' Finally, in Figure 14, the Associations
suggested that the dimension of ``100.33'' should instead be
``188.33.''

C. Claims of Substantive Amendment

    Several of the petitions claimed that during the rewrite process
the agency created new substantive requirements of FMVSS No. 108 when
the agency incorporated SAE standards that petitioners claim were not
fully incorporated or failed to accurately transpose the requirements
of third party standards.

    Valeo stated that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> ``would prohibit daytime
running lights (DRLs) in combination with parking lights.'' Valeo
maintained that the existing regulatory text allowed DRLs to be
incorporated with parking lamps and urged the agency to retain the
existing provision. Valeo referenced paragraph S5.5.11(a) of the
current standard, which states that any pair of lamps other than
parking lamps or fog lamps may be wired as DRLs. Valeo claimed that the
fact that parking lights cannot be used as DRLs is evident because
parking lamps would not meet the photometric requirements of DRLs.
Valeo claimed that there is no way to reconcile Table 1 of SAE J222
(DEC 1970), Parking Lamps, with the minimum requirement of 500 candela
at point Horizontal-Vertical of the beam pattern required in the
regulation text. Valeo pointed out that many vehicles currently use
front turn signals that are optically combined with parking lamps as
DRLs. Valeo requested that the agency clarify the wording of paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS> to disallow a DRL consisting of the parking lamp alone, while
allowing a DRL that is optically combined with the parking lamp.
    Calcoast requested a modification to paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> to clarify
the performance requirements for multiple lighted section lamps. This
paragraph states that ``when multiple lamp arrangements or multiple
compartment rear turn signal lamps, stop lamps, or taillamps are used,
with only a portion of the compartments or lamps installed on a rigid
part of the vehicle, that portion must meet at least the photometric
requirements for the applicable single compartment lamp.'' Calcoast
stated that it is concerned that this language could be interpreted as
allowing a multiple lighted section lamp that is part of a multiple
lamp arrangement, such as a light-emitting diode (LED) lamp, that is
mounted on the fixed portion of the vehicle to comply only with the
single lighted section rules and not the multiple lighted section
rules. Calcoast asserted that this statement implies that when a
multiple lamp arrangement is used, there is no need to confirm that the
multiple lamp arrangement meets all requirements for multiple
compartment lamps. Calcoast suggested that the text state that the
lighting system must comply with all the relevant rules no matter what
position the moveable parts have been placed in.
    Koito requested that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> replace the phrase ``rigid
part of the vehicle'' with the term ``fixed body panel.'' Koito noted
that the term ``rigid part of the vehicle'' was correctly used in
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, however, it stated that it appears the term ``fixed
body panel'' reflects the intent of the July 7, 2000 letter of
interpretation to Gary King \5\ which states ``body mounted lamps (rear
turn signal, stop, or tail lamps) are the ones that must be designed to
comply with FMVSS [No.] 108.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21605.ztv.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Harley-Davidson requested that paragraph S6.2.3 be revised to
clarify that the headlamp ornamentation prohibition in paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS> does not apply to motorcycles. Harley-Davidson noted that the
provision of FMVSS No. 108 prohibiting headlamp ornamentation is
contained in paragraph S7.8.5 of the current standard, a paragraph
Harley-Davidson claimed does not apply to motorcycles. Harley-Davidson
referenced a December 6, 1999 interpretation letter to Piaggio &
C.S.p.A \6\ and a September 29, 2000 letter to Carter Engineering \7\
to support its view on these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20867.ztv.html.
    \7\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21971.ztv.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAM requested that the markings requirements of a sealed beam
headlamp remove the term ``molded'' in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1. AAM argued
that the text of the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108 did
not require the marking to be molded into the lens.
    Ford and AAM requested that the hazard warning pilot indicator
requirement be deleted from paragraph S6.6.2. They claimed that the
current version of FMVSS No. 108 does not require a hazard pilot
indicator light. They maintained that although SAE J910 (JAN 1966),
Hazard Warning Signal Switch, incorporated by reference in the existing
standard, recommends a pilot indicator, this provision was not directly
incorporated into the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108.
They argued that their view is supported by the explicit requirement in
the existing regulation for a turn signal indicator lamp. They claimed
that since a turn signal pilot indicator was specifically indentified
in the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 108, not all the requirements of
the referenced SAE standard were included in FMVSS No. 108. They
maintained that the requirement for a hazard warning pilot indicator
was one of the excluded requirements.
    Both the Associations and Ford requested changes to paragraph
S6.6.3, which specifies the orientation of the license plate holder.
Ford requested that the paragraph be deleted, claiming that the rear
license plate holder is not a lamp, reflective device, or piece of
associated equipment and is not separately listed as an item in the
Table I or Table III of the current rule, and therefore, is not
regulated by FMVSS No. 108. Harley-Davidson suggested that this
requirement does not apply to motorcycles. Harley-Davidson stated that
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of the referenced SAE document SAE J587 (OCT 81),
License Plate Illumination Devices, excludes motorcycles from that
provision. Harley-Davidson also stated that the existing incorporation
by reference only applied to the lamps, and not to the license plate
holder.
    The Associations and Ford requested a change to requirements for
turn signal photometric multipliers contained in paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>.1
through S<IP_ADDRESS>.4. The Associations asserted that the currently
applicable version of FMVSS No. 108 does not make any distinction
between reflector-based, and non-reflector-based optics when
calculating the turn signal spacing to other lamps. They requested that
paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 through S<IP_ADDRESS>.3 be replaced by the paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS> of the current standard, which contains the currently
applicable requirements for turn signal photometric multipliers. Ford
referenced the preamble to a previous agency NPRM \8\ incorporating an
SAE standard on turn signals to support its claim that the graduated
turn signal intensity requirements for turn signals located near
auxiliary lamps in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.4 were not included in the text
of the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108. Ford requested
that paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>.2, S<IP_ADDRESS>.3, S<IP_ADDRESS>.4 (b), (c), and (d)
be deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 53 FR 35097, (Sep. 1, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAM requested that paragraph S9.3.4, which deals with turn signal
pilot indicator size and color, be removed from the standard because
AAM believed that the paragraph imposed new substantive requirements
that were not contained in the currently applicable version of the
standard. Although AAM noted that the initial requirements published on
December 16, 1967 \9\ did require a turn signal indicator, and
specified its size and color based on requirements in SAE J588d (JUN
1966), Turn Signal Lamps, AAM claimed that a subsequent revision to the
standard on October 31, 1970 \10\ removed the size and color
requirements. AAM claimed that the currently applicable version of
FMVSS No. 108 only requires that the turn

signal pilot indicator indicate a turn signal outage in accordance with
SAE J588d (JUN 1966) and does not specify size and color requirements
for the indicator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 32 FR 18032, (Dec. 16, 1967).
    \10\ 35 FR 16840, (Oct. 31, 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Harley-Davidson requested clarification and confirmation that the
headlamp aimability requirements of paragraph S10.18 do not apply to
motorcycles. Harley-Davidson claimed that paragraph S7.8 of the
currently applicable version of the standard did not require aimability
for motorcycle headlamps. Harley-Davidson referenced a letter of
interpretation to Piaggio & C.S.p.A dated December 6, 1999 and also a
letter to Carter Engineering dated September 29, 2000 to support its
argument.
    The Associations, Koito, and Calcoast requested that the agency
amend paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.5.1, which specifies the distance at which
the cutoff parameter must be measured, to allow measurement from
distances greater than 10 m. Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.5.1 requires that the
cut off parameter be measured at a distance of 10 m with a 10 mm
diameter photosensor. The Associations recommended deleting the last
sentence of paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.5.1, or stating that 10 m is the
minimum distance allowable for measuring the cutoff parameter. Koito
recommended allowing a measuring distance of 18.3 m or more for
measuring the cutoff parameter. Calcoast requested that the agency
permit cutoff measurements at both 10 m and 25 m. All petitioners
agreed that the diameter of the photosensor should appropriately
correspond to the measuring distance.
    Nissan requested that the inward force test specified in paragraph
S14.6.12 be excluded for vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) and
visually-optically aimable (VOA) lamps. Nissan stated that the text of
the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108 does not require VHAD
and VOA lamps to conform to this test. Nissan also stated that the test
requires an aiming plane, typically found only on externally aimed
systems. Finally, Nissan claimed that the test itself is intended to
assure that an externally aimable headlamp system can withstand the
normal force applied to seat the suction cup onto the lens when
affixing the mechanical aiming device.
    The Associations and Grote petitioned the agency to add language to
allow stop and turn signal lamps designed for use on vehicles 2032 mm
or more in overall width, that meet the one lighted section photometric
values, to be used on narrow vehicles. They claimed that SAE J1395 (APR
1985), Front and Rear Turn Signals for Use of Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or
More in Overall Width, and SAE J1398 (MAY 1985) expressly allow this.
To support this position the Associations cited an August 22, 1990
interpretation letter from the agency to Hella \11\ which stated:

    \11\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/aiam/aiam4773.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning December 1, 1990, Standard No. 108 will specify two
different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended
for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and
trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be
designed to conform to the SAE Standard J1395 * * *, ``Turn Signal
Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width,''
[(APR 1985)]. SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used
on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a
motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to
conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a turn signal lamp
designed to conform to SAE standard J588 * * *, ``Turn Signal Lamps
for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width,''
[(NOV 1984)].

Finally, the Associations stated that a denial of this petition will
have a significant cost to the market segment.
    Harley-Davidson requested that the minimum Effective Luminous Lens
Area requirement for multiple compartment motorcycle stop lamps be
added to Table IV-a. Harley-Davidson suggested this value should be
2,200 square mm. Harley-Davidson maintained that the current version of
FMVSS No. 108 permits multiple compartment lamps or multiple lamps on
motorcycles if the effective projected luminous lens area of each
compartment is 2,200 square mm. Harley-Davidson states that the agency
confirmed this position in a April 21, 1997 letter of interpretation to
Stanley Electric.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/14307.ztv.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nissan asked that the legacy visibility wording be changed for the
turn, stop, and tail lamps in Table V-d. Nissan claimed that Table V-d
uses different language than the SAE sub-referenced standard for these
lamps on both narrow and wide vehicles. AAM requested that footnote 1
and footnote 4 be removed from Table VIII, Stop Lamp Photometry
Requirements. AAM maintained that both of these footnotes contain
requirements not previously included in FMVSS No. 108.
    Nissan requested that the agency reconsider its decision not to
amend the footnotes to the photometric tables for required signal lamps
in response to comments received by the agency on the NPRM. Nissan
stated that the footnotes to the photometric tables could be amended to
provide greater clarity to the requirements of the standard without
creating any substantive changes.
    In Table XIX, the Associations requested that the lower beam zone
defined by the corner point 10U, 90U, 90L, 90R be modified to 10U, 90U,
45L, 45R. Valeo suggested modifying Table XIX(a)(b), and (c) by
modifying the first row range from 10U to 90U, 90L to 90R to only state
10U to 90U, eliminating the horizontal angles. Both Valeo and the
Associations claimed that the horizontal range was not defined in the
currently applicable standard.

D. Amendments to Improve Clarity

    Commenters requested the following changes to clarify certain
provisions of the standard and to further improve readability. Nissan
requested that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 be revised to read:
``Accessibility. Each high mounted stop lamp must provide access for
convenient replacement of the bulb without a tool specifically designed
for that purpose.'' Nissan stated that this wording would incorporate a
February 12, 1998 interpretation letter to Ford Motor Company \13\ to
clarify the meaning of ``special tool.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/16788.ztv.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Harley-Davidson requested that the agency clarify that dual
motorcycle head lamps may be horizontally-mounted. Harley-Davidson
stated that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1.3 of the rewrite seems to prohibit
horizontally-mounted dual motorcycle headlamps. Harley-Davidson claimed
that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(c) of the current standard permits dual
horizontal mounting. Harley-Davidson further claimed that paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 of the rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 continues to permit dual
horizontally-mounted motorcycle headlamps.
    Koito requested that the agency clarify paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, which
deals with the ratio requirements between stop and tail lamp
intensities. Koito requested that this paragraph be modified to say:
``When a taillamp on a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, trailer,
or bus of 2,032 mm or more in overall width, is combined with a stop
lamp, the luminous intensity of the stop lamps at each identified test
point must be * * *'' Koito claimed that this will clarify that the
ratio requirement is always applied between stop and tail lamp
intensities on wide vehicles and that wide vehicles do not have the 560
mm and 410 mm classification used for narrow vehicles.
    Nissan recommended adding a subject to the sentence in paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS> so that the text reads: ``Application location. Conspicuity
systems need not

be * * *'' Nissan stated that this is consistent with the other
paragraphs of that section.
    Nissan requested that paragraph S10.1.2 be modified to eliminate
the duplicate requirements for motorcycle headlamp systems. Nissan
recommended modifying that paragraph to read: ``Each motorcycle must be
equipped with a headlighting system conforming to S10.17.'' This
modification would eliminate the allowance of a one half headlighting
system within paragraph S10.1.2, because that allowance is set forth
within paragraph S10.17, thereby removing redundant requirements.
    Koito recommended clarifying the requirements for four headlamp
systems by modifying paragraph S10.15.1 to read as follows: ``A
replaceable bulb headlighting system must consist of either two lamps,
each containing either one or two replaceable light sources, or four
lamps, each containing a single replaceable light source as specified
for the application system in Table II-d. A system must provide in
total no more than two upper beams and two lower beams and must
incorporate not more than two replaceable light sources in each
headlamp.'' Koito claimed that its recommended text will limit the
number of light sources in each headlamp of a four headlamp system.
Koito claimed, that as currently worded, the final rule will allow two
replaceable light sources in each headlamp of a four headlamp system,
which it further claimed is not consistent with the intent of the
original requirement.
    Toyota and Koito both requested a modification to paragraph
S10.15.5 which deals with additional light sources in a replaceable
bulb headlighting system. They requested the term ``replaceable light
sources'' be replaced with the term ``light sources'' in this
paragraph. They claimed that this expression should be the same as is
used in paragraph S10.14.5 for integral beam headlighting systems.
Toyota also recommended including the phrase ``and are replaceable'' to
the end of that paragraph. Toyota also noted that this change was
discussed in the preamble to the final rule, but was not properly
included in the final rule text.
    Nissan requested that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, which deals with
visual/optical aiming headlamp photometry, be removed. Nissan claimed
that this entire paragraph is redundant with paragraphs S10.13.3,
S10.14.6, S10.15.6, S10.16.2, and Table II. Nissan stated that the
requirements should only be stated once in the standard.
    Nissan requested that paragraph S13.3, which deals with replaceable
headlamp lens markings, be relocated within paragraph S6.5. Nissan
stated that the DOT marking requirement in that paragraph is redundant
with paragraph S6.5.1. Nissan stated the remaining marking requirements
of paragraph S13.3 should be added to a new paragraph enumerated as
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    The Associations and SABIC requested a modification to paragraph
S14.1.2, which deals with plastic optical materials. The Associations
requested that the paragraph be modified to state: ``Plastic optical
materials. All plastic material used for optical parts such as lenses
and reflex reflectors on lamps, or reflective devices required or
allowed by this standard must conform to the material test requirements
of S14.4.2, unless they are conspicuity treatments that are in
accordance with S8.2.1 or S8.2.2.'' SABIC requested that the paragraph
be modified as follows: ``Plastic optical material. All plastic
materials used for transparent optical parts such as lenses and reflex
reflectors on lamps or reflective devices required or allowed by this
standard must conform to the material test requirements of S14.4.2.''
Both petitioners pointed out the distinction between reflex reflectors
and reflectors. The Associations further stated that conspicuity
treatments were not part of the standard when this original language
was placed in the standard.
    Nissan requested a modification to paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, which
specifies bulb requirements for DRL photometry testing. Nissan
requested that this paragraph be revised to read: ``Bulb requirements
of paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> apply to DRL photometry, except for the need to
operate at the rated mean spherical candela.'' Nissan claimed that the
text of the final rule, which states that bulbs are to be operated at
their rated mean spherical candela, creates a conflict with the
requirement in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, which requires a fixed 12.8V input
be applied to the modules or electrical control units during testing.
Nissan stated that it may not be possible to achieve a bulb's mean
rated spherical candela at 12.8V.
    Koito asked for a clarification of the requirement in paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.3, which specifies testing for plastic optical materials.
Koito noted that test sample thicknesses are stated to be 1.6 mm, 2.3
mm, 3.2 mm, and 6.4 mm. Koito also noted that the color requirement in
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.4.5 specifies that after completion of the outdoor
exposure test, all materials must conform to the standard's color test
in the range of thickness stated by the manufacturer. Koito asked if a
material thickness of 7 mm can be certified if it was once tested in
the four thicknesses stated above, and found satisfactory.
    Nissan requested that some information contained in the text of the
standard be incorporated into a new table. Nissan requested that the
tabulated text in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.3.1, Operating Limits, be
titled ``Table XXI'' and relocated with the other tables instead of
being located in its current position.
    AAM further requested that Table I-a be broken into two tables that
separate the requirements of narrow vehicles from those for wide
vehicles.
    AAM stated that the requirements for DRLs should not be located in
Table I-a because the title of the table Required Lamps and Reflective
Devices may confuse users trying to locate the requirements. AAM stated
that Table I-a should contain a pointing statement to allow the user of
the standard to locate the requirements for DRLs elsewhere.
    Koito requested that the activation specifications for a high
mounted stop lamp in Table I-a be changed to ``Steady burning. Must
only be activated upon application of the service brakes or may be
activated by a device designed to retard the motion of the vehicle.''
Koito claimed this change is necessary because, in its view, ``a high
mounted stop lamp is optional on the activation of a device designed to
retard the motion of the vehicle.''
    AAM requested that the titles of Tables I-a, I-b, and I-c be
amended to include the vehicles to which the tables apply. AAM stated
that all of the tables having the same title, Required Lamps and
Reflective Devices, does not improve the clarity of the standard.
    The Associations, Grote, and Valeo requested that the maximum
allowable photometric intensity in Table XII for backup lamps on
vehicles equipped with a single back up lamp be changed from 300 to
300/600. They further requested the addition of a footnote that states;
``the value before the slash (300 cd) applies to each lamp in a
multiple lamp system; the value after the slash (600 cd) applies to a
single lamp system.'' The petitioners stated that FMVSS No. 108
requires backup lamps on vehicles equipped with a single backup lamp to
be tested at twice the candela requirements. Industry believes this
applies to maximum as well as minimum values.
    Nissan suggested removing the term ``test points'' in footnote 1 of
Table XIX, to clarify that all points with the specified boundary must
meet the photometric requirements listed in the table. Finally, Nissan
requested that all

the tables be presented in a complete manner without splitting a table
across multiple pages.

IV. Agency Analysis and Response

A. Definitions

    The agency has considered the requests from Nissan and AAM to
modify the definition of clearance, identification, and side marker
lamps. For each of these lamps, the agency has verified that the
definitions were successfully translated from the applicable SAE
document referenced in the currently applicable version of the
standard. While the agency believes that the modifications requested by
Nissan have the potential to further simplify the definitions of these
lamps, modifying the definitions may change the meaning of these terms.
The agency believes that it would be better to retain sporadic
redundancies in the standard than to risk a substantive modification by
changing the definitions of these lamps. Further, such a modification
would be outside the scope of the administrative rewrite of the
standard. Therefore, the agency is denying these requests.
    The agency is denying the request by the Associations, Grote, and
Valeo to add a definition for the term ``headlamp system.'' Since this
definition did not exist in the existing regulation text, nor in the
documents incorporated by reference, the agency considers this addition
to be a substantive change not within the scope of the administrative
rewrite of the standard.
    Nissan requested that the agency incorporate a November 3, 1988
interpretation letter to Al Cunningham in order to clarify the
definition of a ``multiple compartment lamp.'' The final rule
definition of a multiple compartment lamp is a direct carry-over from
text in paragraph S4 of the currently applicable version of FMVSS No.
108. In the NPRM, the agency invited input from interested parties
regarding additional interpretations that should be considered for
inclusion in the final rule, beyond those proposed by the agency.
Nissan's petition was not submitted at that time. It is the agency's
intention to take caution not to create a substantive change within
this technical correction and partial response to petitions for
reconsideration, therefore, we are denying this request by Nissan.
    The agency is granting the Associations' request to add a
definition of a ``combination headlamp.'' They noted that other lamp
types regulated within this standard are defined in the definition
section, however, a combination headlamp is not defined except in Table
II-b. The Associations suggested adding a definition that uses the
system composition column descriptions from Table II-b in order to
construct the following definition: ``Combination Headlamp System: For
a two lamp system, a combination of two different headlamps chosen
from: Type F, an integral beam headlamp, or a replaceable bulb headlamp
and for a four lamp system, any combination of four different headlamps
chosen from: Type F, an integral beam headlamp, or a replaceable bulb
headlamp.'' This description is consistent with the existing text of
the standard found in paragraphs S7.6.2, and S7.6.3 of the final rule.
In order to maintain consistency within the standard, the agency will
define a combination headlamp as opposed to a combination headlamp
system. The definition is as follows: ``Combination headlamp means a
headlamp that is a combination of two different headlamp types chosen
from a type F sealed beam headlamp, an integral beam headlamp, or a
replaceable bulb headlamp.'' The currently applicable standard does not
include a stated definition for the term ``combination headlamp,''
however, the agency agrees that such a definition--limited to a
combination headlamp rather than to such a system--does not impose any
substantive change to the standard, and provides a more straightforward
presentation of the requirements.
    The Association's request to define ``combination headlamp''
differs from the request in the petitions from Grote and Valeo to
create a definition of ``headlamp system.'' The definition proposed by
the Associations does not create new wording within the standard, it
uses a description already contained in the standard, and places that
description into the definition section. The definition of a
``combination headlamp'' is therefore added within paragraph S4 as
requested by the Associations.
    The agency is denying Grote and the Associations' request to use
the term ``lighted sections'' when referring to lamp sections or
compartments. It has been the agency's intent during the rewrite of
FMVSS No. 108 not to change the language of the current standard or
incorporated documents so as to avoid making unintended changes to the
standard. Adopting the term ``lighted sections'' in place of ``lamp
sections'' or ``compartments'' would alter the standard in a manner
that is inconsistent with the goals of the rewrite.

B. Technical Amendments

    The agency has considered and incorporated corrections in response
to the requests to remedy typographical errors, or formatting errors
found in the final rule. The agency has declined to make several
technical corrections that will be discussed in greater detail in this
section.
    The agency agrees with Nissan that the ASTM C 150-56 specification
is missing from paragraph S5. This specification has been added.
    The agency has corrected the grammatical error identified by Nissan
in paragraph S6.4.4. Paragraph S6.4.4 has been modified to read as
published in this final rule.
    The agency is denying the request by AAM to move paragraph S6.5.1,
which contains the DOT marking requirements for headlamps. While we do
note that other headlamp marking requirements are located in paragraphs
S6.5.3, priority within organization will be maintained by keeping the
three paragraphs, S6.5.1 DOT markings for headlamps, S<IP_ADDRESS> which
deals with DOT conspicuity markings, and S<IP_ADDRESS> which describes the
general allowance of placing the DOT marking on lamps other than
headlamps, together. We believe it would be inappropriate to place the
contents of paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> and paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> within the
paragraphs of S6.5.3, because these paragraphs are not headlamp
specific. Therefore, we are maintaining the current paragraph
structure.
    The paragraph that was mistakenly numbered S6.5.3, Trademark, has
been corrected to S<IP_ADDRESS>, Trademark. Paragraph S6.5.3 no longer
appears twice.
    The agency is granting the AAM request that the format of the text
``SEALED BEAM,'' located in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, be modified to
lowercase letters that match the same text located in Table III. The
text for paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 was derived from paragraph 2.1.1 in SAE
1383 APR 1985, Performance Requirements for Replacement Bulb Motor
Vehicle Headlamps. In the SAE document the text is all lower case,
appearing as ``sealed beam.'' The agency agrees that the letter case of
the word ``sealed beam'' should be the same in Table III as in
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, therefore, both instances have been changed to
the lowercase presentation ``sealed beam.'' The agency does note that
in this particular case, we do not feel the actual presentation of
lower case or upper case notation of the words ``sealed beam'' is vital
to the public's use of the standard,

or to the agency's ability to enforce the existence of the marking.
    In response to AAM's request to change the plural term
``compartments'' to the singular term ``compartment,'' the agency has
modified paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>. The agency agrees that the singular form
of the term is more appropriate. It now states ``S<IP_ADDRESS> Multiple
compartment lamps and multiple lamps.''
    Based on AAM's request, paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 has been modified to
read: ``A multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps may be used to
meet the photometric requirements of a front turn signal lamp provided
the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> are met.'' The agency believes the
additional reference to paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> makes the standard more
usable.
    As Nissan requested, paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.4 has been corrected to
state: ``* * * the clearance lamp is located below the horizontal and
within an area generated by a 1.0 degree radius around * * *'' This
modification corrects the missing word ``degree.''
    As AAM requested, the agency has changed the marking requirements
for lamps other than headlamps to point to the specific subparagraph
within paragraph 6.5. The agency has changed the pointing statement in
the following paragraphs to provide the specificity requested by AAM:
S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S7.2.9, S7.3.9, S7.4.9, S7.5.9, S7.6.9, S7.7.9,
S7.8.9, S7.9.9, S7.11.9 and S8.1.9. The pointing statement for these
paragraphs now points to paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> instead of paragraph S6.5.
The agency has not changed the pointing statement in paragraph S7.10.9,
which deals with DRL markings, because more than one subparagraph
within S6.5 may apply to DRL markings. We believe these modified
references will allow the users of the standard to find the paragraph
of interest more efficiently.
    As AAM requested, the agency has removed the references to Tables
I-a, I-b, and I-c from paragraph S7.7.4 which now reads ``No
requirement.'' The agency agrees that this construction is more usable,
compared to referencing Tables I-a, I-b, and I-c which all state ``No
requirement.''
    The agency has granted the Associations' request that the paragraph
numeration be corrected under paragraph S7.9.14. The structure has been
corrected to S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    The agency has granted Nissan's request to change paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 to read ``Luminous intensity measurements of multiple
compartment lamps or multiple lamp arrangements are made either by:''
in order to maintain consistent language throughout the sentence.
    We have modified Paragraph S14.3.1, as requested by Toyota, in
order to correctly abbreviate the unit ``inch.'' The abbreviation now
includes a period after the letters in.
    We have granted GE and the Associations' request to modify
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 in order to correct a temperature conversion
error. Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 now lists 80[deg] C as the metric
equivalent of 176[deg] F.
    The agency has revised all tables to place requirements in the
correct column, remove extraneous billing codes, correct the format of
table headings and subheadings, and correct pointing statements as
requested by petitioners.
    Nissan requested that the agency add English units of measurement
to the Mounting Height column for lower and upper beam headlamps in
Table I-a. AAM also requested that the agency add English units of
measurement to Tables I-a, I-b, and I-c. The agency notes that the
mounting height requirements for upper and lower beam head lamps are
listed in both metric and English units in the currently applicable
version of FMVSS No. 108, therefore, adding the English units of
measurement does not create a substantive change to the standard. The
agency grants Nissan's request and has added the English units of
measurement to the Mounting Height column of Table I-a for both upper
and lower beam headlamps. The agency is also adding English units of
measurement to the Mounting Height column of Table I-c for both upper
and lower beams. The agency is denying AAM's request to list all
measurements in Tables I-a, I-b, and I-c in both English and metric
units as the measurements are not listed in this manner in the
currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108. As stated in both the
NPRM and the preamble to the final rule, the agency is attempting to
refrain from making any substantive change to the requirements of the
standard during the rewrite process. The agency believes that in the
process of converting measurements from metric to English or vice versa
it is possible to create a substantive change to the requirements of
the standard.
    We decline to adopt AAM's proposal to add the word ``Optional'' to
the Markings column of Table III for Lamps (Other Than Headlamps),
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment because paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>
referenced in that table adequately conveys the installation
requirement without redundant wording inside the table. This request is
therefore denied.
    AAM noted that Table III contained an incorrect reference paragraph
for the marking requirements for replaceable bulb headlamps. The agency
has changed the reference for replaceable bulb headlamp marking
requirements to point to paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    We decline to incorporate AAM's request to add marking requirements
for replacement lens headlamps to Table III because paragraph S5.8.11
of the existing standard contains requirements for instructions and a
replacement seal, neither of which the agency considers appropriate to
list among the marking requirements in Table III.
    The agency is granting Nissan's request to provide the required
visibility measurements in both English and metric units for Table V-a.
We have also corrected the alignment of lighting device functions to
their corner points in Table V-b.
    The agency is granting Nissan's request to replace the word
``zone'' with the word ``group'' in footnote 2 of Tables VIII, XIV, and
XV and footnote 4 of Table XII. Nissan also requested that the agency
amend footnote 2 of Table XVI to replace the word ``zone'' with the
word ``group.'' As neither Tables XVI-a, XVI-b, or XVI-c have a
footnote 2, the agency is not in a position to grant this request.
    AAM requested that the agency amend footnote 6 of Table IX to
clarify that the minimum photometric intensity ratio for stop lamps
combined with taillamps on wide vehicles for the H-5L test point was
3:1 not 5:1. The agency agrees that the photometric ratio for the H-5L
test point for wide vehicles is 3:1. The agency is granting AAM's
request by amending footnote 6 of Table IX to read: ``Values followed
by a slash (/) apply only to lamps installed on multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses of 2032 mm or more in overall
width.''
    The agency has revised Table XV so that the test points are listed
as horizontal first and vertical second as requested by Nissan.
    The Associations requested that Figure 8 measurement ``A'' be
replaced with the term ``Light Center Length.'' This measurement and
label ``A'' were directly translated from the text of Figure 8 in the
currently applicable version of Standard No. 108. In the currently
applicable version of Standard No. 108, the label ``A'' was used,
furthermore, this distance is referenced in paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>.1,
S<IP_ADDRESS>.2, and S<IP_ADDRESS>.3 as distance ``A''. Therefore, the agency
is denying this request in order to avoid a potentially substantive
change by introducing a new term into Figure 8.

    The Associations also requested changes to Figure 14 that include
changing the ``Disc. Arm and Brace Clamp'' material from SAE-AA-6961 to
SAE-AA-6061. The agency agrees that this was listed incorrectly and has
modified Figure 14 accordingly. They also requested that the ``Coil
Spring and Level clip'' material be changed to ``Spring Steel SAE
1858--Cadmium Plate.'' The agency does not agree as ``Spring Steel SAE
1050'' is called out in the currently applicable version of this
standard. Therefore, we are denying this request. Also, the agency has
corrected the value of the bubble movement to 5.08 and changed the
screw number to ``TYP 10'' in Figure 14 because these changes
are consistent with the currently applicable version of the standard.
The dimension of 100.33 was correctly translated from the currently
applicable version of the standard so the agency is denying the
Associations' request to amend that value to 188.33.
    GE noted several corrections in the sealed beam drawings that were
moved into the part 564 docket. Corrections to these drawings will be
made, and the docket will be updated.

C. Claims of Substantive Amendment

    Several of the petitioners claimed that the agency made substantive
changes to the requirements of the standard during the rewrite process
or requested that the agency clarify portions of the text to ensure
that the rewrite did not impose any new requirements. The agency has
made all efforts not to impose any new burdens on regulated parties or
change the requirements of the standard in any way through the rewrite
process. It is the agency's position that the requirements of FMVSS No.
108 have not changed as a result of the rewrite.
    In consideration of Valeo's request to change the wording of
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> in order to make it clear that a DRL may be
optically combined with a parking lamp in the final rule, the agency
attempted to translate the text of the currently applicable version of
FMVSS No. 108 without creating substantive changes. Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>
is derived from paragraph S5.5.11(a) of the existing standard.
    The final rule split paragraph S5.5.11(a) into various parts
without changing the activation requirements of DRLs. Some of the text
was included in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of the final rule.
    Table I-a contains the remaining translation of the text of the
currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108 which states that the
activation should be ``Steady burning. Automatically activated as
determined by the vehicle manufacturer and automatically deactivated
when the headlamp control is in any on position.''
    In order to avoid a substantive change to the requirements of FMVSS
No. 108, the agency does not believe it is appropriate to incorporate
any additional letters of interpretation at this time regarding the
permissibility of optically combining parking lamps or fog lamps with
DRLs. The agency, however, does understand that the final rule text may
provide less clarity than the existing standard. Therefore, in order to
more strictly adhere to the language in the existing standard, we are
modifying paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> to retain the language allowing any pair
of lamps except parking lamps or fog lamps to be wired as DRLs at the
option of the manufacturer.
    This modification does create a limited amount of redundant text
contained in both paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> and Table I-a, however, the agency
considers this small level of redundancy manageable and preferable, in
this situation, in order to avoid unintended confusion due to a change
in the language in the final rule.
    The agency has considered Calcoast's request to modify paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>, to clarify the requirements of multiple lamp arrangements and
multiple compartment rear turns signal, stop lamp, and taillamp
combinations. Calcoast stated that this paragraph could be interpreted
such as to allow a multiple lighted section lamp that is part of a
multiple lamp arrangement and mounted on the fixed portion of the
vehicle to meet only the single compartment lamp requirements. Calcoast
indicated this situation might occur particularly in a lamp utilizing
LED's as the sources. The section of this paragraph under consideration
is the phrase ``that portion must meet at least the photometric
requirements for the applicable single compartment lamp.''
    In developing the NPRM, and ultimately the final rule, the agency
relied on a July 12, 2000 interpretation letter to Gary King. The
interpretation letter, however, does not specify that a multiple
compartment lamp need only meet the single compartment requirements in
the multiple lamp arrangement described in that interpretation.
Accordingly, the agency believes that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of the final
rule could be misinterpreted. Therefore, in response to Calcoast's
request, the paragraph has thus been modified to state: ``S<IP_ADDRESS> When
multiple lamp arrangements for rear turn signal lamps, stop lamps, or
taillamps are used, with only a portion of the lamps installed on a
fixed part of the vehicle, the lamp or lamps that are installed to the
non-fixed part of the vehicle will be considered auxiliary lamps.'' The
agency believes this modified paragraph adheres to the guidance
provided in the King interpretation letter and provides less
opportunity for misinterpretation. The revised paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> also
includes the request from Koito to replace the term ``rigid'' with the
term ``fixed'' as the agency agrees the term ``fixed'' more
appropriately describes the situation discussed in the interpretation
letter to Mr. King.
    The agency agrees with Harley-Davidson's claim that paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>, which prohibits any styling, ornament or other feature on the
front of the headlamp lens when the lamp is activated, does not apply
to motorcycles. This paragraph was derived from the existing regulatory
text in paragraph S7.8.5, which contains both the prohibition on
styling and ornamentation on headlamp lenses and the requirement the
headlamps have aiming devices. As Harley-Davidson pointed out, two
letters of interpretation, a December 6, 1999 letter to Piaggio &
C.S.p.A, and a September 29, 2000 letter to Carter Engineering, confirm
that FMVSS No. 108 does not require motorcycle headlamps to have aiming
mechanisms. Within the letter to Carter Engineering, NHTSA stated:
``The aiming mechanism requirements of Standard No. 108 are imposed by
S7.8, and as indicated previously, we do not intend S7.8.2 to apply to
motorcycle headlamps. We intend that the paragraphs of S7.9 Motorcycles
and their referenced materials cover motorcycle headlamps.'' This
ornament prohibition was first added to the standard in 1989 \14\ and
at that time was within the same paragraph as aimability requirements.
Therefore, we have modified paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> as follows: ``When
activated in the steady burning state, headlamps (excluding headlamps
mounted on motorcycles) must not have any styling ornament or other
feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 54 FR 20079, (May 9, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAM requested a change to paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 so that the marking
re quire ments for sealed beam head lamps need not be molded into the
lens. We believe that AAM is incorrect in its assertion that the
current standard does not require that marking be molded into the lens
of sealed beam headlamps. The marking requirements from paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 were derived from current FMVSS No. 108 paragraph S7.3.1
which references SAE J1383

(APR 1985), Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps. SAE
J1383 (APR 1985) states, in paragraph S5.4.4, ``Headlamp lenses shall
be marked with a three letter code. The marking shall be molded in the
lens * * *'' Thus, the requirement that the marking of a sealed beam
headlamp be molded into the lens is clearly part of the existing
standard. Accordingly, the agency is maintaining the requirements
contained in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 and is denying AAM's request.
    Ford and AAM requested that the hazard warning pilot indicator
requirements be deleted from paragraph S6.6.2. They stated that the
requirement for a hazard warning signal pilot indicator has never been
contained in any previous version of FMVSS No. 108. They contended that
the presence of paragraph S3.4.7 in the original version of FMVSS No.
108 published in 1967,\15\ (paragraph S5.5.6 in the current version of
the standard) which contained the requirements for a turn signal pilot
indicator, indicates other pilot indicators were not required under the
original version of the standard. They asserted that since FMVSS No.
108 specifically references a turn signal pilot indicator in the text
of the standard, requirements for other indicators in SAE standards
were not intended to be incorporated by reference into FMVSS No. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 32 FR 18037, (Dec. 16, 1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA does not agree with AAM's and Ford's argument, a hazard
warning signal pilot indicator is required by the current version of
FMVSS No. 108 and SAE standards incorporated by reference. Paragraph
S5.1.1 of the current standard requires that vehicles shall be equipped
with the lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment specified
in Table I and Table III, and that those devices shall be designed to
conform to the SAE standards or recommended practices referenced in
those tables. Table I lists a vehicle hazard warning signal unit and a
vehicle hazard warning signal flasher as required equipment for all
vehicles wider than 80 inches, except trailers, and references SAE J910
(JAN 1966), Hazard Warning Signal Switch, and SAE J945 (FEB 1966),
Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher. Table III lists a vehicle
hazard warning signal operating unit and a vehicle hazard warning
signal flasher as required equipment for all vehicles narrower than 80
inches, except trailers and motorcycles, and references SAE J910 (JAN
1966) and SAE J945 (FEB 1966). SAE J910 (JAN 1966) states:

    Pilot Indicator Lamps--In vehicles equipped with right- and
left-hand turn signal pilot indicators, both pilots and/or a
separate pilot shall flash simultaneously while the vehicle hazard
operating unit is turned on. In vehicles equipped with a single turn
signal pilot indicator, a separate vehicular hazard pilot indicator
shall flash and the turn signal pilot may flash while the vehicular
hazard operating unit is turned on. If a separate vehicular hazard
pilot indicator is used, it shall emit a red color and have a
minimum area equivalent to a 0.5 in. diameter circle.

Therefore, Tables I and III, in conjunction with paragraph S5.1.1 of
the current standard, require that vehicles equipped with hazard
warning signal switches be equipped with a hazard warning signal pilot
indicator. We do not agree with the assertion by AAM and Ford that the
SAE requirements incorporated by reference for hazard warning lamps do
not apply because they were not restated directly in the standard, as
was the case with turn signal pilot indicators. Therefore, we are
denying this request and retaining the language of paragraph S6.6.2 in
its entirety.

    The Associations, Ford, and Harley-Davidson requested changes to
paragraph S6.6.3, which specifies the orientation of the license plate
holder. The agency will address the issue of the applicability of
license plate holder requirements in a separate notice.
    Ford requested the deletion of paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>.2, S<IP_ADDRESS>.3,
S<IP_ADDRESS>.4(b), S<IP_ADDRESS>.4(c), and S<IP_ADDRESS>.4(d) which all deal with
the measurement of, and requirements for, front turn signal lamp
intensity based on the spatial relationship to any auxiliary lower beam
or fog lamp. Ford stated that these requirements, which were derived
from the existing standard by way of reference to SAE J588 (NOV 1984)
and SAE J1395 (APR 1985), were not previously incorporated fully into
the standard by reference. Ford stated that the denial of an SAE
petition for rulemaking,\16\ which stated, ``NHTSA reference to SAE
standards is not always absolute, in that parts of standards are
referenced or exceptions are made to specific requirements in SAE
standards where different or more stringent performance is necessary
for safety purposes,'' demonstrates that it is well and widely
understood that not all requirements referenced in SAE standards are
intended by the agency to be incorporated into the standard. Ford also
cited the final rule preamble that incorporated SAE J588 (NOV 1984) and
SAE J1395 (NOV 1984) into FMVSS No. 108. Ford quoted that discussion as
stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 61 FR 14044, (Mar. 29, 1996).

    An additional difference between the new SAE turn signal
specification and the ones currently contained in FMVSS No. 108
concerns intensity. If a turn signal lamp is closer than 4 inches
(100 mm) to a lower beam headlamp, it must have 2.5 times the
intensity otherwise required. The SAE applies the factor of 2.5 only
if the turn signal is closer than 60 mm to the lower beam headlamp.
NHTSA proposed retention of the current requirement. The SAE
specification applies the photometric multiplier in three steps,
from 60 mm to 100 mm.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 55 FR 20158, (May 15, 1990).

The final statement in that discussion concluded, ``[g]iven the advent
and usage of higher intensity headlamps, there appears to be an even
greater need than before to preserve the intensity ratio. NHTSA has
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
done so by retaining the existing requirement.''

    We do not agree with Ford's position. Ford's argument that NHTSA's
incorporation of SAE standards is not always absolute is in reference
to cases in which FMVSS No. 108 explicitly states requirements that are
different than the SAE documents. In cases where NHTSA does not
specifically exclude parts of SAE standards, the entire standard is
incorporated by reference. In the rulemaking cited by Ford, neither
within the preamble of that final rule, nor in the NPRM was there any
discussion of exempting, or applying any intensity multipliers other
than those appearing in the SAE document for auxiliary lamps. The key
argument for the agency not to adopt the multipliers in the 1984 SAE
standards deals with higher intensity headlamps and the spatial
relationship of turn signals to those lamps and, thus, is inapplicable
to intensity multipliers for turn signals located near auxiliary lamps.
As stated in the preamble of the final rule, SAE J588 (NOV 1984) and
SAE J1395 (APR 1985) contain additional photometric multiplier
requirements beyond those required in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> for turn
signals located near auxiliary lamps.\18\ It is the agency's position
that the requirements in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> work in conjunction with
the requirements in SAE J588 (NOV 1984) and SAE J1395 (APR 1985) and do
not preempt them. Therefore, the agency has not removed the paragraphs
and denies Ford's requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 72 FR 68243, (Dec. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Associations claimed the text of the currently applicable
version of FMVSS No. 108 did not distinguish between non-reflector
light sources and reflector light sources for the purposes

of measuring the distance between a turn signal to a headlamp, or
auxiliary lamp. They claimed that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> in the existing
FMVSS No. 108, which states, ``on a motor vehicle on which the front
turn signal lamp is less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a lower
beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal
lamps, the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous
intensities shall be 2.5'' supersedes section <IP_ADDRESS> of SAE J588 (NOV
1984). Therefore, the Associations requested that paragraphs
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 through S<IP_ADDRESS>.3 of the final rule be replaced with
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of the currently-applicable version of FMVSS No.
108.
    The agency agrees that the distance between a turn signal lamp and
a lower beam headlamp should be measured from the optical center as
specified in the text of the currently applicable version of FMVSS No.
108. However, the measurements between a turn signal lamp and an
auxiliary lamp are incorporated from SAE J588 (NOV 1984), which
included different measurement methods for turn signal lamps that
incorporate reflector optics and turn signal lamps that primarily use
lens optics. Considering this, paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.4(a) has been
changed to state ``where the spacing measurement as measured from the
optical center of the turn signal lamp, to the lighted edge of a lower
beam headlamp is less than 100 mm, the photometric multiplier must be
2.5.'' As stated previously, SAE J588 (NOV 1984) contains requirements
that are additional to those contained in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of the
current standard. Therefore, we refrain from changing the method for
measuring the distance between the turn signal and auxiliary lamps for
determining the required photometric multiplier.
    AAM claimed that the text of the currently applicable version of
FMVSS No. 108 does not specify the size and color of turn signal pilot
indicators and requested that paragraph S9.3.4 be removed. AAM asserted
the two sentences contained within paragraph S5.5.6 of the currently
applicable version of FMVSS No. 108 should be considered separately.
AAM stated that the first sentence requires a vehicle equipped with a
turn signal operating unit to also have an illuminated pilot indicator.
Through the second sentence, the paragraph separately requires that the
failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate should be indicated
according to the SAE Standard. Therefore, AAM claimed that the SAE
standard recommendations for turn signal pilot indicator size and color
are not requirements in FMVSS No. 108.
    NHTSA finds that paragraph S5.5.6 of the current standard requires
that the turn signal pilot indicator comply with all requirements for
turn signal pilot indicators specified in SAE J588 (SEP 1970).
Paragraph S9.3.4 of the final rule, which states, ``[i]f an indicator
is located inside the vehicle it must emit a green colored light and
have a minimum area equivalent to a \3/16\ in diameter circle,'' was
derived from the currently applicable version of the FMVSS No. 108
paragraph S5.5.6, which states that, ``[e]ach vehicle equipped with a
turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot
indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate shall be
indicated in accordance with SAE J588 (SEP 1970) * * *'' Furthermore,
paragraph 4.5.2 of SAE J588 (SEP 1970) states that, ``if the
illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle, for example in the
instrument cluster, it should emit a green colored light and have a
minimum area equivalent to a \3/16\ in. diameter circle.''
    It is the view of the agency that the phrase ``[f]ailure of one or
more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with
SAE J588 (SEP 1970),'' requires that the turn signal pilot indicator
comply in all respects with SAE J588 (SEP 1970). SAE J588 (SEP 1970)
contains requirements for pilot indicators to indicate that the turn
signal system is off, size and color requirements for the indicator,
and visibility requirements for the indicator based on driver eye
position. An indicator of a size and color other than the indicator
required in SAE J588 (SEP 1970) would not indicate failure of a turn
signal lamp to operate in accordance with SAE J588 (1970) because the
indicator would not meet the requirements laid out in that standard for
size and color. It is the agency's position that this sentence requires
the pilot indicator to indicate that the turn signal is out via an
indicator of the size and color and at the eye location specified in
the standard. Therefore, no substantive change was imposed by the final
rule compared with the existing standard. Accordingly, the agency is
denying this request from AAM.
    Harley-Davidson requested clarification and confirmation that the
headlamp aimability requirements of S10.18 do not apply to motorcycles.
As discussed in Harley-Davidson's request to clarify the applicability
of the headlamp ornamentation prohibition to motorcycles, two letters
of interpretation, a December, 6, 1999 letter to Piaggio & C.S.p.A, and
a September 9, 2000 letter to Carter Engineering, confirm that this
standard does not require motorcycle headlamps to have aiming
mechanisms. Within the letter to Mr. Carter, NHTSA stated, ``The aiming
mechanism requirements of Standard No. 108 are imposed by S7.8, and as
I indicated previously, we do not intend S7.8.2 to apply to motorcycle
headlamps. We intend the paragraphs of S7.9 Motorcycles and their
referenced materials to cover motorcycle headlamps.'' Accordingly,
paragraph S10.18 has been modified to state: ``Headlamp aimability
performance requirements (except for motorcycles).'' Paragraph S10.2 is
modified to state ``Reserved.'' The agency does note that in paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>, Headlamp photometry measurements, the procedure does require
that the headlamp be aimed during testing. Therefore, although the
performance requirements of paragraph S10.18 do not apply to
motorcycles, they must have the ability to meet the applicable
photometric requirements using the testing procedure described in
paragraph S14.2.5.
    The Associations, Koito and Calcoast requested that the agency
amend paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.5.1, which required that the cutoff
parameter for headlamps be measured from a distance of 10 m from a
photosensor with a 10 mm diameter because these requirements were not
contained in the current version of the standard. The agency provided
the measurement distance of 10 m from the photosensor having a diameter
of 10 mm for measuring the cutoff parameter as guidance in a letter of
interpretation to Tilman Spingler on April 6, 2000.\19\ In the agency
guidance letter to Mr. Spingler, the agency stated that it intended to
incorporate the guidance provided in the letter into FMVSS No. 108
during the next rulemaking involving the standard. The NPRM to this
final rule stated that the agency intended to incorporate the April 6,
2000 letter to Mr. Spingler into the revised version of FMVSS No.
108.\20\ We believe it is important to identify how the agency will
conduct compliance testing and we did this in the NPRM and again
discussed the issue in the final rule. Therefore, paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.5 has not been modified and the petitions from the
Associations, Koito, and Calcoast are denied. However, we do note that
regulated parties are able to test at different distances if they
choose, although NHTSA compliance tests will be done at 10 m. We note
the petitioners may

submit data to support a change in the specified distance in a separate
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21406.ztv.html.
    \20\ 70 FR 77457, (Dec. 30, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nissan requested that the inward force test specified in paragraph
S14.6.12 be excluded for VHAD and VOA lamps. Nissan stated that the
text of the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108 did not
require VHAD and VOA lamps to conform to this test. Further supporting
Nissan's claim, the preamble to a final rule \21\ published May 9, 1989
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 54 FR 20067, (May 9, 1989).

    The deletion of inward force and torque deflection is
appropriate for headlighting systems which do not use externally
applied aimers, since these tests are intended to show resistance to
the effects of the weight and application of external aimers * * *
NHTSA believes that vehicle manufacturers will be cautious enough to
design vehicles to withstand the likelihood of misaim in [the] event
[the vehicle is pushed by hand], and, considering the deletion
appropriate only for headlamps which do not have aiming pads for
external mechanical aimers, has adopted the proposed modification of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
applicability of inward force and torque deflection tests.

Koito also pointed to the preamble of the May 9, 1989, final rule in
arguing that the inward force only applies to headlamps that are
capable of being externally aimed.

    The agency agrees that the inward force test was only required for
headlamps with external aimers in the text of the currently applicable
version of FMVSS No. 108, therefore we have made the following
modifications to the standard: ``S<IP_ADDRESS> Each sealed beam headlamp
must be designed to conform to the performance requirements of the
corrosion test, vibration test, inward force test (for lamps which are
externally aimed only), torque deflection test (for lamps which are
externally aimed only), headlamp connector test, headlamp wattage test,
and aiming adjustment tests of S14.6.'' ``S<IP_ADDRESS> Each integral beam
headlamp must be designed to conform to the performance requirements of
the corrosion test, temperature cycle test, vibration test, inward
force test (for lamps which are externally aimed only), headlamp
connector test, and aiming adjustment tests of S14.6.'' ``S<IP_ADDRESS>
Each replaceable bulb headlamp must be designed to conform to the
performance requirements of the corrosion test, corrosion-connector
test, dust test, temperature cycle test, humidity test, vibration test,
inward force test (for lamps which are externally aimed only), headlamp
connector test, and aiming adjustment tests of S14.6.''
    The Associations and Grote requested that language be added to the
standard to allow the use of turn signal and stop lamps designed for
use on vehicles 2032 mm or more in overall width, which meet the one
lighted section photometric values, on narrow vehicles other than
passenger cars. The Associations noted that SAE J1395 (APR 1985), the
standard applicable to turn signal lamps on wide vehicles, states that
a lamp built to this standard may also be used on a narrow vehicle. The
Associations pointed to an August 22, 1990 agency interpretation letter
to Hella,\22\ that stated ``SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps
[turn signal lamps designed for use on vehicles 2032 mm or more in
overall width] may be used on vehicles less than this width, except
passenger cars,'' to support its position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/aiam/aiam4773.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 put forward by
the Associations and Grote. We stated in the preamble of the final rule
that there are no provisions in the existing standard that allow the
installation of wide vehicle stop and turn signal lamps on narrow
vehicles in lieu of the clearly stated requirements for narrow vehicles
in Table III of the existing standard. We consider the requirements for
stop lamps and turn signal lamps used on narrow vehicles in the
currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108 to be clearly stated.
There is no agency guidance stating that manufacturers of narrow
vehicles may choose an alternative other than Table III for
requirements for stop and turn signal lamps for use on narrow vehicles.
Neither Table III, SAE J588 (NOV 84), or SAE J586 (FEB 84), Stop Lamps
for Use on Motor Vehicles Less than 2032 mm in Overall Width, state
that lighting from wide vehicles can also be used on narrow vehicles.
For narrow vehicles, a lamp must meet the requirements for narrow
vehicles as specified in Table III of the currently applicable version
of the standard. Further, the agency stated in a May 22, 2003 letter of
interpretation to Panor Corporation \23\ that turn signal and stop
lamps designed for use on both narrow and wide vehicles must meet the
requirements of SAE standards applicable to both narrow and wide
vehicles. The letter to Panor stated that stop lamps to be used on both
narrow and wide vehicles must meet both SAE J1398 (MAY 1985) and SAE
J586 (MAY 1984) and turn signal lamps to be used on both narrow and
wide vehicles must meet both SAE J1395 (APR 1985) and SAE J588 (NOV
1984). It is the agency's position that the letter to Panor, not the
letter to Hella, states the correct interpretation regarding the use of
turn signal and stop lamps designed for wide vehicles on narrow
vehicles. Considering these factors, the petitions from the
Associations and Grote are denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/00473.ztv.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Harley-Davidson requested that the agency amend Table IV-a which
contains the requirements for projected luminous lens area to allow a
projected luminous lens area of 2200 square mm for multiple compartment
stop lamps used on motorcycles. Harley-Davidson stated that an
effective projected luminous lens area of 2200 square mm for multiple
compartment stops lamps is permitted under the currently applicable
version of FMVSS No. 108. The agency agrees that FMVSS No. 108 permits
an effective projected luminous lens area of 2200 square mm for
multiple compartment stops lamps used on motorcycles. Accordingly, the
agency has amended Table IV-a to include a projected luminous lens area
of 2200 square mm for multiple compartment stop lamps used on
motorcycles.
    We are denying Nissan's request to modify the legacy visibility
wording for turn, stop, and taillamps within Table V-d because the
language suggested by Nissan does not fully correspond with the
requirements in the SAE standard referenced by the existing standard.
For example, the wording suggested by Nissan might allow for a
situation in which visibility, as defined by area, may be compromised
within a position less than the required 45 degrees while the area
requirement is met at 45 degrees This situation is currently not
permitted.
    AAM stated that footnotes 1 and 4 of Table VIII, regarding the
photometric intensity values between test points and the maximum
intensity of taillamps respectively, were not previously incorporated
into the current standard. AAM maintained that footnote 1 is not
referenced in current version of FMVSS No. 108 or in SAE J585 (AUG
1977), Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), and that footnote 4 was
preempted by figures contained in the current version of FMVSS No. 108.
    We are denying AAM's request to remove footnote 1 and footnote 4
from Table VIII. As stated in the preamble of the final rule, Footnote
1 was added to Table VIII of the rewrite unchanged from the text of SAE
J575 (AUG 1970), Test for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and
Components, which was previously incorporated by reference in FMVSS No.
108.\24\ The agency, however, is revising

footnote 4 such that it matches the text in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of the
existing standard so as not to make substantive changes to the standard
during the rewrite process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 72 FR 68261, (Dec. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is denying Nissan's request to amend the footnotes to
photometric tables containing the requirements for signal lamps. In
incorporating third-party documents into the text of the rewrite of the
standard, the agency sought not to make any changes to the requirements
contained in the third-party documents. We believe that this goal is
best accomplished by directly incorporating the text from the third-
party documents with minimal changes. While further changes to the
standard may improve clarity, the agency believes that these changes
are outside the scope of the rewrite.
    In the preamble of the final rule the agency explained its views on
the subject of grouped compliance.\25\ The footnotes to the photometric
tables allow the failure of a test point in the group to be offset if
other points in the group exceed their minimum by the required margin.
The agency does not believe that the footnotes contradict the
requirements in the photometric tables and declines to amend the
footnotes for the reasons stated in the preamble of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 72 FR 68282, (Dec. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Valeo and the Associations requested that the agency reconsider its
decision to specify a 90L to 90R horizontal range defined in the area
of 10U to 90U in the first row of Table XIX. The agency is denying the
petitioner's request. In the NPRM the agency stated that it planned to
incorporate a July 2, 1999 letter of interpretation to Tilman Spingler
\26\ which specified a horizontal range of 90L to 90R in the 10U to 90U
area.\27\ In this letter the agency stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/19548.ztv.html.
    \27\ 70 FR 77457, (Dec. 30, 2005).

    Each of the Figures you reference specify a maximum of 125
candela for test points 10U-90U. The Figures do not state where in
space from left to right to locate the vertical line, and thus, they
do not specify that a line is to be measured. It follows that the
only description of a set of test points is that of the entire area
from 90L to 90R and 10U to 90U, i.e., an area from the extreme left
of the test point grid to the extreme right of the test point grid,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
with an elevation of from 10U to 90U.

The agency believes that a horizontal zone of 90L to 90R for the 10U to
90U area flows logically from the requirements of Figures 15-1, 15-2,
17-1, 17-2, 28-1, and 28-2 in the current version of FMVSS No. 108.
Therefore, the agency is retaining the horizontal range specified in
the final rule.

D. Amendments To Improve Clarity

    The agency has considered the requests to amend the standard to
provide greater clarity or reorganize portions of the standard to
improve readability. The agency has made every effort during the
rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 to improve usability of the standard. The
agency has granted requests to further improve the standard by moving
certain language or removing redundant requirements where we felt that
the requested changes could be made without substantively altering the
requirements of the standard.
    We are denying Nissan's request to modify paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 to
include language from a February 12, 1998 interpretation letter to Ford
Motor Company to clarify the meaning of the phrase ``special tools.''
In response to petitions for reconsideration, we are not adding new
interpretation letters beyond those addressed in the NPRM and final
rule.
    Harley-Davidson requested that the agency clarify that it is
permissible to mount dual motorcycle headlamps horizontally. We agree
that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1.3 introduces ambiguity to the requirements
for when motorcycle headlamps must be mounted vertically. Paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1.3 of the rewrite is derived from paragraph S7.9.1(b) of the
currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108. Paragraph S7.9.1(b)
states that a motorcycle headlamp system consisting of half of certain
automobile headlamp systems must be mounted vertically. The requirement
that a motorcycle headlamp system consisting of half an automobile
headlamp system be mounted vertically is also contained in paragraph
S10.17(a) of the rewrite of FMVSS No. 108. Because the requirements of
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1.3 are more clearly stated elsewhere in the rewrite, the
agency considers paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1.3 to be duplicative. Therefore,
we are removing paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1.3 from the rewrite of FMVSS No.
108.
    Koito requested that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, which specifies the
requirements for the ratio of intensities between a stop lamp and a
taillamp, be modified to clarify that SAE J1398 (MAY 1998), applicable
to wide vehicles, does not have a 560 mm or 410 mm classification and
always applies the ratio requirement when determining the appropriate
photometric multiplier. We agree that there was no 560 mm or 410 mm
classification for wide vehicles in the text of the currently
applicable version of FMVSS No. 108. However, the agency believes that
the paragraphs of S7.3.12 are clear as written in the final rule.
Because no class restrictions are placed within paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>,
the requirements apply to all vehicles regardless of width. While we do
not believe that we need to modify this paragraph, we do note that
Koito's stated understanding of the issue is correct.
    As Nissan requested, paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> has been modified to add a
subject to the sentence. It now reads: ``Application Location.
Conspicuity systems need not be * * *''
    Nissan requested that paragraph S10.1.2 be modified to eliminate
the duplicate requirements for motorcycle headlamp systems. Paragraph
S10.1.2 states: ``Each motorcycle must be equipped with a headlighting
system conforming to S10.17 of this standard or one half of any
headlighting system of Table II which provides both a full upper beam
and a full lower beam.'' Paragraph S10.17 states: ``* * * a motorcycle
headlighting system may consist of: (a) one half of any headlighting
system of Table II which provides both a full upper beam and full lower
beam, and is designed to conform to the * * *'' The agency agrees that
this language is needlessly redundant, and has modified paragraph
S10.1.2 by removing the reference to headlighting systems comprising
half of Table II headlighting systems. Paragraph S10.1.2 now states:
``Each motorcycle must be equipped with a headlighting system
conforming to S10.17 of this standard.''
    Koito recommended modifying paragraph S10.15.1, dealing with
replaceable bulb headlamp systems, which states: ``Installation * * * A
system must provide in total not more than two upper beams and two
lower beams and must incorporate not more than two replaceable light
sources in each headlamp.'' Koito claimed this text will allow for a
four lamp system to contain two replaceable bulbs within each of the
four lamps which is not the intention of the original requirement.
    The agency believes this paragraph clearly and accurately expresses
the text of the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108. The text
of the paragraph is substantially similar to that of paragraph S7.5(a)
of the existing standard. NHTSA does not believe that a change to this
paragraph is necessary and is denying this request by Koito.
    Koito and Toyota both requested a modification to paragraph
S10.15.5 which states: ``Additional light sources. A replaceable bulb
headlamp may incorporate replaceable light sources that are used for
purposes other than headlighting.'' Both Koito and Toyota requested
that the second use of the

word ``replaceable'' be deleted from this requirement because they
believed that the language implied that light sourced used for purposes
other than headlighting incorporated into a replaceable bulb headlamp
must always be replaceable. The agency believes that the language used
in the final rule is consistent with the current standard and clearly
describes the requirements of replaceable bulb headlamps that
incorporate other light sources. Therefore, the agency is denying this
request. Nissan requested that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, which contains
photometry requirements for visually/optically aimed headlamps, be
deleted. Nissan claimed that this paragraph is redundant with
paragraphs S10.13.3, S10.14.6, S10.15.6, S10.16.2, and Table II which
contain the photometry requirements for all permissible headlamps.
Nissan suggested that these requirements should be stated only once in
FMVSS No. 108. The agency agrees that the paragraphs are redundant and
we believe that a user of this standard could locate the necessary
information without this paragraph with the assistance of Table II.
However, the redundancy of paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> may significantly
increase the usability of the standard for a particular user interested
primarily in finding the requirements of a visually/optically aimable
headlamp. Accordingly, we have not modified paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> and we
are denying Nissan's request.
    Nissan requested that the agency reorganize paragraph S13.3
containing the marking requirements for replacement lenses. Nissan
noted that marking requirements for replacement lenses are already
included in paragraph S6.5.1, along with the other headlamp DOT marking
requirements. Nissan also requested that the remaining requirements in
paragraph S13.3 be moved with a new paragraph number under paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS> in order to consolidate all the requirements in one place. The
agency agrees that keeping the marking requirements together is an
important factor in meeting the stated goal of making the standard more
user-friendly. Therefore, S13.3 has been deleted, and a new paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS> has been added to read as published in this final rule.
    The Associations and SABIC requested a modification to paragraph
S14.1.2, which contains the testing specifications for all plastic
materials used for optical parts on lamps or reflective devices. SABIC
requested that the word ``transparent'' be added before ``optical'' and
the word ``reflex'' before the word ``reflectors'' to clarify that the
requirements of this paragraph do not apply to opaque materials used in
light components. The Associations also requested that the word
``reflex'' be added before the word reflector. We note that paragraph
S14.1.2 was transposed from paragraph S5.1.2 of the currently-
applicable version of FMVSS No. 108 which states: ``Plastic materials
used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to
SAE Recommended Practice J576 JUL 1991, except that:'' The agency notes
that neither the word ``transparent,'' nor the word ``reflex'' was in
the text of the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108. We
believe the word ``transparent'' could be interpreted such that the
addition of this word would create a substantive modification to the
requirement and that adding the term ``reflex'' would also stray from
our intention to transpose existing language without making changes.
Therefore, we are denying this request.
    Nissan requested a modification to paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, dealing
with DRL bulb photometric testing requirements. Nissan maintained that
the requirements of this paragraph create conflict with paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>. Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> contains a pointing statement to
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> which states that bulbs are to be operated at their
rated mean spherical candela during testing of DRL photometry
requirements. Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> requires that the bulbs be operated
at a fixed 12.8 V input during DRL photometry testing. This creates a
conflict within the regulatory text because a bulb's mean spherical
candela may not be achieved at 12.8V. In order to eliminate this
apparent contradiction, Nissan suggested modifying S<IP_ADDRESS> to state
``Bulb requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> apply to DRL photometry, except for
the need to operate at the rated mean spherical candela.''
    The agency agrees that the last statement in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>
requiring that bulbs be operated at their mean spherical candela during
photometry testing does not apply to DRLs because this requirement is
excluded by the ``unless otherwise specified'' clause within SAE J575e
(AUG 1970). The requirement that bulbs be operated at their mean
spherical candela does not apply to DRLs because of specific voltage
callout in paragraph S11 of the currently applicable version of the
standard. Accordingly, paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> has been modified by
removing the reference to paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> and now reads as follows:
``S<IP_ADDRESS> Except for a lamp having a sealed-in bulb, a lamp must meet
the applicable requirements of this standard when tested with a bulb
whose filament is positioned within  .010 in. of the
nominal design position specified in SAE J573d, Lamp bulbs and Sealed
Units, December 1968, (incorporated by reference, see 571.108 S5.2 of
this title) or specified by the bulb manufacturer.''
    Koito requested a clarification of the requirement in S<IP_ADDRESS>.3
that specifies testing for plastic optical materials. Koito questioned
if a material thickness of 7 mm can be certified if it was once tested
in the four thicknesses required by this standard. The agency does not
believe it is appropriate to address this interpretive question within
this notice. However, we do note that the Koito request will be
addressed in the follow-up notice.
    Nissan requested that the table under paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.3.1 be
given a title and relocated to the table section of the standard and
referenced as Table XXI. We are denying this request. The table is part
of paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.3.1, Operating limits. The agency feels that
the requirements specified in the table are most appropriately located
with the other requirements applicable to semiautomatic headlamp beam
switching device tests.
    AAM requested that Table I-a be separated to create two new tables
based on overall vehicle width. AAM stated that splitting Table I-a to
create separate tables for narrow and wide vehicles would simplify the
standard and make it easier to use. The agency is denying AAM's
request. We believe that it is appropriate to group the requirements
for both wide vehicles and narrow vehicles together based on the
commonality of the requirements for both wide and narrow vehicles.
    AAM stated that the requirements for DRLs should not be included in
Table I-a because DRLs are optional equipment and Table I-a is entitled
Required Lamps and Reflective Devices. AAM believed that locating the
requirements for DRLs in Table I-a detracts from the ease of usability
of the standard. We disagree with AAM's argument. The agency believes
that Table I-a is the most appropriate location for the requirements
for DRLs. Unlike other optional lamps and lighting equipment installed
on vehicles, DRLs, when installed, are regulated according to all the
categories contained in Table I-a. We believe that final rule clearly
indicates that DRLs are optional equipment. Therefore, AAM's request is
denied.
    Koito requested that the agency amend the device activation
requirements for high mounted stop lamps contained in Table I-a. Koito
requested that the agency clarify that

activation of the high mounted stop lamp upon application of a device
designed to retard the motion of the vehicle is optional. We agree that
activation of the high mounted stop lamp is optional upon application
of a device designed to retard the motion of the vehicle and have
revised Table I-a to note this distinction.
    AAM requested that the titles of Tables I-a, I-b, and I-c be
changed to include the vehicles to which the tables apply. NHTSA is
denying this request. We feel that the subheadings included in the
tables clearly indicate the class of vehicles to which the tables
apply.
    Valeo, Grote, and the Associations requested that the agency modify
Table XII to clarify that when a single backup lamp is used on a
vehicle the maximum photometric intensity allowed is 600 candela. The
agency agrees and has added the 600 candela value to Table XII and a
footnote stating: ``the value before the slash applies to each lamp in
a multiple lamp system; the value after the slash applies to a single
lamp system.''
    Nissan requested that the agency modify footnote 1 in Tables XIX-a,
XIX-b, and XIX-c to clarify the photometry requirements for the test
areas specified in the tables. The agency agrees and is modifying
footnote 1 in each of the three tables to read: these test points are
boundaries; intensity values within this boundary must meet the listed
photometry requirement.
    The agency has attempted to format the tables of FMVSS No. 108 in
the most user friendly manner. Where the agency was able to avoid
splitting tables across multiple pages, the agency has done so. We
believe that for some of the larger tables contained in the standard,
modifications necessary to fit the tables on to a signal page, such as
shrinking the text in the table, would make the tables more difficult
to use.

E. Preemptive Effect of FMVSS No. 108

    AAJ requested that the agency remove any reference to preemption of
state tort law from the preamble of the final rule. AAJ argued that
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.\28\ is an unusual, fact-driven case
and does not provide a basis for the agency to claim that all Federal
motor vehicle safety standards preempt state tort law. AAJ maintained
that FMVSS No. 108 is a minimum safety standard and, thus, is not
intended to preempt state tort law. AAJ claimed that it was premature
for the agency to speculate about the preemptive effect of a rule
before the existence of an actual legal conflict on the record. AAJ
further argued that any claim of preemption by the agency is subject to
the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    \29\ 5 U.S.C. 553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency does not consider AAJ's submission to be a petition for
reconsideration, as NHTSA's preemption discussion contained in the
preamble is not a rule. Accordingly, we are treating this petition as a
simple request to disavow the preemption discussion in the final rule
preamble.
    We provided the general discussion of implied preemption and Geier
in accordance with the directive of Executive Order 13132, Federalism,
for agencies to analyze the federalism implications of their
rulemakings. In that discussion, the agency explained that NHTSA's
safety standards can preempt state laws in at least two ways: Either
expressly, through the express preemption provision of the Vehicle
Safety Act, or impliedly, if State requirements create a conflict and
thus stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a
NHTSA safety standard. The agency would like to note that because most
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.
861 (2000).
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of the final rule,
which like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety standard.
As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt state tort law
that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle
manufacturers than FMVSS No. 108. Establishment of a higher standard by
means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard
announced in FMVSS No. 108. Without any conflict, there could not be
any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action. For
the aforementioned reasons, the agency declines to remove the Geier
language from its discussion of preemption law.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. 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. This final rule merely corrects technical and
typographical errors in FMVSS No. 108. Today's rule will not have any
measurable effect on costs or benefits since the rule merely
reorganizes and clarifies existing requirements.

B. 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://docketsinfo.dot.gov/.

C. Other Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    In the December 2007 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, the Paperwork Reduction Act,
and Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks). Since that final rule was an administrative
rewrite of existing requirements and since today's action simply makes
technical corrections to that final rule, today's rule does not affect
the agency's analyses in those areas.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR Part
571 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, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Section 571.108 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising entry 17 in S5.2; paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>; S<IP_ADDRESS>;
S<IP_ADDRESS>; S6.4.4; S6.5.3; S<IP_ADDRESS>.1; S<IP_ADDRESS>; S<IP_ADDRESS> ;
S<IP_ADDRESS>.4(a); S<IP_ADDRESS>; S<IP_ADDRESS>.1; S<IP_ADDRESS>.4; S<IP_ADDRESS>; S7.2.9;
S7.3.9; S7.4.9; S7.5.9; S7.6.9; S7.7.4; S7.7.9; S7.8.9; S7.9.9;
S7.9.14; S7.11.9; S8.1.9; S<IP_ADDRESS>; S10.1.2; S<IP_ADDRESS>; S<IP_ADDRESS>;
S<IP_ADDRESS>; S10.18; S<IP_ADDRESS>.2; S<IP_ADDRESS>; S14.3.1; S<IP_ADDRESS>.1; Table
I-a; Table I-b; Table I-c; Table III; Table IV-a; Table IV-b; Table IV-
c; Table V-a; Table V-d; Table VIII; Table IX; Table XII; Table XIV;
Table XV; Table XIX-a; Table XIX-b; Table XIX-c;
0
b. By adding a definition of ``Combination headlamp system'' in S4;
entry 18 in S5.2; paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>;
0
c. By removing paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1.3, removing and reserving paragraph
S10.2, and removing paragraph S13.3; and
0
d. By removing paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 and S<IP_ADDRESS>.2, and adding
paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS> in their place.
    The revisions and additions to Sec.  571.108 read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    S4 Definitions.
* * * * *
    Combination Headlamp means a headlamp that is a combination of two
different headlamp types chosen from a type F sealed beam headlamp, an
integral beam headlamp, or a replaceable bulb headlamp.
* * * * *
    S5.2 * * *
    17. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C150-56,
published 1956, ``Standard Specifications for Portland Cement.'' ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959.
    18. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) LM 45,
approved April 1980, ``IES Approved Method for Electrical and
Photometric Measurements of General Service Incandescent Filament
Lamps.'' Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 345 East
47th St., New York, NY 10017.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Daytime running lamps. Any pair of lamps on the front of a
passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus, whether
or not required by this standard, other than parking lamps or fog
lamps, may be wired to be automatically activated, as determined by the
manufacturer of the vehicle, in a steady burning state as daytime
running lamps (DRLs) in accordance with S7.10.5.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> When multiple lamp arrangements for rear turn signal
lamps, stop lamps, or taillamps are used, with only a portion of the
lamps installed on a fixed part of the vehicle, the lamp or lamps that
are installed to the non-fixed part of the vehicle will be considered
auxiliary lamps.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> When activated in the steady burning state, headlamps
(excluding headlamps mounted on motorcycles) must not have any styling
ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in
front of the lens
* * * * *
    S6.4.4 Legacy visibility alternative. As an alternative to S6.4.3,
each passenger car and motorcycle, and each multipurpose passenger
vehicle, truck, trailer, and bus that is of less than 2032 mm overall
width, that is manufactured on or before September 1, 2011, and each
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, trailer, and bus that is 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 Table V-d.
* * * * *
    S6.5.3 Headlamp markings.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Trademark. The lens of each original and replacement
equipment headlamp, and of each original and replacement equipment beam
contributor must be marked with the name and/or trademark registered
with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of the manufacturer of such
headlamp or beam contributor, of its importer, or any manufacturer of a
vehicle equipped with such headlamp or beam contributor. Nothing in
this standard authorizes the marking of any such name and/or trademark
by one who is not the owner, unless the owner has consented to it.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 Each sealed beam headlamp lens must be molded with
``sealed beam'' and the appropriate designation code as shown in Table
II in characters no less than 6.35 mm in size.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each replacement headlamp lens must also be marked with
the manufacturer and the part or trade number of the headlamp for which
it is intended, and with the name and/or trademark of the lens
manufacturer or importer that is registered with the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. Nothing in this standard authorizes the marking of
any such name and/or trademark by one who is not the owner, unless the
owner has consented to it.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Markings. See S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.4 Spacing based photometric multipliers.
    (a) where the spacing measurement as measured from the optical
center of the turn signal lamp, to the lighted edge of a lower beam
headlamp is less than 100 mm the photometric multiplier must be 2.5.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Multiple compartment lamps and multiple lamps.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 A multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps may be
used to meet the photometric requirements of a front turn signal lamp
provided the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> are met.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.4 Where the clearance lamp is combined with the turn
signal lamp, and the maximum luminous intensity of the clearance lamp
is located below horizontal and within an area generated by a 1.0
degree radius around a test point, the ratio for the test point may be
computed using the lowest value of the clearance lamp luminous
intensity within the generated area.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Markings. See S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S7.2.9 Markings. See S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S7.3.9 Markings. See S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S7.4.9 Markings. See S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S7.5.9 Markings. See S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S7.6.9 Markings. See. S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S7.7.4 Mounting height. No requirement.
* * * * *
    S7.7.9 Markings. See. S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S7.8.9 Markings. See. S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S7.9.9 Markings. See. S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S7.9.14 Physical tests.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each high-mounted stop lamp must be designed to conform
to

the performance requirements of the vibration test of S14.5, and the
color test and plastic optical material test of S14.4.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each high-mounted stop lamp that is not mounted inside
the vehicle must be designed to conform to the performance requirements
of the moisture test, dust test, and corrosion test of S14.5.
* * * * *
    S7.11.9 Markings. See. S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S8.1.9 Markings. See. S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Application location. Conspicuity systems need not be
installed, as illustrated in Figure 12-2, on discontinuous surfaces
such as outside ribs, stake post pickets on platform trailers, and
external protruding beams, or to items of equipment such as door hinges
and lamp bodies on trailers and body joints, stiffening beads, drip
rails, and rolled surfaces on truck tractors.
* * * * *
    S10.1.2 Each motorcycle must be equipped with a headlighting system
conforming to S10.17 of this standard.
    S10.2 [Reserved]
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each sealed beam headlamp must be designed to conform to
the performance requirements of the corrosion test, vibration test,
inward force test (for lamps which are externally aimed only), torque
deflection test (for lamps which are externally aimed only), headlamp
connector test, headlamp wattage test, and aiming adjustment tests of
S14.6.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each integral beam headlamp must be designed to conform
to the performance requirements of the corrosion test, temperature
cycle test, vibration test, inward force test (for lamps which are
externally aimed only), headlamp connector test, and aiming adjustment
tests of S14.6.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each replaceable bulb headlamp must be designed to
conform to the performance requirements of the corrosion test,
corrosion-connector test, dust test, temperature cycle test, humidity
test, vibration test, inward force test (for lamps which are externally
aimed only), headlamp connector test, and aiming adjustment tests of
S14.6.
* * * * *
    S10.18 Headlamp aimability performance requirements (except for
motorcycles)
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 Luminous intensity measurements of multiple compartment
lamps or multiple lamp arrangements are made either by:
    (a) Measuring all compartments together, provided that a line from
the optical axis of each compartment or lamp to the center of the
photometer sensing device does not make an angle more than 0.6[deg]
with the H-V axis, or
    (b) Measuring each compartment or lamp separately by aligning its
optical axis with the photometer and adding the value at each test
point.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Except for a lamp having a sealed-in bulb, a lamp must
meet the applicable requirements of this standard when tested with a
bulb whose filament is positioned within  .010 in. of the
nominal design position specified in SAE J573d, Lamp bulbs and Sealed
Units, December 1968, (incorporated by reference, paragraph S5.2 of
this section) or specified by the bulb manufacturer.
* * * * *
    S14.3.1 Procedure. The sample device must be tested for photometry
using bulbs having each of four out-of-focus filament positions. Where
conventional bulbs with two pin bayonet bases are used, tests must be
made with the light source 0.060 in. above, below, ahead, and behind
the designated position. If prefocused bulbs are used, the limiting
positions at which tests are made must be 0.020 in. above, below,
ahead, and behind the designated position. The sample device may be
reaimed for each of the out-of-focus positions of the light source.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 An unfixtured sample headlamp in its design mounting
position is placed in water at a temperature of 176[deg]
5[deg] F (80[deg]  3[deg] C) for one hour. The headlamp is
energized in its highest wattage mode, with the test voltage at 12.8
 0.1 V during immersion.
* * * * *

                                Table I-a--Required Lamps and Reflective Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Mounting
        Lighting  device          Number and color       location       Mounting height      Device activation