Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment |
|---|
Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Mark R. Rosekind
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
5 February 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6454-6458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02268]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0073]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is amending the side marker requirements contained in
the
[[Page 6455]]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) on lamps, reflective
devices and associated equipment for vehicles 80 inches or more in
width and less than 30 feet long. This final rule adopts the amendments
proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), published on
December 4, 2012. These amendments will restore the side marker
photometry requirements for motor vehicles under thirty feet in length
that were in place prior to the 2007 final rule that reorganized the
standard. Restoration of the side marker requirements will have no
negative impact on safety or function and will allow motor vehicle
manufacturers to avoid unnecessary modifications to their side marker
lamps with no added safety or functional benefit.
DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2016. Compliance Date: Optional early
compliance as discussed below.
Petitions for Reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than March 24, 2016.
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. Wayne McKenzie, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-1729) (Fax: (202) 366-7002).
For legal issues: Mr. John Piazza, 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
Side marker lamps have been required by FMVSS No. 108 since it was
promulgated as one of the initial Federal Motor Vehicles Safety
Standards in 1967.\1\ The main purpose of side marker lamps is to
indicate the overall length of the vehicle. The photometric
requirements are meant to ensure that the side marker lamps are
sufficiently visible from a range of viewing angles. This final rule
addresses an unintentional change NHTSA made to the photometric
requirements for side marker lamps when it reorganized FMVSS No. 108 in
2007.\2\ Before considering the changes made by this final rule, it is
useful to briefly examine the evolution of the side marker requirements
before 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 32 FR 2408 (Feb. 3, 1967).
\2\ 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). The reorganized standard did not
take effect until December 1, 2012. 76 FR 48009 (Aug. 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant to the present rulemaking is a change that was made to the
side marker requirements in 1980 in response to a petition for
rulemaking from Chrysler Corporation.\3\ At the time of the Chrysler
petition, FMVSS No. 108 required that the 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. FMVSS No. 108,
however, permitted an additional compliance option for vehicles less
than 80 inches in width. This additional compliance option had the
effect of relaxing the inboard photometry requirements for the side
marker lamps.\4\ Chrysler--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--petitioned to make
this compliance option available to all vehicles regardless of width.
NHTSA agreed with Chrysler that eligibility for the additional
compliance option should not depend on a vehicle's width, but did not
agree that it should be available to all vehicles. The agency explained
that the additional compliance option would not be appropriate for
vehicles that are 30 feet or longer.\5\ Accordingly, the 1980 final
rule revised FMVSS No. 108 by deleting the words ``80 inches in overall
width'' and substituting ``30 feet in overall length.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 45 FR 45287 (July 3, 1980).
\4\ Specifically, under this additional compliance option, the
photometric requirements could 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. This results in
an angle of less than 45 degrees instead of the fixed 45 degrees
that was otherwise required, so that the side marker lamp was
effectively permitted to illuminate a smaller area than it otherwise
would have been required to illuminate. See 45 FR 45287 (July 3,
1980) (citing 49 CFR 571.108, S4.1.1.8).
\5\ This is because testing of side marker lamps is done at a
distance of 15 feet perpendicular to the vehicle and at a 45 degree
angle. At such a distance and angle, only a vehicle 30 feet long or
under would have both of its side marker lamps visible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next change to the side marker requirements relevant to this
final rule occurred in 2007, when NHTSA reorganized FMVSS No. 108. The
reorganization was intended to streamline the regulatory text and
clarify the standard's requirements. That final rule made the standard
more user-friendly by significantly reducing the number of third-party
documents, such as SAE \6\ standards, incorporated by reference. Prior
to the reorganization, FMVSS No. 108 would, in many instances, specify
requirements by simply referencing an SAE standard (which contained the
requirements), instead of explicitly specifying those requirements in
the text of FMVSS No. 108. However, when the standard was reorganized
in 2007, requirements contained in the referenced third-party standards
were included directly in the regulatory text, instead of incorporating
the requirements by referencing the standard that contained those
requirements. The agency explained that the reorganization was
administrative in nature and that the FMVSS No. 108 requirements were
not being increased, decreased, or substantively modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Society of Automotive Engineers (now SAE International).
SAE is an organization that develops technical standards based on
best practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the newly revised version of FMVSS No. 108 inadvertently
changed the alternative compliance option for side marker lamps. Prior
to the reorganization, side marker lamps were required to conform to
SAE Standard J592e (July 1972) (i.e., the requirements were specified
using incorporation by reference). In addition, the pre-reorganization
regulatory text also explicitly specified the alternative compliance
option that was the subject of the 1980 final rule.\7\ The side marker
lamp requirements specified in SAE J592e (July 1972) also included (in
a footnote) an alternative compliance option for vehicles less than 80
inches wide. This was the same compliance option for which the agency
had deleted the words ``80 inches in overall width'' and added the
words ``30 feet in overall length'' in the 1980 final rule. When NHTSA
reorganized FMVSS No. 108 in 2007, the requirements contained in SAE
Standard J592e (July 1972) were included directly into the regulatory
text of FMVSS No. 108, thus eliminating the incorporation by reference;
\8\ this included the width-based compliance option that we had deleted
from FMVSS No. 108 in 1980. Accordingly, the 2007 reorganization
specified the alternative compliance option that for each motor vehicle
less than 30 feet in overall length and less than 2032 mm [80 inches]
in overall width, the minimum photometric intensity requirements for a
[[Page 6456]]
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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The 1980 final rule placed this requirement in S4.1.1.8. Due
to subsequent amendments, at the time of the 2007 reorganization,
the requirement was in S5.1.1.8.
\8\ The requirements were placed in a new table, Table X.
\9\ See S7.4.13.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the agency inadvertently added back into FMVSS No. 108
the same width-based language it had deleted in 1980. This had the
effect of substantively changing the side marker requirements by
limiting the vehicles that were eligible for the additional compliance
option. Before the reorganization, vehicles less than 30 feet long were
eligible; after the rewrite, a vehicle had to be both less than 30 feet
long and less than 80 inches wide. The agency did not cite within its
analysis in the 2007 final rule the 1980 rulemaking that replaced the
width criterion with the length criterion.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The agency did receive comments to the NPRM to reorganize
FMVSS No. 108 that stated that the agency's proposal to add the
width criterion to the side marker requirements was a substantive
change to the side marker requirements. However, these comments did
not cite the 1980 rulemaking that had deleted the width criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. 2012 Side Marker NPRM
To address this change, NHTSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on December 4, 2012.\11\ As we explained in the NPRM,
based on our communications with vehicle manufacturers, a petition for
rulemaking from the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, and our
review of the 1980 final rule, NHTSA recognized that the 2007 rewrite
erroneously added the width requirement back into the standard. This
inadvertent change might have required manufacturers to perform costly
redesigns in order to comply with the 2007 final rule. Accordingly, the
NPRM proposed to restore the pre-reorganization side marker
requirements for vehicles that are 80 inches or more in width and less
than 30 feet long. Considering the cost manufacturers would have to
incur as a result of the modifications in the 2007 final rule, NHTSA
announced in the 2012 NPRM that it would not pursue compliance actions
against manufacturers that install side marker lamps on vehicles that
are 80 inches or more in width and less than 30 feet long 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. NHTSA stated that
this enforcement policy would be effective until the rulemaking was
completed. That enforcement policy will end as of the effective date of
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 77 FR 71752, Dec. 4, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Comments on the NPRM
NHTSA received only three comments in response to the 2012 NPRM.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the ``Alliance'') stated that
it agrees with NHTSA's analysis of the situation surrounding the
changes to FMVSS No. 108 during the administrative reorganization
process as well as the proposed revisions. The Alliance stated that the
proposed changes would bring the side marker photometry requirements
back in line with the original intent of the 1980 final rule and
restore the requirements that were in force prior to the 2007 final
rule. The Alliance also commented that the phrase ``. . . and less than
80 inches (2m) in overall width'' should be deleted from footnote 1 of
Table X to ensure there is no ambiguity concerning the application of
side marker lamp inboard photometry requirements.
General Motors submitted a comment in support of the change to the
proposal and stated that the proposed changes would restore the
previous requirements and would have no overall effect on safety.
The European Commission submitted a comment requesting an extension
of the comment period to February 5, 2013.
IV. Agency Comment Analysis and Agency Decision
NHTSA has carefully considered the comments submitted in this
rulemaking. We have reviewed the comments received from GM and the
Alliance and agree with the rationale presented. Having received no
information to the contrary, we are amending S7.4.13.2 of FMVSS No. 108
to delete the phrase ``and less than 2032 mm in overall width,''
consistent with the proposal. This revision will restore the
photometric requirements in FMVSS No. 108 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 have also decided to adopt the Alliance's proposed revision to
footnote 1 of Table X. The text in the footnote that the Alliance
proposes to delete--``and less than 80 inches (2m) in overall width''--
is essentially the same as the text we are deleting from S7.4.13.2.
Similarly revising this footnote will make the requirements stated in
the footnote consistent with the requirements stated in S7.4.13.2.
With respect to the comment from the European Commission, NHTSA
chose not to extend the comment period formally because we stated in
the NPRM that the agency would consider late comments to the extent
practicable. Given that this final rule is being published several
years after the NPRM and we did not receive any additional comments or
requests to extend the comment period, we consider this comment
resolved.
V. Effective Date
In the NPRM we proposed an effective date of 30 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.
We did not receive any comments concerning the proposed effective date.
Therefore, in keeping with typical practice, this final rule will be
effective August 8, 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 regulated entities. Moreover,
providing for optional early compliance will allow manufacturers to
immediately benefit from the flexibility afforded by the revised side
marker requirements the same as if the effective date were earlier.
NHTSA's compliance policy stated in the 2012 NPRM is terminated as of
the effective date of this final rule.
VI. 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 DOT's regulatory
policies and procedures. This final rule was not reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) 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 restores requirements to the standard that were
unintentionally changed during the administrative revision of the
standard. Because this final rule merely restores previously existing
requirements it is not expected to have any costs. This
[[Page 6457]]
final rule allows manufacturers to avoid the cost of redesigning the
side marker lamps for dual-wheeled pickup trucks because these vehicles
can now continue to meet the side marker photometry requirements for
narrower vehicles. Because there are not any costs associated with this
rulemaking and only minor benefits, we have not prepared a separate
economic analysis for this rulemaking.
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 is not aware of any conflicting regulatory approach taken by
a foreign government concerning the subject matter of this rulemaking.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l et
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities.
I hereby certify that this rule would not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The final rule would affect
manufacturers of motor vehicle light equipment, but the entities that
qualify as small businesses would not be significantly affected by this
rulemaking because the agency is restoring requirements that previously
existed in an older version of the regulation. This rulemaking is not
expected to affect the cost of manufacturing motor vehicle lighting
equipment.
D. Executive Order 13132
NHTSA has examined this 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 set forth 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 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 this rule and
finds that this rule, 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 that established by this rule. Establishment
of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with
the minimum standard announced here. Without any conflict, there could
not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of
action.
E. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, 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 final rule would not establish any new
information collection requirements.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' This final rule would not adopt or reference any new
industry or consensus standards that were not already present in FMVSS
No. 108.
H. Civil Justice Reform
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988,
[[Page 6458]]
``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, February 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 these
requirements.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this final rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that
there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This final rule would
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million
annually.
J. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, 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. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.
K. 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.
L. 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).
Regulatory Text
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Tires.
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 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166:
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
2. Section 571.108 is amended by revising paragraph S7.4.13.2 and
footnote 1 of Table X 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.
* * * * *
Table X--Side Marker Lamp Photometry Requirements
* * * * *
(1) Where a side marker lamp installed on a motor vehicle less than
30 feet in overall length has the lateral angle nearest the other
required side marker lamp on the same side of the vehicle reduced from
45[deg] by design as specified by S7.4.13.2, the photometric intensity
measurement may be met at the lesser angle.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 1, 2016 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-02268 Filed 2-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P