[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6815-6817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3291]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 567
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5047]
RIN 2127-AG65
Vehicle Certification; Contents of Certification Labels for
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles and Light Duty Trucks
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends NHTSA's regulations on vehicle certification
that specify the contents of the certification labels that
manufacturers are required to affix to new motor vehicles. The
amendment requires the certification label for multipurpose passenger
vehicles (MPVs) and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
6,000 pounds or less to specify that the vehicle complies with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and theft prevention standards.
Under the prior regulations, the certification labels on these vehicles
needed only to state that the vehicles comply with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The amendment conforms the
certification requirements to legislation making the theft prevention
standard applicable to MPVs and trucks rated at 6,000 pounds or less.
DATES: The amendment established by this final rule will be effective
on June 11, 1999. As such, the amendment applies to MPVs and trucks
with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less that are manufactured on or after
that date.
Any petitions for reconsideration must be received by NHTSA not
later than March 29, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number above and be submitted to Administration, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. (202-366-5238).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
This rule was preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that NHTSA published on June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34623). As explained in
the NPRM, in June 1996, NHTSA received a letter from American Honda
Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) seeking clarification of certain vehicle
certification requirements in 49 CFR Part 567. The letter noted that
section 567.4(g)(5)(ii) of those regulations requires the certification
label on 1987 and subsequent model year passenger cars manufactured on
or after April 24, 1986, to state that the vehicle ``conforms to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention
standards in effect on the date of manufacture . . . .'' Honda's letter
further noted that under a provision of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992
now codified at 49 U.S.C. 33101, the definition of vehicles subject to
the major parts marking requirements of the theft prevention standard
was expanded to include ``a multi-purpose passenger vehicle or light
duty truck when that vehicle or truck is rated at not more than 6,000
pounds gross vehicle weight.'' This prompted Honda to observe that the
language prescribed for certification labels at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5) may
have to be amended to reflect these vehicles' conformity with the theft
prevention standard.
In its response to Honda's letter, NHTSA noted that although the
Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 contains no explicit requirement for such an
amendment to the vehicle certification regulations, the agency agreed
that this amendment should be made so that the certification
requirements for MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less
are consistent with those in sections 567.4(g)(5)(i) and (ii) that
apply specifically to passenger cars.
Accordingly, the NPRM proposed to amend the certification
regulations to require the certification label for MPVs and trucks with
a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less to specify that the vehicle complies
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and theft prevention
standards. The NPRM also stated that this requirement would apply to
vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1999 so that affected
manufacturers would have adequate lead time to exhaust their existing
inventory of certification labels and
[[Page 6816]]
have new labels printed if the amendment were adopted.
B. Comments
Three comments were submitted in response to the NPRM. The first of
these was from Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (Mercedes-Benz) on
behalf of its parent company, Daimler-Benz AG of Stuttgart, Germany. In
this comment, Mercedes-Benz stated that it supported the proposal to
amend 49 CFR Part 567 to require the certification label for MPVs and
trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less to specify that the vehicle
complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and theft
prevention standards. Mercedes-Benz observed that if a vehicle is
subject to the parts marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard, or is exempted from those requirements as a result of a
petition submitted to NHTSA under 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption From
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, the manufacturer should be able to
identify this information on the certification label, as Mercedes-Benz
claims is presently done for passenger cars.
The agency notes that there is no provision within Part 543 for a
certification label to reflect that a vehicle has been exempted from
the theft prevention standard. In the final rule establishing that
part, published on September 8, 1988 at 52 FR 33821, NHTSA discussed
the generally unfavorable comments that it had received from vehicle
manufacturers on whether the certification label should reflect the
exempt status of a high theft line vehicle. The agency concluded that
it is unnecessary to require such a statement on the certification
label because such information would only be of benefit to law
enforcement officials, and those officials could obtain information on
exempt high theft lines from alternate sources, including the agency's
annual publication of the list of high theft lines in Appendix A to 49
CFR Part 541. See 52 FR 338222-23.
The second comment was submitted by the Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), which identified itself
as a trade association that represents companies that sell passenger
cars and light trucks in the United States that are manufactured both
here and abroad. In this comment, AIAM observed that if January 1, 1999
were retained as the effective date of the final rule, as proposed in
the NPRM, manufacturers would not have sufficient lead time to comply
with the new requirement. AIAM requested that manufacturers be given
120 days lead time to implement the proposed changes and to exhaust
their existing supply of certification labels. AIAM noted that a
minimum of 120 days is typically needed following the promulgation of a
final rule for a manufacturer to coordinate the needed design change,
certification activities, and parts changes with suppliers and assembly
plants. AIAM also noted that delaying implementation of the final rule
for 120 days will give manufacturers sufficient time to exhaust their
supply of the existing label.
NHTSA recognizes the validity of the issue raised by AIAM.
Accordingly, the agency had delayed the effective date of this final
rule until 120 days after the date of its publication.
The third comment was submitted by John Russell Deane III, who
identified himself as the General Counsel of the Speciality Equipment
Market Association (SEMA). In his comment, Mr. Deane recommended that
NHTSA amend 49 CFR 567.7, the provision in the certification
regulations that prescribes requirements for persons who alter
certified vehicles, so that it is consistent with the amendments to the
certification requirements for manufacturers proposed in the NPRM. Mr.
Deane noted that although vehicle alterers have a statutory
responsibility to certify that any vehicle they alter that is subject
to the theft prevention standard remains in compliance with that
standard following the completion of the alterations, section 567.7 has
never been amended to reflect that requirement.
Because NHTSA did not propose an amendment to section 567.7 in the
NPRM, it is now constrained from amending that section as part of this
final rule. The agency recognizes, however, the validity of the issues
raised by Mr. Deane, and will commence rulemaking shortly to address
the disparity that now exists between the certification
responsibilities for manufacturers and those for alterers with regard
to the theft prevention standard.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rule was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has analyzed
this rule and determined that it is not ``significant'' within the
meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the amendment resulting from this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Motor vehicle manufacturers who will be affected by the
rule typically would not qualify as small entities. This amendment will
also have no effect on small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental units. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis has
been prepared.
3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No State laws will be
affected.
4. National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has considered the environmental implications of this
rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and determined that the rule would not significantly affect the human
environment.
5. Civil Justice Reform
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. It modifies an
existing Federal regulation to make it consistent with a statutory
requirement. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceeding will not be a prerequisite to an action seeking judicial
review of this rule. This rule does not preempt the states from
adopting laws or regulations on the same subject, except that it does
preempt a state regulation that is in actual conflict with the Federal
regulation or makes compliance with the Federal regulation impossible
or interferes with the implementation of the Federal statute.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 567
Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, Sec. 567.4, Requirements for
manufacturers of motor vehicles, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations at Part 567 is amended as follows:
PART 567--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 567 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, and 30115, 30117, 30166, 32502,
32504, 33101-33104, and 33109; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
[[Page 6817]]
2. Section 567.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g)(5)(iii),
to read as follows:
Sec. 567.4 Requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) In the case of multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and
trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after
June 11, 1999, the expression ``and theft prevention'' shall be
included in the statement following the word ``safety''.
* * * * *
Issued on: February 4, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-3291 Filed 2-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
