Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, 54209-54214 [2013-21370]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
apply to small entities as well as large
entities.
6. If the Commission changes the
application of the captions default-off
rule with regard to situations raised in
the comments to this proceeding, such
as to 911 calls, there may be costs to IP
CTS providers, including small
providers, in implementing such a
change. As noted above, the
Commission initially believes that such
costs would be reasonable, and the
public interest in ensuring access to 911
would outweigh this minimal burden,
and therefore no alternatives are
proposed for small entities. The Further
Notice seeks comment on the costs and
benefits of the proposal to require that
captions be turned on for all 911 calls
as well as the other modifications
proposed in the Further Notice,
including whether to require the
disassociation of volume control from
the use of captions, whether to permit
that captions be defaulted on for
answering machines, and whether to
permit captions to be defaulted on for IP
CTS phones that are available only to
registered users. The Commission will
consider any comments received that
propose alternatives that would reduce
the burden of any regulation on IP CTS
providers, including specific proposals
to reduce the regulatory burden on
small entities
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With Proposed
Rules
1. None.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Ordering Clauses
2. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), (j), and
(o), 225, and 403 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), (j), and (o), 225, and 403,
document FCC 13–118 Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking IS hereby
adopted.
3. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
document FCC 13–118 Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison, Office of the
Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2013–21273 Filed 8–30–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:11 Aug 30, 2013
Jkt 229001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0052]
RIN 2127–AL41
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices,
and Associated Equipment
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The agency is proposing to
amend the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard (FMVSS) on lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment to
allow the license plate mounting surface
on motorcycles to be at an angle of up
to 30 degrees beyond vertical. Adoption
of this proposal would increase
manufacturer design flexibility without
compromising safety or increasing costs.
In addition, it would also make the
requirements of the standard more in
line with European regulations.
DATES: Comments to this proposal must
be received on or before November 4,
2013.
SUMMARY:
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
https://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
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54209
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received in 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 https://
www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
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 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. 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 straight-forward 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. It was the
agency’s goal during the rewrite process
to make no substantive changes to the
requirements of the standard.
Included in the third party documents
whose requirements were transferred to
the regulatory text of the standard was
SAE J587 OCT81, License Plate Lamps
(Rear Registration Plate Lamps). Among
other requirements derived from SAE
J587 OCT81, paragraph S6.3.3 of the
1 70
2 72
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
FR 77454, (Dec. 30, 2005).
FR 68234, (Dec. 4, 2007).
03SEP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
54210
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
final rule required that the rear license
plate holder be mounted at an angle ±
15 degrees of a plane perpendicular to
that on which the vehicle stands.
In response to the final rule, the
agency received petitions for
reconsideration from Harley-Davidson
Motor Company (Harley-Davidson)
(January 18, 2008) and Ford Motor
Company (Ford) (January 18, 2008)
asking the agency to reconsider the
mounting angle requirements for license
plate holders. In addition to the
petitions for reconsideration filed by
Harley-Davidson and Ford, the agency
had previously received a petition for
rulemaking from the Motorcycle
Industry Council (MIC) on March 14,
2005, requesting that the agency modify
the license mounting angle requirement
to allow license plates to be mounted
between 30 degrees upward and 15
degrees downward of a plane
perpendicular to that on which the
vehicle stands. MIC also submitted an
untimely petition for reconsideration of
the FMVSS No. 108 final rule on March
19, 2009, requesting that the agency
amend the license plate angle mounting
requirement. Pursuant to its procedural
regulations, the agency has treated that
untimely petition as a petition for
rulemaking.3
Harley-Davidson and Ford argued
that, in their view, license plate holders
are not lamps, reflective devices or
associated equipment and, therefore,
were not regulated under the pre-rewrite
version of FMVSS No. 108. HarleyDavidson and Ford stated that since the
pre-rewrite version of FMVSS No. 108
did not regulate license plate holders,
regulating license plate holders in the
final rule imposed a substantive change
in the requirements of the standard
contrary to the agency’s stated policy in
the final rule. Additionally, HarleyDavidson and Ford stated that the
license plate mounting provisions of
SAE J587 OCT81 were intended as
instructions for evaluating the
photometric performance of license
plate lamps, not as a requirement for
how license plates must be mounted on
a vehicle. Finally, Harley-Davidson
requested that if the agency decided that
the license plate mounting angle was
regulated under FMVSS No. 108, the
agency amend the final rule so that the
mounting angle requirements are the
same as the most recent revision of SAE
Standard J587 and the requirements in
the European Union which both allow
motorcycle license plates to be mounted
at an angle 30 degrees upward from
vertical.
3 49
CFR 553.35.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:11 Aug 30, 2013
Jkt 229001
In its 2005 petition for rulemaking,
MIC asked NHTSA to harmonize the
license plate mounting angle
requirements for motorcycles with
European requirements. MIC argued that
changing the license plate mounting
angle would not adversely affect safety
or interfere with law enforcement’s
ability to read license plates. MIC stated
that by allowing a 30 degree upward
angle, the license plate lamp can be
physically located closer to the plate,
retaining the incident angle and
providing the same amount of
illumination. Locating the license plate
lamp closer to the plate would allow the
rear of the motorcycle to be designed to
be shorter with no effect on the real
world illumination. MIC stated that
harmonization also has benefits in
reducing unnecessary design and
manufacturing efforts, as well as
reducing unnecessary parts-sourcing
and parts-supply complexity, allowing
manufacturers to apply these resource
savings to other, more important issues.
In separate notices issued on April 26,
2011, NHTSA granted a petition for
rulemaking to amend the license plate
angle mounting requirement in FMVSS
No. 108 4 and denied the petitions for
reconsideration of the 2007 final rule on
the same issue.5 In the notice denying
the petitions for reconsideration,
NHTSA set forth the justification for
why the agency considers the mounting
angle of a license plate to be regulated
under FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA is
issuing this NPRM as a result of granting
the petition for rulemaking to amend the
license plate angle mounting
requirement in paragraph S6.3.3 of
FMVSS No. 108.
II. Agency Proposal
NHTSA is proposing to amend
FMVSS No. 108 to change the license
plate mounting requirements for
motorcycles to allow license plate
mounting angles of up to 30 degrees
upward from vertical (an installed plate
will face above the horizon) if the upper
edge of the license plate is not more
than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) from the
ground. The maximum downward angle
(an installed plate will face below the
horizon) at which a motorcycle license
plate could be mounted would remain
15 degrees as would the maximum
upward angle on motorcycles for which
the upper edge of the license plate was
more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) from the
ground. NHTSA believes that amending
the motorcycle license plate mounting
4 See 76 FR 23254, (April 26, 2011) (granting
petition for rulemaking).
5 See 76 FR 23255, (April 26, 2011) (denying
petitions for reconsideration).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
angle requirements to allow mounting
angles of up to 30 degrees upward from
vertical if the upper edge of the license
plate is not more than 1.2 m (47.25
inches) above the ground would reduce
costs for manufacturers by allowing
them to use the same mounting
hardware for the license plate in both
the U.S. and Europe. We do not believe
that this proposal would compromise
safety because the proposed changes to
the license plate mounting angle
requirement would not affect law
enforcement or the public’s ability to
view the plate.
Amending the motorcycle license
plate mounting requirements to make
the requirements more in line with
European regulations will increase
manufacturer design flexibility without
decreasing safety. Increasing
manufacturer design flexibility and
decreasing manufacturer costs in this
case will allow manufacturers to better
allocate resources which lead to
increased compliance and increased
safety. The agency is also soliciting
comment on amending the mounting
angle requirement for all other types of
vehicles to allow license plates to be
mounted at an angel of up to 30 degrees
upward of vertical in order to maintain
the consistency across vehicle classes
that currently exist. After receiving
public comment the agency may decide
to allow license plates to be mounted on
all vehicles at an angle of up to 30
degrees upward of vertical. The agency
may also decide to allow license plates
to be mounted at an angle of up to 30
degrees upward of vertical only on all
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 10,000 pounds and less.
NHTSA is also soliciting comment on
adopting the license plate mounting
angle requirements contained in
European Economic Community (EEC)
Directive 93/94/EEC. Directive 93/94/
EEC is different from the agency’s
proposal in that it permits a motorcycle
license plate to be mounted up to 30
degrees upward from vertical if the
upper edge of the license plate is not
more than 1.5 m (59.1 inches) from the
ground. Directive 93/94/EEC specifies
that the upper edge of the license plate
must not be more than 1.5 m above the
ground when the vehicle is unladen
while the agency’s proposal does not
contain a maximum mounting height for
motorcycle license plates. Directive 93/
94/EEC applies only to motorcycles and
not other vehicles.
In addition to visually observing
license plate characters by eye sight,
many law enforcement and traffic
management organizations use license
plate recognition (reading) technology to
read license plate characters. NHTSA
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
invited one license plate reader
manufacturer to demonstrate its
equipment to NHTSA personnel.6 Based
on this demonstration and
conversations with the manufacturer
about the capabilities of the license
plate reading system, NHTSA has
tentatively concluded that allowing
license plates to be mounted at an angle
of 30 degree upward from vertical will
not affect the ability of license plate
recognition technology to read license
plate characters. NHTSA seeks comment
as to whether allowing motorcycle
license plates to be mounted at an angle
of 30 degrees upward from vertical will
negatively affect the ability of license
plate recognition technology to read
license plate characters.
III. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed
Compliance Date
Because this proposal is intended to
increase manufacturer design flexibility
by amending the license plate mounting
angle requirements for motorcycles, the
agency does not anticipate that there
will be any costs associated with this
rulemaking action. The agency believes
that this rulemaking action will result in
minor benefits resulting from cost
saving associated with increased design
flexibility that would not exceed $0.05
per motorcycle. Because the agency
does not believe that benefits from this
rulemaking action will rise to the level
that the action will be economically
significant, the agency did not conduct
a separate economic analysis for this
rulemaking.
The agency proposes an effective date
of 60 days after the final rule should one
be published.
IV. Public Participation
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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.7 We
established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a
concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents
to your comments. There is no limit on
the length of the attachments.
Please submit your comments by any
of the following methods:
6 The demonstration was conducted on March 12,
2008, by Jason T. Laquatra/Vice President of Field
Operations ELSAG North America, Law
Enforcement Systems, and his associate.
7 See 49 CFR 553.21.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:11 Aug 30, 2013
Jkt 229001
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to
https://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 Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus
allowing the agency to search and copy
certain portions of your submissions.8
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 https://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s
guidelines may be accessed at https://
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
8 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54211
confidential business information
regulation.9
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 https://
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
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.’’ The proposal
contained in this rulemaking document
does not result in any increased costs or
significant benefits. Therefore, it is not
considered to be significant under E.O.
12866 or the Department’s regulatory
policies and procedures.
9 See
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
49 CFR 512.
03SEP1
54212
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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.
This notice proposes to more closely
align the U.S. regulatory requirements
for mounting motorcycle license plates
with those of European countries. The
proposed changes will increase
manufacturer design flexibility without
decreasing safety. Increasing
manufacturer design flexibility and
decreasing manufacturer costs in this
case will allow manufacturers to better
allocate resources which lead to
increased compliance and increased
safety.
NHTSA requests public comment on
whether there are any ‘‘regulatory
approaches taken by foreign
governments’’ concerning the subject
matter of this rulemaking, beyond those
already mentioned in this notice, which
the agency should consider.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:11 Aug 30, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This proposal amends the license plate
mounting angle for motorcycles. We do
not anticipate that there will be any
increased costs as a result of this
rulemaking action. Accordingly, we do
not anticipate that this proposal would
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s
proposed 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 proposed 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 nonidentical 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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 10 NHTSA has
10 61
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
03SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
considered whether this rulemaking
would have any retroactive effect. This
proposed rule does not have any
retroactive effect.
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
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.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 11 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
11 62
FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:11 Aug 30, 2013
Jkt 229001
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. The primary
effects of this proposal are to amend the
license plate mounting angle for
motorcycles.
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.
While SAE J587 APR 1997, License
Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate
Lamps), contains a mounting angle
requirement for motorcycles similar to
the agency’s proposal, the agency did
not believe that it would be appropriate
to adopt J587 APR 1997 in its entirety.
FMVSS 108 currently requires that
when a single lamp is used to illuminate
the plate, the lamp and license plate
holder shall bear such relation to each
other that at no point on the plate will
the incident light make an angle of less
than 8 degrees to the plane of the plate.
SAE J587 APR 1997 version eliminated
this requirement. While the agency
considered incorporating SAE J587 APR
1997 in its entirety, we concluded that
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54213
the deletion of the test requirement to
maintain an 8 degree relationship
between the lamp and the license plate
holder might negatively impact the
direction toward which the plate
reflects the light provided by the license
plate lamp. For this reason the agency
has decided to not to use a voluntary
consensus standard in this regulatory
activity.
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 12 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.
This proposal amends the license
plate mounting angle for motorcycles.
Therefore, this proposed rule will not
have any adverse energy effects.
Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking
action is not designated as a significant
energy action.
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.
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?
12 66
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
03SEP1
54214
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
• 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.
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 https://www.dot.gov/
privacy.html.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Chapter V as set forth below.
be perpendicular within 30 degrees
upward (an installed plate will face
above the horizon) and 15 degrees
downward (an installed plate will face
below the horizon).
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 22,
2013 under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013–21370 Filed 8–30–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2012–0088;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AZ17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Removing Five Subspecies
of Mazama Pocket Gopher From the
Candidate List for Endangered and
Threatened Species
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571
continues to read as follows:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental
information.
SUMMARY:
AGENCY:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.95.
2. Section 571.108 is amended by
revising S6.6.3 and adding S6.6.3.1 and
S6.6.3.2 to read as follows:
■
§ 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps,
reflective devices, and associated
equipment.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
*
*
*
*
*
S6.6.3 License plate holder. Each
rear license plate holder must be
designed and constructed to provide a
substantial plane surface on which to
mount the plate.
S6.6.3.1 Except as provided in
S6.6.3.2, the plane of the license plate
mounting surface and the plane on
which the vehicle stands must be
perpendicular within 15 degrees
upward (an installed plate will face
above the horizon) and 15 degrees
downward (an installed plate will face
below the horizon).
S6.6.3.2 For motorcycles on which
the license plate is designed to be
mounted on the vehicle such that the
upper edge of the license plate is 1.2 m
or less from the ground, the plane of the
license plate mounting surface and the
plane on which the vehicle stands must
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:11 Aug 30, 2013
Jkt 229001
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), remove five
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher
(Tacoma, Brush Prairie, Shelton,
Olympic, and Cathlamet) from the list of
candidates for listing as threatened or
endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. After review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the Tacoma
pocket gopher is likely extinct; the
Brush Prairie pocket gopher was
misidentified as a subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher and was added to the list
in error; and listing of the Shelton,
Olympic, and Cathlamet pocket gophers
is not warranted. However, we invite
the submission of any new information
concerning the status of, or threats to,
the Shelton, Olympic, or Cathlamet
pocket gophers or their habitats to our
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section) whenever it
becomes available. New information
will help us monitor these three
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher
and encourage their conservation. If an
emergency situation develops for any of
these three subspecies or any other
species, we will act to provide
immediate protection. We will continue
to monitor these three subspecies of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Mazama pocket gopher as species of
concern.
ADDRESSES: This notice and supporting
documentation are available on the
internet at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/
indexPublic.do and https://
www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS–
R1–ES–2012–0088). Supporting
documentation for this determination is
also available for inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE., Lacey,
WA 98503; by telephone at 360–753–
9440; or by facsimile at 360–534–9331.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
S. Berg, Manager, Washington Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES, above).
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
(Act), requires that we identify species
of wildlife and plants that are
endangered or threatened, based on the
best available scientific and commercial
information. As defined in section 3 of
the Act, an endangered species is any
species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and a threatened species is
any species which is likely to become
an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Through
the Federal rulemaking process, we add
species that meet these definitions to
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50
CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we
maintain a list of species that we regard
as candidates for listing. A candidate
species is one for which we have on file
sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support a
proposal to list as endangered or
threatened, but for which preparation
and publication of a proposal is
precluded by higher priority listing
actions. We may identify a species as a
candidate for listing after we have
conducted an evaluation of its status on
our own initiative, or after we have
made a positive finding on a petition to
list a species.
We maintain this list of candidates for
a variety of reasons: To notify the public
that these species are facing threats to
their survival; to provide advance
knowledge of potential listings that
could affect decisions of environmental
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54209-54214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21370]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0052]
RIN 2127-AL41
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: The agency is proposing to amend the Federal motor vehicle
safety standard (FMVSS) on lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment to allow the license plate mounting surface on motorcycles to
be at an angle of up to 30 degrees beyond vertical. Adoption of this
proposal would increase manufacturer design flexibility without
compromising safety or increasing costs. In addition, it would also
make the requirements of the standard more in line with European
regulations.
DATES: Comments to this proposal must be received on or before November
4, 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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received in 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 https://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://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 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. 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 straight-forward 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.
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).
\2\ 72 FR 68234, (Dec. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in the third party documents whose requirements were
transferred to the regulatory text of the standard was SAE J587 OCT81,
License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps). Among other
requirements derived from SAE J587 OCT81, paragraph S6.3.3 of the
[[Page 54210]]
final rule required that the rear license plate holder be mounted at an
angle 15 degrees of a plane perpendicular to that on which
the vehicle stands.
In response to the final rule, the agency received petitions for
reconsideration from Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-Davidson)
(January 18, 2008) and Ford Motor Company (Ford) (January 18, 2008)
asking the agency to reconsider the mounting angle requirements for
license plate holders. In addition to the petitions for reconsideration
filed by Harley-Davidson and Ford, the agency had previously received a
petition for rulemaking from the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) on
March 14, 2005, requesting that the agency modify the license mounting
angle requirement to allow license plates to be mounted between 30
degrees upward and 15 degrees downward of a plane perpendicular to that
on which the vehicle stands. MIC also submitted an untimely petition
for reconsideration of the FMVSS No. 108 final rule on March 19, 2009,
requesting that the agency amend the license plate angle mounting
requirement. Pursuant to its procedural regulations, the agency has
treated that untimely petition as a petition for rulemaking.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 CFR 553.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harley-Davidson and Ford argued that, in their view, license plate
holders are not lamps, reflective devices or associated equipment and,
therefore, were not regulated under the pre-rewrite version of FMVSS
No. 108. Harley-Davidson and Ford stated that since the pre-rewrite
version of FMVSS No. 108 did not regulate license plate holders,
regulating license plate holders in the final rule imposed a
substantive change in the requirements of the standard contrary to the
agency's stated policy in the final rule. Additionally, Harley-Davidson
and Ford stated that the license plate mounting provisions of SAE J587
OCT81 were intended as instructions for evaluating the photometric
performance of license plate lamps, not as a requirement for how
license plates must be mounted on a vehicle. Finally, Harley-Davidson
requested that if the agency decided that the license plate mounting
angle was regulated under FMVSS No. 108, the agency amend the final
rule so that the mounting angle requirements are the same as the most
recent revision of SAE Standard J587 and the requirements in the
European Union which both allow motorcycle license plates to be mounted
at an angle 30 degrees upward from vertical.
In its 2005 petition for rulemaking, MIC asked NHTSA to harmonize
the license plate mounting angle requirements for motorcycles with
European requirements. MIC argued that changing the license plate
mounting angle would not adversely affect safety or interfere with law
enforcement's ability to read license plates. MIC stated that by
allowing a 30 degree upward angle, the license plate lamp can be
physically located closer to the plate, retaining the incident angle
and providing the same amount of illumination. Locating the license
plate lamp closer to the plate would allow the rear of the motorcycle
to be designed to be shorter with no effect on the real world
illumination. MIC stated that harmonization also has benefits in
reducing unnecessary design and manufacturing efforts, as well as
reducing unnecessary parts-sourcing and parts-supply complexity,
allowing manufacturers to apply these resource savings to other, more
important issues.
In separate notices issued on April 26, 2011, NHTSA granted a
petition for rulemaking to amend the license plate angle mounting
requirement in FMVSS No. 108 \4\ and denied the petitions for
reconsideration of the 2007 final rule on the same issue.\5\ In the
notice denying the petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA set forth the
justification for why the agency considers the mounting angle of a
license plate to be regulated under FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA is issuing
this NPRM as a result of granting the petition for rulemaking to amend
the license plate angle mounting requirement in paragraph S6.3.3 of
FMVSS No. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 76 FR 23254, (April 26, 2011) (granting petition for
rulemaking).
\5\ See 76 FR 23255, (April 26, 2011) (denying petitions for
reconsideration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Agency Proposal
NHTSA is proposing to amend FMVSS No. 108 to change the license
plate mounting requirements for motorcycles to allow license plate
mounting angles of up to 30 degrees upward from vertical (an installed
plate will face above the horizon) if the upper edge of the license
plate is not more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) from the ground. The
maximum downward angle (an installed plate will face below the horizon)
at which a motorcycle license plate could be mounted would remain 15
degrees as would the maximum upward angle on motorcycles for which the
upper edge of the license plate was more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) from
the ground. NHTSA believes that amending the motorcycle license plate
mounting angle requirements to allow mounting angles of up to 30
degrees upward from vertical if the upper edge of the license plate is
not more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) above the ground would reduce costs
for manufacturers by allowing them to use the same mounting hardware
for the license plate in both the U.S. and Europe. We do not believe
that this proposal would compromise safety because the proposed changes
to the license plate mounting angle requirement would not affect law
enforcement or the public's ability to view the plate.
Amending the motorcycle license plate mounting requirements to make
the requirements more in line with European regulations will increase
manufacturer design flexibility without decreasing safety. Increasing
manufacturer design flexibility and decreasing manufacturer costs in
this case will allow manufacturers to better allocate resources which
lead to increased compliance and increased safety. The agency is also
soliciting comment on amending the mounting angle requirement for all
other types of vehicles to allow license plates to be mounted at an
angel of up to 30 degrees upward of vertical in order to maintain the
consistency across vehicle classes that currently exist. After
receiving public comment the agency may decide to allow license plates
to be mounted on all vehicles at an angle of up to 30 degrees upward of
vertical. The agency may also decide to allow license plates to be
mounted at an angle of up to 30 degrees upward of vertical only on all
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds and less.
NHTSA is also soliciting comment on adopting the license plate
mounting angle requirements contained in European Economic Community
(EEC) Directive 93/94/EEC. Directive 93/94/EEC is different from the
agency's proposal in that it permits a motorcycle license plate to be
mounted up to 30 degrees upward from vertical if the upper edge of the
license plate is not more than 1.5 m (59.1 inches) from the ground.
Directive 93/94/EEC specifies that the upper edge of the license plate
must not be more than 1.5 m above the ground when the vehicle is
unladen while the agency's proposal does not contain a maximum mounting
height for motorcycle license plates. Directive 93/94/EEC applies only
to motorcycles and not other vehicles.
In addition to visually observing license plate characters by eye
sight, many law enforcement and traffic management organizations use
license plate recognition (reading) technology to read license plate
characters. NHTSA
[[Page 54211]]
invited one license plate reader manufacturer to demonstrate its
equipment to NHTSA personnel.\6\ Based on this demonstration and
conversations with the manufacturer about the capabilities of the
license plate reading system, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that
allowing license plates to be mounted at an angle of 30 degree upward
from vertical will not affect the ability of license plate recognition
technology to read license plate characters. NHTSA seeks comment as to
whether allowing motorcycle license plates to be mounted at an angle of
30 degrees upward from vertical will negatively affect the ability of
license plate recognition technology to read license plate characters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The demonstration was conducted on March 12, 2008, by Jason
T. Laquatra/Vice President of Field Operations ELSAG North America,
Law Enforcement Systems, and his associate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Compliance Date
Because this proposal is intended to increase manufacturer design
flexibility by amending the license plate mounting angle requirements
for motorcycles, the agency does not anticipate that there will be any
costs associated with this rulemaking action. The agency believes that
this rulemaking action will result in minor benefits resulting from
cost saving associated with increased design flexibility that would not
exceed $0.05 per motorcycle. Because the agency does not believe that
benefits from this rulemaking action will rise to the level that the
action will be economically significant, the agency did not conduct a
separate economic analysis for this rulemaking.
The agency proposes an effective date of 60 days after the final
rule should one be published.
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.\7\ We established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to https://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 Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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 https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at https://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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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 https://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
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.'' The proposal contained
in this rulemaking document does not result in any increased costs or
significant benefits. Therefore, it is not considered to be significant
under E.O. 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies and
procedures.
[[Page 54212]]
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.
This notice proposes to more closely align the U.S. regulatory
requirements for mounting motorcycle license plates with those of
European countries. The proposed changes will increase manufacturer
design flexibility without decreasing safety. Increasing manufacturer
design flexibility and decreasing manufacturer costs in this case will
allow manufacturers to better allocate resources which lead to
increased compliance and increased safety.
NHTSA requests public comment on whether there are any ``regulatory
approaches taken by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter
of this rulemaking, beyond those already mentioned in this notice,
which the agency should consider.
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.
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 significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposal amends the license plate mounting angle for
motorcycles. We do not anticipate that there will be any increased
costs as a result of this rulemaking action. Accordingly, we do not
anticipate that this proposal would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's proposed 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 proposed
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)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' \10\
NHTSA has
[[Page 54213]]
considered whether this rulemaking would have any retroactive effect.
This proposed rule does not have any retroactive effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
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.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule does not pose such a risk for children. The
primary effects of this proposal are to amend the license plate
mounting angle for motorcycles.
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.
While SAE J587 APR 1997, License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration
Plate Lamps), contains a mounting angle requirement for motorcycles
similar to the agency's proposal, the agency did not believe that it
would be appropriate to adopt J587 APR 1997 in its entirety. FMVSS 108
currently requires that when a single lamp is used to illuminate the
plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to
each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make
an angle of less than 8 degrees to the plane of the plate. SAE J587 APR
1997 version eliminated this requirement. While the agency considered
incorporating SAE J587 APR 1997 in its entirety, we concluded that the
deletion of the test requirement to maintain an 8 degree relationship
between the lamp and the license plate holder might negatively impact
the direction toward which the plate reflects the light provided by the
license plate lamp. For this reason the agency has decided to not to
use a voluntary consensus standard in this regulatory activity.
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 \12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal amends the license plate mounting angle for
motorcycles. Therefore, this proposed rule will not have any adverse
energy effects. Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking action is not
designated as a significant energy action.
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.
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?
[[Page 54214]]
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.
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
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Chapter V 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, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
2. Section 571.108 is amended by revising S6.6.3 and adding S6.6.3.1
and S6.6.3.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
S6.6.3 License plate holder. Each rear license plate holder must be
designed and constructed to provide a substantial plane surface on
which to mount the plate.
S6.6.3.1 Except as provided in S6.6.3.2, the plane of the license
plate mounting surface and the plane on which the vehicle stands must
be perpendicular within 15 degrees upward (an installed plate will face
above the horizon) and 15 degrees downward (an installed plate will
face below the horizon).
S6.6.3.2 For motorcycles on which the license plate is designed to
be mounted on the vehicle such that the upper edge of the license plate
is 1.2 m or less from the ground, the plane of the license plate
mounting surface and the plane on which the vehicle stands must be
perpendicular within 30 degrees upward (an installed plate will face
above the horizon) and 15 degrees downward (an installed plate will
face below the horizon).
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 22, 2013 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-21370 Filed 8-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
