97-23991. Odometer Disclosure Requirements; Exemptions  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 47763-47765]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-23991]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    
    49 CFR Part 580
    
    [Docket No. 87-09, Notice 16]
    RIN 2127-AG83
    
    
    Odometer Disclosure Requirements; Exemptions
    
    AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
    
    ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This interim final rule amends 49 CFR Part 580 by establishing 
    a new Sec. 580.17, by repromulgating the exemptions for certain 
    categories of vehicles from odometer disclosure requirements now 
    located in Sec. 580.6, and by moving the exemptions to the new 
    Sec. 580.17. This interim final rule also revises the authority 
    citation for part 580 to reflect Public Law 104-205.
        The agency is taking this action pursuant to recent Federal 
    legislation affirming the agency's exemption authority. Pub. L. 104-205 
    (Sept. 30, 1996). The repromulgation is necessitated by a recent United 
    States Court of Appeals decision that has raised questions about 
    NHTSA's authority to exempt categories of vehicles from the Federal 
    odometer disclosure requirements.
        This document is published as an interim final rule, to be 
    effective immediately on publication in the Federal Register. NHTSA is 
    requesting comments on this rule. At the close of the comment period, 
    NHTSA will publish a document responding to the comments and, if 
    appropriate, amending the provisions of this rule.
    
    DATES: This rule is effective immediately upon publication in the
    
    [[Page 47764]]
    
    Federal Register. Comments on this rule are due not later than October 
    14, 1997.
    
    ADDRESSES: Written comments should refer to the docket number of this 
    notice and should be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway 
    Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5109, 
    Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. through 4 p.m.)
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen Leahy, Office of the Chief 
    Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
    Street, SW, Room 5219, Washington, DC 20590. 202-366-5263.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        In August 1988, to implement the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 
    (``TIMA''), NHTSA amended the Federal odometer disclosure regulations 
    (49 CFR Part 580). 53 FR 29464 (Aug. 5, 1988). Part 580 had first been 
    promulgated in 1973 pursuant to Title IV of the Motor Vehicle 
    Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972. Pub. L. 92-513.
        Between 1973 and 1988, NHTSA amended Part 580 in several respects. 
    Among the amendments it adopted were several which exempted certain 
    categories of vehicles from the requirement that there be a written 
    disclosure of the mileage when there was a transfer of ownership of the 
    vehicle. As of 1988, there were five categories of exempt vehicles: 
    those whose Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) exceeded 16,000 pounds 
    (``heavy vehicle exemption''); non-self-propelled vehicles (e.g., 
    trailers); vehicles over 25 years old (``older vehicle exemption''); 
    vehicles sold directly by a manufacturer to an agency of the Federal 
    government pursuant to contractual specifications; and vehicles being 
    transferred prior to their first purchase for purposes other than 
    resale. During this time period, several courts ruled on the validity 
    of the heavy vehicle exemption, with mixed results. See Mitchell v. 
    White Motor Corp., 627 F. Supp. 1241 (M. D. Tenn. 1986); Davis v. Dils 
    Motor Co. 566 F. Supp. 1360 (S. D. W.Va. 1983); Lair v. Lewis Service 
    Center, 428 F. Supp. 778 (D. Neb. 1977); W. W. Wallwork, Inc. v. 
    Duchscherer, 501 N.W. 2d 751 (N. D. 1993).
        The agency considered these exemptions again when it proposed the 
    amendments to Part 580 to implement TIMA. It adopted them as part of 
    the 1988 amendments to Part 580, with no changes except for a reduction 
    in the age limit for the older vehicle exemption, from 25 to 10 years. 
    This change was adopted after NHTSA considered a number of the comments 
    on the NPRM that had advocated substantial reductions in the age of 
    vehicles that would qualify for this exemption. 53 FR 49472 (Aug. 5, 
    1988).
        In 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
    ruled that NHTSA lacked authority to adopt heavy vehicle exemption in 
    Orca Bay Seafoods v. Northwest Truck Sales, Inc., 32 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 
    1994). In response to the Orca Bay decision, Congress included as part 
    of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
    Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (``1997 DOT Appropriations Act'') a provision 
    which states that ``notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
    Secretary may use funds appropriated under this Act, or any subsequent 
    Act, to administer and implement the exemption provisions of 49 CFR 
    580.6 and to adopt or amend exemptions from the disclosure requirements 
    for any class or category of vehicles that the Secretary deems 
    appropriate.'' Section 332, Pub. L. 104-205 (Sept. 30, 1996).
        On March 31, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
    Seventh Circuit held that the older vehicle exemption in Part 580 was 
    invalid because NHTSA did not have statutory authority to exempt 
    categories of vehicles from the odometer disclosure requirements. 
    Diersen v. Chicago Car Exchange, 110 F.3d 481 (1997), rehearing denied, 
    1997 USApp LEXIS 11334 (7th Cir. May 13, 1997). The court's opinion did 
    not mention section 332 of the 1997 DOT Appropriations Act.
    
    Discussion
    
        Since the Diersen decision, NHTSA has received a number of 
    inquiries from state motor vehicle administrators, vehicle auction 
    companies, representatives of dealer associations and others asking 
    whether the exemptions in 49 CFR 580.6 are still valid, and whether or 
    not odometer disclosure statements are now required for the vehicles 
    exempted by that Section. These inquiries show that there is widespread 
    confusion among buyers and sellers of vehicles, as well as those 
    responsible for issuing vehicle titles, as to when an odometer 
    disclosure statement is required. The effect is most acute in the 
    states located within the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit 
    (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) and Ninth Circuit (....); but given 
    the interstate nature of many vehicle transfers, the uncertainty 
    affects all states.
        In view of the potential harm this uncertainty could cause to the 
    effectiveness of TIMA, and to the titling process in general, NHTSA has 
    concluded that there is an immediate need to clarify the legal status 
    of the exemptions to Part 580. Accordingly, NHTSA is publishing this 
    interim final rule today, and making it effective immediately upon 
    publication. The interim final rule repromulgates the exemptions 
    formerly contained in section 580.6 in a new section (numbered 580.17), 
    relying on the authority of the 1997 DOT Appropriations Act. This 
    legislation evidences Congress intent that NHTSA have the authority to 
    adopt and amend exemptions to the odometer disclosure requirements of 
    Part 580. In repromulgating the exemptions, the agency reaffirms that 
    the exemptions are consistent with the purposes of TIMA and that 
    effective administration of TIMA will be served best both by 
    maintaining continuity in the exemptions that are recognized, and by 
    ensuring consistency among the states. The agency is requesting 
    comments from the public, as well as from entities that are affected by 
    the exemptions, such as state motor vehicle administrators, automobile 
    auctions, vehicle manufacturers, lease companies and dealers. The 
    comments should address such issues as the relative costs and benefits 
    of retaining or eliminating all or some of the exemptions; and the 
    effect, if any, that retaining or eliminating all or some exemptions 
    would have on reducing odometer fraud.
        Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B), the agency concludes that 
    there is good cause for adopting this interim final rule without prior 
    notice and opportunity for public comment. Prior notice and public 
    comment are unnecessary in this case because the rule merely 
    repromulgates rules that have already been subject to the notice and 
    comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b). The need stated above for 
    prompt agency action to clarify the legal status of these exemptions in 
    light of the confusion caused by the Seventh Circuit's decision in 
    Diersen also makes prior notice and opportunity for comment 
    impracticable. As the agency has described above, the public interest 
    now lies in immediate resolution of the uncertainty caused by that 
    decision; further delay would only exacerbate the harmful effects of 
    that confusion.
        This rule is exempt under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d)(1) from the general 
    requirement that rules be published not less than 30 days prior to 
    their effective date because it grants an exemption. Accordingly, this 
    rule will be effective immediately upon publication in the Federal 
    Register.
    
    [[Page 47765]]
    
    Federalism Assessment
    
        The agency has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles 
    and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and has determined 
    that the interim final rule does not have sufficient federalism 
    implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The 
    interim final rule merely repromulgates existing exemptions to the 
    odometer disclosure requirements, and does not alter the effect on the 
    states of existing statutory or regulatory requirements.
    
    Rulemaking Analyses
    
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    
        NHTSA has analyzed this rule and determined that it is neither 
    ``major'' nor ``significant'' within the meaning of Executive Order 
    12886 or of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and 
    procedures. Because the agency estimates that this rule would not have 
    a significant impact, it has not prepared a regulatory evaluation.
    
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        The agency has also considered the effects of this action under the 
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this action will not have a 
    substantial economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
    entities. Because it is limited to amending the statutory authority for 
    existing exemptions to agency regulations, it does not affect the 
    impact of those regulations on small businesses.
    
    C. National Environmental Policy Act
    
        The agency has analyzed this rule under the National Environmental 
    Policy Act and determined that it will not have a significant impact on 
    the human environment. Accordingly, it has not prepared an 
    environmental impact statement.
    
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    
        The interim final rule is not a collection of information as that 
    term is defined by OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320. It amends the statutory 
    authority for exemptions to the odometer disclosure requirements in 49 
    CFR Part 580. Those exemptions do not require the collection of any 
    information. The information collection requirements established by 
    Part 580 have been approved by OMB. (OMB 2127-0047).
    
    E. Civil Justice Reform
    
        This rule will not have any retroactive effect. States may not 
    adopt laws on disconnecting, altering, or tampering with an odometer 
    with intent to defraud that are inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 
    327. 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327 does not exempt persons from complying with 
    state laws on disconnecting, altering or tampering with an odometer 
    with intent to defraud. Agency regulations issued under 49 U.S.C. 
    Chapter 327 are subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 704. There is 
    no requirement for a petition for reconsideration or other 
    administrative proceeding before a party may file a suit in court.
    
    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 580
    
        Odometers, consumer protection.
    
        In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 580 is amended as 
    follows:
    
    PART 580--ODOMETER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
    
        1. The authority citation for 49 CFR Part 580 is revised to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32705; Sec. 332, Public Law No. 104-205; 
    delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50(f) and 501.8(e)(1).
    
    
    Sec. 580.6  [Redesignated as Sec. 580.17]
    
        2. Section 580.6 is redesignated as Sec. 580.17 and republished 
    without change to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 580.17  Exemptions.
    
        Notwithstanding the requirements of Secs. 580.5 and 580.7:
        (a) A transferor or a lessee of any of the following motor vehicles 
    need not disclose the vehicle's odometer mileage:
        (1) A vehicle having a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, as defined in 
    Sec. 571.3 of this title, of more than 16,000 pounds;
        (2) A vehicle that is not self-propelled;
        (3) A vehicle that is ten years old or older; or
        (4) A vehicle sold directly by the manufacturer to any agency of 
    the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.
        (b) A transferor of a new vehicle prior to its first transfer for 
    purposes other than resale need not disclose the vehicle's odometer 
    mileage.
        (c) A lessor of any of the vehicles listed in paragraph (a) of this 
    section need not notify the lessee of any of these vehicles of the 
    disclosure requirements of Sec. 580.7.
    
        Issued: September 5, 1997.
    Ricardo Martinez,
    Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 97-23991 Filed 9-5-97; 4:50 pm]
    BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
09/11/1997
Department:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Interim final rule; request for comments.
Document Number:
97-23991
Dates:
This rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. Comments on this rule are due not later than October 14, 1997.
Pages:
47763-47765 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 87-09, Notice 16
RINs:
2127-AG83: Exemptions to Odometer Disclosure Requirements
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2127-AG83/exemptions-to-odometer-disclosure-requirements
PDF File:
97-23991.pdf
CFR: (3)
49 CFR 571.3
49 CFR 580.6
49 CFR 580.17