[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17974-17980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9574]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-3381, Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG53


Consumer Information Regulations; Utility Vehicle Label

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to modify the existing warning label 
required in multipurpose passenger vehicles (other than those which are 
passenger car derivatives) with a wheelbase of 110 inches or less 
advising drivers that the handling and maneuvering characteristics of 
these vehicles require special driving practices. The proposed 
replacement label uses bright colors, graphics, and short bulleted text 
messages, rather than the current text-only format. NHTSA believes 
these amendments make the information more understandable to consumers 
and increase the chance that the labels can affect driver behavior to 
reduce rollovers. The notice also requests comment on changes to the 
location requirements for the label and the corresponding owner's 
manual requirement.

DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by June 12, 1998.
    Proposed Effective Date: If adopted, the proposed amendments would 
become effective 180 days following publication of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of 
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 10 
a.m.-5 p.m., Monday through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590:
    For labeling issues: Mary Versailles, Office of Planning and 
Consumer Programs, NPS-31, telephone (202) 366-2057, facsimile (202) 
366-4329.
    For general rollover issues: Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash 
Avoidance Standards, NPS-20, telephone (202) 366-5559, facsimile (202) 
366-4329.
    For legal issues: Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20, 
telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Rollover Crash Problem 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A complete summary of the statistics used in this section 
can be found in the document titled ``Status Report for Rollover 
Prevention and Injury Mitigation, May 1996,'' in Docket 91-68-N05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rollover crashes are a serious motor vehicle safety problem, 
accounting for 29 percent of all light duty vehicle 
fatalities.2 From 1991 through 1994, an average of 8,857 
occupants of light duty vehicles died in rollover crashes 
annually.3 These fatal rollover crashes occurred with all 
types of vehicles; the greatest number occurred in small passenger 
cars, followed by small pickup trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Light duty vehicles are passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans, 
and sport utility vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
10,000 pounds or less. Vans and sport utility vehicles are both 
considered multipurpose passenger vehicles for purposes of NHTSA 
regulations.
    \3\ 1991-1994 average from Fatality Analysis Reporting System 
(FARS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The focus of public attention, however, has been on sport utility 
vehicles because this type of vehicle is involved in rollover-related 
occupant deaths more often (on a per-vehicle basis) than other vehicle 
types. Sport utility vehicles experience 98 rollover fatalities for 
every million vehicles registered,4 more than twice the rate 
of all vehicle types combined--47 deaths per million registered 
vehicles (although small pickup trucks have a similar fatal rollover 
rate--93 deaths per million registered vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Fatality rates given are averages of 1991-1994 rates, using 
fatality data from FARS and vehicle registration data from R.L. Polk 
and Company, which was limited to the 14 most recent model years at 
the time of the Status Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This does not mean, however, that sport utility vehicles are 
unsafe. The overall fatality rate (considering front, rear, side and 
rollover crashes) for sport utility vehicles is 163 fatalities per 
million registered vehicles, compared to 169 for all light duty 
vehicles combined. Small pickup trucks have the highest overall 
fatality rate, at 217 fatalities per million registered vehicles, 
followed by small cars, at 200.

II. Existing Utility Vehicle Rollover Warning Label

    NHTSA currently requires multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) 
(other than those which are passenger car derivatives) with a wheelbase 
of 110 inches or less (utility vehicles) to have a label advising 
drivers that the handling and maneuvering characteristics of these 
vehicles require special driving practices (49 CFR 575.105). The label 
must be permanently affixed in a location in the vehicle which is 
``prominent and visible

[[Page 17975]]

to the driver.'' A common location used by manufacturers is the sun 
visor. No minimum size requirements are specified. The label must be 
``printed in a typeface and color which are clear and conspicuous.'' 
The label must include the following or similar language:

    This is a multipurpose passenger vehicle which will handle and 
maneuver differently from an ordinary passenger car, in driving 
conditions which may occur on streets and highways and off road. As 
with other vehicles of this type, if you make sharp turns or abrupt 
maneuvers, the vehicle may roll over or may go out of control and 
crash. You should read driving guidelines and instructions in the 
Owner's Manual, and WEAR YOUR SEAT BELTS AT ALL TIMES.

    Utility vehicles are also required to have information in the 
owner's manual accompanying the vehicle.

III. Related Rulemakings/Actions

A. Proposed Rollover Comparative Information Label

    On June 28, 1994, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to require vehicle manufacturers to provide consumers with 
information on the vehicle's resistance to rollover, in the form of a 
label that would be affixed to new vehicles and information in the 
owner's manual (59 FR 33254). The label would be required on all 
passenger cars, trucks and MPVs with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
10,000 pounds or less. The comment period closed August 29, 1994.
    The NPRM noted that the agency was considering two vehicle 
measurements; tilt table angle and critical sliding velocity. Tilt 
table angle is the angle at which the last uphill tire of the vehicle 
lifts off a platform as the platform is increasingly tilted. Critical 
sliding velocity is a measure of the minimum lateral (sideways) vehicle 
velocity required to initiate rollover when the vehicle is tripped by 
something in the roadway environment, e.g., a curb. The NPRM stated 
that the agency might select one of the two measurements to appear on 
the label, or might require the label to contain a nonquantitative 
statement concerning the vehicle's resistance to rollover based on one 
or both of the measurements. An example of the later proposal would be 
the star rating system used in NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program.
    During the comment period, Congress enacted the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (Pub. L. 
103-331; September 30, 1994). In that Act, Congress gave NHTSA funds 
``for a study to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 
of motor vehicle safety consumer information needs and the most cost 
effective methods of communicating this information.'' The Act directed 
NAS to complete its study by March 31, 1996. The Act also included the 
following language: ``In order to ensure that the results of the study 
are considered in the rulemaking process, the conferees agree that 
NHTSA shall not issue a final regulation concerning motor vehicle 
safety labeling requirements until after the NAS study is completed.'' 
As a result of this language, NHTSA deferred action on the proposed 
expanded vehicle rollover stability labeling until the NAS study was 
done. The NAS Study was completed and released to the public on March 
26, 1996. It is titled Shopping for Safety--Providing Consumer 
Automotive Safety Information, TRB Special Report 248. (This report is 
discussed further in section III-C below.)
    On June 5, 1996, NHTSA reopened the comment period on the 1994 NPRM 
to allow interested parties to comment on the NAS study and how that 
study should be reflected in NHTSA's decisions on the rollover 
comparative information proposal. (61 FR 28560). The agency also asked 
for comments on the possibility of a new rulemaking action to improve 
the existing utility vehicle rollover warning label.
    Few comments to the June 5, 1996 notice reopening the comment 
period on the 1994 NPRM directly address the issue of upgrading the 
current utility vehicle rollover warning label.
    One manufacturer, Volkswagen (VW) stated that extending the 
requirement to other vehicles was not justified. The National 
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) stated that appropriate revisions 
to the utility vehicle label may be justified, but extension to other 
vehicles was not. The Center for Auto Safety, an organization that 
believes only a minimum performance standard could address the rollover 
problem, does not believe that improving the existing label would help 
reduce rollover fatalities and injuries.
    NHTSA wishes to note that this proposal to improve the existing 
utility vehicle rollover warning label is an additional activity and 
does not affect the status of either the 1994 proposal for a 
comparative information label or an August, 1996 petition for 
rulemaking from the Consumers Union to establish a standard to reduce 
the risk of steering-induced or maneuver-induced rollovers.

B. Air Bag Labels

    On November 27, 1996, NHTSA published a final rule amending the 
requirements for air bag warning labels in vehicles and on child seats 
(61 FR 60206).5 As part of the process leading to this 
amendment, the agency conducted focus groups to test public reaction to 
possible changes to the labels. NHTSA believes that the use of focus 
groups in this rulemaking helped to ensure that the information on the 
labels was understandable to consumers and increased the chance that 
the labels would affect consumer behavior. Based on its experience in 
upgrading the air bag warning labels, the agency decided to explore the 
possibility of upgrading the utility vehicle label using focus groups 
also.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Corrected December 4, 1996 (61 FR 64297), December 11, 1996 
(61 FR 65187), and January 2, 1997 (62 FR 31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Shopping for Safety

    On May 20, 1997, NHTSA published a request for comments on its 
response to the National Academy of Sciences' study Shopping for Safety 
(62 FR 27648). The notice also requests comments on programs NHTSA has 
begun or is considering to address the recommendations of the study. 
The NAS study focused primarily on providing comparative information 
regarding vehicles, and makes only small reference to warning labels. 
However, the NAS study does generally address the issue of rollover and 
the need to improve existing consumer information. The comment closing 
date for the NAS notice was August 18, 1997. To the extent that 
proposals in this notice respond to recommendations of the NAS study, 
it will be noted.

D. Suzuki Petition

    On May 15, 1997, American Suzuki Motor Corporation (Suzuki) 
petitioned NHTSA to modify the existing utility vehicle label to 
include the following language:

    If, for any reason, your vehicle slides sideways or spins out of 
control at highway speeds, the risk of rollover is greatly 
increased. This condition can be created when two or more wheels 
drop off onto the shoulder and the driver steers sharply in an 
attempt to reenter the roadway. To reduce the risk of rollover in 
these circumstances, if conditions permit, hold the steering wheel 
firmly and slow down before pulling back into the travel lanes with 
controlled steering movements.

    Suzuki also asked the agency to amend the requirement to require 
the label in all light trucks, not just utility vehicles. NHTSA 
considers the Suzuki petition moot, as the requested actions are 
already under consideration by NHTSA in several open rulemakings, 
including this rulemaking, regarding consumer information on rollover

[[Page 17976]]

prevention, and in other agency consumer information activities. The 
Suzuki petition was placed in Docket 91-68 Notice 6, and its requests 
pertinent to this rulemaking action will be addressed in this notice.

IV. Focus Groups

    In June 1996, NHTSA conducted a series of six focus groups to 
examine ways of improving the utility vehicle label. The Final Report, 
dated August 1996, has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 
Two focus groups were conducted in the Washington, DC area; two in 
Amarillo, Texas; and two in Denver, Colorado. Three focus groups were 
composed of persons 17 to 25 years old (two all male and one all 
female), and three were a mix of ages and gender. Three of the groups 
were composed of persons who owned, or drove at least once a week, a 
utility vehicle or pickup truck. One group was composed of persons 
interested in purchasing or leasing a utility vehicle. Two groups were 
composed of a mixture of persons who owned a utility vehicle or a 
pickup truck and persons who were interested in purchasing or leasing 
such vehicles.
    The two groups in the DC area were shown Labels 1 through 4 in the 
Focus Group Report. Based on comments and suggestions from those 
groups, the Amarillo and Denver groups were also shown Labels 5 through 
7 in the Focus Group Report. Conclusions were:
     Generally, graphics and bright colors were preferred over 
text. Any text should be short and to the point.
     Placement of the label would depend on whether the label 
was temporary or permanent. Bright colors were less preferred for 
permanent labels. Some said a temporary label would be removed 
immediately.
     A number of additional ways of disseminating information 
were recommended.
    With regard to the actual content of the label, virtually all 
participants felt it must be attention getting. The following 
recommendations were made:

 Use two visuals rather than three
     use (1) seat belt and (2) vehicle rolling over with arrow
     make vehicle look more like a truck or SUV
     no consensus on including a person
 Use minimal wording
     ``Danger'' instead of ``Warning''
     ``Higher risk''
     ``Always wear your seat belt''
 Use bright, eye-catching colors
     yellow letters on black background
     white ``Danger'' on red background

    Based on these recommendations, the contractor developed three 
recommended labels, Labels 8 through 10 in the Focus Group Report.

V. Proposed Utility Vehicle Label

    Based on its experience in the rulemaking to improve the air bag 
warning labels and the results of the focus groups, NHTSA is proposing 
changes to the existing utility vehicle label. Proposed Labels 1 
through 3 in this document were developed by NHTSA using the three 
labels recommended in the Focus Group Report. As explained below, NHTSA 
modified those labels to replace the word ``danger'' with the word 
``warning'' on all proposed labels, to change the color of proposed 
Label 1 to reflect an ANSI standard, and to change the color of 
proposed Label 2 to reflect the colors used for the new air bag warning 
labels. The colors used in proposed Label 3 reflect the colors used in 
all of the recommended labels in the Focus Group Report. Color copies 
of the three proposed labels can be obtained by contacting Ms. 
Versailles as indicated in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    Except for the signal word as discussed below, the new label may be 
based on an adaptation of the three proposed labels in this notice. 
NHTSA asks for comments on preferences in graphics and wording shown on 
these labels. NHTSA may choose to combine elements of these labels in a 
new label, rather than choosing one as currently illustrated. All of 
the recommendations in the focus group report are being considered.
    The results of the rollover focus groups and other focus groups the 
agency has conducted consistently have found that labels like the 
existing utility vehicle label and the label suggested by Suzuki (long 
text, no graphics) are less likely to be read than labels with minimal 
wording and graphics. Accordingly, the three labels proposed for 
consideration in this notice all have graphics and short text.
    NHTSA notes that the signal word and colors used for the 
recommended labels in the Focus Group Report are based on the reactions 
and comments of the focus group participants to the sample labels they 
were shown. Neither the signal word ``danger'' nor the colors harmonize 
with the ANSI standard for product safety signs and labels (ANSI 
Z535.4).
    The ANSI standard specifies the use of different signal words, 
i.e., ``danger,'' ``warning,'' and ``caution,'' to communicate 
information about different levels of hazard. ``Danger'' is for the 
highest level of hazard; ``caution'' for the lowest level of hazard. 
The word ``danger'' is used to indicate an imminently hazardous 
situation which will result in death or serious injury if not avoided. 
The word ``warning'' is used to indicate a potentially hazardous 
situation which could result in death or serious injury. The word 
``caution'' is used to indicate a potentially hazardous situation which 
could result in minor or moderate injury. Given that the air bag 
warning label uses the word ``warning,'' the agency would prefer to use 
that word for this label also, despite the focus group preference. For 
this reason, the sample labels have been changed to use the word 
``warning.''
    The ANSI standard also color codes messages for the different 
levels of hazard. For the header, it specifies a red background with 
white text for ``danger,'' an orange background with black text for 
``warning,'' and a yellow background with black text for ``caution.'' 
Pictograms should be black on white, with occasional uses of color for 
emphasis. Message text should be black on white. If the agency were to 
follow the ANSI standard, it would propose the color appropriate for 
``a potentially hazardous situation which could result in death or 
serious injury.'' In other words, it would propose the color orange 
instead of the color yellow for the header.
    The discrepancy between the preferences of the focus groups 
regarding utility vehicle labeling and the ANSI standard raises the 
more general issue of the circumstances in which it is appropriate in 
its rulemaking not to follow standards established by voluntary 
consensus standards organizations. Under the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Federal agencies must 
consider and adopt the use of ``voluntary consensus standards'' to 
implement their ``policy objectives or activities,'' unless doing so 
would be ``inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.'' 
A ``voluntary consensus standard'' is defined as a technical standard 
developed or adopted by a legitimate standards-developing organization 
(``voluntary consensus standards body''). According to NTTAA's 
legislative history, a ``technical standard'' pertains to ``products 
and processes, such as the size, strength, or technical performance of 
a product, process or material''. Further, a voluntary consensus 
standards organization under the NTTAA is one that produces standards 
by consensus and observes the principles of due process, openness, and 
balance of interests.

[[Page 17977]]

    Consistent with the NTTAA, NHTSA requests comments on the extent 
that any final choice regarding colors and signal words should be 
guided by the focus group preferences rather than the ANSI standard. 
NHTSA requests comments also on the broader issue of the circumstances 
in which it would be appropriate for agency rulemaking decisions to be 
guided by focus group results or other information when such 
information is contrary to a voluntary consensus standard such as the 
ANSI standard. NHTSA notes that, for the air bag warning labels, NHTSA 
followed the ANSI standard, except with respect to the use of the color 
orange for the background of the heading when the word ``warning'' was 
used. This was because of an overwhelming focus group preference for 
the color yellow as opposed to the color orange. The choice by that 
focus group was not an isolated event. In a number of recent 
rulemakings, participants in focus groups have chosen a word or color 
based on how eye-catching it is without regard to the degree of danger 
or risk being addressed.
    To assist the reader in commenting on the use of color, two of the 
labels recommended in the focus group report have been modified; the 
first to use the colors specified by the ANSI standard for ``warning,'' 
and the second to use the colors used by the agency for air bag warning 
labels. The third label illustrates the color combination used in all 
the focus group labels.
    NHTSA has received a petition for reconsideration of the final rule 
requiring new air bag warning labels from the American Automobile 
Manufacturer's Association (AAMA). The petition asks the agency to 
allow both the air bag warning label and the utility vehicle label to 
be on the front of the driver's sun visor. The petition argues that the 
existing utility vehicle label does not include requirements for color 
and graphics, and therefore, is unlikely to attract attention from the 
air bag warning label. If this proposal to upgrade the utility vehicle 
label is adopted, this will no longer be the case. NHTSA is requesting 
comment on possible changes to the location of either the air bag label 
or the utility vehicle label. In particular, NHTSA requests comment on 
whether placement of the labels on the same side of the visor would 
enhance or diminish the impact of either message.
    Currently, NHTSA specifies that the utility vehicle label be 
``permanently affixed to the instrument panel, windshield frame, 
driver's side sun visor, or in some other location in each vehicle 
prominent and visible to the driver.'' (49 CFR 575.105(c)(1)) One 
option NHTSA is considering is retaining this requirement, with the 
existing prohibition against the utility vehicle label and the air bag 
warning label being on the same side of the sun visor. If a 
manufacturer chose to continue placing the utility vehicle label on the 
sun visor, the manufacturer would have to place the air bag warning 
label on the back of the sun visor, and place the air bag alert label 
on the front of the sun visor with the utility vehicle label. Another 
option would be to keep the existing utility vehicle location 
requirements, and to remove the prohibition against placing the utility 
vehicle label on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning 
label.
    The final option NHTSA is considering is amending the utility 
vehicle location requirement to prohibit the utility vehicle label from 
being on the sun visor. In its petition regarding the air bag warning 
label, AAMA said that other locations on the interior of the vehicle 
did not have sufficient space for the utility vehicle label. NHTSA asks 
for comments on whether locations would be available if NHTSA amends 
the current location requirement only to prohibit the label from being 
affixed to a sun visor. NHTSA also asks for comments on whether the 
utility vehicle label would attract attention from the air bag warning 
label at any location in the vehicle interior, including a location on 
the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label. If a 
commenter believes that any location currently specified would be 
distracting, NHTSA asks for comments on other locations which would be 
easily seen by the driver. One location raised by comments on the air 
bag label rulemaking and being considered by NHTSA is the lower, rear 
corner of the driver's side door window, legible from the vehicle 
exterior. This location would be unobtrusive once the driver was in the 
vehicle, but would be easily and regularly seen when entering the 
vehicle.
    NHTSA also asks for comments on whether a size should be specified 
for the label. In its petition on the air bag warning label final rule, 
AAMA stated that utility vehicle labels are 117 x 50 mm. Since the 
regulation does not specify a size for the label, NHTSA assumes that 
this is typical of the size label used by AAMA's member companies. 
NHTSA asks for comment on whether this size is typical of the industry 
as a whole.
    Next, NHTSA asks for comments on possible changes to the owner's 
manual information requirement. The current requirement specifies the 
following or similar language:

    Utility vehicles have higher ground clearance and a narrower 
track to make them capable of performing in a wide variety of off-
road applications. Specific design characteristics give them a 
higher center of gravity than ordinary cars. An advantage of the 
higher ground clearance is a better view of the road allowing you to 
anticipate problems. They are not designed for cornering at the same 
speeds as conventional 2-wheel drive vehicles any more than low-
slung sports cars are designed to perform satisfactorily under off-
road conditions. If at all possible, avoid sharp turns or abrupt 
maneuvers. As with other vehicles of this type, failure to operate 
this vehicle correctly may result in loss of control or vehicle 
rollover.

    Shopping for Safety recommends that communication of vehicle safety 
measures be accomplished through a hierarchically organized approach. 
Using the NAS recommended crashworthiness rating as an example, this 
would involve a vehicle label with highly summarized information, an 
accompanying brochure with more detailed explanation of the summary 
measure and how it was arrived at, and a handbook with complete 
comparisons. This recommendation is based on the fact that consumers 
differ in the amount of information they want and can manage. Based on 
this recommendation, NHTSA believes consideration should be given to 
including additional information in the owner's manual on rollover to 
supplement the label.
    Such information could include: statistical information comparing 
the rollover risk of utility vehicles with other light passenger 
vehicles, statistical information demonstrating the lower risk of 
fatality or injury if seat belts are worn, information on the types of 
situations that can result in a rollover, and information on how to 
properly recover from a driving scenario that could result in rollover.
    Alternatively, NHTSA believes that manufacturers may voluntarily 
want to supplement the strong language on the proposed labels with 
explanatory material in the owner's manual. Given that, NHTSA is 
concerned that any requirement specifying the information that must be 
included, including the current requirement, may be unnecessarily 
restrictive. In part, this is because NHTSA is concerned that vehicle 
differences may make some advice inappropriate for all vehicles.
    NHTSA requests comments on three possible approaches to an owner's 
manual information requirement: (1) Retain the current owner's manual 
information requirement, (2) specify that information on design 
features

[[Page 17978]]

which may make a vehicle more likely to rollover (e.g., higher center 
of gravity) and driving practices which can reduce the risk that a 
rollover will occur (e.g., avoiding sharp turns) or which can reduce 
the likelihood of death or serious injury if a rollover occurs (e.g., 
wearing seat belts) be included in the owner's manual without 
specifying the exact content of such information, or (3) specify the 
inclusion of information beyond what is now specified. If a commenter 
believes this requirement should be more specific, NHTSA requests that 
the comment include a list of the specific information that should be 
required.
    Finally, NHTSA asks for comments on the issue of extending the 
utility vehicle label requirement to all light trucks (trucks, buses, 
and MPVs) or to any subset of this category (for example, all utility 
vehicles). While VW and NADA believe an extension to other vehicles is 
not justified, Suzuki believes the requirement should be extended to 
all light trucks. NHTSA recognizes that pickup trucks also have a 
higher rollover fatality rate than passenger cars, however, vans 
(classified as either MPVs or buses under NHTSA regulations) have a 
lower rollover fatality rate than small passenger cars. In addition, 
given that there is an outstanding rulemaking on a comparative 
information label for rollover, should NHTSA consider extending the 
requirement to other vehicles before that rulemaking is concluded?
    NHTSA believes that this proposal would result in minimal cost for 
manufacturers and consumers. A label and owner's manual information is 
already required for utility vehicles. Therefore, the cost of printing 
the label, the owner's manual pages, and installation of the label 
should be the same, even if the information is changed. The only cost 
would be a one-time cost to change production to the new label or new 
owner's manual pages. NHTSA also believes that 180 days leadtime would 
be sufficient for these changes. NHTSA required a shorter leadtime for 
the changes to the air bag warning labels and manufacturers were able 
to install new labels by the deadline.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been 
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. As explained 
above, NHTSA believes that this proposal would result in minimal cost 
for manufacturers and consumers. As this is a proposal to change an 
existing requirement, the only cost would be a one-time cost to change 
production to the new label or new owner's manual pages.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. As explained above, NHTSA believes this proposal would 
have minimal economic impact.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a 
significant impact on the human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this 
proposed rule would not have significant federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

Submission of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 2 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 
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 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 before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal 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 the final rule will be considered 
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal 
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 it is recommended 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 575

    Consumer protection, Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 
vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part 
575 be amended as follows:

[[Page 17979]]

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 575 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, and 30123; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec. 575.105  [Amended]

    2. Section 575.105 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 575.105  Vehicle rollover.

    (a) Purpose and scope. This section requires manufacturers of 
utility vehicles to alert drivers that such vehicles have a higher 
possibility of rollover than other vehicle types and that driving 
practices can be used to reduce the possibility of rollover and/or to 
reduce the likelihood of injury in a rollover.
    (b) Application. This section applies to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles (other than those which are passenger car derivatives) which 
have a wheelbase of 110 inches or less and special features for 
occasional off-road operation (``utility vehicles'').
    (c) Required Information. (1) Vehicle Label. Each manufacturer 
shall permanently affix a vehicle label in a location specified in 
paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. The label shall conform in 
size, content, color, and format to the label shown in Figure 1.

    [For the convenience of the reader, this notice includes Figures 
1-3, which duplicate Figures 8-10 from the focus group report except 
as noted in the preamble. If this proposal is adopted, the final 
rule will contain a single Figure 1. In addition, as discussed in 
the preamble, the agency's preference for a signal word is 
``warning,'' rather than ``danger'' as illustrated.]

    (i) The instrument panel, windshield frame, driver's side sun 
visor, or in some other location in each vehicle prominent and visible 
to the driver; or,
    (ii) The lower rear corner of the forwardmost window on the driver 
side of the vehicle, legible from the vehicle exterior.
    (2) Owner's Manual. The vehicle owner's manual shall include:
    (i) Information identifying those design features which may cause 
utility vehicles to roll over or go out of control in certain driving 
conditions and explaining why those features may have that effect; and,
    (ii) Driving guidelines which can help prevent vehicle roll over or 
loss of control and which can help reduce the likelihood of death or 
serious injury if the vehicle rolls over or goes out of control.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP98.002


[[Page 17980]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP98.003


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP98.004


    Issued on April 7, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-9574 Filed 4-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C