Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment |
|---|
Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Christopher J. Bonanti
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
December 4, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71752-71756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29245]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0174]
RIN 2127-Al27
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to restore the side marker lamp
requirements, for vehicles that are over 80 inches wide, and also less
than 30 feet in overall length, to the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard (FMVSS) on lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment.
These requirements were modified when the agency published a final rule
reorganizing the standard on December 4, 2007.
DATES: Comments to this proposal must be received on or before January
3, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Markus
Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-
0098) (Fax: (202) 366-7002).
For legal issues: Mr. Thomas Healy, Office of the Chief Counsel,
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone: (202) 366-2992) (Fax: (202) 366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December
30, 2005 \1\ to reorganize FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and
Associated Equipment, and improve the clarity of the standard's
requirements thereby increasing its utility for regulated parties. It
was the agency's goal during the rewrite process to make no substantive
changes to the requirements of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 70 FR 77454, (Dec. 30, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the comments received in response to the NPRM, NHTSA
published a final rule on December 4, 2007,\2\ amending FMVSS No. 108
by reorganizing the regulatory text so that it provides a more
straightforward and logical presentation of the applicable regulatory
requirements; incorporating important agency interpretations of the
existing requirements; and reducing reliance on third-party documents
incorporated by reference. The preamble of the final rule again stated
that the rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 was administrative in nature and
would have no impact on the substantive requirements of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 72 FR 68234, (Dec. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 2005 Administrative Rewrite NPRM
On December 30, 2005, NHTSA published a NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 108
by reorganizing the regulatory text so that it provides a more
straight-forward and logical presentation of the applicable regulatory
requirements.\3\ NHTSA explained in the 2005 NPRM that reorganizing the
regulatory text and importing requirements from applicable SAE
International standards incorporated by reference into the regulatory
text would assist various stakeholders in easily finding and
comprehending the requirements contained in the standard. The agency
also explained that this rewrite was administrative in nature and that
the proposed requirements were not being increased, decreased, or
substantively modified. The proposed text for the photometric
requirements for side marker lamps, read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 70 FR 77454, (Dec. 30, 2005).
S7.4.1.1 Inboard photometry. For each motor vehicle less than 30
feet in overall length and less than 2032 mm. in overall width, the
minimum photometric intensity requirements for a side marker lamp
may be met for all inboard test points at a distance of 15 feet from
the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the vehicle and located midway between the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
front and rear side marker lamps.
The Agency provided an analysis within Appendix B of the NPRM showing
that this requirement was derived from both the regulatory text of
FMVSS No. 108 S5.1.1.3 and SAE J592e, Jul 1972, Table I, Footnote b.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 70 FR at 77582, (Dec. 30, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 71753]]
B. 2007 Administrative Rewrite Final Rule
On December 4, 2007 NHTSA adopted a final rule that amended FMVSS
No. 108 based on the 2005 NPRM with modifications that furthered the
objectives of the rewrite to make the requirements easier to find and
understand. In the final rule NHTSA reiterated that the rewrite of the
standard was administrative in nature and the requirements and
obligations were not being increased, decreased, or substantively
modified.
In the preamble to the final rule, the agency explained that the
inboard photometry requirements for side marker lamps (contained in
paragraph S7.4.13.2) were based on paragraph S5.1.1.8 of the standard
prior to the rewrite which applied to vehicles less than 30 feet in
overall length.\5\ Additionally, the agency explained that Table 1 of
SAE J592e, detailing the photometric requirements of side marker lamps,
also contains a footnote `b' further limiting the vehicles to which
reduced photometric requirements could be applied. Footnote `b' applies
to vehicles that are less than 80 inches (2 meters) wide. The agency
concluded that this was an example in which the text of an incorporated
SAE document applied limitation beyond those contained in the text of
FMVSS No. 108. Based on this conclusion, the agency made no revisions
to the proposed text for the inboard photometric requirements for side
marker lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 72 FR 68243, (Dec. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. 1980 Side Marker Final Rule
The agency did not cite within its analysis in the 2007 final rule
the 1980 final rule that originally created the regulatory text as it
applies to the inboard photometric requirements, with respect to
vehicle size.\6\ The 1980 final rule was in response to a petition from
Chrysler Corporation which wanted to use a common side marker design
for its single-wheeled (less than 80 inches wide) and its dual-wheeled
(greater than 80 inches wide) pickup trucks. Prior to the 1980 final
rule, FMVSS No. 108 required that photometric requirements for side
marker lamps be met at test points 45 degrees outboard and inboard of
the lateral center line passing through the lamps. However if a vehicle
was less than 80 inches in overall width, paragraph S4.1.1.8 allowed
photometric measurements of side marker lamps to be met for all inboard
test points at a distance of 15 feet from the vehicle and on a vertical
plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and
located midway between the front and rear side marker lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 45 FR 45287, (July 3, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1980 final rule explained that a reduced photometric angle
allowance is more appropriate for vehicles that are short (less than 30
feet) rather than for those that are narrow (less than 80 inches wide),
noting that vehicles that are 30 feet or longer are required to have an
intermediate side marker lamp located between the front and rear side
makers. The 1980 final rule revised FMVSS No. 108 by deleting the words
80 inches in overall width and substituting 30 feet in overall length.
II. The Agency's Proposal
In July, separately, General Motors Company (GM) and Ford Motor
Company, (Ford) met with NHTSA and stated their concern that the 1980
final rule may not have been properly considered in the 2007 rewrite of
FMVSS No. 108. Both manufacturers further stated that their current
dual-wheeled pickup truck side marker designs would require an
extensive redesign in order to meet the requirements of the 2007 final
rule when it becomes effective on December 1, 2012.\7\ Finally, the
agency received a petition for rulemaking from the Alliance of
Automotive Manufacturers requesting the restoration of side marker
requirements to match those in existence prior to the 2007 rewrite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 74 FR 58213, (Nov. 12, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a review of the 1980 final rule, NHTSA recognizes that
paragraph S5.1.1.8 of the standard prior to the 2007 rewrite was
intended to replace the SAE J592e, Table 1, footnote b, and not to
supplement it. We are proposing to restore the photometric requirements
for side marker lamps on vehicles less than 30 feet in length so that
the requirements may be met for all inboard test points at a distance
of 15 feet from the vehicle on a vertical plane that is perpendicular
to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and located midway between the
front and rear side marker lamps, regardless of the width of the
vehicle. We seek comment on our current analysis and the impacts that
such a modification to the 2007 rule will have on manufacturers.
NHTSA believes that a common single-wheeled and dual-wheeled pickup
truck side marker design expressed in Chrysler Corporation's original
petition that led to the 1980 final rule still exists and is currently
being utilized. Therefore, NHTSA will not pursue compliance actions
against manufacturers that install side marker lamps on vehicles that
are greater than 80 inches wide and shorter than 30 feet that fail to
meet the 45 degree inboard photometric requirements of the 2007 final
rule, provided that they meet the photometric requirements at a
distance of 15 feet from the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and located
midway between the front and rear side marker lamps until this
rulemaking is either terminated or adopted as a final rule. NHTSA will
consider a manufacturer's certification to FMVSS No. 108 complete if
the vehicle that is being certified meets the requirements for side
marker lamps that were in place prior to the 2007 final rule.
III. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Compliance Date
Because this proposal only restores an existing requirement to the
standard, the agency does not anticipate that there would be any costs
associated with this rulemaking action. The agency expects some minor
unquantifiable benefits to manufacturers due to their ability to
continue to use side marker lamps of the same design on both narrow and
wide vehicles under 30 feet in length. Accordingly, the agency did not
conduct a separate economic analysis for this rulemaking.
The National Highway and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states that an
FMVSS issued by NHTSA cannot become effective before 180 days after the
standard is issued unless the agency makes a good cause finding that a
different effective date is in the public interest. The agency has
tentatively concluded that it is in the public interest for this
proposed rule to become effective as soon as possible after the final
rule is issued, should the agency decide to issue a rule, because such
an effective date would allow regulated parties to avoid unnecessarily
modifying the design of their side marker lamps. The agency proposes an
effective date of 30 days after the date of issuance of the final rule
should one be issued.
IV. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\8\ We established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a
[[Page 71754]]
concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents
to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we
encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments.
OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule.
If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
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.
B. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may
differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address
similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the
regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
American businesses to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory
cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective
as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements.
NHTSA requests public comment on whether (a) ``regulatory approaches
taken by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter of this
rulemaking exist and (b) the above policy statement has any
implications for this rulemaking.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
We have reviewed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' 13 CFR 121.105(a). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of the proposed rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not
have a
[[Page 71755]]
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposal amends the photometry requirements for side marker lamps
on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length that were changed
during the administrative rewrite of the standard. This proposal would
not significantly affect any entities because it would restore the
requirements for side mark lamps that are currently contained in the
standard. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that this proposal would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' (49 U.S.C. 30103(e)). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an 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).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law
causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion
regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the
likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort
litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's
proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules,
would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not
intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort law that would
effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
than that established by today's proposed rule. Establishment of a
higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the
minimum standard proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not
be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies
whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties
file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is
consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in
court.
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' \11\
NHTSA has considered whether this rulemaking would have any retroactive
effect. This proposed rule does not have any retroactive effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 61 FR 4729, (Feb. 7, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995).
Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
This proposed rule is not anticipated to result in the expenditure
by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector in
[[Page 71756]]
excess of $100 million annually. The cost impact of this proposed rule
is expected to be $0. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an
economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. This proposed rule does not contain any collection
of information requirements requiring review under the PRA.
I. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 \12\ applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the proposed rule on
children, and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by us. This proposed rule does not pose such a risk for
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards
are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based or design-specific
technical specification and related management systems practices.''
They pertain to ``products and processes, such as size, strength, or
technical performance of a product, process or material.''
Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus
standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available
and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are
required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of
the reasons for not using such standards.
This proposal would not adopt or reference any new industry or
consensus standards that were not already present in FMVSS No. 108.
K. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 \13\ applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. If the regulatory action meets either
criterion, we must evaluate the adverse energy effects of the proposed
rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal amends the photometry requirements for side marker
lamps on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length that were changed
during the administrative rewrite of the standard. Therefore, this
proposed rule will not have any adverse energy effects. Accordingly,
this proposed rulemaking action is not designated as a significant
energy action.
L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
M. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
N. 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 organization, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as set forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
2. Section 571.108 is amended by revising paragraph S7.4.13.2 to
read as follows:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
S7.4.13.2 Inboard photometry. For each motor vehicle less than 30
feet in overall length, the minimum photometric intensity requirements
for a side marker lamp may be met for all inboard test points at a
distance of 15 feet from the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and located
midway between the front and rear side marker lamps.
* * * * *
Issued on: November 28, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-29245 Filed 11-29-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P