[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46385-46390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22409]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 583
[Docket No. 92-64; Notice 9]
RIN 2127-AG46
Motor Vehicle Content Labeling
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Temporary final rule; Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under NHTSA's content labeling program, passenger motor
vehicles (passenger cars and other light vehicles) are required to be
labeled with
[[Page 46386]]
information about their domestic and foreign parts content. In response
to petitions for rulemaking submitted by the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association and General Motors, the agency is making a
limited, temporary amendment to its content calculation procedures to
provide vehicle manufacturers added flexibility in making content
determinations where outside suppliers have not responded to requests
for content information. This flexibility will only be available for up
to 10 percent, by value, of a carline's total parts content from
outside suppliers, and only for carlines offered for sale prior to
January 1, 1997. It will also only be available where manufacturers or
allied suppliers have made a good faith effort to obtain the
information. The agency is requesting comments on whether to provide
this or similar added flexibility for a longer period of time.
DATES: Effective date: The amendments made by this temporary rule are
effective September 3, 1996.
Comments: Comments must be received on or before October 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Orron Kee,
Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590
(202-366-0846).
For legal issues: Mr. J. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-2992).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 21, 1994, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (59 FR
37294) a new regulation, 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content
Labeling, to implement the American Automobile Labeling Act (Labeling
Act). That Act, which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 32304, requires
passenger motor vehicles to be labeled with information about their
domestic and foreign parts content. Interested persons are encouraged
to read the July 1994 notice for a detailed explanation of this
program.
NHTSA received several petitions for reconsideration of the July
1994 final rule, and has subsequently published three notices
addressing issues raised in those or subsequent petitions. In a final
rule published in the Federal Register (60 FR 14228) on March 16, 1995,
NHTSA partially responded to the petitions for reconsideration by
extending, for an additional year, a temporary alternative approach for
data collection and calculations. This option, which ceased to be
available effective June 1, 1996, permitted manufacturers and suppliers
to use procedures that are expected to yield similar results to the
full procedures set forth in Part 583. NHTSA provided this temporary
alternative approach in the 1994 final rule because there was
insufficient remaining time, before the statutory date for beginning to
provide labeling information, for manufacturers to complete the full
procedures. The agency provided the one-year extension of the temporary
approach in light of a substantial number of complex issues raised
about the full procedures in the petitions for reconsideration and the
time needed by the agency to address those issues.
The agency completed its response to the initial set of petitions
in a final rule published in the Federal Register (60 FR 47878) on
September 15, 1995. The agency made a number of changes to reduce the
burdens associated with making content calculations and to produce more
accurate information.
NHTSA received one petition for reconsideration of the September
1995 final rule, from the American Automobile Manufacturers Association
(AAMA). That organization re-raised an issue that it had raised in its
first petition, concerning a provision in Part 583 which specifies that
the U.S./Canadian content of components is defaulted to zero if outside
suppliers fail to respond to a manufacturer's or allied supplier's
request for content information.
On April 19, 1996, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (61 FR
17253) a notice denying AAMA's petition. The agency explained that it
believes that the ability to obtain the necessary content information
from suppliers is within the control of the vehicle manufacturers.
Petitions for Rulemaking
NHTSA has received petitions for rulemaking from AAMA (on behalf of
some of its members) and General Motors (GM) which again raise concerns
about the provision in Part 583 which specifies that the U.S./Canadian
content of components is defaulted to zero if suppliers fail to respond
to a manufacturer's or allied supplier's request for content
information. According to the petitioners, although a great deal of
effort has been put forth to obtain certificates from suppliers, some
vehicle manufacturers continue to have difficulty with non-responsive
suppliers. The petitioners requested that the agency immediately extend
for an additional six months the temporary procedures that have been in
place for the last two years. The petitioners also requested again that
NHTSA permit vehicle manufacturers and allied suppliers to make good-
faith content determinations when their outside suppliers fail to do
so.
AAMA and GM made several arguments in support of their petitions.
First, the petitioners stated that NHTSA took six months to respond to
the earlier petition for reconsideration, leaving only six weeks for
manufacturers to calculate U.S./Canadian content for 1997 model year
vehicles under new rules. They argued that it is unreasonable to expect
compliance with this provision of the rule when the agency took so long
to respond to the earlier petition.
Second, AAMA and GM stated that while NHTSA has concluded that
automakers can easily cause supplier compliance by contract, the
supplier relationship is much more complex than whether the supplier
provides one piece of data to the purchaser. They argued that to expect
a shift in production from one supplier to another for not supplying
AALA data is not realistic. The petitioners also argued that even if a
non-responsive supplier is penalized under the contract, the penalty
paid to the manufacturer is not compensatory because the ``damages''
that result are not financial but result in an understated U.S./
Canadian content value for the manufacturer's vehicles.
Third, AAMA and GM argued that any procedure that requires 100
percent compliance and does not provide alternative approaches to
determine the result will understate the U.S./Canadian value and
provide false information to the consumer. Finally, AAMA and GM stated
that NHTSA permits outside suppliers to make certain ``best effort''
determinations of where value was added, and argued that it is
inequitable not to permit allied suppliers and vehicle manufacturers
this same flexibility.
Representatives of GM met with NHTSA staff on June 12 to provide
additional information in support of that company's petition. Among
other things, they discussed a letter which Chrysler had sent to NHTSA
Deputy Administrator Philip R. Recht on May 9 concerning Chrysler's
success in
[[Page 46387]]
obtaining information from suppliers. Chrysler's letter, from Vice
Chairman and Chief Administrative Officer T. G. Denomme, read as
follows:
At our recent meeting with Secretary Pena, I mentioned that we
were not experiencing much success with our suppliers on submitting
information required under labeling legislation. You asked if we had
leveraged our suppliers on this issue.
After our meeting, I got into the issue in more detail. As it
turns out, you were correct on this one. We had not pushed the
suppliers hard enough. On April 25, only 46% of our suppliers had
returned the labeling forms (873 suppliers out of 1,924 total). With
a renewed effort on our part, by May 7 we had pushed that figure to
81% response with an expectation of getting well into the 90% level
by this summer.
I send you this because I did not want to leave you with the
wrong impression on this issue. It now appears Chrysler should be in
position to not only comply with the terms of the legislation, but
also to have virtually all of our suppliers reporting as well.
The GM representatives stated that GM's situation is different than
Chrysler's because of several factors. GM said it has more than 13,000
suppliers, while Chrysler has 1,924. GM is highly vertically
integrated; Chrysler is not. Because of vertical integration, GM must
trace parts through multiple tiers internally and externally. Finally,
the GM representatives stated that their company's multiplicity of
carlines makes the determination of domestic content more complex.
The GM representatives also discussed their efforts to obtain
certificates from outside suppliers. A number of GM employees have been
working full-time for the past several weeks to obtain certificates
from outside suppliers who have not responded to previous requests.
The GM representatives indicated that, despite these efforts, the
stated domestic content of some of GM's cars will fall by about 10
percentage points (e.g., from 95% in model year 1996 to 85% in model
year 1997), solely as a result of defaulting non-reporting supplier
content to zero domestic content. They also discussed, by way of
example, a vehicle for which GM has had particular difficulty ``getting
the last 9% [of content] identified.''
The GM representatives argued that, unless the agency provides
immediate relief, consumers will receive information about that
company's vehicles which is inaccurate. The need for immediate relief
arises from the fact that the vehicle manufacturers are in the final
stages of making content calculations for their model year 1997
vehicles. Under the content labeling program, these calculations are
made only once per model year for a carline. Subsequent to the meeting,
GM sent the agency a list of its 1997 model year startup dates. Most of
the startup dates were between late June and very early August, with
many in the middle of July.
Response to Petitions
NHTSA notes that the AAMA and GM petitions re-raise many issues
which the agency has addressed at length in responding to previous
petitions. Since the petitions did not provide any new arguments
significantly different from the ones previously offered by the
petitioners, the agency is not changing its views with respect to those
basic issues.
However, based on the new information provided by AAMA and GM,
NHTSA has decided that a very narrow, temporary change should be made
in the content calculation procedures. The agency is amending Part 583
to provide that, in limited situations where outside suppliers have not
responded to requests for content information, allied suppliers and
manufacturers are permitted to make those content calculations. This
flexibility will only be available if the allied supplier or
manufacturer has a good faith basis for making the calculation.
Moreover, this flexibility will only be available for up to 10 percent,
by value, of a carline's total parts content from outside suppliers.
Finally, the flexibility will only be available where manufacturers or
allied suppliers have made a good faith effort to obtain the
information.
Today's amendment applies only to carlines offered for sale before
January 1, 1997. The agency has not decided whether the applicability
of the amendment, or a similar one, should be extended past that date.
However, the agency is requesting comments on that issue.
NHTSA is issuing today's amendment in light of several factors. On
the one hand, NHTSA believes that Chrysler's experience demonstrates
that the ability to obtain the necessary content information from
suppliers is within the control of the vehicle manufacturers. However,
the agency also agrees that there are differences between Chrysler and
GM, related to number of suppliers and degree of vertical integration,
which make efforts by GM to obtain content information from its
suppliers considerably more complex.
The agency has previously recognized that a certain amount of
confusion is likely during the time period when a new program, such as
content labeling, is implemented. The content labeling program is still
a relatively new program. Indeed, model year 1997 is the first year for
which the full content calculation procedures of Part 583 are required,
i.e., the temporary alternative procedures are not available.
The agency believes that GM has demonstrated that it has been
making significant efforts in recent months to obtain content
information from non-responsive suppliers. Moreover, GM has shown that,
despite those efforts, it is having difficulty obtaining information
for the last portion of a carline's content.
Finally, NHTSA believes that, all other things being equal, a good
faith content determination by a vehicle manufacturer or allied
supplier of equipment it receives is likely to be more accurate than
simply applying a ``default-to-zero'' provision. Thus, adoption of
today's amendment should result in more accurate information for
consumers.
The agency recognizes, of course, that the most accurate
determinations are those provided by the outside suppliers themselves,
since they obviously have much more complete information about the
content of the equipment they manufacture than the purchaser.
Therefore, the agency must consider whether its actions would have the
effect of reducing the incentives for outside suppliers to provide the
required information, or for the vehicle manufacturers to make efforts
to obtain the information.
NHTSA has concluded that adoption of today's temporary amendment
will not reduce incentives for outside suppliers or vehicle
manufacturers for model year 1997. Given that the vehicle manufacturers
are already in the final stages of making content calculations for
these vehicles, today's amendment should not have any effect on whether
outside suppliers provide, or do not provide, the required information
for model year 1997. However, the agency will consider this issue
further in deciding whether to extend the applicability of today's
temporary amendment. NHTSA also emphasizes that today's amendment does
not excuse outside suppliers for failure to comply with Part 583.
The agency notes that today's temporary amendment is much narrower
than the temporary one requested by AAMA and GM. The petitioners
requested a six-month extension of the temporary procedures that have
been in place for the last two years. However, they raised concerns
about only one of Part 583's provisions, the one concerning non-
responsive outside suppliers. AAMA and GM did not give any reasons why
the agency
[[Page 46388]]
should provide flexibility for other aspects of the content labeling
calculation procedures. Therefore, the agency declines to provide
relief related to other sections.
In addition, as noted above, the added flexibility is limited to no
more than 10 percent, by value, of a carline's total parts content from
outside suppliers. The relief is thus tailored to the fact that the
problem faced by the vehicle manufacturers is in obtaining the last
portion of outside content value for particular carlines. Also, the
amendment ensures that the added flexibility can only be used for a
very small portion of a carline's total outside content, and that the
vast majority of U.S./Canadian content determinations will be based on
supplier certificates.
This flexibility will also only be available where manufacturers or
allied suppliers have made a good faith effort to obtain the
information. NHTSA is not including a specific definition of what
constitutes ``good faith effort'' in today's final rule. However, the
agency intends the term to mean at least some effort beyond the request
for information and certificates that is required by Part 583, e.g.,
some kind of follow-up effort.
NHTSA will not provide specific responses to all of the other
issues raised by AAMA and GM in their petitions, because the agency has
responded to many of those issues in previous notices. The agency
specifically incorporates by reference its responses to these issues
set forth in the September 15, 1995 and April 19, 1996 notices
referenced earlier in this document.
However, the agency will address two issues. First, NHTSA rejects
the suggestion that it should amend Part 583 because it took six months
to respond to AAMA's earlier petition for reconsideration. NHTSA's
regulations clearly specify that the filing of a petition for
reconsideration does not mean that a rule does not take effect. See 49
CFR 553.35(d).
Second, the agency does not believe there is anything inequitable
about providing different procedures for outside and allied suppliers.
The Labeling Act establishes vastly different procedures for outside
and allied suppliers. For example, in making domestic content
calculations, outside suppliers need determine only whether an item of
equipment has at least 70 percent U.S./Canadian content, while allied
suppliers must make precise calculations based on certificates from
outside suppliers. The differences in Part 583's procedures for outside
and allied suppliers reflect the specific statutory differences for
these two groups and/or the agency's efforts to limit the regulatory
burdens associated with the content labeling program. For example, a
significant reason why the agency permits outside suppliers to make
good faith estimates of the U.S./Canadian content of the materials they
purchase is that, unlike the situation for allied suppliers, suppliers
to outside suppliers are not required, by statute or regulation, to
provide certificates of content.
NHTSA finds that the issuance of this final rule without prior
opportunity for comment is necessary in view of the immediate
difficulties that some manufacturers, including GM, are having
obtaining content information from a number of outside suppliers, and
the fact that the manufacturers are necessarily in the final stages of
making content determinations for their model year 1997 vehicles.
Unless the agency amends the standard on an immediate basis, consumers
will receive less accurate content information for model year 1997
vehicles. NHTSA also finds good cause to establish an immediate
effective date for this final rule. In the absence of an immediate
effective date, the manufacturers could not avail themselves of the
added flexibility in making content determinations for their model year
1997 vehicles. The final rule does not impose any new requirements but
instead provides additional flexibility to manufacturers in making
content determinations.
NHTSA notes that, since model year 1997 production has begun for
some carlines, some vehicles have probably already been labeled. Given
the circumstances of today's final rule, the agency believes it would
be appropriate for manufacturers to re-label these vehicles, should
they wish to do so.1 In such an instance, however, NHTSA urges
manufacturers to take steps to prevent confusion when consumers compare
the labels of vehicles within the same carline manufactured at
different times. For example, manufacturers could take steps to re-
label all of the vehicles within a carline that have not yet been sold
to a consumer. Alternatively, the revised label could include a note
indicating that the carline percentages have been revised during the
model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While content percentages are ordinarily calculated only
once for a carline for a particular model year, NHTSA has previously
concluded that, under special circumstances, manufacturers may
revise the carline percentages. See interpretation letter to Diamond
Star Motors dated February 10, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second issue to be considered is whether the applicability of
today's amendment, or a similar one, should be extended for a longer
period of time. The agency believes that the guiding principle for
making this decision should be the statutory direction specifying that
regulations promulgated under the Labeling Act are to provide the
ultimate purchaser of a new passenger motor vehicle with the best and
most understandable information possible about the foreign and U.S./
Canadian origin of the equipment of the vehicles without imposing
costly and unnecessary burdens on the manufacturers. 49 U.S.C.
32304(e).
There is no question that the ``best'' determinations of the
content of equipment provided by outside suppliers are those provided
by the suppliers themselves, since they obviously have much more
complete information about the content of the equipment they
manufacture than the purchaser. There is also no question that the
Labeling Act contemplates the vehicle manufacturers basing their
content calculations on certificates provided by the outside suppliers,
and that outside suppliers are statutorily required to provide this
information. See 49 U.S.C. 32304(e). Thus, the only question is the
extent, if any, to which the agency should provide alternatives to
address situations where outside suppliers fail to provide the required
information despite being asked to do so by the vehicle manufacturers.
As indicated above, an important consideration is whether such
alternatives would have the effect of reducing the incentives for
outside suppliers to provide the required information, or for the
vehicle manufacturers to make efforts to obtain the information. It is
clear that the ``default-to-zero'' provision does provide significant
incentives in this regard. Therefore, the agency will not simply drop
that provision.
To the extent that the non-responsive supplier problem experienced
by GM is likely to continue, it could be argued that, at some point,
the costs of obtaining the last portion of outside supplier content
value for a particular carline become unreasonable. This argument could
be used to support extending the temporary amendment. The length of
such extension would depend on how long the problem was likely to
continue.
On the other hand, NHTSA is not convinced that the vehicle
manufacturers cannot ultimately obtain the necessary content
information from essentially 100 percent of their suppliers, without
costly efforts. The agency included the following discussion in its
March 16, 1996 notice
[[Page 46389]]
denying AAMA's earlier petition on this subject:
NHTSA notes that AAMA's petition did not discuss whether its
member companies experienced difficulty in obtaining content
information from suppliers in the presence or absence of specific
contractual provisions intended to ensure the provision of content
information by suppliers. As stated in the September 1995 notice,
outside suppliers are dependent on the vehicle manufacturers for
their business. Therefore, the agency believed, and continues to
believe, that the ability to obtain the necessary content
information is within the control of the vehicle manufacturers.
The purpose of including any specific provision in a business
contract is to make observance of the terms of that provision a
required element of the business relationship. Just as such things
as meeting material specifications, strength requirements and
specified time of delivery are a necessary part of a supplier's
doing business with a vehicle manufacturer and are ensured by
provisions included in contractual agreements, the providing of
content information can also be made a necessary part of that
business relationship and be reflected in the purchase contract.
Moreover, just as liquidated damages clauses can be inserted in
a contract for failure to comply with any other part of the
contract, so can such a provision be included for failure to provide
timely content reports. If a supplier knows that it will be paid
less money if it fails to provide content information, it will have
a strong incentive to provide the information.
The agency also notes that the supplier industry is highly
competitive. If one supplier is unwilling to agree to provide
content information (an agreement to do no more than comply with
existing Federal law), other suppliers would step in to take
advantage of the opportunity for new business.
For the above reasons, including those presented in the
September 1995 notice, NHTSA continues to believe that the vehicle
manufacturers will be able to obtain the required content
information from their suppliers.
As indicated above, AAMA and GM argued in their new petitions that
even if a non-responsive supplier is penalized under the contract, the
penalty paid to the manufacturer is not compensatory because the
``damages'' cannot offset the effects of understating the U.S./Canadian
content value for the manufacturer's vehicles. NHTSA believes, in
contrast, that the contractual provisions would help ensure that
outside suppliers provide content information without the need to
actually impose ``damages.'' The agency believes outside suppliers
would not sign contracts that they planned to violate. Also, given that
it is not very costly to provide content information, it would be
irrational for outside suppliers to decide to pay damages instead of
simply providing the information (information that they are, in any
event, required by Federal law to provide).
In addition to providing an extra incentive for outside suppliers,
such contractual provisions would provide an educational function. AAMA
stated in its petition that ``suppliers that deliberately do not
respond cite the uncompensated cost to establish the information on
content in their parts, the increased employees to calculate the data,
and the burdens they already face in generating multiple content
reports such as for NAFTA, AALA, CAFE and others each with its own
rules.'' These sorts of explanations by suppliers suggest that they
were unaware of the need to provide content information when they
signed their contracts. The inclusion of a specific contract provision
concerning the need to provide content information would make suppliers
aware of this obligation. While the costs of providing content
information may not be compensated directly, such costs are simply a
necessary part of doing business. Assuming that suppliers are aware of
these costs, they will presumably consider them in negotiating their
contracts, just as they consider other costs of doing business.
As indicated above, NHTSA has not decided whether to extend today's
amendment beyond December 31 of this year, but is requesting comments
on this issue. The agency requests commenters to address the following
questions:
1. Can the problems being experienced by some vehicle manufacturers
with non-responsive suppliers be resolved by contractual provisions?
Have the vehicle manufacturers experiencing these problems included
specific provisions concerning content labeling in their contracts? If
not, why? If such provisions are not included in contracts, how long
would it take to add them? Are there other ways to resolve these
problems, particularly without costly efforts by the vehicle
manufacturers?
2. If the agency were to extend the applicability of today's
amendment beyond December 31 of this year, how long should the
extension be? Should such an extension continue to provide the same
type and degree of flexibility, i.e., flexibility for up to 10 percent,
by value, of a carline's total parts content from outside suppliers?
Would another value, or a somewhat different means for providing
flexibility, be more appropriate?
3. If the agency provides flexibility past December 31 of this
year, should the flexibility be limited to situations where the vehicle
manufacturers have made specified good-faith efforts to obtain the
information from an outside supplier (beyond the initial request to the
supplier)? If so, what good-faith efforts should be specified in the
regulation, e.g., certain contractual provisions, follow-up letters
and/or phone calls, etc.?
NHTSA recognizes that, to the extent commenters argue that a
somewhat different amendment should apply to models introduced after
December 31 of this year, those arguments may bear also on the
appropriateness of the relief provided up to that date. However, given
the imminence of the introduction of most model year 1997 vehicles, it
is not clear whether it would be feasible to consider amendments to the
relief provided for models introduced before December 31. Nonetheless,
the agency invites commenters to address this issue. Moreover, to
accommodate the possibility of making such an amendment, the agency
expediting the comment process by limiting the comment period to 30
days.
For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA is granting the AAMA and GM
petitions to the extent reflected in today's final rule and request for
comments. The petitions are otherwise denied.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866. NHTSA has considered the economic implications of this
regulation and determined that it is not significant within the meaning
of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedure. Today's amendments will
not affect manufacturer or supplier costs. They simply provide
additional flexibility to vehicle manufacturers and their allied
suppliers in making content calculations.
B. 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 final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Today's
amendments simply provide additional flexibility to vehicle
manufacturers and their allied suppliers in making content
calculations. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required for this action.
[[Page 46390]]
C. 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 final rule did not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No state laws are
affected.
D. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. States are
preempted from promulgating laws and regulations contrary to the
provisions of this rule. The rule does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
E. 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 this rule will not significantly affect the human
environment.
Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this document.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
the purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted
to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and
seven copies from which the purportedly confidential information has
been deleted should be submitted to the NHTSA Docket Section. A request
for confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting
forth the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received by NHTSA before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be
available for examination in the docket at the above address both
before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to this rulemaking action will be
considered as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on
the document will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA
will continue to file relevant information as it becomes available in
the docket after the closing date, and recommends that interested
persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 583
Motor vehicles, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 583 is amended as
follows:
PART 583--AUTOMOBILE PARTS CONTENT LABELING
1. The authority for part 583 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32304, 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(f).
2. Section 583.6 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5) and adding
paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 583.6 Procedure for determining U.S./Canadian parts content.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(6) of this section, if a
manufacturer or allied supplier does not receive information from one
or more of its suppliers concerning the U.S./Canadian content of
particular equipment, the U.S./Canadian content of that equipment is
considered zero. This provision does not affect the obligation of
manufacturers and allied suppliers to request this information from
their suppliers or the obligation of the suppliers to provide the
information.
(6) For carlines which are first offered for sale to ultimate
purchasers before January 1, 1997, if a manufacturer or allied supplier
requests information in a timely manner from one or more of its outside
suppliers concerning the U.S./Canadian content of particular equipment,
but does not receive that information despite a good faith effort to
obtain it, the manufacturer or allied supplier may make its own good
faith value added determinations, subject to the following provisions:
(i) The manufacturer or allied supplier shall make the same value
added determinations as would be made by the outside supplier, i.e.,
whether 70 percent or more of the value of equipment is added in the
United States and/or Canada;
(ii) The manufacturer or allied supplier shall consider the amount
of value added and the location in which the value was added for all of
the stages that the outside supplier would be required to consider;
(iii) The manufacturer or allied supplier may determine that the
value added in the United States and/or Canada is 70 percent or more
only if it has a good faith basis to make that determination;
(iv) A manufacturer and its allied suppliers may, on a combined
basis, make value added determinations for no more than 10 percent, by
value, of a carline's total parts content from outside suppliers;
(v) Value added determinations made by a manufacturer or allied
supplier under this paragraph shall have the same effect as if they
were made by the outside supplier;
(vi) This provision does not affect the obligation of outside
suppliers to provide the requested information.
Issued on: August 28, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-22409 Filed 8-28-96; 5:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
