[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 121 (Friday, June 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32646-32649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15392]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32647]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 567
[Docket No. 94-74; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AE71
Certification
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Termination of rulemaking proceeding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice terminates rulemaking to amend NHTSA's
certification regulation to require the standardized display of a
permanent metal vehicle manufacturer's label for all motor vehicles
weighing more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Leon DeLarm, Chief, Pedestrian,
Heavy Truck and Child Crash Protection Division, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 366-4920.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The Petition
On August 17, 1992, Michael Robinson, Director of the Michigan
Department of State Police, petitioned NHTSA to amend the agency's
certification regulations at 49 CFR 567.4 to require that
manufacturers' labels on vehicles weighing more than 4,536 kg (10,000
lb) be made of a heavy gauge metal of a specified thickness with raised
or recessed letters and numbers, and be riveted to the vehicle. Mr.
Robinson also recommended specific locations for the placement of these
labels, depending on the type of vehicle involved. Mr. Robinson stated
that his petition was prompted by difficulties that the Motor Carrier
Division of his Department had encountered in locating information
identifying the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and vehicle
identification number (VIN) of commercial vehicles. Information
identifying a commercial vehicle's GVWR is necessary, Mr. Robinson
asserted, for the proper enforcement of the Commercial Driver License
(CDL) requirements of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's)
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. Under the CDL program, drivers
are only licensed to operate vehicles within GVWR ranges for which they
are qualified. Mr. Robinson contended that law enforcement officers
often have difficulty determining the GVWRs of commercial vehicles
since the labels on those vehicles are often damaged, painted over, or
missing because they were not designed or constructed to withstand the
rigors of commercial vehicle operation.
II. The NPRM
On September 26, 1994, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal
Register (at 59 FR 49038) announcing that it had granted Mr. Robinson's
petition, in part, and was proposing to amend the agency's
certification regulations at 49 CFR 567.4 to require that the
manufacturer's certification label on vehicles with a GVWR over 4,536
kg (10,000 lb) be made of metal, have raised or recessed letters and
numbers, and be riveted or otherwise permanently affixed to the vehicle
in locations specified in the petition. In granting the petition, the
agency noted that not only would the use of permanent metal labels help
to ensure that commercial vehicles are being driven by duly qualified
and licensed operators, but it would also improve the accuracy of
commercial vehicle GVWR information submitted to the FHWA's SAFETYNET
system, which is shared with state personnel who monitor commercial
motor carrier operations.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA solicited
comments on seventeen issues that the agency identified as being raised
by the petition. These included questions on:
(1) whether there was a problem with labels on commercial vehicles
becoming obliterated, painted over, or otherwise rendered illegible
during the service life of he vehicle;
(2) the costs currently incurred by manufacturers in the purchase,
printing, and application of labels;
(3) the types of material currently used for the labels on vehicles
with a GVWR over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb);
(4) the sizes of the labels currently affixed to those vehicles;
(5) the incremental costs that vehicle manufacturers would incur to
purchase, emboss, and affix permanent metal labels with raised or
recessed letters and numbers;
(6) the incremental costs, if any, that label manufacturers would
incur in producing metal labels with raised or recessed letters and
numbers;
(7) the quantities in which vehicle manufacturers currently order
labels;
(8) the time that is currently required for vehicle manufacturers
to prepare and affix labels;
(9) the time that would be required for vehicle manufacturers to
rivet or otherwise permanently affix metal labels;
(10) the special problems, if any, that vehicle manufacturers would
have in affixing permanent metal labels;
(11) whether a particular metal, such as aluminum, stainless steel,
etc. should be specified for the labels;
(12) whether a minimum thickness should be prescribed for the
labels;
(13) whether a minimum size should be specified for the labels;
(14) whether a minimum height or depth should be specified for the
letters and numbers embossed on the labels;
(15) whether any information should be added to or deleted from
that currently required to appear on the label;
(16) whether trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less
should also meet the requirements proposed for trailers above that
weight;
(17) whether NHTSA should require some approach different from the
proposed metal label requirement for preserving VIN labels.
III. Comments
NHTSA received 142 comments in response to the NPRM. Only five of
these supported the proposal. Two of the supporting comments were from
law enforcement entities. Lt. Bruce Bugg of the Georgia Public Service
Commission stated that from his own experience in enforcing the CDL
requirements, and from discussions with other law enforcement officers,
he has come to believe that missing and obliterated certification
labels are a common problem that could be partially alleviated through
the use of more durable, embossed metal plates. The California Highway
Patrol (CHP) also supported the metal label requirement because
existing non-metallic labels are being removed with increasing
frequency in an apparent attempt to circumvent the CDL requirements.
Supporting comments were also received from the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, which
expressed agreement with a need for metal certification labels.
Additionally, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
expressed support for an improved certification labelling scheme and
agreed with the proposal to impose requirements that will assist with
theft enforcement and with the administration of motor carrier
regulations.
The remaining 137 comments were opposed to the proposal, either in
whole or in part. Of these, 117 were essentially identical letters
submitted primarily by multi-stage truck manufacturers. Those
[[Page 32648]] comments expressed opposition to the proposal that only
metal be used for certification labels, based on the contention that
other materials are available that are cheaper, easier to imprint and
install, and able to withstand the rigors of commercial use. These
comments noted that the adhesive-backed plastic labels with clear
protective outer coatings that are in current use cost only about fifty
cents apiece, and can be prepared on a typewriter and affixed to the
vehicle in a matter of minutes. In contrast, these comments noted that
metal labels would be more costly, would require the use of an
expensive embossing machine, and would require considerably more time
to be riveted onto the vehicle.
In its comment opposing the proposal, Mack Trucks, Inc. noted that
unlike the polyester film labels that it currently uses, which cannot
be removed from a vehicle without being destroyed, a riveted metal
label could be easily removed and transferred to another vehicle.
General Motors Corporation (GMC) and Ford Motor Company made similar
remarks, and noted that the adoption of a metal label requirement could
increase the risk of vehicle theft, since such labels could be used to
retag stolen vehicles.
Mack further questioned whether there is really a problem with the
existing labels, in view of the fact that 49 CFR 565.4(b) requires a
vehicle's ``GVWR class'' to be encoded into its vehicle identification
number (VIN), which is stamped into the vehicle's frame rail and
included in a number of other readily visible plates and labels affixed
to the vehicle. The American Automobile Manufacturers Association
(AAMA) also noted that a vehicle's GVWR can be obtained by decoding its
VIN, and that the VIN is found not only on the vehicle's certification
label, but also on a separate metal VIN plate that all of its members
install. GMC expressed the opinion that requiring the VIN to be not
only included in the certification label, but also stamped or engraved
on a separate metal plate, would address the problems raised in the
petition.
Ford noted that it improved the identification of its medium and
heavy duty trucks approximately seven years ago by riveting a metal
plate to the left door post of these vehicles on which the VIN was
imprinted with embossed letters and numbers. Additionally, Ford prints
the VIN and GVWR on a non- metallic self-adhesive label with a
protective plastic covering that is affixed to the left door post. This
label also includes a bar-coded VIN that a law enforcement officer can
scan and down-load into a computer to minimize transcription errors.
Ford also noted that a long-term solution to the concerns raised in
the petition would be realized if the ADVANTAGE I-75 Program and Heavy
Vehicle Electronic License Plate (HELP) Program are successfully
implemented. The goals of these programs are to reduce congestion,
increase efficiency, and enhance the safety of users of major highway
corridors through the application of a network of advanced highway,
vehicle, and communication technologies. An automatic vehicle
identification (AVI) transponder located in the commercial vehicle will
transmit an electronic signal that, when decoded, will provide
information such as the identity of the motor carrier, the gross weight
of the vehicle, and the status of its registration and fuel tax
payments.
The Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) recommended
that recreational vehicles (RVs) be exempted from the proposed metal
certification label requirements, on the theory that the operators of
RVs are not subject to the CDL requirements, precluding the need for
enforcement officers to ascertain the GVWR of those vehicles. In
separate comments, RV manufacturers such as Fleetwood and Winnebago
took similar positions in opposing the proposed metal label
requirements.
Thomas Built Buses expressed the opinion that no benefit would be
served by returning to metal certification labels on buses, and that
such a step would negate the progress it has made in using non-
removable, non-reusable, tamper resistant, adhesive-backed, metallized
labels. The AM General Corporation also faulted the proposal in that it
would restrict the use of more conventional, and potentially
technically superior, methods of vehicle identification. HYDRA-TECH
noted that in its experience, plastic adhesive labels with clear
protective coatings do not deteriorate and are easier to read than
metal tags after several years of service.
The Flxible Corporation stated that it chose an adhesive backed
aluminum foil label instead of a riveted rigid metal plate for its VIN
tag because the aluminum foil cannot be removed without being
completely destroyed. In contrast, Flxible noted that a metal plate may
be left undamaged after its rivets are drilled out.
The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) noted that the
nonmetallic labels in current use offer greater flexibility than metal
labels for placement in highly visible locations. The NTEA also noted
that non-metallic labels are more resistant to tampering or fraud than
metal labels because they are produced with a self-voiding feature. The
NTEA further stated that existing certification labels are sometimes
intentionally or inadvertently removed by certain manufacturers and
end-users, posing an enforcement problem that will not be resolved by
requiring a metal label that is both expensive and difficult to mount.
Navistar International Transportation Corporation stated that the
root cause of the problems cited in the petition is the fact that many
final stage manufacturers do not install a certification label, even
though they are instructed to do so in the documents they are furnished
by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Navistar believes that this is
a problem that merits NHTSA's attention.
The Freightliner Corporation recommended that NHTSA consider
establishing a performance standard for adhesion and/or abrasion to
ensure legibility and permanent integrity of labels without specifying
a material or mounting method.
In response to the specific questions raised in the NPRM, most
commenters stated that they are unaware of any problem with existing
certification labels becoming obliterated, painted over, or otherwise
rendered illegible during the service life of the vehicle. The comments
further indicated that the materials most commonly used for
certification labels are adhesive-backed plastic sheeting with a clear
plastic overlay to preserve the information the labels contain. Some
commenters stated that they use heavy aluminum foil with an adhesive
backing. Most commenters stated that the certification labels they
apply measure 2\1/2\ by 5 inches.
Most commenters also stated that they spend between eleven and
seventy-five cents apiece for the certification labels that they
presently use, and an additional dollar or two for imprinting the
required information on the label and installing it on the vehicle. All
commenters who addressed the cost issue stated that the costs of
preparing and installing an embossed metal certification label would be
significantly greater. Cost estimates for this increase ranged from
four to fifteen times the amount that manufacturers are currently
spending to prepare and apply certification labels. One factor
contributing to these greater costs is the expensive embossing
equipment that most manufacturers stated they would have to procure.
The cost estimates for this equipment ranged from $5,000 to $14,000 per
machine, with some manufacturers noting that they would have to obtain
a separate machine for each of their production facilities. Additional
costs were predicted for [[Page 32649]] retooling door frames and door
jambs to provide a flat surface necessary for the secure attachment of
metal certification labels. Commenters reported that it currently takes
on the average of five to ten minutes to imprint a nonmetallic
certification label and install it on a vehicle. The time expenditure
predicted for the installation of metal labels was substantially the
same, although one commenter noted that additional time would be
required to drill the four holes necessary to rivet the label to the
vehicle. Based on a total annual production of more than 250,000
vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs., the NTEA estimated additional
material and labor costs approaching twelve million dollars if metal
certification labels were required.
Most comments stated that it would be design restrictive to specify
the material composition, size, and thickness of certification labels,
as well as the height or depth of the characters on those labels, and
that these matters should be left up to the vehicle manufacturer, who
should have freedom to adapt the labelling requirements to individual
circumstances. Most comments further stated that there is no need to
specify information other than what is currently required on
certification labels. Most comments also recognized that there is a
greater need for preserving a vehicle's VIN than the other information
found on its certification label.
IV. Agency Decision
After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has decided to terminate
rulemaking to require the standardized display of a permanent metal
certification label for all motor vehicles weighing more than 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb). In light of the comments, it is not clear that a
significant problem exists with respect to the preservation of GVWR and
VIN information on commercial vehicles. Even if such a problem did
exist, the comments reveal that it may be attributed to the deliberate
removal of certification labels by unscrupulous operators, or the
inadvertent failure to install labels by final stage manufacturers,
circumstances that would not be addressed by the proposed rule.
Moreover, the comments reveal that it would be more costly for
manufacturers to prepare and install metal certification labels in
place of the labels in current use, and that metal labels may be more
easily removable, potentially exacerbating the problems faced by law
enforcement officers in attempting to ascertain a commercial vehicle's
GVWR and VIN.
Issued on: June 19, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-15392 Filed 6-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P