Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment |
|---|
Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Mark R. Rosekind
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
December 17, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78664-78670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31353]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR PART 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0057]
RIN 2127-AL41
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Lamps, Reflective Devices,
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the rear license plate holder
requirements contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 108; ``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.'' The
final rule expands upon the proposal in the NPRM and allows license
plates on all motor vehicles to be mounted on a plane up to 30 degrees
upward from vertical if the upper edge of the license plate is not more
than 1.2 meters (47.25 inches) from the ground. Previously, the maximum
allowable upward mounting angle was 15 degrees beyond vertical. This
final rule increases harmonization with existing requirements in
European regulations. Additionally, this final rule increases a
manufacturer's design flexibility while providing opportunity to
decrease cost without compromising safety.
DATES: Effective June 14, 2016, with optional early compliance as
discussed below.
Petitions for Reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than February 1, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. David Beck,
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Telephone: 202-366-6813,
Facsimile: 202-366-7002.
For legal issues: Mr. John Piazza, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Telephone: 202-366-2992, Facsimile: 202-366-3820.
The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
[[Page 78665]]
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
III. Summary of Public Comments and NHTSA's Response
IV. Final Rule
V. Effective Date
VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Background
The agency reorganized FMVSS No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices,
and associated equipment,'' in a 2007 final rule by streamlining the
regulatory text and clarifying the standard's requirements.\1\ The
final rule, among other things, incorporated important agency
interpretations and reduced reliance on third-party documents
incorporated by reference. Regulated parties provided feedback to the
agency that documents, incorporated by reference before the 2007
reorganization, made it difficult to determine all of the applicable
requirements. For example, the standard incorporated some older
versions of SAE standards, not the most current versions; not only were
the older SAE standards sometimes difficult to obtain, but some
regulated parties may have mistakenly believed that FMVSS No. 108
incorporated the most recent SAE standards. The reorganization was
intended to fix these problems. The agency stated in the final rule
that the reorganization of FMVSS No. 108 was administrative and not
intended to change the standard's substantive requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 72 FR 68234, Dec. 4, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE \2\ International Recommended Practice, SAE J587 OCT81, License
Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps) was one of the third-party
documents whose requirements were transferred to the regulatory text of
the standard. Among other requirements derived from SAE J587 OCT81,
S6.6.3 of the final rule required that the rear license plate holder be
mounted within an angle 15 degrees of a plane
perpendicular to that on which the vehicle stands. This requirement was
not expressly stated in the text of the standard previously. Instead,
FMVSS No. 108 contained two tables indicating the lighting requirements
for different types of vehicles, and these tables indicated that ``SAE
J587, October 1981'' was an ``Applicable SAE standard'' for a ``license
plate lamp.'' \3\ Even though the 2007 final rule explicitly stated the
SAE J587 requirements for the first time, these requirements were not
new, since FMVSS No. 108 had previously incorporated them by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Previously named Society of Automotive Engineers.
\3\ See 49 CFR 571.108, Table I (Required Motor Vehicle Lighting
Equipment Other Than Headlamps, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles,
Trucks, Trailers, and Buses, of 80 or More Inches in Overall Width)
(2006); see also Table III (Required Motor Vehicle Lighting
Equipment, Passenger Cars and Motorcycles, and Multipurpose
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses and Trailers of Less than 80
Inches in Overall Width).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the December 2007 final rule, the agency received
petitions for reconsideration from Harley-Davidson Motor Company \4\
(Harley-Davidson) and Ford Motor Company (Ford).\5\ Ford requested that
the agency delete S6.6.3 because, Ford concluded, NHTSA had stated that
not all requirements of referenced SAE standards were intended to be
incorporated into FMVSS No. 108. Harley-Davidson petitioned NHTSA to
either withdraw or amend the license plate mounting angle requirements
because, Harley-Davidson stated, FMVSS No. 108 regulated license plate
lamps, not holders. After the 2007 final rule was published, the
Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) submitted a petition for
reconsideration requesting that the agency amend the license plate
angle mounting requirement for motorcycles.\6\ Because the petition for
reconsideration was received on March 19, 2009, well after the allowed
time for such petitions, NHTSA treated it as a petition for
rulemaking.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Docket No. NHTSA 2011-0052.
\5\ Docket No. NHTSA 2007-28322.
\6\ MIC had also submitted a petition for rulemaking before the
2007 final rule (on March 14, 2005) requesting that the agency
modify the license mounting angle requirement to allow license
plates to be mounted between 30 degrees upward and 15 degrees
downward of a plane perpendicular to that on which the vehicle
stands. NHTSA did not grant this request before or during the
administrative re-write of FMVSS No. 108 because the agency's intent
was to streamline and clarify the standard, not to make substantive
changes.
\7\ See 49 CFR 553.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In two separate notices, both issued on April 26, 2011, NHTSA
granted MIC's petition for rulemaking \8\ and denied, in part, the
petitions for reconsideration of the 2007 final rule on the same
issue.\9\ Because of confusion among regulated entities over whether
the license plate mounting angle requirements in SAE J587 OCT81 were
incorporated into FMVSS No. 108, the agency announced that it would not
enforce the 15 degree mounting angle requirement while it is completing
the rulemaking that was the subject of the petition.\10\ That
enforcement policy will end as of the effective date of this final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 76 FR 23254, Apr. 26, 2011 (granting petition for
rulemaking).
\9\ See 76 FR 23255, Apr. 26, 2011 (denying, in part, petitions
for reconsideration).
\10\ See id. at 23256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
On September 3, 2013, the agency published an NPRM proposing to
amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow manufacturers greater flexibility in the
design of the license plate mounting surface on motorcycles.\11\ The
proposal stated that the maximum downward angle at which a motorcycle
license plate could be mounted (i.e., the plate faces below the
horizon) would remain 15 degrees, as would the maximum upward angle for
license plates on motorcycles on which the upper edge of the license
plate is more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) from the ground. If the upper
edge of the license plate is not more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) above
the ground, however, NHTSA proposed to amend the motorcycle license
plate mounting angle requirements to allow mounting angles of up to 30
degrees upward from the vertical (i.e., the plate faces above the
horizon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 78 FR 54210, Sept. 3, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA anticipated that this change would reduce costs for
manufacturers by allowing them to use the same mounting hardware for
the license plate in both the U.S. and Europe. The agency also stated
that it did not believe that the proposal would compromise safety
because the proposed changes to the license plate mounting angle
requirement would not affect the ability of law enforcement personnel
or the general public to view the license plate. The NPRM also
requested comment on the following issues: Amending the license plate
mounting angle requirements to allow the license plate to be mounted at
an angle of 30 degrees upward of vertical on all vehicles, or,
alternatively, on vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000
pounds and less; adopting the maximum height requirement of 1.5 m
specified in the analogous European Economic Community (EEC)
regulations; and whether the proposed amendments would negatively
affect the ability of license plate recognition technology to read
license plate characters.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Public Comments and NHTSA's Response
In response to the NPRM, the agency received comments from trade
associations, a non-profit association, manufacturers, and an
individual. The trade associations that submitted comments were the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance) and MIC. The
voluntary non-profit association of state and provincial motor vehicle
administrations--the
[[Page 78666]]
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)--submitted
a comment. Volkswagen Group of America (Volkswagen) and Harley-Davidson
Motor Company (Harley-Davidson) also submitted comments. The agency
also received a comment from an individual commenter. Comments are
summarized below by topic, along with the agency's responses.
Harmonization and Cost Saving Benefits of the Proposal
Comments
MIC and Harley-Davidson supported the proposal to increase the
maximum mounting angle to 30 degrees beyond vertical if the upper edge
of the license plate is not more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) above the
ground. (MIC and Harley-Davidson also suggested, as discussed below,
adopting the EEC height requirement.) Each commented that the proposal
would align FMVSS No. 108 more closely with the EEC mounting angle
requirements.\13\ Each also stated that this change would increase
manufacturer design flexibility and decrease manufacturers' costs
without decreasing safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See EEC Council Directive 2009/62/EC, 1990 O.J. (L 198/20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
The agency agrees with MIC's and Harley-Davidson's comments
supporting the agency's proposal. Regarding MIC's comment that the
proposal would align FMVSS No. 108 more closely with the EEC license
plate mounting angle requirement, the agency verified that today's
final rule is generally consistent with the inclination provisions of
EEC Council Directive 2009/62/EC.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 3. INCLINATION
3.1. The rear registration plate:
3.1.1. must be at right angles to the median longitudinal plane
of the vehicle;
3.1.2. may be inclined from the vertical by not more than
30[deg], with the vehicle unladen, when the backing plate for the
registration number faces upwards;
3.1.3. may be inclined by not more than 15[deg] from the
vertical, with the vehicle unladen, when the backing plate for the
registration number faces downwards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legibility
Comments
MIC agreed with the agency's tentative conclusion that the proposed
maximum mounting angle would not adversely affect the ability of
license plate recognition technology to read license plates. MIC also
stated that optics and software could be readily modified, and that the
technology is more sensitive to downward than upward angles. A former
law enforcement officer stated that license plates mounted at an angle
are often more difficult to read in low light. He stated that the
proposed rule would interfere with the ability of witnesses, police
officers, and the public to identify vehicles.
Agency Response
In response to the commenter that expressed concern that the
proposed rule would decrease the legibility of the license plate in low
light conditions, the agency considered the potential impact of
increasing the allowable mounting plate angle in the context of the
totality of factors that influence the legibility of the plate in low
light conditions. FMVSS No. 108 contains various photometric and
geometric requirements aimed at assuring legibility of the license
plate. While this final rule expands the allowable license plate
mounting plane angle, other lamp photometric requirements and geometric
requirements remain unchanged. The plate illumination restriction
continues to require that the test station targets be illuminated at a
value of no less than 8 lux by the license plate lamp. Additionally,
the highest to lowest illumination ratio requirements, which protect
against shadowing across the plate, remain unchanged. Also unchanged is
a requirement that the incident light from the license plate lamp never
be less than 8 degrees. These factors all influence the legibility of
the license plate in low light conditions more than the mounting angle
within the range of allowable angles and heights of this final rule.
Finally, the final rule's adoption of the proposed maximum plate
height for which this expanded angle range applies of 1.2 m (measured
from the top of the plate) limits the range of likely vertical viewing
angles. Considering the sales-weighted average driver's eye height for
a car is 1.1 m and 1.42 m for light trucks and vans, the agency
anticipates that occurrences of an observer reading plate at large
vertical visual angles will remain rare.\15\ A driver, whose eye height
is at the sales-weighted average height in a sedan, will view the
center of a license plate (approximately 1.15 m to 1.125 m from the
ground), if mounted at the maximum height of 1.2 m (at the top of the
plate), nearly parallel to the horizon. This means that the maximum
vertical viewing angle for a license plate mounted at the maximum
height and at the maximum angle, when viewed by the average driver's
eye height (worst-case situation) will be no greater than 30[deg] from
perpendicular to the plate. Considering all these factors, the agency
concludes that the legibility of a license plate in low light
situations for drivers will not be negatively impacted by today's final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ UMTRI-2002-8, ``The Location of Headlamps and Driver Eye
Positions In Vehicles Sold in The U.S.A.'' (2002) Schoettle, B.,
Sivak, M., and Nakata, Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For automated license plate readers, the agency estimates that they
are often mounted similar to, or higher than a driver's eye height. As
such, the agency believes that the geometric and photometric factors
outlined above apply similarly to machine license plate readers as they
do to human viewers. As such, the agency agrees with MIC that today's
final rule will not have a negative impact on automated plate readers.
License Plate Height
Comments
Harley-Davidson and MIC commented that the agency should adopt the
EEC maximum height allowance of 1.5 m above the ground, as measured
from the upper edge of the license plate when the vehicle is unladen.
Harley-Davidson stated that this more liberal height requirement would
provide greater design flexibility and potential harmonization-related
cost savings. MIC stated that, in addition to benefits from
harmonization, the 1.2 m and 1.5 m values are arbitrary and there is no
material advantage or disadvantage to either.
Agency Response
The agency has decided not to adopt the EEC maximum height
allowance. Neither MIC nor Harley-Davidson submitted data or specific
information to support their comments. The agency disagrees with MIC
that the 1.2 m maximum plate height for which the expanded angle
applies is arbitrary. As outlined above, this restriction limits the
vertical visual angle for which a driver is likely to view a license
plate. While a 1.2 m maximum plate height, for which the plate may be
angled at 30[deg] upward, produces a maximum vertical viewing angle of
30[deg] beyond perpendicular, a value of 1.5 m will not provide such an
assurance. If the agency chose the value of 1.5 m as suggested by MIC
and Harley-Davidson, and as allowed in the EEC regulation, a viewer
located at the average, sales-weighted eye height would need to look up
beyond horizontal for a plate mounted at the upper height limit. Such
an arrangement would cause the vertical
[[Page 78667]]
viewing angle to increase beyond 30[deg] depending on the viewing
distance. As such, we have chosen to adapt the proposed limit of 1.2 m
as the maximum mounting height for a plate mounted on a plane more than
15 degrees (but less than 30 degrees) upward from vertical. The agency
has chosen, however, not to adopt the ECE maximum height of 1.5 m
because we are concerned that higher mounting locations could create a
situation where the legibility of the plate becomes compromised.
Vehicles to Which the Proposed Changes Should Apply
Comments
In the NPRM, the agency solicited comment on amending the mounting
angle requirement not just for motorcycles but for other types of
vehicles as well. We stated that after receiving public comment the
agency may decide to allow license plates to be mounted at an angle of
up to 30 degrees upward of vertical on all vehicles, or on all vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds and less.
The agency received two comments regarding the issue of what
vehicles to which the proposed rule should apply. Both Volkswagen and
the Alliance stated that the proposed change in mounting angle should
apply not just to motorcycles but to all classes of vehicles.
Volkswagen and the Alliance stated that making the rule generally
applicable would harmonize the FMVSS No. 108 provision with the
comparable ECE regulations and, (as Volkswagen stated) with SAEJ587,
both of which apply the maximum 30 degree upward mounting angle to all
classes of vehicles.\16\ The Alliance also indicated that the
permissible upward mounting angle should not depend on vehicle weight
because license plate visibility and legibility do not depend on
vehicle weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ SAE J587 SEP2003, 6.5.2. ``The design shall be such that,
when the plate is mounted on a vehicle as intended and the upper
edge of the license plate is more than 1.2 m from the ground, the
angle between the plane of the license plate and a vertical plane
perpendicular to the plane of the ground on which the vehicle stands
shall be 15 degrees. If the upper edge of the license
plate is not more than 1.2 m from the ground, the plate surface
bearing the license numbers shall face between 30 degrees upward and
15 degrees downward from the vertical plane.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
The agency anticipates that this final rule can yield design and
manufacturing benefits to all motor vehicles, not just motorcycles,
without compromising safety. As such, the agency has applied this final
rule to all motor vehicles regardless of vehicle type or weight. In the
NPRM, the agency considered applying the relaxed requirement to
vehicles that are rated at 10,000 pound or less vehicles. After
considering the Alliance's comment, the agency agrees that there is no
logical connection between the weight rating of the vehicle and the
legibility of the plate based on the mounting angle considering the
size of the plate and other photometric and geometric requirement are
the same for heavy and light vehicles. Applying this final rule to all
motor vehicles will allow manufacturers of these additional vehicle
types the flexibility to use an expanded mounting angle without
compromising safety.
Orientation of the License Plate as Either Vertical or Horizontal
Comments
The AAMVA commented that the proposed rule would continue to allow
license plates to be mounted vertically (i.e., displayed so that the
characters on the plate are read from top to bottom rather than left to
right). AAMVA stated that vertically-mounted plates are difficult to
read and that it ``supports the horizontal display of a front and rear
plate and the uniform manufacture and design of plates, to increase the
effective and efficient identification of license plates. The use of
common characteristics and predictable designs on license plates will
enhance readability, usability, and a connection to vehicle
registration records.''
Agency Response
While the agency appreciates AAMVA's comment, this rulemaking is
limited to the mounting angle of the plate and does not address whether
the license plate is horizontally or vertically displayed. Accordingly,
the AAMVA's proposed requirement is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
IV. Final Rule
The agency is amending FMVSS No. 108 to allow license plate
mounting angles of up to 30 degrees upward from vertical (an installed
plate will face above the horizon) if the upper edge of the license
plate is not more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) from the ground. The agency
is also expanding the application of this change beyond that proposed
in the NPRM (motorcycles) to include all motor vehicles. The maximum
downward angle (an installed plate will face below the horizon) at
which a license plate can be mounted remains 15 degrees, as does the
maximum upward angle on vehicles for which the upper edge of the
license plate is more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) above the ground. The
agency believes that these changes to the license plate mounting angle
requirements will reduce costs for manufacturers by allowing them to
use the same mounting hardware for the license plate in both the United
States and Europe without compromising safety because, as described
above, we do not believe that plate legibility will be compromised.
As of the effective date of the final rule we are terminating the
policy, in effect since our denial of the petitions for reconsideration
of the 2007 final rule, of not enforcing the license plate holder
mounting requirement.
V. Effective Date
In the NPRM we proposed an effective date of 60 days after
publication of the final rule. Under the Safety Act, a FMVSS typically
is not effective before the 180th day after the standard is
published.\17\ We did not receive any comments concerning the proposed
effective date. In keeping with typical practice, this final rule will
be effective June 14, 2016, with optional early compliance. We believe
that specifying a later effective date for this final rule will not
have any adverse effects or prejudice any regulated parties. This final
rule expands the range of compliance options available to
manufacturers; it does not enact any new duties or restrictions.
Moreover, providing for optional early compliance will allow
manufacturers to immediately benefit from the flexibility afforded by
the expanded mounting angle requirements the same as if the effective
date were earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 49 U.S.C. 30111(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
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 final rule
does not result in any increased costs or significant benefits.
Therefore, it is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or
the Department's regulatory policies and procedures. The Office of
Management and Budget has designated this rule as non-significant.
B. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part:
[[Page 78668]]
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.
This rule more closely aligns the U.S. regulatory requirements for
mounting motor vehicle license plates with those of European countries.
Permitting an upward mounting angle of up to 30 degrees for all
vehicles harmonizes with the ECE Council Directive 2009/62/EC, 1990
O.J. (L 198/20). These changes will increase manufacturer design
flexibility without decreasing safety. The agency has chosen, however,
not to adopt the ECE maximum height of 1.5 m because we are concerned
that the higher mounting locations could create a situation where the
legibility of the plate becomes compromised.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
We have reviewed this final rule 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.'' \18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 13 CFR 121.105(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule
expands the range of permissible mounting angles for license plates on
motor vehicles. We do not anticipate that there will be any increased
costs as a result of this rulemaking action. Accordingly, we do not
anticipate that this rule will 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 \19\ 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 rule will not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with
State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement. The rule will not have ``substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\20\ It is this
statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State
legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'' \21\ 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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e).
\22\ See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether
this 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 rule
and finds that the rule, like many NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a
minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this final
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 established
here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption
of a State common law tort cause of action.
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' \23\
NHTSA has considered whether this rule would have any retroactive
effect. This rule does not have any retroactive effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 61 FR 4729, Feb. 7, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78669]]
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 a 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 adopts 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 rule, by harmonizing this provision of FMVSS No. 108 with the
comparable EEC standard will likely reduce the manufacturing and design
costs of manufacturers by allowing a greater degree of commonality
between vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States and for
sale in Europe, and possibly other markets. The rule is not anticipated
to result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess, of $100 million
annually. 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 rule does not contain any collection of
information requirements requiring review under the PRA.
I. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 \24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's rule does not pose such a risk for children. The primary
effect of this rule is to amend the license plate mounting angle for
motor vehicles.
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.
While SAE J587 SEP 2003, License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration
Plate Lamps) contains a mounting angle requirement for motor vehicles
similar to the agency's proposal, the agency did not believe that it
would be appropriate to adopt J587 SEP 2003 in its entirety. FMVSS No.
108 currently requires that when a single lamp is used to illuminate
the plate, the lamp and license plate holder must bear such relation to
each other that at no point on the plate must the incident light make
an angle of less than 8 degrees to the plane of the plate.\25\ SAE J587
SEP 2003 does not contain this requirement. While the agency considered
incorporating SAE J587 SEP 2003 in its entirety, we concluded that the
deletion of the test requirement to maintain an 8 degree relationship
between the lamp and the license plate holder might negatively impact
the direction toward which the plate reflects the light provided by the
license plate lamp. For this reason the agency has decided not to use a
voluntary consensus standard in its entirety in this regulatory
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ FMVSS 108, S7.7.15.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 \26\ 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 rule and
explain why it is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule amends the license plate mounting angle for motor
vehicles. Therefore, this rule will not have any adverse energy
effects. Accordingly, this 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.
Regulatory Text
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part
571 as set forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
[[Page 78670]]
0
2. Amend Sec. 571.108 by revising paragraph S6.6.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
S6.6.3 License plate holder. Each rear license plate holder must be
designed and constructed to provide a substantial plane surface on
which to mount the plate.
S6.6.3.1 For motor vehicles on which the license plate is designed
to be mounted on the vehicle such that the upper edge of the license
plate is 1.2 m or less from the ground, the plane of the license plate
mounting surface and the plane on which the vehicle stands must be
perpendicular within 30[deg] upward (an installed plate will face above
the horizon) and 15[deg] downward (an installed plate will face below
the horizon).
S6.6.3.2 For motor vehicles on which the license plate is designed
to be mounted on the vehicle such that the upper edge of the license
plate is more than 1.2m from the ground, the plane of the license plate
mounting surface and the plane on which the vehicle stands must be
perpendicular within 15[deg].
* * * * *
Issued on: December 8, 2015.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-31353 Filed 12-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P