[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71752-71756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29245]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0174]
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: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to restore the side marker lamp 
requirements, for vehicles that are over 80 inches wide, and also less 
than 30 feet in overall length, to the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard (FMVSS) on lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment. 
These requirements were modified when the agency published a final rule 
reorganizing the standard on December 4, 2007.

DATES: Comments to this proposal must be received on or before January 
3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in 
the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on 
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the 
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or the street 
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Markus 
Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-
0098) (Fax: (202) 366-7002).
    For legal issues: Mr. Thomas Healy, 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

    NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 
30, 2005 \1\ to reorganize FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and 
Associated Equipment, and improve the clarity of the standard's 
requirements thereby increasing its utility for regulated parties. It 
was the agency's goal during the rewrite process to make no substantive 
changes to the requirements of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 70 FR 77454, (Dec. 30, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments received in response to the NPRM, NHTSA 
published a final rule on December 4, 2007,\2\ amending FMVSS No. 108 
by reorganizing the regulatory text so that it provides a more 
straightforward and logical presentation of the applicable regulatory 
requirements; incorporating important agency interpretations of the 
existing requirements; and reducing reliance on third-party documents 
incorporated by reference. The preamble of the final rule again stated 
that the rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 was administrative in nature and 
would have no impact on the substantive requirements of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 72 FR 68234, (Dec. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. 2005 Administrative Rewrite NPRM

    On December 30, 2005, NHTSA published a NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 108 
by reorganizing the regulatory text so that it provides a more 
straight-forward and logical presentation of the applicable regulatory 
requirements.\3\ NHTSA explained in the 2005 NPRM that reorganizing the 
regulatory text and importing requirements from applicable SAE 
International standards incorporated by reference into the regulatory 
text would assist various stakeholders in easily finding and 
comprehending the requirements contained in the standard. The agency 
also explained that this rewrite was administrative in nature and that 
the proposed requirements were not being increased, decreased, or 
substantively modified. The proposed text for the photometric 
requirements for side marker lamps, read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 70 FR 77454, (Dec. 30, 2005).

    S7.4.1.1 Inboard photometry. For each motor vehicle less than 30 
feet in overall length and less than 2032 mm. in overall width, 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.

The Agency provided an analysis within Appendix B of the NPRM showing 
that this requirement was derived from both the regulatory text of 
FMVSS No. 108 S5.1.1.3 and SAE J592e, Jul 1972, Table I, Footnote b.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 70 FR at 77582, (Dec. 30, 2005).

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

[[Page 71753]]

B. 2007 Administrative Rewrite Final Rule

    On December 4, 2007 NHTSA adopted a final rule that amended FMVSS 
No. 108 based on the 2005 NPRM with modifications that furthered the 
objectives of the rewrite to make the requirements easier to find and 
understand. In the final rule NHTSA reiterated that the rewrite of the 
standard was administrative in nature and the requirements and 
obligations were not being increased, decreased, or substantively 
modified.
    In the preamble to the final rule, the agency explained that the 
inboard photometry requirements for side marker lamps (contained in 
paragraph S7.4.13.2) were based on paragraph S5.1.1.8 of the standard 
prior to the rewrite which applied to vehicles less than 30 feet in 
overall length.\5\ Additionally, the agency explained that Table 1 of 
SAE J592e, detailing the photometric requirements of side marker lamps, 
also contains a footnote `b' further limiting the vehicles to which 
reduced photometric requirements could be applied. Footnote `b' applies 
to vehicles that are less than 80 inches (2 meters) wide. The agency 
concluded that this was an example in which the text of an incorporated 
SAE document applied limitation beyond those contained in the text of 
FMVSS No. 108. Based on this conclusion, the agency made no revisions 
to the proposed text for the inboard photometric requirements for side 
marker lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 72 FR 68243, (Dec. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. 1980 Side Marker Final Rule

    The agency did not cite within its analysis in the 2007 final rule 
the 1980 final rule that originally created the regulatory text as it 
applies to the inboard photometric requirements, with respect to 
vehicle size.\6\ The 1980 final rule was in response to a petition from 
Chrysler Corporation 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. Prior to the 1980 final 
rule, FMVSS No. 108 required that 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. However if a vehicle 
was less than 80 inches in overall width, paragraph S4.1.1.8 allowed 
photometric measurements of side marker lamps to 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 45 FR 45287, (July 3, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1980 final rule explained that a reduced photometric angle 
allowance is more appropriate for vehicles that are short (less than 30 
feet) rather than for those that are narrow (less than 80 inches wide), 
noting that vehicles that are 30 feet or longer are required to have an 
intermediate side marker lamp located between the front and rear side 
makers. The 1980 final rule revised FMVSS No. 108 by deleting the words 
80 inches in overall width and substituting 30 feet in overall length.

II. The Agency's Proposal

    In July, separately, General Motors Company (GM) and Ford Motor 
Company, (Ford) met with NHTSA and stated their concern that the 1980 
final rule may not have been properly considered in the 2007 rewrite of 
FMVSS No. 108. Both manufacturers further stated that their current 
dual-wheeled pickup truck side marker designs would require an 
extensive redesign in order to meet the requirements of the 2007 final 
rule when it becomes effective on December 1, 2012.\7\ Finally, the 
agency received a petition for rulemaking from the Alliance of 
Automotive Manufacturers requesting the restoration of side marker 
requirements to match those in existence prior to the 2007 rewrite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 74 FR 58213, (Nov. 12, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a review of the 1980 final rule, NHTSA recognizes that 
paragraph S5.1.1.8 of the standard prior to the 2007 rewrite was 
intended to replace the SAE J592e, Table 1, footnote b, and not to 
supplement it. We are proposing to restore the photometric requirements 
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 seek comment on our current analysis and the impacts that 
such a modification to the 2007 rule will have on manufacturers.
    NHTSA believes that a common single-wheeled and dual-wheeled pickup 
truck side marker design expressed in Chrysler Corporation's original 
petition that led to the 1980 final rule still exists and is currently 
being utilized. Therefore, NHTSA will not pursue compliance actions 
against manufacturers that install side marker lamps on vehicles that 
are greater than 80 inches wide and shorter than 30 feet 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 until this 
rulemaking is either terminated or adopted as a final rule. NHTSA will 
consider a manufacturer's certification to FMVSS No. 108 complete if 
the vehicle that is being certified meets the requirements for side 
marker lamps that were in place prior to the 2007 final rule.

III. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Compliance Date

    Because this proposal only restores an existing requirement to the 
standard, the agency does not anticipate that there would be any costs 
associated with this rulemaking action. The agency expects some minor 
unquantifiable benefits to manufacturers due to their ability to 
continue to use side marker lamps of the same design on both narrow and 
wide vehicles under 30 feet in length. Accordingly, the agency did not 
conduct a separate economic analysis for this rulemaking.
    The National Highway and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states that an 
FMVSS issued by NHTSA cannot become effective before 180 days after the 
standard is issued unless the agency makes a good cause finding that a 
different effective date is in the public interest. The agency has 
tentatively concluded that it is in the public interest for this 
proposed rule to become effective as soon as possible after the final 
rule is issued, should the agency decide to issue a rule, because such 
an effective date would allow regulated parties to avoid unnecessarily 
modifying the design of their side marker lamps. The agency proposes an 
effective date of 30 days after the date of issuance of the final rule 
should one be issued.

IV. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be 
more than 15 pages long.\8\ We established this limit to encourage you 
to write your primary comments in a

[[Page 71754]]

concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents 
to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on 
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern 
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) 
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical 
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search 
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for 
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet 
the information quality standards set forth in the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we 
encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. 
OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to 
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon 
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by 
mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment 
containing information claimed to be confidential business information, 
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information 
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted 
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of 
the methods set forth above.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business 
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent 
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date. 
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the 
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit 
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should 
consider that information for the final rule.
    If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing 
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that 
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document 
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other 
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also 
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the 
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management 
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

V. 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 Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking 
document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 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.

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 requests public comment on whether (a) ``regulatory approaches 
taken by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter of this 
rulemaking exist and (b) the above policy statement has any 
implications for this rulemaking.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have reviewed this proposal 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.'' 13 CFR 121.105(a). 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.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of the proposed rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not 
have a

[[Page 71755]]

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This proposal amends the photometry requirements for side marker lamps 
on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length that were changed 
during the administrative rewrite of the standard. This proposal would 
not significantly affect any entities because it would restore the 
requirements for side mark lamps that are currently contained in the 
standard. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that this proposal would 
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 (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 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.'' (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 proposed 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 
proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, 
would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not 
intend that this proposed 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 proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not 
be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729; Feb. 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 that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of 
preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no 
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or 
pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in 
court.

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' \11\ 
NHTSA has considered whether this rulemaking would have any retroactive 
effect. This proposed rule does not have any retroactive effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 61 FR 4729, (Feb. 7, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 adopt 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 proposed rule is not anticipated to result in the expenditure 
by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector in

[[Page 71756]]

excess of $100 million annually. The cost impact of this proposed rule 
is expected to be $0. 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 proposed rule does not contain any collection 
of information requirements requiring review under the PRA.

I. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 \12\ 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. This proposed rule does not pose such a risk for 
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This proposal would not adopt or reference any new industry or 
consensus standards that were not already present in FMVSS No. 108.

K. Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 \13\ 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 proposed 
rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal amends the photometry requirements for side marker 
lamps on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length that were changed 
during the administrative rewrite of the standard. Therefore, this 
proposed rule will not have any adverse energy effects. Accordingly, 
this proposed 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.

M. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this proposal.

N. 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 organization, 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) or you may visit 
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 571 as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

    2. Section 571.108 is amended by revising paragraph S7.4.13.2 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.
* * * * *

    Issued on: November 28, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-29245 Filed 11-29-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P