Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Reflecting Surfaces

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95-50; Notice 2]

RIN 2127-AF74

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Reflecting Surfaces

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, NHTSA rescinds the Federal motor vehicle

safety standard that regulates the reflectivity of specified metallic

components located in front of the driver. This action is part of the

agency's efforts to implement the President's Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative. In issuing this rule, the agency concludes that rescinding

the standard will not adversely affect motor vehicle safety.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective May 6, 1996.

Petitions for Reconsideration: Any petitions for reconsideration of

this final rule must be received by NHTSA no later than May 6, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Any petition for reconsideration of this final rule should

refer to the docket and notice number set forth in the heading of this

notice and be submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street

SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Office of

Vehicle Safety Standards, Office of Safety Performance Standards,

NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Van

Iderstine's telephone number is (202) 366-5280. The FAX number is (202)

366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative

NHTSA has undertaken a review of its regulations pursuant to the

March 4, 1995, directive ``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative'' from the

President to the heads of departments and agencies. During the course

of this review, the agency identified several requirements and

regulations that are potential candidates for rescission, including

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, Reflecting surfaces (49

CFR Sec. 571.107).

In this final rule, NHTSA concludes that Standard No. 107 can be

rescinded without adversely affecting motor vehicle safety. That

conclusion is based on the agency's finding that the vehicle

manufacturers established a practice of using nonglossy materials and

matte finishes on unregulated components as well as on regulated

components. Since the manufacturers have elected to use non-glossy

surfaces on components that are not subject to the standard, the agency

concludes that rescinding the regulatory requirements will not result

in the return of the glossy surfaces that originally prompted the

agency to issue the standard. In reaching this conclusion, NHTSA also

notes that the virtual elimination of metallic components within the

driver's forward field of view has already reduced the effective scope

of the standard to the level of insignificance.

Background

Standard No. 107 specifies reflectance requirements that apply to

specified metallic components in the driver's forward field of view:

the windshield wiper arms and blades, the inside windshield moldings,

the horn ring and hub of the steering wheel assembly, and the inside

rearview mirror frame and mounting bracket. The standard requires that

the specular gloss of the surface of these components not exceed 40

units when tested. (``Specular gloss'' refers to the amount of light

reflected from a test specimen.) The purpose of the standard

[[Page 11588]]

is to reduce the likelihood that glare from the regulated components

will distract drivers or interfere with their vision.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On June 26, 1995 (60 FR 32935), NHTSA published a notice of

proposed rulemaking to rescind Standard No. 107. In reviewing the

history of the standard, the agency cited its earlier termination of a

rulemaking to extend Standard No. 107's specular gloss limits to non-

metallic surfaces (54 FR 35011; August 23, 1989). NHTSA terminated that

rulemaking after concluding that the non-metallic surfaces had not been

shown to cause glare that would affect the driver's performance.

In proposing to rescind the standard, NHTSA regarded the 1989

termination as having a bearing on the continuance of the standard.

NHTSA noted that matte finishes were being used on components in front

of the driver and stated its belief that market forces would continue

to favor matte finishes and surfaces for components in the driver's

field of view, and would be reinforced in that respect by product

liability concerns. Evidence of the influence of these factors may be

found in the disappearance of steering wheel rings and metallic

windshield mountings, and in the use of matte finishes on unregulated

as well as regulated components.

Further, NHTSA stated that the need for the standard has been

reduced by the increased use of non-metallic materials (hard plastic or

rubber) for parts such as windshield wiper arms and blades, steering

wheel assembly hubs, and inside rearview mirror frame and mounting

brackets. The substitution of non-metallic surfaces removes these

vehicle components from the scope of Standard No. 107.

NHTSA continued by noting that the decreasing tendency to use metal

is also evident with respect to components not regulated by Standard

No. 107. Since 1987, vehicle interior styling practices have favored a

combination of hard plastic and padded faux leather, materials that do

not reflect sufficient light to create glare.

NHTSA's Response to Public Comments on the NPRM

In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received comments from the Insurance

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Chrysler Corporation, the Truck

Manufacturers Association, the Association of International Automobile

Manufacturers, Inc., Vehicle Improvement Products Inc., the Advocates

for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) and the State of Connecticut

(Connecticut). All commenters, except for Advocates and Connecticut,

supported rescission of the standard. The commenters that favored

rescission agreed with NHTSA that established industry practices in

using nonglossy materials and finishes on both regulated and

unregulated components in the driver's forward field of view have

eliminated the need for Standard No. 107. While IIHS agreed that

Standard No. 107 should be rescinded, it objected to NHTSA's reliance

on product liability considerations and recall procedures as rationales

for the rescission.

In opposing the rescission, Advocates asserted that the defects

authority would be inadequate as an alternative to the standard, in

part because the rescission of the standard might enable the

manufacturers to argue that a glossy surface could not be a ``defect,''

and in part because the defects process is protracted and may often

prove inconclusive. In Advocates' view, product liability litigation

was available before the adoption of the standard and would not

constitute a changed fact that could justify rescinding the standard

(citing a comment by IIHS on the agency's proposed rescission of

Standard No. 211).

In rescinding Standard No. 107, NHTSA affirms its view that the

presence of the defects authority and product liability considerations

will act to constrain manufacturers from producing vehicles with high-

gloss metallic surfaces. The agency regards these factors as real and

effective constraints, whatever their limitations.

However, the agency's principal basis for rescission continues to

be the evident and universal practice by manufacturers of designing

their vehicles to avoid the use of these surfaces, whether or not

regulated. The standard was promulgated at a time when the prevailing

design practice favored the use of chrome and other metallic surfaces,

inside the vehicle as well as outside. The move away from these

surfaces has been in part a matter of trends in styling, but also a

response to regulatory forces and to the imperative to cut costs.

The chrome steering wheel hub, for example, and the horn ring, are

effectively barred by the installation of driver air bags. The metallic

rear-view mirror mounts have been displaced by cheaper and easier-to-

install adhesive mountings that attach directly to the window. The

metallic windshield mounting ring has been replaced by mounting

techniques that produce a better bond as well as a better appearance.

By referring in the NPRM to the effects of market forces, the

agency was alluding to these specific measures. Despite Advocates'

concerns, none of these measures appears vulnerable to being abandoned

because of the dictates of fashion. They are real changes which have

every likelihood of being permanent. Their collective effect has been

to reduce the scope of Standard No. 107 almost to the vanishing point.

In the agency's view, the standard no longer serves its purpose and may

therefore be rescinded with no adverse effect on motor vehicle safety.

The agency thus concurs with IIHS's view that the principal basis for

rescission is that Standard No. 107 has ``become out of date.''

In an analogous rulemaking, NHTSA decided not to specify in

Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment,

that headlamps and taillamps of motorcycles be illuminated at all times

when the engine is running, because the motorcycle industry already

provided such performance on almost all motorcycles. (See 26 FR 32899,

June 25, 1981.)

The reasoning used to extend Standard No. 214, Side impact

protection, to light trucks, which Advocates suggests as a precedent,

is not apposite here. Although Advocates correctly noted that light

trucks were already meeting the passenger car dynamic side impact

protection requirements, the agency regarded the rapid proliferation of

new light truck models as necessitating a standard that would prevent

new models from falling below the level of current models. By contrast,

the use of low-gloss, non-metallic surfaces throughout the vehicle has

been the industry practice for years and shows no sign of changing.

Further, the Standard No. 214 rulemaking involved a much more

significant safety problem than the one addressed by Standard No. 107.

The State of Connecticut favored one uniform national standard and

therefore opposed rescission of Standard No. 107. Once the rescission

of Standard No. 107 becomes effective, the States will be free to adopt

reflecting surface requirements differing from those in the rescinded

standard since there will no longer be a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) to preempt non-identical State laws. Connecticut

stated that without a Federal safety standard, there is a possibility

that the 50 States will issue different (and possibly conflicting)

standards on reflecting surfaces.

NHTSA does not share Connecticut's concern that rescission of

Standard No.

[[Page 11589]]

107 will result in individual States regulating reflecting surfaces.

There is not now, and there is not likely to be in the future, a safety

problem from reflecting surfaces in the view of the driver. Thus, there

will not be a safety problem for the States to regulate.

If a State is nevertheless disposed to regulate in this area, it

may do so. The fact that no State has previously chosen to regulate

components not regulated by Standard No. 107 is a good basis for

believing that there is no need for States to regulate.

Effective Date

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed that if a final rule rescinding

Standard No. 107 is published, the effective date for the final rule be

30 days after publication in the Federal Register. NHTSA received no

comments on this issue. Thus, the agency determines that there is good

cause shown that an effective date earlier than 180 days after issuance

is in the public interest. Following publication of the NPRM, the

agency amended the provisions in 49 CFR Sec. 553.35 regarding petitions

for reconsideration to extend the period within which petitions may be

filed to 45 days (60 FR 62221; December 5, 1995). Accordingly, the

final rule will take effect 45 days after its publication in the

Federal Register.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final rule was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review). NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this

rulemaking action and determined that it is not ``significant'' within

the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies

and procedures. The final rule does not impose any costs. If the

elimination of the necessity for certifying compliance with Standard

No. 107 enables vehicle and equipment manufacturers to use fewer

resources in assessing the reflectivity of the components formerly

covered by the Standard, there will be a slight cost savings. For these

reasons, the impacts will be so minimal that preparation of a full

regulatory evaluation is not warranted.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this final rule will

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. As explained above, the rule will not impose any new

requirements but will relieve a restriction for design of certain

components in the driver's forward field of view. The final rule may

have a very slight beneficial effect on small manufacturers and dealers

of motor vehicle equipment since they will no longer have to certify

compliance with a safety standard on reflecting surfaces. For these

reasons, small businesses, small organizations and small governmental

units which purchase motor vehicles will not be significantly affected

by the final rule. Accordingly, a final regulatory flexibility analysis

has not been prepared.

3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles

and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. The agency has

determined that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

4. National Environmental Policy Act

The agency also has analyzed this final rule for the purpose of the

National Environmental Policy Act, and determined that it will not have

any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

5. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

This final rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under 49

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable

to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal

standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a

higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for

the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial

review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber

products, tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as

set forth below:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Sec. 571.107 [Removed]

2. Section 571.107 is removed and reserved.

Issued on: March 13, 1996.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-6745 Filed 3-20-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P