[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 137 (Monday, July 19, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38593-38596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18324]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 567
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5937]
RIN 2127-AH49
Vehicle Certification; Contents of Certification Labels for
Altered Vehicles
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends NHTSA's regulations on vehicle
certification that specify the contents of the certification labels
that vehicle alterers are required to affix to motor vehicles that they
alter. The amendment requires the certification label affixed by the
alterer to state that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention
standards affected by the alteration. The prior regulations did not
require the certification labels on altered vehicles to state that the
vehicles, as altered, complied with the Theft Prevention Standard. This
amendment makes the certification requirements for vehicle alterers
consistent with those for vehicle manufacturers.
DATES: 1. Effective Date: The amendment established by this final rule
will become effective on September 2, 1999.
2. Deadline for Submission of Petitions for Reconsideration: Any
petitions for reconsideration must be received by NHTSA not later than
September 2, 1999.
3. Compliance Date: The amendment established by this final rule
applies to vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 2000. However,
any alterer who wishes to voluntarily affix certification labels that
meet the requirements of this final rule to vehicles manufactured
before that date may do so.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number above and be submitted to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are 9 am to 5
pm, Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. (202-366-5238).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
This rule was preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
published on February 11, 1999 (64 FR 6852). As explained in the NPRM,
a final rule published on February 11, 1999 (64 FR 6815), had amended
the regulations on vehicle certification at 49 CFR 567.4 to require the
certification label for multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and
trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or
less to specify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety and theft prevention standards. This amendment was
prompted by a letter that NHTSA had received from a vehicle
manufacturer noting that under a provision of the Anti Car Theft Act of
1992, now codified at 49 U.S.C. 33101, the definition of vehicles
subject to the major parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard was expanded to include ``a multi-purpose passenger vehicle or
light duty truck when that vehicle or truck is rated at not more than
6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.''
One of the comments submitted in response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (published on June 25, 1998 at 63 FR 34623) that
preceded the final rule on the contents of certification labels for
MPVs and light duty trucks was from John Russell Deane III, the General
Counsel of the Speciality Equipment Market
[[Page 38594]]
Association (SEMA). In his comment, Mr. Deane recommended that NHTSA
amend 49 CFR 567.7, the provision in the certification regulations that
prescribes requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles, so
that it is consistent with the amendments to the certification
requirements for manufacturers that the agency was proposing.
The certification requirements in section 567.7 apply to a person
who alters a previously certified vehicle before it is first purchased
for purposes other than resale. The certification requirements are
triggered only when the vehicle is altered ``other than by the
addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components
such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing
operations such as painting,'' or when the vehicle is altered ``in such
a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid.''
In his comment, Mr. Deane noted that although vehicle alterers have
a statutory responsibility to certify that any vehicle they alter that
is subject to the Theft Prevention Standard remains in compliance with
that standard following the completion of the alterations, section
567.7 was never amended to reflect that requirement.
In its response to Mr. Deane's comment, NHTSA acknowledged the
validity of the issue that he raised, and stated that the agency would
commence a rulemaking to address the disparity between the
certification responsibilities for manufacturers and those for alterers
with regard to the Theft Prevention Standard.
Accordingly, NHTSA proposed to amend the certification regulations
to require the label affixed by vehicle alterers to state that the
vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards affected by the
alteration. The NPRM stated that this requirement would apply to
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 so that vehicle
alterers have adequate lead time to exhaust their existing inventory of
certification labels and have new labels printed if the amendment were
adopted.
B. Comments
Three comments were submitted in response to the NPRM. The first of
these was from John Russell Deane III, who was again commenting on
behalf of SEMA. Mr. Deane stated that SEMA was pleased to see that the
agency was proposing to adopt the amendment to the certification
requirements for altered vehicles that he had recommended. Mr. Deane
expressed concern, however, that the proposal for the amendment to
apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 would not
provide sufficient lead time for label makers and vehicle alterers to
be apprized of the changes that will be required in the contents of the
certification label.
As stated in the NPRM, NHTSA proposed September 1, 1999 as the
compliance date for this amendment because it assumed that this would
provide vehicle alterers with adequate lead time to exhaust their
existing inventory of certification labels and have new labels printed.
The agency was additionally motivated by the belief that a September 1,
1999 compliance date would eliminate confusion for vehicle alterers
because that date also coincides with the commonly recognized start of
production for model year (MY) 2000 vehicles.
In a comment responding to the NPRM on certification requirements
for manufacturers of MPVs and light duty trucks, the Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) requested that
manufacturers be given 120 days lead time to implement the proposed
changes and to exhaust their existing supply of certification labels.
Based on this comment, NHTSA assumed that 120 days would provide
adequate lead time for vehicle alterers as well.
The agency notes, however, that owing to a delay in the publication
of this final rule, a September 1, 1999 compliance date will no longer
provide vehicle alterers with 120 days of lead time. Accordingly, the
agency has decided to postpone the compliance date of this amendment
for an additional 120 days. As a consequence, the amendment will apply
to vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 2000. The additional
delay in the compliance date of this amendment should address Mr.
Deane's concern that there be adequate lead time for label makers and
vehicle alterers to be apprised of the required changes in the contents
of the certification label for altered vehicles.
The second comment was submitted by the National Truck Equipment
Association (NTEA), a trade association representing distributors and
manufacturers of multi-stage produced, work-related trucks, truck
bodies, and equipment. In its comment, the NTEA questioned the need for
amending the certification label for altered MPVs and light duty trucks
because those vehicles will already have labels affixed by their
manufacturers certifying the vehicles' compliance with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety and theft prevention standards as a result
of the February 11, 1999 amendment to 49 CFR 567.4. The NTEA noted that
the manufacturer's label will remain on these vehicles after they are
altered. As a consequence, the NTEA contended that it would be
redundant to require the alterer's certification label to also state
that the vehicles comply with the Theft Prevention Standard.
The NTEA also requested six months lead time if the agency decided
to change the required contents of certification labels for altered
vehicles so that it has adequate time to redesign the labels, have them
printed, and sufficiently reduce its current inventory of labels to
mitigate the cost of the change. The NTEA noted that many of its
members obtain labels far in advance of their intended use and that it
is not unusual for a member company to purchase labels once a year.
With respect to the first issue raised by the NTEA, the agency
notes that the certification responsibilities of vehicle alterers are
distinct from those of vehicle manufacturers. A manufacturer must
certify that its vehicle conforms to all applicable standards in effect
on the vehicle's date of manufacture, while an alterer must certify
that the vehicle, as altered, remains in conformity with those
standards. As such, any statement on the certification label affixed by
the manufacturer that a MPV or light duty truck conforms to the Theft
Prevention Standard as of the date of the vehicle's manufacture does
not relieve the alterer from certifying that the vehicle, as altered,
remains in conformity with that standard. Because of the different
function they serve, NHTSA sees no redundancy between the certification
statements made by the vehicle manufacturer and those made by the
vehicle alterer.
Addressing the second issue raised by the NTEA, the agency notes
that the January 1, 2000 compliance date that is being adopted for this
final rule will provide an amount of lead time for changing the
contents of certification labels for altered vehicles that is close to
what the organization has requested for its members.
The third comment was received from the National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA). In its comment, NADA expressed the opinion that
NHTSA is relying on 49 U.S.C. 33108(c) to expand the contents of the
certification label for altered vehicles to include a reference to the
Theft Prevention Standard. NADA stated that it is concerned that
section 33108(c) ``fails to vest NHTSA with the necessary discretion
and authority to require an
[[Page 38595]]
alterer to certify conformity with the theft prevention standard.''
Section 33108(c) states, in relevant part, that the ``manufacturer
of a motor vehicle subject to the standard * * * shall provide at the
time of delivery of the vehicle * * * a certification that the vehicle
* * * conforms to the applicable motor vehicle theft prevention
standard.'' The section further authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to prescribe the type and form of the certification by
regulation. NHTSA has accordingly relied on this section, and other
similar provisions, as statutory authority for the vehicle
certification regulations at 49 CFR part 567, which, as previously
noted, include requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles at
49 CFR 567.7. The alteration of certified vehicles is not a subject
that is specifically addressed within 49 U.S.C. 33108(c) or the other
sources of statutory authority for the vehicle certification
regulations. Because the operations performed by vehicle alterers could
affect a vehicle's compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, and potentially
introduce safety-related defects into the vehicle, NHTSA has identified
alterers as having the same duties and responsibilities as vehicle
manufacturers, and has accordingly regulated them as such. The statutes
that authorize NHTSA to prescribe the manner and form in which
manufacturers are to certify compliance with applicable safety, bumper,
and theft prevention standards apply equally to vehicle alterers.
In its comment, NADA also observed that no reference to the Theft
Prevention Standard need be provided in an alterer's label for a
vehicle that is exempted by NHTSA from that standard under 49 CFR Part
543. The agency disagrees with this observation. As part of the
rulemaking that established Part 543, NHTSA solicited comments on
whether the exemption status of a vehicle with respect to the Theft
Prevention Standard should be reflected on the vehicle's certification
label. Most of the comments that were received disfavored this
requirement because it would have imposed additional costs on
manufacturers to have different labels printed for vehicle lines that
were subject to, exempted from, and not subject to the standard,
without providing any apparent benefit to law enforcement organizations
that the standard was intended to assist. See Final Rule published on
September 8, 1987 at 52 FR 33821, 33823-24. Based on these comments,
NHTSA concluded that it was unnecessary for the exemption status of a
vehicle to be reflected on the vehicle's certification label. As a
consequence, the certification regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5)
require manufactures to state that 1987 and subsequent model year
passenger cars conform to ``all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards.'' The agency notes that
this certification statement is appropriate for vehicle lines that are
exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard, because that standard is
not ``applicable'' to those vehicles. In like manner, where a vehicle
has been exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard, alterers will
face no additional burden in certifying that the vehicle conforms to
all ``applicable,'' standards, including the Theft Prevention Standard.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rule was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has analyzed
this rule and determined that it is not ``significant'' within the
meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the amendment resulting from this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Although most vehicle alterers are likely to qualify as
small entities, the amendment will have no adverse economic impact upon
them because they are being afforded adequate lead time to exhaust
their existing inventory of certification labels and have new labels
printed. This amendment also will have no effect on small organizations
and small governmental units. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility
analysis has been prepared.
3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No State laws will be
affected.
4. National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has considered the environmental implications of this
rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and determined that the rule will not significantly affect the human
environment.
5. Civil Justice Reform
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. It modifies an
existing Federal regulation to make it consistent with a statutory
requirement. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceeding will not be a prerequisite to an action seeking judicial
review of this rule. This rule does not preempt the states from
adopting laws or regulations on the same subject, except that it does
preempt a state regulation that is in actual conflict with the Federal
regulation or makes compliance with the Federal regulation impossible
or interferes with the implementation of the Federal statute.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 567
Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, Sec. 567.7, Requirements for
persons who alter certified vehicles, in Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations at Part 567 is amended as follows:
PART 567--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 567 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, 32502,
32504, 33101-33104, 33108, and 33109; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50
2. Section 567.7 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 567.7 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.
* * * * *
(a) The statement: ``This vehicle was altered by (individual or
corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed)
and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month,
year).'' The second date shall be no earlier than the manufacturing
date of the original vehicle, and no later than the date alterations
were completed.
(1) In the case of passenger cars manufactured on or after January
1, 2000, the expression ``safety, bumper, and theft prevention'' shall
be substituted in the statement for the word ``safety''.
(2) In the case of multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and
trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after
January 1, 2000, the expression ``and theft
[[Page 38596]]
prevention'' shall be included in the statement following the word
``safety''.
* * * * *
Issued on: July 14, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-18324 Filed 7-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P