[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 27, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31294]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-72, Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AF75
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Extension of Comment Period for a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants three requests to extend the comment
period on an agency proposal to amend the geometric visibility
requirements of signal lamps and the rear side marker color, both
contained Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment. The goal of the proposed amendment is to assist
international efforts to harmonize the lighting requirements of
continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States. A
lengthy extension of the comment period is desirable because a large
number of governmental and industry parties require time to achieve
internal consensus on the usefulness of the NHTSA proposal. The comment
closing date is changed from December 26, 1995 to May 16, 1996.
DATES: Comments on docket 95-72, Notice 1 must be received on or before
May 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the Docket No. 95-72, Notice 1 and
be submitted to: Docket Section, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590 (Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Van Iderstine, Office of Safety
Performance Safety Standards, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5280, FAX
(202) 366- 4329. Please note that written comments should be sent to
the Docket Section rather than faxed to the above contact person.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA's proposal responded to a petition
from the Groupe Travail de Bruxelles 1952 (GTB). GTB is composed of
vehicle and lamp manufacturers from Europe, Japan and the United
States. GTB is an advisory group for the two organizations operating
under the United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe that are
involved in establishing motor vehicle lighting standards: The Meeting
of Experts on Lighting and Light Signaling (GRE) and the Working Party
on the Construction of Motor Vehicles (WP29). GTB requested the
extension of the comment period, and an extension was supported by
similar requests from the American Automobile Manufacturers Association
(AAMA) and the Chairman of GRE, Mr. G.J.M. Meekel.
In its comment period extension request, GTB explained the process
it was pursuing in its quest for harmonization. GTB submitted its
petition to NHTSA concurrently with its proposal to GRE for amendments
of the European regulations. NHTSA proposed some of the suggestions in
the GTB petition but not others. GTB believes that NHTSA's response has
greatly complicated its dealings with several European countries and
Japan. Therefore, according to GTB, arriving at a constructive response
to NHTSA's NPRM will not be a trivial matter. AAMA cited that a special
meeting of GTB to discuss these issues was not scheduled until December
20, 1995 and that any recommendations developed at this meeting could
not be acted upon by GRE until its Spring meeting. Mr. Meekel also
mentioned GRE's early Spring meeting and the desire for discussions
there and submission of comments resulting from that meeting.
It is NHTSA's general policy to deny requests for comment period
extensions based on the timing of formal meetings of interested
associations. Modern communication technology provides many rapid ways
(e.g., fax, teleconferencing, e- mail, etc.) for associations to
communicate with members and reach consensus. However, NHTSA believes
that GTB's desire for an extension is motivated by more than the mere
mechanics of international communication. NHTSA's proposal did not
provide GTB with the easiest path to harmonization. NHTSA understands
the difficulty of finding a signal lamp harmonization solution that
would benefit U.S. and international vehicle manufacturers while
satisfying the concerns of the various regulatory bodies. NHTSA agrees
that this first step toward lighting harmonization may be unusually
time-consuming if it is to be productive.
The agency wants to elevate international harmonization among its
priorities. However, it views a seven month comment period for this
notice as a special circumstance and not a precedent for future
rulemaking actions regarding harmonization.
After reviewing the situation, NHTSA agrees with the petitioners
that additional time is desirable so that GTB may determine the level
of flexibility on the part of European authorities for signal lighting
harmonization. Accordingly, the agency believes that there is good
cause for the extension and that the extension is consistent with the
public interest. Based on the above considerations, the agency has
decided to extend the comment period until May 16, 1996.
Issued on: December 19, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-31294 Filed 12-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
