[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rescinded without adversely affecting motor vehicle safety.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