[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 122 (Monday, June 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32935-32937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15526]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95-50; Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AF74


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Reflecting Surfaces

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA proposes to rescind Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces. This proposed action is part of 
NHTSA's efforts to implement the President's Regulatory Reinvention 
Initiative to remove unnecessary regulations. The agency has 
tentatively concluded that market forces and product liability concerns 
will achieve the same results as Standard No. 107. Therefore, the 
Standard can be rescinded without affecting safety. Eliminating the 
Standard will remove the need to certify compliance with it.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited 
at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, 
Room 5109, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. It 
is requested, but not required, that 10 copies of the comments be 
provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 9:30 a.m. to 4 
p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Office of 
Vehicle Safety Standards, Office of Safety Performance Standards, 
NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Van 
Iderstine's telephone number is (202) 366-5280, and his FAX number is 
(202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative

    Pursuant to the March 4, 1995 directive ``Regulatory Reinvention 
Initiative'' from the President to the heads of departments and 
agencies, NHTSA has undertaken a review of its regulations and 
directives. During the course of this review, the agency identified 
several requirements and regulations that are potential candidates for 
rescission, including Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, 
Reflecting Surfaces (49 CFR 571.107).
    This document discusses why NHTSA believes Standard No. 107 can be 
rescinded without adversely affecting motor vehicle safety. That belief 
is based primarily on the vehicle manufacturers' established practice 
of using nonglossy materials and finishes on regulated and nonregulated 
components in the driver's forward field of view. Since the 
nonregulated components are not glossy, the agency believes that 
currently regulated components would not become glossy if they were 
deregulated.

[[Page 32936]]

Standard No. 107's Background

    Standard No. 107 specifies reflecting surface requirements for 
certain ``bright metal'' components in the driver's forward field of 
view. The components are the windshield wiper arms and blades, inside 
windshield mouldings, horn ring and hub of the steering wheel assembly, 
and the inside rearview mirror frame and mounting bracket. The standard 
requires that the specular gloss of the surface of materials used in 
the components must not exceed 40 units when tested. (``Specular 
gloss'' refers to the amount of light reflected from a test specimen.) 
The purpose of the standard is to reduce the likelihood that glare from 
the regulated components will distract drivers or interfere with their 
ability to view the driving environment ahead.

Previous Review of Need for Standard No. 107

    In a rulemaking during the late 1980's, NHTSA considered and 
ultimately rejected the possibility of extending Standard No. 107's 
specular gloss limitations to non-metallic surfaces. The issues raised 
in that rulemaking are relevant to the issue of whether Standard No. 
107 should be rescinded.
    In the NPRM proposing to extend Standard No. 107 to non-metallic 
surfaces, NHTSA considered three issues: (1) Whether there were safety 
benefits in retaining Standard No. 107; (2) whether there is 
justification to apply the specular gloss requirement to non-metallic 
versions of the components already covered by Standard No. 107; and (3) 
whether there is a need to expand Standard No. 107 to apply to other 
component parts (such as instrument panel pads). (November 13, 1987, 52 
FR 43628).
    Addressing the first issue, NHTSA noted Standard No. 107 was issued 
because the agency believed that the reflection of sun and bright 
lights off metallic components into the driver's eyes presented a 
potential safety problem which could be reduced by limiting the 
specular gloss of those items. Since a driver could still experience 
glare from sunlight and other bright lights, NHTSA concluded that 
Standard No. 107's limits on highly reflective components (i.e., 
possible sources of glare) still addressed a safety problem for 
drivers.
    Addressing the second issue, NHTSA proposed to expand the coverage 
of the Standard by eliminating the limitation to ``metal'' components. 
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the safety problem posed by glossy 
metallic components was indistinguishable from the problem posed by 
glossy non- metallic components. NHTSA proposed to extend the standard 
despite a manufacturer's comment that any material used for new 
components would not be highly reflective. The manufacturer stated its 
belief that surfaces in the driver's forward field of view in modern 
automobiles are seldom constructed of glossy components because bright 
finishes are ``incompatible with the new trends of matte-finish 
componentry and trim * * *''
    Addressing the third issue, NHTSA declined to propose extending 
Standard No. 107 to other vehicle components since it found no data 
showing that glare from unregulated components presents a safety 
problem. NHTSA also stated its belief that the absence of data showing 
that glare from unregulated components has presented a safety problem 
indicates that Standard No. 107 has correctly identified the components 
that are most likely to be the sources of hazardous glare.
    In 1989, NHTSA terminated the rulemaking because there was no 
substantiation that there was a safety problem with glare from non-
metallic surfaces (54 FR 35011, August 23, 1989). NHTSA concluded that 
because of the apparently insignificant nature of the safety problem 
(from reflected glare off non-metallic parts), and the costs of 
implementing the more expensive and complex test procedure necessary 
for non-metallic vehicle parts and materials, extending Standard No. 
107 was not appropriate.
    In 1991, NHTSA was petitioned by the Center for Auto Safety to 
include the instrument panel surface as one of the regulated items in 
Standard No. 107. The Center believed that such an action would 
``significantly limit dashboard reflections in windshields'', and limit 
``veiling glare'' as a ``major source of vision impairment.'' NHTSA 
denied this petition (see 56 FR 40853, August 16, 1991), after 
determining that there was no visibility problem which warranted 
Federal rulemaking. The agency could find no information showing that 
such dashboard reflections constituted a safety hazard. At the time, a 
search of the NHTSA consumer complaint file found only 23 complaints 
that were related to light reflections from the dashboard in over 
138,000 complaints (0.017 percent). In only one of those was there a 
possibility that the reflections may have contributed to an accident.
    In 1995, an updated search of the current file found 52 complaints 
that were related to dashboard glare in over 241,000 complaints (0.021 
percent). In only one of these was there a possibility that the 
reflections contributed to accidents. The insignificant change in the 
number of complaints reinforces the agency's prior determinations that 
there is no need to expand the scope of Standard No. 107.

Market Forces and Product Liability Concerns Have Eliminated the Need 
for Standard No. 107

    NHTSA believes that market forces continue to favor matte finishes 
and surfaces for components in the driver's field of view, and are 
reinforced by product liability concerns. Evidence of the impacts of 
these factors may be found in the virtual disappearance of horn rings 
and metallic inside windshield mountings and in the use of matte 
finishes on unregulated components. The agency also notes that 
nonmetallic materials are typically lighter weight than metallic ones.
    As a result of the use of matte finishes on regulated components in 
the driver's field of view, glare from those components has been 
substantially reduced. Increased use of matte-finished, non-metallic 
materials (hard plastic or rubber) for parts such as windshield wiper 
arms and blades, steering wheel assembly hubs, and inside rearview 
mirror frame and mounting brackets, mean fewer vehicle components must 
meet Standard No. 107.
    The decreasing tendency to use metal is also evident with respect 
to components not regulated by Standard No. 107. Since 1987, vehicle 
interior styling practices have favored a combination of hard plastic 
and padded faux leather, materials that do not reflect sufficient light 
to create glare. NHTSA believes that market forces will continue to 
favor matte finishes in the future.
NHTSA's Authority Over Safety Related Defects

    Although NHTSA believes future market forces will favor matte 
finishes, it is possible that motor vehicle designs, styles, and 
preferred materials will change. If such changes should result in motor 
vehicle components that may produce distracting glare in the driver's 
line of sight, NHTSA intends to review the situation through its 
statutory authority over safety related defects in motor vehicles and 
motor vehicle equipment.

Proposed Effective Date

    Because the proposed removal of Standard No. 107 would relieve 
restrictions without compromising safety, the agency tentatively has 
determined that there is good cause for [[Page 32937]] concluding that 
an effective date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in the public 
interest. Accordingly, the agency proposes that, if adopted, the 
effective date for the final rule be 30 days after its publication in 
the Federal Register.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rule was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 
(Regulatory Planning and Review). NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this 
rulemaking action and determined that it is not ``significant'' within 
the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures. The agency anticipates that making this rule final 
would not affect the materials and finishes choices of the 
manufacturers with respect to the currently regulated components. NHTSA 
believes that this proposal would not impose any additional costs and 
would not yield any significant savings. Any cost impacts would be so 
slight that they cannot be quantified. The impacts would be so minimal 
as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has 
evaluated the effects of this proposed action on small entities. Based 
upon this evaluation, I certify that the proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As noted above, this final rule would not affect the materials and 
finishes choices of the manufacturers with respect to the currently 
regulated components. Accordingly, this rule would not affect either 
vehicle or equipment manufacturers. Similarly, it would not affect 
purchasers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. The agency 
has determined that the proposed rule does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

4. National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency also has analyzed this proposed rule for the purpose of 
the National Environmental Policy Act, and determined that it would not 
have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

5. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    The proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

Procedures for Filing Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and 
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address 
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too 
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered 
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal 
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue 
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket 
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons 
continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, tires.

    In consideration of the following, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 571 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec. 571.107  [Removed]

    2. Section 571.107 would be removed in its entirety.

    Issued on: June 20, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-15526 Filed 6-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P