81 FR 6454 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 25 (February 8, 2016)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 25 (February 8, 2016)
| Page Range | 6454-6458 | |
| FR Document | 2016-02268 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 6454-6458] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![6454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
submit written comments on the rule on substantial number of small entities. As organizations. An agency may not
or before December 28, 2015. The DEA discussed above and in the interim final conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
received one comment in response to rule, this product was previously required to respond to, a collection of
the publication of the interim final rule exempted under a different company information unless it displays a
voicing support for the action. The DEA name. The Deputy Assistant currently valid OMB control number.
appreciates the support for the rule. Administrator, in accordance with the
Congressional Review Act
This exclusion only applies to the RFA, has reviewed this regulation and
finished drug product in the form of an by approving it certifies that this This rule is not a major rule as
inhaler (in the exact formulation regulation will not have a significant defined by section 804 of the Small
detailed in the application for economic impact on a substantial Business Regulatory Enforcement
exclusion), which is lawfully sold under number of small entities. Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional
the FD&C Act over-the-counter without Review Act (CRA)). This rule will not
Executive Order 12988 result in: An annual effect on the
a prescription. The extraction or
removal of the active ingredient This regulation meets the applicable economy of $100,000,000 or more; a
(levmetamfetamine) from the inhaler standards set forth in sections 3(a) and major increase in costs or prices for
shall negate this exclusion and result in 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil consumers, individual industries,
the possession of a schedule II Justice Reform,’’ to eliminate drafting Federal, State, or local government
controlled substance. errors and ambiguity, minimize agencies, or geographic regions; or
litigation, provide a clear legal standard significant adverse effects on
Regulatory Analyses for affected conduct, and promote competition, employment, investment,
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 simplification and burden reduction. productivity, innovation, or on the
This regulation has been developed in Executive Order 13132 ability of United States-based
accordance with the Executive Orders companies to compete with foreign-
This rulemaking does not have based companies in domestic and
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and federalism implications warranting the
Review,’’ section 1(b) and Executive export markets.
application of Executive Order 13132.
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation The rule does not have substantial List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308
and Regulatory Review.’’ The DEA has direct effects on the States, on the Administrative practice and
determined that this rule is not a relationship between the Federal procedure, Drug traffic control,
significant regulatory action, and Government and the States, or the Reporting and recordkeeping
accordingly this rule has not been distribution of power and requirements.
reviewed by the Office of Management responsibilities among the various
and Budget. As discussed above, this levels of government. PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF
product was previously exempted under CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
a different company name. As discussed Executive Order 13175
in the interim final rule, this action will This rule does not have tribal Accordingly, for the reasons stated
not have an annual effect on the implications warranting the application above, the interim final rule that was
economy of $100 million or more or of Executive Order 13175. This rule published in the Federal Register on
adversely affect in a material way the does not have substantial direct effects October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65632), is
economy, a sector of the economy, on one or more Indian tribes, on the adopted as a final rule without change.
productivity, competition, jobs, the relationship between the Federal Dated: February 2, 2016.
environment, public health or safety, or Government and Indian tribes, or on the Louis J. Milione,
State, local or tribal governments or distribution of power and Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
communities; create a serious responsibilities between the Federal Diversion Control.
inconsistency or otherwise interfere Government and Indian tribes. [FR Doc. 2016–02404 Filed 2–5–16; 8:45 am]
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; materially alter the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
budgetary impact of entitlements, The DEA has determined and certifies
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
rights and obligations of recipients Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
thereof; or raise novel legal or policy 1501 et seq., that this action would not National Highway Traffic Safety
issues arising out of legal mandates, the result in any Federal mandate that may Administration
President’s priorities, or the principles result ‘‘in the expenditure by State,
set forth in Executive Order 12866. local, and tribal governments, in the 49 CFR Part 571
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted for [Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0073]
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) inflation) in any one year * * *.’’
(5 U.S.C. 601–612) applies to rules that RIN 2127–AL27
Therefore, neither a Small Government
are subject to notice and comment. The Agency Plan nor any other action is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
DEA determined, as explained in the required under provisions of the UMRA. Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices,
interim final rule, that public notice and
and Associated Equipment
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
comment were impracticable and Paperwork Reduction Act
contrary to the public interest. This rule does not impose a new AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Consequently, the RFA does not apply. collection of information requirement Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Although the RFA does not apply to this under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 Department of Transportation (DOT).
rulemaking, the DEA has reviewed the U.S.C. 3501–3521. This action would ACTION: Final rule.
potential impacts of this final rule and not impose recordkeeping or reporting
determined that it will not have a requirements on State or local SUMMARY: NHTSA is amending the side
significant economic impact on a governments, individuals, businesses, or marker requirements contained in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM 08FER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_6479/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 6455
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard FMVSS No. 108 in 2007.2 Before friendly by significantly reducing the
(FMVSS) on lamps, reflective devices considering the changes made by this number of third-party documents, such
and associated equipment for vehicles final rule, it is useful to briefly examine as SAE 6 standards, incorporated by
80 inches or more in width and less the evolution of the side marker reference. Prior to the reorganization,
than 30 feet long. This final rule adopts requirements before 2007. FMVSS No. 108 would, in many
the amendments proposed in the Notice Relevant to the present rulemaking is instances, specify requirements by
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), a change that was made to the side simply referencing an SAE standard
published on December 4, 2012. These marker requirements in 1980 in (which contained the requirements),
amendments will restore the side response to a petition for rulemaking instead of explicitly specifying those
marker photometry requirements for from Chrysler Corporation.3 At the time requirements in the text of FMVSS No.
motor vehicles under thirty feet in of the Chrysler petition, FMVSS No. 108 108. However, when the standard was
length that were in place prior to the required that the photometric reorganized in 2007, requirements
2007 final rule that reorganized the requirements for side marker lamps be contained in the referenced third-party
standard. Restoration of the side marker met at test points 45 degrees outboard standards were included directly in the
requirements will have no negative and inboard of the lateral center line regulatory text, instead of incorporating
impact on safety or function and will passing through the lamps. FMVSS No. the requirements by referencing the
allow motor vehicle manufacturers to 108, however, permitted an additional standard that contained those
avoid unnecessary modifications to compliance option for vehicles less than requirements. The agency explained
their side marker lamps with no added 80 inches in width. This additional that the reorganization was
safety or functional benefit. compliance option had the effect of administrative in nature and that the
relaxing the inboard photometry FMVSS No. 108 requirements were not
DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2016.
requirements for the side marker being increased, decreased, or
Compliance Date: Optional early
lamps.4 Chrysler—which wanted to use substantively modified.
compliance as discussed below.
a common side marker design for its However, the newly revised version of
Petitions for Reconsideration: single-wheeled (less than 80 inches FMVSS No. 108 inadvertently changed
Petitions for reconsideration of this final wide) and its dual-wheeled (greater than the alternative compliance option for
rule must be received not later than 80 inches wide) pickup trucks— side marker lamps. Prior to the
March 24, 2016. petitioned to make this compliance reorganization, side marker lamps were
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for option available to all vehicles required to conform to SAE Standard
reconsideration should refer to the regardless of width. NHTSA agreed with J592e (July 1972) (i.e., the requirements
docket number of this document and be Chrysler that eligibility for the were specified using incorporation by
submitted to: Administrator, National additional compliance option should reference). In addition, the pre-
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, not depend on a vehicle’s width, but did reorganization regulatory text also
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West not agree that it should be available to explicitly specified the alternative
Building, Ground Floor, Docket Room all vehicles. The agency explained that compliance option that was the subject
W12–140, Washington, DC 20590. the additional compliance option would of the 1980 final rule.7 The side marker
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: not be appropriate for vehicles that are lamp requirements specified in SAE
For technical issues: Mr. Wayne 30 feet or longer.5 Accordingly, the 1980 J592e (July 1972) also included (in a
McKenzie, Office of Crash Avoidance final rule revised FMVSS No. 108 by footnote) an alternative compliance
Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey deleting the words ‘‘80 inches in overall option for vehicles less than 80 inches
Avenue SE., West Building, width’’ and substituting ‘‘30 feet in wide. This was the same compliance
Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: overall length.’’ option for which the agency had deleted
(202) 366–1729) (Fax: (202) 366–7002). The next change to the side marker the words ‘‘80 inches in overall width’’
requirements relevant to this final rule and added the words ‘‘30 feet in overall
For legal issues: Mr. John Piazza,
occurred in 2007, when NHTSA length’’ in the 1980 final rule. When
Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
reorganized FMVSS No. 108. The NHTSA reorganized FMVSS No. 108 in
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
reorganization was intended to 2007, the requirements contained in
Building, Washington, DC 20590
streamline the regulatory text and SAE Standard J592e (July 1972) were
(Telephone: (202) 366–2992) (Fax: (202)
clarify the standard’s requirements. That included directly into the regulatory
366–3820).
final rule made the standard more user- text of FMVSS No. 108, thus eliminating
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
the incorporation by reference; 8 this
2 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). The reorganized
I. Background standard did not take effect until December 1, 2012.
included the width-based compliance
76 FR 48009 (Aug. 8, 2011). option that we had deleted from FMVSS
Side marker lamps have been required
3 45 FR 45287 (July 3, 1980). No. 108 in 1980. Accordingly, the 2007
by FMVSS No. 108 since it was 4 Specifically, under this additional compliance reorganization specified the alternative
promulgated as one of the initial Federal option, the photometric requirements could be met compliance option that for each motor
Motor Vehicles Safety Standards in for all inboard test points at a distance of 15 feet
vehicle less than 30 feet in overall
1967.1 The main purpose of side marker from the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle length and less than 2032 mm [80
lamps is to indicate the overall length of
and located midway between the front and rear side inches] in overall width, the minimum
the vehicle. The photometric marker lamps. This results in an angle of less than photometric intensity requirements for a
requirements are meant to ensure that 45 degrees instead of the fixed 45 degrees that was
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
the side marker lamps are sufficiently otherwise required, so that the side marker lamp
6 The Society of Automotive Engineers (now SAE
visible from a range of viewing angles. was effectively permitted to illuminate a smaller
area than it otherwise would have been required to International). SAE is an organization that develops
This final rule addresses an illuminate. See 45 FR 45287 (July 3, 1980) (citing technical standards based on best practices.
unintentional change NHTSA made to 49 CFR 571.108, S4.1.1.8). 7 The 1980 final rule placed this requirement in
the photometric requirements for side 5 This is because testing of side marker lamps is S4.1.1.8. Due to subsequent amendments, at the
done at a distance of 15 feet perpendicular to the time of the 2007 reorganization, the requirement
marker lamps when it reorganized was in S5.1.1.8.
vehicle and at a 45 degree angle. At such a distance
and angle, only a vehicle 30 feet long or under 8 The requirements were placed in a new table,
1 See 32 FR 2408 (Feb. 3, 1967). would have both of its side marker lamps visible. Table X.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM 08FER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_6479/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 6457
final rule allows manufacturers to avoid sufficient federalism implications to Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.,
the cost of redesigning the side marker warrant consultation with State and 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
lamps for dual-wheeled pickup trucks local officials or the preparation of a Pursuant to Executive Order 13132
because these vehicles can now federalism summary impact statement. and 12988, NHTSA has considered
continue to meet the side marker The final rule would not have whether this rule could or should
photometry requirements for narrower ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, preempt State common law causes of
vehicles. Because there are not any costs on the relationship between the national action. The agency’s ability to announce
associated with this rulemaking and government and the States, or on the its conclusion regarding the preemptive
only minor benefits, we have not distribution of power and effect of one of its rules reduces the
prepared a separate economic analysis responsibilities among the various likelihood that preemption will be an
for this rulemaking. levels of government.’’ issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
NHTSA rules can preempt in two To this end, the agency has examined
B. Executive Order 13609: Promoting the nature (e.g., the language and
International Regulatory Cooperation ways. First, the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an structure of the regulatory text) and
The policy statement in section 1 of express preemption provision: ‘‘When a objectives of this rule and finds that this
Executive Order 13609 provides, in part: motor vehicle safety standard is in effect rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign under this chapter, a State or a political only a minimum safety standard. As
governments may differ from those taken by subdivision of a State may prescribe or such, NHTSA does not intend that this
U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar continue in effect a standard applicable rule preempt state tort law that would
issues. In some cases, the differences to the same aspect of performance of a effectively impose a higher standard on
between the regulatory approaches of U.S. motor vehicle manufacturers than that
motor vehicle or motor vehicle
agencies and those of their foreign established by this rule. Establishment
counterparts might not be necessary and equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed of a higher standard by means of State
might impair the ability of American
businesses to export and compete under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. tort law would not conflict with the
internationally. In meeting shared challenges 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command minimum standard announced here.
involving health, safety, labor, security, by Congress that preempts any non- Without any conflict, there could not be
environmental, and other issues, identical State legislative and any implied preemption of a State
international regulatory cooperation can administrative law addressing the same common law tort cause of action.
identify approaches that are at least as aspect of performance.
protective as those that are or would be E. National Environmental Policy Act
adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
The express preemption provision set
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule
International regulatory cooperation can also forth above is subject to a savings clause
for the purposes of the National
reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with a
Environmental Policy Act. The agency
differences in regulatory requirements. motor vehicle safety standard prescribed
has determined that implementation of
NHTSA is not aware of any under this chapter does not exempt a
this action would not have any
conflicting regulatory approach taken by person from liability at common law.’’
significant impact on the quality of the
a foreign government concerning the 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
human environment.
subject matter of this rulemaking. provision, State common law tort causes
of action against motor vehicle F. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act manufacturers that might otherwise be Under the procedures established by
In compliance with the Regulatory preempted by the express preemption the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l et seq., provision are generally preserved. person is not required to respond to a
NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this However, the Supreme Court has collection of information by a Federal
action on small entities. I hereby certify recognized the possibility, in some agency unless the collection displays a
that this rule would not have a instances, of implied preemption of valid OMB control number. This final
significant impact on a substantial such State common law tort causes of rule would not establish any new
number of small entities. The final rule action by virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even information collection requirements.
would affect manufacturers of motor if not expressly preempted. This second
vehicle light equipment, but the entities way that NHTSA rules can preempt is G. National Technology Transfer and
that qualify as small businesses would dependent upon there being an actual Advancement Act
not be significantly affected by this conflict between an FMVSS and the Under the National Technology
rulemaking because the agency is higher standard that would effectively Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
restoring requirements that previously be imposed on motor vehicle (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal
existed in an older version of the manufacturers if someone obtained a agencies and departments shall use
regulation. This rulemaking is not State common law tort judgment against technical standards that are developed
expected to affect the cost of the manufacturer, notwithstanding the or adopted by voluntary consensus
manufacturing motor vehicle lighting manufacturer’s compliance with the standards bodies, using such technical
equipment. NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards as a means to carry out policy
standards established by an FMVSS are objectives or activities determined by
D. Executive Order 13132 minimum standards, a State common the agencies and departments.’’ This
NHTSA has examined this rule law tort cause of action that seeks to final rule would not adopt or reference
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 impose a higher standard on motor any new industry or consensus
FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and vehicle manufacturers will generally not standards that were not already present
concluded that no additional be preempted. However, if and when in FMVSS No. 108.
consultation with States, local such a conflict does exist—for example,
governments or their representatives is when the standard at issue is both a H. Civil Justice Reform
mandated beyond the rulemaking minimum and a maximum standard— With respect to the review of the
process. The agency has concluded that the State common law tort cause of promulgation of a new regulation,
the rulemaking would not have action is impliedly preempted. See section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM 08FER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_6479/page/4.svg)
![6458 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, year. You may use the RIN contained in Issued in Washington, DC, on February 1,
February 7, 1996) requires that the heading at the beginning of this 2016 under authority delegated in 49 CFR
Executive agencies make every document to find this action in the 1.95.
reasonable effort to ensure that the Unified Agenda. Mark R. Rosekind,
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the Administrator.
L. Privacy Act
preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies [FR Doc. 2016–02268 Filed 2–5–16; 8:45 am]
the effect on existing Federal law or Anyone is able to search the BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
regulation; (3) provides a clear legal electronic form of all comments
standard for affected conduct, while received into any of our dockets by the
promoting simplification and burden name of the individual submitting the NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
reduction; (4) clearly specifies the comment (or signing the comment, if SAFETY BOARD
retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies submitted on behalf of an association,
whether administrative proceedings are business, labor union, etc.). You may 49 CFR Part 830
to be required before parties file suit in review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
[Docket No. NTSB–AS–2012–0001]
court; (6) adequately defines key terms; Statement in the Federal Register
and (7) addresses other important issues published on April 11, 2000 (Volume RIN 3147–AA11
affecting clarity and general 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).
draftsmanship under any guidelines Notification and Reporting of Aircraft
Regulatory Text Accidents or Incidents and Overdue
issued by the Attorney General. This
document is consistent with these List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft
requirements. Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes vehicles, Tires. AGENCY: National Transportation Safety
as follows. The preemptive effect of this
In consideration of the foregoing, Board (NTSB).
final rule is discussed above. NHTSA
notes further that there is no NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 571 as ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of
requirement that individuals submit a set forth below. effective date.
petition for reconsideration or pursue PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR SUMMARY: The NTSB publishes
other administrative proceeding before VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS confirmation of an amendment to its
they may file suit in court. regulations concerning notification and
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 reporting requirements with regard to
continues to read as follows: aircraft accidents or incidents, titled,
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, ‘‘Immediate notification.’’ The
written assessment of the costs, benefits 30117, 30166: delegation of authority at 49 regulation requires reports of Airborne
CFR 1.95. Collision and Avoidance System
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate ■ 2. Section 571.108 is amended by (ACAS) resolution advisories issued
likely to result in the expenditure by revising paragraph S7.4.13.2 and under certain specific circumstances. In
State, local or tribal governments, in the footnote 1 of Table X to read as follows: a Direct Final Rule published December
aggregate, or by the private sector, of 15, 2015, the NTSB narrowed the ACAS
§ 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reporting requirement, consistent with
more than $100 million annually reflective devices, and associated
(adjusted for inflation with base year of the agency’s authority to issue non-
equipment. controversial amendments to rules. The
1995). This final rule would not result * * * * *
in expenditures by State, local or tribal NTSB also updated its contact
S7.4.13.2 Inboard photometry. For information for notifications. This
governments, in the aggregate, or by the each motor vehicle less than 30 feet in
private sector in excess of $100 million document confirms the changes and the
overall length, the minimum effective date.
annually. photometric intensity requirements for a DATES: The final rule published
J. Executive Order 13211 side marker lamp may be met for all December 15, 2015 (80 FR 77586)
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, inboard test points at a distance of 15 becomes effective February 16, 2016.
May 18, 2001) applies to any feet from the vehicle and on a vertical
plane that is perpendicular to the ADDRESSES: A copy of this final rule,
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be published in the Federal Register, is
economically significant as defined longitudinal axis of the vehicle and
located midway between the front and available for inspection and copying in
under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have the NTSB’s public reading room, located
a significantly adverse effect on the rear side marker lamps.
at 490 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington,
supply of, distribution of, or use of * * * * *
DC 20594–2000. Alternatively, a copy of
energy; or (2) that is designated by the Table X—Side Marker Lamp the rule is available on the NTSB Web
Administrator of the Office of Photometry Requirements site, at http://www.ntsb.gov, and at the
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a government-wide Web site on
significant energy action. This * * * * *
(1) Where a side marker lamp regulations, at http://
rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211. www.regulations.gov.
installed on a motor vehicle less than 30
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) feet in overall length has the lateral FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Department of Transportation angle nearest the other required side Scott Dunham, National Resource
assigns a regulation identifier number marker lamp on the same side of the Specialist—ATC, Office of Aviation
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in vehicle reduced from 45° by design as Safety, (202) 314–6387.
the Unified Agenda of Federal specified by S7.4.13.2, the photometric SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations. The Regulatory Information intensity measurement may be met at As described in the NTSB’s preamble
Service Center publishes the Unified the lesser angle. summarizing the direct final rule, in
Agenda in April and October of each * * * * * 2010, the NTSB added a requirement for
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM 08FER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_6479/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2016-02-06 00:24:13
Document Modified: 2016-02-06 00:24:13
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| 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). | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 6454 | |
| RIN Number | 2127-AL27 | |
| CFR Associated | Imports; Motor Vehicle Safety; Motor Vehicles and Tires |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR