[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 56 (Thursday, March 21, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11587-11589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6745]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95-50; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AF74


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Reflecting Surfaces

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, NHTSA rescinds the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standard that regulates the reflectivity of specified metallic 
components located in front of the driver. This action is part of the 
agency's efforts to implement the President's Regulatory Reinvention 
Initiative. In issuing this rule, the agency concludes that rescinding 
the standard will not adversely affect motor vehicle safety.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective May 6, 1996.
    Petitions for Reconsideration: Any petitions for reconsideration of 
this final rule must be received by NHTSA no later than May 6, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Any petition for reconsideration of this final rule should 
refer to the docket and notice number set forth in the heading of this 
notice and be submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street 
SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.

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. The FAX number is (202) 
366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative

    NHTSA has undertaken a review of its regulations pursuant to the 
March 4, 1995, directive ``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative'' from the 
President to the heads of departments and agencies. 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 Sec. 571.107).
    In this final rule, NHTSA concludes that Standard No. 107 can be 
rescinded without adversely affecting motor vehicle safety. That 
conclusion is based on the agency's finding that the vehicle 
manufacturers established a practice of using nonglossy materials and 
matte finishes on unregulated components as well as on regulated 
components. Since the manufacturers have elected to use non-glossy 
surfaces on components that are not subject to the standard, the agency 
concludes that rescinding the regulatory requirements will not result 
in the return of the glossy surfaces that originally prompted the 
agency to issue the standard. In reaching this conclusion, NHTSA also 
notes that the virtual elimination of metallic components within the 
driver's forward field of view has already reduced the effective scope 
of the standard to the level of insignificance.

Background

    Standard No. 107 specifies reflectance requirements that apply to 
specified metallic components in the driver's forward field of view: 
the windshield wiper arms and blades, the inside windshield moldings, 
the 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 these components not exceed 40 
units when tested. (``Specular gloss'' refers to the amount of light 
reflected from a test specimen.) The purpose of the standard

[[Page 11588]]
is to reduce the likelihood that glare from the regulated components 
will distract drivers or interfere with their vision.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On June 26, 1995 (60 FR 32935), NHTSA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking to rescind Standard No. 107. In reviewing the 
history of the standard, the agency cited its earlier termination of a 
rulemaking to extend Standard No. 107's specular gloss limits to non-
metallic surfaces (54 FR 35011; August 23, 1989). NHTSA terminated that 
rulemaking after concluding that the non-metallic surfaces had not been 
shown to cause glare that would affect the driver's performance.
    In proposing to rescind the standard, NHTSA regarded the 1989 
termination as having a bearing on the continuance of the standard. 
NHTSA noted that matte finishes were being used on components in front 
of the driver and stated its belief that market forces would continue 
to favor matte finishes and surfaces for components in the driver's 
field of view, and would be reinforced in that respect by product 
liability concerns. Evidence of the influence of these factors may be 
found in the disappearance of steering wheel rings and metallic 
windshield mountings, and in the use of matte finishes on unregulated 
as well as regulated components.
    Further, NHTSA stated that the need for the standard has been 
reduced by the increased use of 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. The substitution of non-metallic surfaces removes these 
vehicle components from the scope of Standard No. 107.
    NHTSA continued by noting that 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's Response to Public Comments on the NPRM

    In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received comments from the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Chrysler Corporation, the Truck 
Manufacturers Association, the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers, Inc., Vehicle Improvement Products Inc., the Advocates 
for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) and the State of Connecticut 
(Connecticut). All commenters, except for Advocates and Connecticut, 
supported rescission of the standard. The commenters that favored 
rescission agreed with NHTSA that established industry practices in 
using nonglossy materials and finishes on both regulated and 
unregulated components in the driver's forward field of view have 
eliminated the need for Standard No. 107. While IIHS agreed that 
Standard No. 107 should be rescinded, it objected to NHTSA's reliance 
on product liability considerations and recall procedures as rationales 
for the rescission.
    In opposing the rescission, Advocates asserted that the defects 
authority would be inadequate as an alternative to the standard, in 
part because the rescission of the standard might enable the 
manufacturers to argue that a glossy surface could not be a ``defect,'' 
and in part because the defects process is protracted and may often 
prove inconclusive. In Advocates' view, product liability litigation 
was available before the adoption of the standard and would not 
constitute a changed fact that could justify rescinding the standard 
(citing a comment by IIHS on the agency's proposed rescission of 
Standard No. 211).
    In rescinding Standard No. 107, NHTSA affirms its view that the 
presence of the defects authority and product liability considerations 
will act to constrain manufacturers from producing vehicles with high-
gloss metallic surfaces. The agency regards these factors as real and 
effective constraints, whatever their limitations.
    However, the agency's principal basis for rescission continues to 
be the evident and universal practice by manufacturers of designing 
their vehicles to avoid the use of these surfaces, whether or not 
regulated. The standard was promulgated at a time when the prevailing 
design practice favored the use of chrome and other metallic surfaces, 
inside the vehicle as well as outside. The move away from these 
surfaces has been in part a matter of trends in styling, but also a 
response to regulatory forces and to the imperative to cut costs.
    The chrome steering wheel hub, for example, and the horn ring, are 
effectively barred by the installation of driver air bags. The metallic 
rear-view mirror mounts have been displaced by cheaper and easier-to-
install adhesive mountings that attach directly to the window. The 
metallic windshield mounting ring has been replaced by mounting 
techniques that produce a better bond as well as a better appearance.
    By referring in the NPRM to the effects of market forces, the 
agency was alluding to these specific measures. Despite Advocates' 
concerns, none of these measures appears vulnerable to being abandoned 
because of the dictates of fashion. They are real changes which have 
every likelihood of being permanent. Their collective effect has been 
to reduce the scope of Standard No. 107 almost to the vanishing point. 
In the agency's view, the standard no longer serves its purpose and may 
therefore be rescinded with no adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. 
The agency thus concurs with IIHS's view that the principal basis for 
rescission is that Standard No. 107 has ``become out of date.''
    In an analogous rulemaking, NHTSA decided not to specify in 
Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment, 
that headlamps and taillamps of motorcycles be illuminated at all times 
when the engine is running, because the motorcycle industry already 
provided such performance on almost all motorcycles. (See 26 FR 32899, 
June 25, 1981.)
    The reasoning used to extend Standard No. 214, Side impact 
protection, to light trucks, which Advocates suggests as a precedent, 
is not apposite here. Although Advocates correctly noted that light 
trucks were already meeting the passenger car dynamic side impact 
protection requirements, the agency regarded the rapid proliferation of 
new light truck models as necessitating a standard that would prevent 
new models from falling below the level of current models. By contrast, 
the use of low-gloss, non-metallic surfaces throughout the vehicle has 
been the industry practice for years and shows no sign of changing. 
Further, the Standard No. 214 rulemaking involved a much more 
significant safety problem than the one addressed by Standard No. 107.
    The State of Connecticut favored one uniform national standard and 
therefore opposed rescission of Standard No. 107. Once the rescission 
of Standard No. 107 becomes effective, the States will be free to adopt 
reflecting surface requirements differing from those in the rescinded 
standard since there will no longer be a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) to preempt non-identical State laws. Connecticut 
stated that without a Federal safety standard, there is a possibility 
that the 50 States will issue different (and possibly conflicting) 
standards on reflecting surfaces.
    NHTSA does not share Connecticut's concern that rescission of 
Standard No.

[[Page 11589]]
107 will result in individual States regulating reflecting surfaces. 
There is not now, and there is not likely to be in the future, a safety 
problem from reflecting surfaces in the view of the driver. Thus, there 
will not be a safety problem for the States to regulate.
    If a State is nevertheless disposed to regulate in this area, it 
may do so. The fact that no State has previously chosen to regulate 
components not regulated by Standard No. 107 is a good basis for 
believing that there is no need for States to regulate.

Effective Date

    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed that if a final rule rescinding 
Standard No. 107 is published, the effective date for the final rule be 
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. NHTSA received no 
comments on this issue. Thus, the agency determines that there is good 
cause shown that an effective date earlier than 180 days after issuance 
is in the public interest. Following publication of the NPRM, the 
agency amended the provisions in 49 CFR Sec. 553.35 regarding petitions 
for reconsideration to extend the period within which petitions may be 
filed to 45 days (60 FR 62221; December 5, 1995). Accordingly, the 
final rule will take effect 45 days after its publication in the 
Federal Register.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final 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 final rule does not impose any costs. If the 
elimination of the necessity for certifying compliance with Standard 
No. 107 enables vehicle and equipment manufacturers to use fewer 
resources in assessing the reflectivity of the components formerly 
covered by the Standard, there will be a slight cost savings. For these 
reasons, the impacts will be so minimal that preparation of a full 
regulatory evaluation is not warranted.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this final rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. As explained above, the rule will not impose any new 
requirements but will relieve a restriction for design of certain 
components in the driver's forward field of view. The final rule may 
have a very slight beneficial effect on small manufacturers and dealers 
of motor vehicle equipment since they will no longer have to certify 
compliance with a safety standard on reflecting surfaces. For these 
reasons, small businesses, small organizations and small governmental 
units which purchase motor vehicles will not be significantly affected 
by the final rule. Accordingly, a final regulatory flexibility analysis 
has not been prepared.

3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. The agency has 
determined that the final 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 final rule for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act, and determined that it will not have 
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

5. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule will 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as 
set forth below:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues 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 is removed and reserved.

    Issued on: March 13, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6745 Filed 3-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P