[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45453-45470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0025]
RIN 2127-AK51


New Car Assessment Program (NCAP); Safety Labeling

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: New passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2007 must be labeled with safety rating information published by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under its New 
Car Assessment Program (NCAP). This information is required by statute 
to be part of the Monroney (automobile price sticker) label. Effective 
beginning in model year 2011 passenger vehicles, NHTSA enhanced the 
NCAP ratings program to include, among other things, the incorporation 
of an overall vehicle score that is derived from the vehicle's frontal 
crash, side crash, and rollover resistance ratings. This final rule 
amends NHTSA's regulation on vehicle labeling of safety rating 
information to reflect the enhanced NCAP ratings program.

DATES: The final rule is effective August 29, 2011.
    Petitions for Reconsideration: If you wish to petition for 
reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by 
September 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document 
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 
Washington, DC 20590.
    The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search 
the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets 
by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the 
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; 
Pages 19477-78).
    For access to the docket to read background documents or comments 
received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online 
instructions for accessing the docket. You may also visit DOT's Docket 
Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 for on-line access to 
the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Ms. Jennifer N. Dang, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone: 
202-366-1740) (Fax: 202-493-2739). For legal issues, you may call Mr. 
Steve Wood, Office of the Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 
202-366-3820). You may send mail to both of these officials at the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 45454]]

Table of Contents

I. Overview of NCAP and Congressional Mandate
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Summary of Comments to the NPRM
IV. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM
V. Response to Comments and Agency Decisions
    A. Applicability
    B. Label Content
    1. Space Available on the Label
    2. Safety Concern Symbol
    3. Similar Weight Comparison Language
    4. The Need to Better Distinguish Between Current and Revised 
Label
    C. Absence of Crash Avoidance Information on the Label
    D. Costs Associated With New Labels
    E. Labeling Before and After NCAP Testing
    F. Consumer Survey and Label Research
    G. Other Issues
    1. Legend for Star Ratings
    2. Overall Vehicle Score
    3. Correction to Ratings Description
    4. Visibility Obstructions
    H. Lead Time and Other Timing Considerations
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Overview of NCAP and Congressional Mandate

    Under its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) subjects vehicles to frontal 
crash, side crash, and rollover resistance tests and, based on the 
results, assigns safety ratings to the tested vehicles. The ratings are 
expressed in terms of a 5-star rating system, with five stars being the 
highest rating and one star the lowest. The ratings would enable 
consumers to consider and assess the relative safety of vehicles before 
deciding which new vehicle they want to purchase. The labels would also 
provide an incentive for vehicle manufacturers to make voluntary 
improvements in the safety of their vehicles beyond the minimum levels 
of performance required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
    The following overview describes two separate, on-going efforts to 
improve the NCAP program: (1) Requiring that the NCAP information be 
placed on labels on new passenger vehicles and (2) upgrading the NCAP 
information, most significantly by introducing an overall safety 
rating.
    In 2005, Congress enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-
LU).\1\ Section 10307 required new passenger vehicles to be labeled 
with either the safety ratings it had received under NCAP or a 
statement that the vehicle had not been rated under NCAP. The ratings 
must be displayed on its new vehicle price sticker, known as the 
Monroney label. The Monroney label is required by Federal law \2\ and 
is affixed to the side window showing the price of the vehicle and the 
options installed. The Monroney label on all light vehicles is required 
to show, among other things:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 109-59 (August 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144).
    \2\ The Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) (Title 15, 
United States Code, chapter 28, Sections 1231-1233) was enacted into 
law in 1958, and is also called the ``Monroney Act,'' after its 
sponsor, Senator Monroney of Oklahoma. The Monroney Act requires all 
new light vehicles to have a label affixed to the side window 
showing the price of the vehicle and options installed. The 
information required to be labeled on the window by the Monroney Act 
remained unchanged from its passage in 1958 until 2005 when Congress 
enacted SAFETEA-LU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) of the 
base vehicle;
     The MSRP of each accessory and each item of optional 
equipment installed on the particular vehicle;
     The transportation charges for delivery of the vehicle 
from the manufacturer to the dealer; and
     The total MSRP of all of the above.
    SAFETEA-LU also required that the safety rating information be 
presented in a legible, visible, and prominent fashion, and that the 
safety rating area of the Monroney label meet minimum size requirements 
\3\ and specified a statement to be provided if no safety rating 
information is available for a particular vehicle model.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C 1232(g) states that if one or more safety ratings 
for such automobile have been assigned and formally published or 
released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under 
the New Car Assessment Program, information about safety ratings 
that (1) includes a graphic depiction of the number of stars, or 
other applicable rating, that corresponds to each such assigned 
safety rating displayed in a clearly differentiated fashion 
indicating the maximum possible safety rating; (2) refers to frontal 
impact crash tests, side impact crash tests, and rollover resistance 
tests (whether or not such automobile has been assigned a safety 
rating for such tests); (3) contains information describing the 
nature and meaning of the crash test data presented and a reference 
to additional vehicle safety resources, including http://www.safercar.gov; and (4) is presented in a legible, visible, and 
prominent fashion and covers at least--(A) 8 percent of the total 
area of the label; or (B) an area with a minimum length of 4\1/2\ 
inches and a minimum height of 3\1/2\ inches.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 1232(h) states that if an automobile has not been 
tested by NHTSA under NCAP, or safety ratings for such automobile 
have not been assigned in one or more rating categories, the label 
must contain a statement to that effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the MSRP and safety ratings information, Congress 
has also permitted the information from two other Federal programs to 
appear on the Monroney label. The Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA) 
requires that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issue 
regulations requiring vehicle manufacturers to attach a prominently 
placed label that provides information on:
     The vehicle's fuel economy;
     The estimated annual fuel cost of operating the vehicle;
     The range of fuel economy of comparable vehicles by all 
manufacturers; and
     A statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to 
compare the fuel economy of other vehicles manufactured by all 
manufacturers for the model year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2) expressly provides that the EPA ``may 
allow a manufacturer to comply with this subsection by disclosing 
the information on the label required under * * * the Automobile 
Information Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1232).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2007, Congress amended the Energy Independence Security Act 
(EISA) by, among other things, mandating that NHTSA issue a rule 
requiring that greenhouse gas emissions as well as new fuel economy 
information be placed on labels affixed to new vehicles.\6\ Pursuant to 
EISA, NHTSA and EPA published a final rule to revise substantially the 
fuel economy labeling requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(g).
    \7\ 76 FR 39478; July 06, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act 
requires that information on domestic and foreign content be provided 
on new vehicle labels.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 49 U.S.C. 32304(g) provides that NHTSA ``shall permit a 
manufacturer to comply with this section by allowing the 
manufacturer to disclose the information * * * on the label required 
under * * * the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 
1232).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 12, 2006, the agency published a final rule 
implementing the NCAP safety labeling requirements of SAFETEA-LU by 
establishing a new regulation, 49 CFR 575.301, Vehicle Labeling of 
Safety Rating Information,\9\ that required vehicle manufacturers to 
incorporate a distinct safety rating label into the Monroney label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 71 FR 53572, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25772.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule provided that:
    (1) New passenger automobiles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2007, must display specified NCAP information on a safety rating label 
that is part of their Monroney label;
    (2) The specified information must include a graphical depiction of 
the number of stars achieved by a vehicle for each safety test;
    (3) Information describing the nature and meaning of the test data, 
and references to http://www.safercar.gov and NHTSA's toll-free hotline 
number for additional vehicle safety information, must be placed on the 
label;

[[Page 45455]]

    (4) The label must be legible and visible with a minimum length of 
4\1/2\ inches and a minimum height of 3\1/2\ inches or cover at least 8 
percent of the total area of the Monroney label, whichever is larger;
    (5) Ratings must be placed on new vehicles manufactured 30 or more 
days after the manufacturer receives notification from NHTSA of NCAP 
ratings for those vehicles.
    In its discretion, the agency decided to require that the label 
indicate the existence of events that occurred during NCAP testing and 
that produced safety concerns, but are not reflected in the resulting 
NCAP ratings. The final rule also required that the agency's toll-free-
hotline number appear on the label and adopted specifications for such 
matters as the wording and arrangement of some of the messages and the 
font sizes that apply in various areas of the label.
    On July 11, 2008, the agency published a final decision notice in 
which it described the NCAP enhancements it was adopting.\10\ These 
enhancements include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 73 FR 40016, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     For the frontal crash program--modifying the frontal NCAP 
rating system to reflect updated test dummies, expanded injury 
criteria, and the inclusion of all body regions that are covered by 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208;
     For the side crash program--modifying the side NCAP rating 
system to reflect new side impact test dummies, new injury criteria, 
the inclusion of nearly all of the body regions that are covered by 
FMVSS No. 214, as well as a new side pole crash test using a small 
female crash test dummy;
     A new overall vehicle score based on frontal crash, side 
crash, and rollover resistance test results; and
     A new program that will provide consumers with information 
concerning the availability of advanced crash avoidance technologies 
that meet NHTSA's performance criteria and that have been shown to 
reduce crashes.
    The final decision notice did not announce any changes to the NCAP 
rollover resistance testing and rating system.
    The enhancements to NCAP took effect in the 2011 model year. The 
associated safety ratings are based on the test protocols and rating 
system in the July 2008 notice.

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On March 9, 2010, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (75 FR 
10740) (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0025) a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to revise the agency's regulation on vehicle labeling of safety 
rating information to reflect the enhancements to the NCAP program, 
particularly the addition of the overall vehicle score.
    The major proposals in the NPRM included:
    (1) Beginning with model year 2011, safety rating labels on new 
passenger vehicles that are manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 
would be required to include, as the first item of safety information 
in the safety rating label, an overall vehicle score based on a 
vehicle's frontal crash, side crash, and rollover resistance ratings. 
The agency would allow early compliance for model year 2011 vehicles 
that are manufactured before September 1, 2010;
    (2) Language describing the nature and meaning of the NCAP test 
data used to generate vehicle safety ratings and a referral to http://www.safercar.gov for additional vehicle safety information in the 
safety rating label would be revised slightly and, in some cases, 
relocated in the safety rating label;
    (3) Safety concerns identified as a result of NCAP testing would 
need to be displayed in the overall vehicle score area of the safety 
rating label and in the appropriate area of the safety rating label to 
which the safety concern applies (frontal, side, or rollover); and
    (4) The proposed regulation applying to model year 2011 and later 
vehicles (manufactured on or after September 1, 2010) would be 
designated as 49 CFR 575.302. The existing regulation, with minor 
conforming amendments, would continue to be at 49 CFR 575.301.

Discussion of Minimum NCAP Label Size in September 2010 CAFE/Greenhouse 
Gas Labeling Proposal

    In a proposal published on September 23, 2010 to implement EISA's 
CAFE/greenhouse gas labeling requirements,\11\ NHTSA noted the 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) and Robert Bosch LLC 
(Bosch) raised questions about the agency's interpretation, announced 
in the September 2006 final rule,\12\ that SAFETEA-LU's specification 
of a minimum size for the label indicated that the agency did not have 
any discretion to specify a larger minimum size. The Advocates and 
Bosch argued that the statutory specification merely established a 
floor on the discretion of the agency to specify a minimum size. The 
agency stated in the 2010 proposal that it was re-examining its 
interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 75 FR 58078, at 58147; September 23, 2010.
    \12\ 71 FR 53572, 53576, September 12, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments on the NPRM

    In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received comments from 8 
organizations representing motor vehicle manufacturers and their 
associations, automotive suppliers, as well as consumer and dealer 
groups. The motor vehicle manufacturer associations included: the 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and the Technical 
Affairs Committee of the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers (AIAM).\13\ Vehicle manufacturers included: Honda Motor 
Co., Ltd. (Honda), Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Nissan), and Volvo Car 
Corporation (Volvo). Bosch was the single automotive supplier that 
provided comments. Consumer and dealer groups included the Advocates 
and the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers 
is now known as the Association of Global Manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vehicle manufacturers and their associations were generally 
supportive of the proposals in the NPRM for revising the Monroney label 
content to reflect the new program; however, they mainly expressed 
concern over the proposed amount of lead time for meeting the new 
requirements and other logistical challenges. Bosch strongly supported 
the inclusion of collision mitigation (active safety) rating 
information on the Monroney label.
    The Advocates expressed concerns about the presentation of 
information and safety concerns on the vehicle disclosure label, and 
consumer understanding of the NCAP star safety ratings. Specifically, 
the Advocates urged NHTSA to increase the size of the label beyond the 
minimum requirement set forth in the statute, and include for 
consumers, what it considered to be, essential information, such as a 
brief statement explaining factual information and context about the 
safety concern warning on the vehicle and a legend conveying the 
association of star ratings and risk of injuries to the occupants in a 
particular vehicle. Also, the Advocates agreed that NHTSA should 
conduct research to understand better any potential tradeoffs consumers 
may make among the four sections currently included on the Monroney 
label and whether the amount of space dedicated to each of the four 
sections as well as the location of those four sections affect the 
attention consumers give the sections.

[[Page 45456]]

    Contrary to the Advocates' suggestion regarding the label size, 
NADA favored limiting the overall size of the Monroney label to 
minimize potential field-of-vision obstruction for new vehicle drivers. 
Also, NADA discussed the importance of providing consumers with ratings 
from all three NCAP test modes and the overall vehicle score and 
consistent rating information at the point of sale. NADA also offered 
comments in the areas of program transition and consumer education.

IV. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM

    The changes from the NPRM are summarized in this section and 
explained in detail in the next section of the preamble. Today's final 
rule essentially adopts the provisions of the NPRM with some minor 
adjustments.
     The following text, ``Safety concern: Visit http://www.safercar.gov or call 1-888-327-4236 for more details'' (preceded by 
the safety concern symbol depicted in figure 4 to Sec.  575.302 and 
ending with a period) is only required in the overall vehicle score 
area of the label. This mitigates space concerns in cases where a 
vehicle receives a safety concern in more than one crash test area.
     The adopted language states that frontal crash ratings and 
the overall vehicle score should only be compared to other vehicles of 
``similar size and weight,'' rather than of ``similar weight class.''
     To minimize consumer confusion at the point of sale, the 
agency believes that it is critical that the final rule for the safety 
rating label, which includes the overall vehicle score, be published in 
time for placement of the revised safety rating label on model year 
2012 vehicles. The final rule for the fuel economy/greenhouse gas 
emissions label was published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2011. 
The agency believes that the consumer research testing of the entire 
Monroney label will be more effective if the fuel economy/greenhouse 
gas emissions portion and the safety rating portion of the Monroney 
label are finalized. Thus, the agency chose to postpone the consumer 
research until revision to both portions of the Monroney label is 
finalized.
     The agency has slightly modified explanatory language that 
will be required in the side crash area of the safety rating label to 
make clear that the ratings reflect risks involved in a real-world side 
impact crash, rather than risks associated with the two crash tests 
that are used to determine the side crash ratings.
     Finally, the final rule extends the compliance date of the 
revised safety rating labels from September 1, 2010 to January 31, 2012 
for the model year 2012 and beyond, in order to provide sufficient lead 
time for vehicle manufacturers to prepare for the implementation of the 
revised labels. Passenger vehicles manufactured on or after January 31, 
2012 will be required to have the new safety rating label, and early 
compliance will be permitted for model year 2012 vehicles that are 
manufactured before January 31, 2012, provided that the ratings placed 
on the safety rating label are derived from vehicle testing conducted 
by NHTSA under the enhanced NCAP testing and rating program.

V. Response to Comments and Agency Decisions

    The majority of the proposed amendments in the NPRM dealt with 
label content. The NPRM also discussed: whether to include crash 
avoidance technology information on the label, the agency's process for 
rating notification, timing, consumer education and proposed compliance 
date.\14\ In the following sections, we describe the public comments in 
these areas and explain the agency's response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For a complete discussion of the issues raised in the NPRM, 
please refer to the March 9, 2010 NPRM (75 FR 10740).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Applicability

    NHTSA proposed that all changes to the safety rating label proposed 
in the NPRM would apply to safety rating labels in the Monroney labels 
of passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. It was further proposed that 
vehicles that have a Monroney label and that have been rated in at 
least one area under NCAP would need to display those ratings. The 
phrase ``not rated'' would be used in other areas. Also, the phrase 
``to be rated'' may be used if the manufacturer has received written 
notification from NHTSA that the vehicle has been chosen for NCAP 
testing. As an alternative, vehicles that display a Monroney label and 
that have not been rated under NCAP would be required to include in 
their Monroney label a smaller vehicle safety rating label, which 
indicates that the vehicle has not been rated.
    One commenter, NADA, urged NHTSA to make sure that if a vehicle is 
tested for any of the three NCAP modes that it be tested for all of the 
modes so that all information on the label, including the overall 
vehicle score, is provided. Failure to have complete information on the 
label is confusing and limits a label's utility for purposes of making 
vehicle comparisons, the organization said. As an alternative, it 
suggested there should be three label options. One would have the 
overall vehicle score section and would be used when tests have been 
conducted and information for all three test modes can be displayed 
along with the overall vehicle score. The second would be similar to 
the current label and would be used in cases where less than the 
complete set of NCAP tests has been completed. The third would be used 
for untested vehicles.
    NADA further objected to the use of the phrase ``to be rated'' 
since it considered it confusing, and said the phrase ``not rated'' 
should suffice.
    Agency Response: The agency agrees that NCAP is more effective when 
all possible ratings for a vehicle are available and displayed on the 
safety rating label for that vehicle and on the agency's Web site, 
http://www.safercar.gov. The agency has made a concerted effort in 
recent years to assure that vehicles tested under NCAP undergo all 
relevant tests. It has also worked towards ensuring that all testing 
occurs in a narrow window of time so that all of the test results and 
ratings become available simultaneously. These two efforts have 
minimized incomplete information on the safety rating labels and on the 
Web site.
    During the 2011 model year, as NCAP transitions from the previous 
testing and rating system to the enhanced system, there may be more 
situations than the agency would like in which only partial ratings are 
available for vehicles. This is due largely to the fact that some 
rollover resistance ratings in many cases carry over from the previous 
model year, since there has been no change to the rollover testing and 
rating system, while no crash ratings will carry over because all model 
year (MY) 2011 vehicles need to be crash tested and safety rated using 
the enhanced NCAP testing and rating system. The agency fully expects 
that within a few years, all vehicles rated under NCAP will have 
complete ratings.
    The agency believes NADA's suggestion for three different label 
options, with each option geared to the amount of ratings information 
available for a given vehicle, would not be used by manufacturers 
because of the practical and cost considerations involved. Two label 
options are already available to manufacturers in the current 
regulation and will be available under this final rule. One contains 
areas for all possible NCAP ratings. The other may be used if no 
ratings have been

[[Page 45457]]

developed for a vehicle. The latter is smaller and simply states, 
``This vehicle has not been rated by the government for overall vehicle 
score, frontal crash, side crash, or rollover risk.'' This seems to be 
comparable with the third option suggested by NADA.
    The use of these two label options along with either of the phrases 
``to be rated'' or ``not rated'' in the appropriate circumstances helps 
to keep safety in the minds of consumers as they shop for new vehicles. 
The phrase ``to be rated,'' in particular, which NADA suggested be 
dropped as an option for manufacturers, communicates to a consumer 
interested in a particular vehicle, but also interested in safety, that 
safety information will be available for that vehicle at some future 
time. Presumably some consumers may wait to purchase a new vehicle 
until safety information for that vehicle is available. Without the 
``to be rated'' designation and ``not rated'' in its place, consumers 
might drop the vehicle from consideration.
    For these reasons, the agency has decided to continue with the two 
label options that are currently in the regulation and the allowable 
use of the phrases ``to be rated'' for instances when ratings are not 
yet, but will be, available and ``not rated'' for when a vehicle has 
not been, and will not be, tested and rated for that model year.

B. Label Content

1. Space Available on the Label
    The NPRM proposed modifying the safety rating label to incorporate 
a new area of the label for the overall vehicle score. This area would 
be located immediately below the heading area and would be the first 
item of safety information. The format of the remainder of the safety 
rating label would be very similar to the current safety rating label, 
except that language explaining the 5-star rating system and other 
language indicating that NHTSA is the source of the safety information 
contained in the safety rating label would now be incorporated into the 
footer area of the label, rather than be displayed in its own area of 
the label. As is currently the case, the areas of the label whose 
background is light in color--overall vehicle score, frontal, side, and 
rollover--would continue to be required to be separated from each other 
by a dark line that is a minimum of 3 points in width. The NPRM also 
proposed to require, whenever a safety concern arises in any rating 
category, that the safety concern symbol and related statement also be 
included in the overall vehicle score area of the safety rating label.
    While offering general support for the content and layout of the 
proposed label revisions, the Alliance expressed concern that there may 
not be sufficient space on the label to accommodate safety concerns in 
more than one of the areas in which safety ratings are provided. This 
is because the text, ``Safety concern: Visit http://www.safercar.gov or 
call 1-888-327-4236 for more details'' (preceded by the safety concern 
symbol depicted in figure 4 to Sec.  575.302 and ending with a period) 
would be required in each of the areas in which a safety concern is 
noted as well as in the overall vehicle score portion of the label. The 
Alliance suggested that this could be easily addressed by requiring the 
safety concern text only in the overall vehicle score area of the label 
while continuing to require only the safety concern symbol in those 
ratings areas of the label where the safety concern occurred.
    Honda stated its testing of the proposed label layout indicated 
that ``the content of the proposed label does not fit into the proposed 
minimum text box using the prescribed font sizes while maintaining the 
required one-eighth inch white space margin.'' Honda also stated that 
the overall vehicle score should be ``sufficiently distinctive'' from 
the three supporting ratings categories for two reasons. First, 
presenting the overall vehicle score in a distinctive way would help to 
discourage comparisons between the current and new label. Second, the 
company said the visual presentation of the overall vehicle score 
should make clear to consumers that it represents a combination of the 
frontal, side, and rollover ratings. Both of these concerns ``could be 
addressed by enlarging the font size of the overall vehicle score and 
affiliated star ratings,'' the company said.
    Honda submitted a mock up of its vision of a revised label in which 
the font size for the overall vehicle score would be enlarged and the 
frontal, side, and rollover ratings would consist of one line, with no 
distinct ratings that apply to the driver and passenger.\15\ The 
company said the proposed label it submitted is consistent with what 
the company sees as the need for the overall vehicle score to be more 
prominently displayed. The company also stated that by limiting the 
ratings in specific areas to one line (as opposed to the two in the 
current label), would allow additional space to address the company's 
concern that there is not enough label space to include all of the 
information that is proposed. The extra label space would accommodate 
any future additions to the label, such as advanced crash avoidance 
technology ratings, the company stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0025-0011, Attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: In drafting the NPRM, the agency did not factor in 
situations in which a safety concern could be identified in more than 
one relevant crash area. Therefore, the agency agrees with the Alliance 
that for the safety rating label to accommodate the text ``Safety 
concern: Visit http://www.safercar.gov or call 1-888-327-4236 for more 
details'' (preceded by the safety concern symbol depicted in figure 4 
to Sec.  575.302 and ending with a period) in the overall vehicle score 
area of the label and in one or more of the areas (frontal crash, side 
crash, or rollover) in which a safety concern is identified, additional 
label space will be required.
    The agency also finds merit in the Alliance's proposed solution. 
The most important function of the text is to refer consumers to http://www.safercar.gov for more detailed information on the safety concern 
or concerns. This need can be adequately met by having the text only in 
the overall vehicle score area. While there may have been additional 
value in also having the text in the area or areas reflecting the type 
of test in which the safety concern arose, doing so is not necessary, 
particularly in light of the space limitations of the safety ratings 
label under the current interpretation of SAFETEA-LU. The safety 
concern symbol will be required both in the area (or areas) of the 
label for the type of test in which the safety concern occurred as well 
as in the overall vehicle score area. However, the text, ``Safety 
concern: Visit http://www.safercar.gov or call 1-888-327-4236 for more 
details'' (preceded by the safety concern symbol depicted in figure 4 
to Sec.  575.302 and ending with a period) will only be required in the 
overall vehicle score area. We believe that limiting the text to the 
overall vehicle score area of the label will also help address Honda's 
concern about available space on the label.
    The agency is not adopting Honda's suggestion to make the overall 
vehicle score area of the safety rating label more prominent. NHTSA 
recognizes that the context within which the prominence of the safety 
ratings information can be assessed includes not simply the safety 
rating label itself, but also the entire Monroney label, which contains 
other competing types of information and methods of presentation. 
Within the context of the safety ratings label itself, the overall 
vehicle score area already has a degree of prominence because it

[[Page 45458]]

is the first item of safety information in the revised safety rating 
label.
    In addition, the agency believes that there is less of a need at 
this point to distinguish the current safety rating label from the 
revised label. Because the revised safety rating label contained in 
this final rule was not yet available, ratings based on the enhanced 
NCAP testing and rating system have been displayed on MY 2011 vehicles 
using the current label. As a result, the overall vehicle score has not 
been displayed on MY 2011 vehicles thus far even though ratings under 
the enhanced NCAP testing and rating system are available. This means 
that when the revised safety rating label goes into effect on January 
31, 2012, safety ratings on MY 2011 and MY 2012 vehicles on dealers 
lots will all be based on the enhanced NCAP testing and ratings system, 
whether the ratings appear on the current or revised safety rating 
label. The only difference will be that vehicles with the revised 
safety rating label will display the overall vehicle score, while 
vehicles with the current safety rating label will not.
    The answer to any consumer's concern as to why the overall vehicle 
score appears on some labels and not others will be simple. The overall 
vehicle score applies to all identical makes and models in the same 
model year. If a MY 2012 vehicle has not been changed from the MY 2011 
version of the vehicle, the same NCAP ratings will apply to both model 
year vehicles, including the overall vehicle score that will appear on 
the safety rating label of the MY 2012 version of the vehicle.
    Furthermore, while the agency wants consumers to be aware of and 
use the overall vehicle score as a quick and easy measure of relative 
overall vehicle safety, it does not want that to occur in such a way 
that it diverts attention from the other safety ratings on the label. 
There will be situations in which a vehicle gets an overall vehicle 
score that is higher than one or more of the individual ratings that 
appear in other portions of the safety rating label. Some consumers may 
be as interested or more interested in those ratings as in the overall 
vehicle score. Parents, for example, may be very interested in the rear 
seat side crash rating because they know their children will be 
traveling primarily in the rear seat of their vehicle.
2. Safety Concern Symbol
    For vehicle tests for which NHTSA reports a safety concern as part 
of the star rating, the NPRM proposed requiring a symbol consisting of 
an exclamation point inside a triangle (safety concern symbol) to be 
depicted as a superscript to the star rating, and the same symbol to be 
depicted at the bottom of the relevant area along with the words 
``Safety Concern: Visit http://www.safercar.gov or call 1-888-327-4236 
for more details.''
    The Advocates commended NHTSA for including the safety concern 
symbol and the accompanying reference to http://www.safercar.gov and 
the agency's hotline in the area of the label to which a safety concern 
applies. The Advocates said that a ``brief, but specific statement as 
to the nature of the safety concern'' should also be provided. The 
organization provided examples such as, ``door openings,'' ``doors 
unable to open after crash test,'' and ``doors opened during side 
impact compliance test.'' This is warranted, the Advocates suggested, 
because at the point of sale consumers will generally not have access 
to http://www.safercar.gov or the agency's hotline. Consumers will, in 
some situations at least, ignore the safety concern symbol, the 
Advocates added.
    NADA objected to the use of the safety concern symbol stating that 
``dealers surveyed continue to suggest that these symbols can raise 
unnecessary questions for prospective purchasers.'' The association 
asked that only the footnote, ``Visit http://www.safercar.gov for more 
safety information on this vehicle,'' be required if, and when, 
necessary.
    Honda stated that having safety concerns expressed in both the 
overall vehicle score area of the label and the rating category in 
which the safety concern occurred ``may mislead consumers into 
believing a vehicle with a single safety concern has two safety 
concerns.'' Honda stated, ``* * * we propose that only the safety 
concern symbol be included as superscript to the overall rating when it 
is applicable, without the accompanying text. We suggest that the text 
explaining the safety concern would only be printed as necessary in the 
frontal crash, side crash or rollover area(s), along with the safety 
concern symbol as superscript to the relevant rating area.''
    Agency Response: We are denying the request to add explanatory 
language to the safety concern symbol. The Advocates' suggestion 
demonstrates the delicate balance that exists between the amount of 
information that could go on the label and the amount of space 
available under the current interpretation of the minimum size language 
in SAFETEA-LU. It also raises the issue of how much information on the 
label consumers have the ability to digest. The safety rating label is 
intended to provide consumers with easy to access and understandable 
information at the point of sale as to the relative safety of the 
vehicle(s) they are considering for purchase. The Web site http://www.safercar.gov and the agency's hotline, noted on the safety rating 
label, are intended to assure that consumers who want more detailed 
information relating to the safety of a vehicle, such as the type of 
information addressed in the Advocates' comments, can take the time and 
do more thorough research on the safety of the vehicle(s) in which they 
are interested. We believe the current safety rating label could not 
reasonably accommodate such detailed information, particularly in cases 
where more than one safety concern exists, as mentioned by Honda.
    While we acknowledge that some consumers may choose to ignore the 
safety concern symbol, as suggested by the Advocates, we believe that 
such a symbol will cause other consumers to question their dealer, or 
pause long enough to obtain more information on the agency's Web site, 
before purchasing a vehicle with a safety concern symbol on its safety 
rating label. This was evidenced by NADA's comments suggesting that the 
safety concern symbol raises questions with consumers.
    We disagree that the consumer questions raised by the safety 
concern symbol are ``unnecessary,'' as suggested by NADA. NCAP is a 
consumer information program and its purpose is to provide consumers 
with safety information relating to vehicles. This information includes 
safety concerns identified during testing of vehicles under NCAP. 
Information available through http://www.safercar.gov and the agency's 
hotline is provided to help dealers in need of assistance in explaining 
the safety concern to a potential vehicle purchaser.
    In response to Honda's concern about multiple safety concern 
symbols confusing consumers, the agency's decision earlier in this 
notice to limit to the overall vehicle score area of the label language 
referring a consumer to either http://www.safercar.gov or the agency's 
hotline for further information about a safety concern will help 
consumers understand that there are not multiple safety concerns 
involved.
3. Similar Weight Comparison Language
    The NPRM proposed that the language ``Should only be compared to 
other vehicles of similar weight class'' be in both the frontal crash 
area and overall vehicle score area of the safety rating label.

[[Page 45459]]

    NADA asked whether this phrase can be used for all crash modes. If 
so, it said the phrase should be moved to the footer area of the label 
and rewritten to read, ``only compare these ratings to those for \16\ 
similar vehicles.'' If the phrase cannot be used for all crash modes, 
the association suggested that it be kept in the rating sections that 
apply but be rewritten to read, ``only compare this rating to the same 
for \17\ similar vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NADA cited ``for similar vehicles.'' The assumption was 
made that NADA meant ``of similar vehicles.''
    \17\ NADA cited ``for similar vehicles.'' The assumption was 
made that NADA meant ``of similar vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: The type of qualifying language referred to in 
NADA's comments previously applied only to frontal crash ratings 
because the frontal crash test involves crashing a vehicle into a 
stationary barrier. For this type of test, the weight of the vehicle is 
a factor in how well the vehicle performs in the test. Since the 
frontal crash rating is a component used in determining the overall 
vehicle score, the same type of language was proposed in the NPRM for 
the overall vehicle score area of the safety rating label. Such 
language is not necessary for the side crash ratings because vehicle 
weight is less of an influence on injury outcome and side crash ratings 
can be compared with one another. The same is true of rollover safety 
ratings. All vehicles are put through the same dynamic maneuver during 
a rollover resistance test. The probability of the vehicle rolling over 
if it is involved in a single-vehicle crash is unrelated to the weight 
of the vehicle.
    Therefore, today's final rule requires that the following language 
be in both the overall vehicle score and frontal crash areas of the 
safety rating label: ``Should only be compared to other vehicles of 
similar size and weight.'' We note that the agency decided to retain 
language from the current safety rating label rather than adopt the 
proposed language, ``* * * of similar weight class.'' The term ``weight 
class,'' as defined in the regulation \18\ governing Vehicle 
Identification Numbers, includes weight ranges that are too broad and 
not necessarily appropriate for NCAP weight range comparisons. In the 
NCAP frontal crash test ratings and overall vehicle score, vehicles 
whose weights are no more than 114 kg (250 pounds) apart should be 
compared as to their relative safety. We are also not adopting NADA's 
alternatively proposed language, ``only compare this rating to the same 
for similar vehicles,'' since it is not clear how to identify a similar 
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Part 565, ``Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 
Requirements,'' contains a table in 565.15 titled ``Gross Vehicle 
Weight Rating Classes.'' The defined vehicle classes range from 0 to 
3,000 pounds (lbs.), 3,001 to 4,000 lbs., 4,001 to 5,000 lbs. etc. 
up to 10,000 lbs. for light vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The Need To Better Distinguish Between Current and Revised Label
    The modified safety rating label proposed in the NPRM did not 
differ significantly from the current label. The main difference is 
that the NPRM label included a new area at the top of the label for 
reporting a vehicle's overall vehicle score. For other sections of the 
safety rating label, the NPRM merely proposed revising the language 
describing the nature and meaning of the vehicle crash safety 
information that is displayed in the frontal crash and side crash areas 
of the safety rating label.
    Honda commented that the current safety rating label and the 
revised label are not visually distinctive enough to prevent consumers 
from believing that the labels are the same and comparing the old and 
new ratings. The company suggested that the ratings on the revised 
label be expressed as a single series of stars for each of the four 
ratings categories. Under this approach, the company said, it would not 
be possible for consumers to compare the current and new frontal and 
side ratings.
    Agency Response: The agency believes that the proposed label and 
the current label are sufficiently distinctive. The fact that the 
proposed label contains the overall vehicle score, while the current 
safety rating label does not, provides a sufficient basis for consumers 
to distinguish between the two labels. Honda's concern about consumers 
believing the current and revised safety rating label are the same 
should be mitigated because, as explained previously, the new ratings 
are already being displayed on the current label. (See further 
discussion in ``Labeling Before and After NCAP Testing.'')
    NHTSA decided against Honda's suggestion to use a single series of 
stars in each of the ratings areas--frontal crash, side crash, and 
rollover. As will be discussed further in this final rule, NHTSA's 
consumer research indicated that consumers want crash ratings for 
individual seating positions, which requires separate star ratings on 
the safety rating label for each rating area.

C. Absence of Crash Avoidance Information on the Label

    The NPRM did not propose including advanced crash avoidance 
technology information on the safety rating label at this time. As 
discussed in the NPRM, to do so would require a rulemaking every time 
the agency wanted to add to the list of advanced crash avoidance 
technologies in the program, and there is also limited space available 
on the safety rating label under the current interpretation of SAFETEA-
LU.
    Bosch expressed concern over the absence of advanced crash 
avoidance technology information on the safety ratings label. It 
suggested that studies around the world have demonstrated the benefit 
of these technologies. The absence of information on these technologies 
from the safety rating label will undercut the agency's goal of 
creating market forces to drive the inclusion of these technologies in 
more and more vehicles, the company said. It further suggested that it 
will be inconsistent and confusing to consumers to have crash avoidance 
technology information on the Web site, http://www.safercar.gov, and 
not on the safety rating label.
    Bosch said, at a minimum, that basic information indicating the 
availability of advanced crash avoidance technologies should be on the 
safety rating label either as a list or by using a check box. It 
indicated its strong preference that such information use the same 5-
star ratings approach used for frontal and side crash and rollover 
resistance ratings with advanced crash avoidance technology ratings 
based on driving tests that assess system performance.
    The company said few consumers use http://www.safercar.gov to 
conduct safety research before making vehicle purchasing decisions. 
Bosch further stated that the need to go through rulemaking to change 
the safety rating label whenever a new technology is added to the list 
of technologies in the NCAP program would not occur frequently and 
therefore would not be an ``undue burden.'' Bosch said that since 
SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59) prescribes only the minimum size of the 
safety rating label, the safety rating label could be made larger to 
accommodate crash avoidance technology information.\19\ The company 
submitted a proposed safety rating label that includes crash avoidance 
technology information at the top of the label followed by the 
information contained in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0025-0004.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the written comments it submitted, Bosch met with 
NHTSA staff on April 30, 2010 \20\ to discuss their recommended 
approach for communicating the availability of

[[Page 45460]]

advanced safety technologies on the rating labeling portion of the 
Monroney label. Bosch suggested that if NHTSA uses more general crash 
avoidance technology on the Monroney label, such as ``collision 
mitigation'' rather than ``collision warning,'' this would eliminate 
any need for frequent revisions of the label as crash avoidance 
technologies progress. Bosch indicated that it strongly supports the 
incorporation of crash avoidance technologies on the Monroney label 
because it does not believe including crash avoidance technologies on 
http://www.safercar.gov alone provides sufficient consumer awareness of 
the technologies and their safety importance. Furthermore, it indicated 
that consumer awareness of crash avoidance technologies and consumer 
demand for them is crucial to having vehicle manufacturers incorporate 
the technologies into their vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0025-0013.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 15, 2010,\21\ Bosch also requested a meeting with NHTSA to 
present the results of research it had conducted to study new car 
buyers' information gathering processes and the impact of government 
listing of collision mitigation technologies on purchasing decisions. 
The research involved an Internet-based survey of 500 recent and soon-
to-be new car buyers broken into two groups, one of which was presented 
with a sample window sticker that included what was portrayed as a 
government listing of collision mitigation features. The other was 
presented with a sample window sticker without such information. Bosch 
found that 58 percent of the group that was presented with a government 
listing of optional collision mitigation features, specifically lane 
departure warning and forward collision warning, indicated they would 
purchase a vehicle equipped with this equipment. Only about 45 percent 
of the group that was not presented with a government listing of this 
equipment indicated they would purchase a vehicle with this equipment. 
Based on these results and others from its survey, the company said 
that government recognition of collision mitigation systems increases 
the value of collision mitigation technologies to new car buyers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0025-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volvo also expressed concern that ``advanced safety systems'' 
information was excluded from the proposed label. It suggested that an 
area for this information be provided on the label or that 
manufacturers be allowed to affix an optional separate label to the 
vehicle to provide information about these systems. The company 
suggested that if the information were allowed on the label, its size 
could be reduced to facilitate its incorporation into available space. 
The company also suggested that consumers would benefit from a NHTSA 
rating system for these systems.
    NADA said it appreciated NHTSA's reasons for not requiring advanced 
crash avoidance technology information on the label. It urged NHTSA to 
include a line in the header that would say, ``See http://www.safercar.gov \22\ for this vehicle's crash avoidance features.'' It 
also asked that NHTSA urge manufacturers to include crash avoidance 
features in the description of standard and optional components found 
elsewhere on the Monroney label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NADA cited http://www.safercars.gov in their comments. The 
assumption was made that NADA meant http://www.safercar.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: While the idea of a 5-Star rating system based on 
dynamic testing of advanced crash avoidance technologies, as suggested 
by Bosch and Volvo, is an appealing concept, the agency's experience 
has shown that developing testing protocols and rating systems is a 
lengthy and detailed process involving the gathering and analysis of 
data and conducting carefully designed and executed research. The 
creation and dissemination of advanced crash avoidance technology 
information on the agency's http://www.safercar.gov Web site is the 
first step in providing consumers with information about these 
technologies and their potential to avoid crashes and thus save lives 
and prevent injuries. Recently, the http://www.safercar.gov Web site 
was upgraded to support the enhanced NCAP program and it receives 
approximately 146,000 visitors per month. We have found this to be an 
effective platform for sharing information with the public and it can 
also be amended and updated with minimal difficulty. Conducting a 
formal rulemaking to amend the Monroney label is a far more burdensome 
process, even if technologies were grouped in generic categories such 
as ``collision mitigation.'' Furthermore, the agency is proceeding very 
deliberately in the advanced crash avoidance technologies area, 
promoting only three technologies that meet carefully considered 
criteria, and doing so within the limits of currently available 
resources. As more and more advanced crash avoidance technologies with 
demonstrated effectiveness become available, the agency will consider 
what additional steps are appropriate to take in providing consumers 
with information about the benefits of these technologies. For now, 
however, we believe that the approach taken is appropriate for their 
current state of the development.
    As to the suggestion by Bosch that the safety rating label should 
be made larger to accommodate information not proposed in the NPRM, we 
simply note that the jurisdiction over the Monroney label is shared by 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NHTSA, and the U.S. 
Department of Justice (DOJ). NHTSA cannot unilaterally take space on 
the Monroney label.
    NHTSA does not believe it is appropriate to use government 
sanctioned labels to promote advanced crash avoidance technologies as 
suggested by Volvo. There is nothing, however, to prevent a 
manufacturer, a dealer or even a supplier, such as Bosch, from 
developing materials that can be made available in showrooms and that 
promote the fact that there are advanced crash avoidance technologies 
on a vehicle that meet NHTSA's performance criteria and that have been 
shown to reduce crashes. In fact, the advertisement can be in the form 
of a pop-up tent display on a vehicle, window cling, or a separate 
label, as long as it does not cover the Monroney label. NHTSA has 
provided guidelines for promoting advanced crash avoidance 
technologies. Manufacturers may access the agency's guidelines via 
http://www.safercar.gov.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Manufacturers/NCAP+Advertising+Guidelines#crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is not adopting NADA's suggestion to include language on 
the safety rating label that points consumers to http://www.safercar.gov for information about a vehicle's advanced crash 
avoidance technologies. This is primarily due to the limited amount of 
space on the safety rating label, especially under the current 
interpretation of SAFETEA-LU.
    Finally, in response to NADA's request for NHTSA to urge 
manufacturers to ``include crash avoidance features in the description 
of standard and optional components found elsewhere on the Monroney 
label,'' we are not persuaded by the need to do so. The agency has 
selected three technologies--Electronic Stability Control (ESC), 
Forward Collision Warning (FCW), and Lane Departure Warning (LDW), to 
include in NCAP's advanced crash avoidance technologies program. One of 
the criteria it used in determining which technologies to include in 
the program is whether there is data that demonstrates the 
effectiveness of a technology in

[[Page 45461]]

reducing crashes. Each of the three technologies selected has been 
shown to be effective in reducing crashes. Other advanced technologies 
do not yet meet this criterion. Rather than have the agency urge 
manufacturers to list advanced crash avoidance technologies that have 
not yet been shown to be effective, the primary challenge for the 
agency is to educate the public as to the effectiveness of the three 
technologies in the NCAP advanced crash avoidance technologies program 
so that the public will understand the value of these technologies no 
matter where they are listed.

D. Costs Associated With New Labels

    The NPRM estimated the cost of the existing label to be less than 
$0.15 per vehicle and the requirements proposed in the NPRM would 
result in minor costs as they would simply require redesign of that 
label.
    Volvo disagreed with the agency's cost assessment. It said that for 
a manufacturer its size, the cost (per vehicle) increases to 
approximately $0.45, which is a 67 percent increase, and represents ``a 
significant economic consideration for a relatively small vehicle 
manufacturer.''
    Honda said it is not able to print more than one label format at a 
time. It said the header and footer portion of safety rating labels 
must be pre-printed on label stock to accommodate the white text on a 
dark background specified by NHTSA for these areas. It indicated that 
the vehicle specific ratings are then printed on each safety rating 
label, specific to individual vehicle identification numbers (VINs), 
along with other information for that vehicle on remaining portions of 
the Monroney label. Monroney label printers are located at each of the 
company's six North American production facilities, as well as at 
importation ports, the company said.
    Volvo further stated:

    Due to the large number of vehicles serviced by each of these 
printers, and the speed at which the work is completed, we are 
unable to print multiple label formats simultaneously. Instead, we 
are able to print only one label format at a time. Any solution we 
have considered for this concern would dramatically exceed the cost 
estimate of $0.15 per label as indicated in the Rulemaking Analyses 
and Notices portion of the NPRM.

    Honda offered two possible solutions for preventing manufacturers 
from ``incurring unnecessary and exorbitant costs during the transition 
period from the 2010 to the 2011 model year.'' The first approach would 
be to delay application of the new NCAP label area until manufacturers 
have completed their fleet transition to the first model year in which 
the new label would be required. Honda suggested this would be the most 
flexible solution since it ``would allow each OEM to select a 
transition date prior to the end of the (calendar year) that best suits 
their business needs.'' The second solution Honda proposed would allow 
manufacturers to apply the revised label format to all vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1st of the first year the new label 
is required, regardless of model year. For example, if a manufacturer 
continued to build model year 2010 vehicles after the date on which 
revised labels are required, Honda said, ``the NCAP information would 
require a label to state the following:

    This is a 2010 model year vehicle. Please see http://www.safercar.gov to obtain the Government 5-Star Safety Ratings for 
this vehicle. The NCAP's 5-Star Safety Ratings were updated starting 
with the 2011 model year. The ratings for this vehicle cannot be 
compared to 2011 and newer models due to differences in the 5-Star 
rating system.

    The company said this approach may help to alleviate confusion that 
could arise among consumers when there are two identical vehicles on 
the lot, one from the previous model year, one from the model year in 
which the revised safety rating label is required, and the ratings for 
the two vehicles differ because of the two different ratings systems.
    Agency Response: The changes to the safety rating label are 
necessary to be reflective of the enhanced program. We recognize that 
the cost impacts to manufacturers can vary depending upon their label-
producing methods and operations. So, the costs Volvo may incur may be 
different than other manufacturers. We note that the original safety 
rating label was mandated by Congress, and the agency believes it is 
necessary to update the safety rating label whenever there are 
substantial changes to NCAP. Other than the addition of the overall 
vehicle score information, changes to the current label and content are 
minimal. Hence, the agency believes it has done everything possible to 
minimize the one-time cost impact on manufacturers due to the 
transition from one safety rating label format to another while 
continuing to fulfill the mandate of Congress to make NCAP safety 
ratings available to consumers on the safety rating label at the point 
of sale.
    The agency believes that any limitations on Honda's limited label 
printing flexibility has been minimized by the fact that the new safety 
rating label will not be required until January 31, 2012, not September 
1, 2010, as originally envisioned by the agency. This should help with 
the transition to the new safety rating label.

E. Labeling Before and After NCAP Testing

    In the NPRM, the agency stated that it does not and will not 
require manufacturers to reprint Monroney labels for vehicles that were 
produced prior to the agency's notification of new NCAP test results. 
However, the agency indicated that manufacturers are allowed to 
voluntarily re-label vehicles, should they choose, by replacing the 
entire Monroney label (not just the safety rating label with the NCAP 
information).
    NADA suggested NHTSA require manufacturers to send out replacement 
Monroney labels for vehicles already on dealer lots when manufacturers 
receive the results of new NCAP tests. It suggested that this will 
avoid consumer confusion in situations where two same make and 
similarly equipped model vehicles on the same lot can have two 
different labels, one on the vehicle that arrived before the enhanced 
NCAP tests and ratings, and one that arrived afterward. This will be 
especially important during the transition to the new label, the 
association said.
    Agency Response: The agency will not require manufacturers to send 
out replacement Monroney labels to dealers. Whether a manufacturer 
chooses to send out replacement Monroney labels is a business decision 
for the individual manufacturer. The transition to the revised safety 
rating label is a one-time event, and the impact it has on individual 
manufacturers will vary depending on when they begin manufacturing new 
model year vehicles. For some manufacturers, there may be only a small 
number of unsold vehicles with current safety rating labels on dealer 
lots as of the date when the revised safety rating label is required.
    As previously discussed, the situation has already been ameliorated 
somewhat by the fact that MY 2011 vehicles have already begun 
displaying ratings based on the enhanced NCAP rating system in the 
current safety rating label. So, while there may be situations in which 
there will be the same model year, make and model vehicles on a 
dealer's lot with different labels, there will not likely be the same 
make and model vehicles from different model years with different 
ratings. The only difference that will occur will be that one vehicle 
will not have the overall vehicle score while the other version will. 
So when consumers raise questions about it, the satisfactory

[[Page 45462]]

answer will be that the overall vehicle score applies to both vehicles 
because they are identical.

F. Consumer Survey and Label Research

    In the NPRM, the agency requested comments on whether its planned 
follow-up consumer testing for the safety section of the label should 
include all four items that might appear on the Monroney label (price, 
safety, fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions, and domestic content) to 
help the agency understand better any potential tradeoffs consumers may 
make among those items and whether the relative amount of space 
dedicated to each of the four items and the different ways in which 
these items are presented affects the attention consumers give the 
items, especially the safety information. The agency also solicited 
public comments on the benefits the public would receive from a 
coordinated approach to any revision of the Monroney label among the 
three agencies with authority over the different sections (DOJ for 
price information, EPA/NHTSA for fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions, 
and NHTSA for safety and domestic content), and whether those benefits 
would outweigh any delays that might occur to achieve comprehensive and 
coordinated revisions to parts of the Monroney label. Furthermore, the 
agency requested comments on effective approaches for communicating 
safety ratings to consumers with particular interest in data to 
substantiate the effectiveness of recommended approaches.
    In response to the NPRM, the Advocates agreed the agency should 
conduct research to understand better possible tradeoffs consumers make 
among price, safety, fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions, and 
domestic content, and whether the amount of space dedicated to each of 
the four items affects consumers' attention to those items.\24\ In 
addition to the size of the area dedicated to an information item, the 
research should also consider the location on the label of the items 
and font sizes used to communicate types of information, the 
organization said. Smaller font size could be interpreted as indicating 
information of lesser importance, the Advocates said. The organization 
restated its position from previous comments that the Automobile 
Information Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233, sets a minimum size 
for the safety label, but does not prohibit the agency from creating a 
label larger than the minimum requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For example, the current fuel economy label and the 
proposed fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions label both measure 
approximately 7 inches by 4.5 inches. This is approximately double 
the size of a safety ratings label that is just large enough to meet 
the minimum size requirement in SAFETEA-LU, i.e., either have a 
minimum length of 4\1/2\ inches and a minimum height of 3\1/2\ 
inches or cover at least 8 percent of the total area of the Monroney 
label, whichever is larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Honda questioned whether the agency had asked consumers in the 
previous survey to compare different sample labels (i.e., one sample 
label with star ratings for each seating position and another sample 
with a single-line rating for each rating category).'' It stated that 
this approach would have yielded information about how effective the 
star rating by seat position strategy would have been. Honda stated 
that ``in any survey the questions should be designed to help filter 
out the effects of the survey environment being removed from the 
conditions being studied. Specifically, it is to be expected that when 
you ask a person `would you like more information or less information' 
at the same perceived cost most people would opt more information. 
However, when you ask people to make comparisons between different 
presentations of information to answer specific questions, you can 
gather actionable results. In this case, it may have been more valuable 
to have asked survey participants to compare the current and variations 
of the proposed ratings areas. If participants were able to compare the 
current ratings to the proposed ratings, it would have been more 
possible to conclude that the information should have been presented 
differently to discourage that type of comparison.''
    Agency Response: As indicated in the NPRM, the agency agrees that 
comprehensive consumer research on the entire Monroney label, including 
the safety rating label, is desirable. Such research would be a 
complicated process because of the variety of information involved and 
the fact that three government agencies--NHTSA, DOJ, and EPA share 
jurisdiction over all or part of the Monroney label. Now that the fuel 
economy/greenhouse gas emissions portion of the Monroney label is 
finalized and NHTSA is revising the safety rating portion of the 
Monroney label with this final rule to reflect changes in the enhanced 
NCAP testing and rating program, the agency will conduct comprehensive 
consumer market research that will consider the location and size of 
the safety rating label and compare with other areas of the Monroney 
label (including color, font sizes and potential tradeoffs used to 
communicate types of information). In addition, we will explore adding 
the advanced crash avoidance safety information to the safety rating 
label. Initiation of the planned consumer market research is 
anticipated to begin five months after the publication of this final 
rule. The timeline for the qualitative and quantitative research phases 
is detailed in the following tables.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Action/Milestone                  Target completion date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative Research ICR Process:
    Update ICR documents.........  June 24, 2011.
    Program Office review ICR      June 24-July 6, 2011.
     documents.
    Revisions to ICR documents     July 12, 2011.
     based on Program Office
     feedback.
    NHTSA Agency Review of ICR     July 13-27, 2011.
     documents.
    NCAP Final Rule..............  July 29, 2011.
    Final revisions to ICR         July 29, 2011.
     documents.
    Post 60-Day Notice on Federal  August 3, 2011.
     Register.
    60-Day Comment Period........  August 3-October 3, 2011.
    Informal Review of Package by  (During 60-Day Comment Period).
     OMB.
    Revise ICR package based on    October 7, 2011.
     comments received.
    NHTSA review revised           October 7-11, 2011.
     documents.
    Post 30-Day Notice to Federal  October 12, 2011.
     Register.
    OST Review and formal          October 12-26, 2011.
     submission to OMB.
    30-Day notice closes.........  November 14, 2011.
    OMB Review of ICR documents..  December 15, 2011.
    OMB Approves Qualitative       December 15, 2011.
     package.

[[Page 45463]]

 
Qualitative Research Execution:
    Set-up Focus Groups (finalize  December 15-30, 2011.
     locations, dates, recruit).
    Conduct focus groups.........  January 9-19, 2012.
    Top-Line Interim Report......  January 20, 2012.
    Final Reports for Qualitative  January 30, 2012.
     Research Due.
Quantitative Research ICR
 Process:
    Draft and finalize online      February 14, 2012.
     survey based on Qualitative
     Final Reports.
    Program Office and BTS review  February 24, 2012.
     ICR documents.
    Revisions to ICR documents     March 2, 2012.
     based on Program Office and
     BTS feedback.
    NHTSA Agency Review of ICR     March 2-16, 2012.
     documents.
    Post 60-Day Notice on FR.....  March 21, 2012.
    Informal Review of Package by  (During 60-Day Comment Period).
     OMB.
    60-Day Comment Period Closes.  May 21, 2012.
    Revise ICR documents based on  May 25, 2012.
     comments received.
    NHTSA Review of ICR Package..  June 3, 2012.
    Post 30-Day Notice on FR.....  June 6, 2012.
    OST Review and Formal          June 6-20, 2012.
     Submission to OMB.
    30-Day Comment Period closes.  July 5, 2012.
    OMB Review and Approve         August 6, 2012.
     Quantitative ICR package.
Quantitative Research Execution:
    Program online survey........  August 10, 2012.
    Conduct online surveys.......  August 13-31, 2012.
    Interim Top-Line Report......  September 5, 2012.
    Final Report on survey         September 14, 2012.
     results and recommendations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to Honda's question, we note that participants in the 
agency's previous survey were provided with a sample of the current 
label, as well as various proposed label samples. Participants 
overwhelmingly preferred the label concept that provided safety rating 
information for each seating position, rather than a combined driver 
and passenger seating position rating.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 75 FR 10744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Other Issues

1. Legend for Star Ratings
    Noting that it has long objected to the star rating system, the 
Advocates said that, based on conversations and consumer calls, few 
people understand what the star ratings represent or how they should be 
interpreted. The organization suggested that each safety rating label 
should at least include a legend that provides risk information for 
consumers. Advocates suggested including in the label the star rating 
risk charts for each of the rating categories that may be found on 
http://www.safercar.gov and elsewhere.
    Agency Response: The agency's experience and consumer research it 
has conducted indicates that the star rating system is an effective way 
to communicate vehicle safety information to consumers. NHTSA notes 
again that it has stated that it is re-examining its interpretation 
about the size of the NCAP label. However, including the star rating 
risk charts in the safety rating label would require label space far 
beyond not only what has been thought to be available, but also what 
would likely be available under any realistic expansion of the label 
beyond its current size. Thus, the agency cannot agree to either of 
these suggestions. However, it does make the star rating risk 
information available on http://www.safercar.gov.
2. Overall Vehicle Score
    In the NPRM, the agency proposed adding a new area of the label 
called the ``Overall Vehicle Score.'' The agency also proposed that the 
overall vehicle score area be placed immediately below the heading area 
of the label as the first item of safety information. In this area, the 
vehicle's overall vehicle star rating would be displayed.
    As mentioned in the previous section, Advocates expressed concerns 
regarding the lack of consumer understanding of the agency's star 
rating system. Advocates suggested that the average consumer would not 
understand how a single star rating (the overall vehicle score) can 
represent all the various types of injuries that are subject to each of 
the NCAP test modes (i.e., frontal, side and rollover) and ``how these 
already aggregate ratings can then be further combined in a single 
overall rating intended to represent the complete safety status of the 
vehicle.'' Advocates further stated that this generic rating provides 
``no specific guidance and information on key vehicle performance 
safety characteristics.'' The organization said NHTSA must also develop 
a risk table for the overall vehicle score and include that table on 
all labels that provide consumers with vehicle star ratings.
    Agency Response: The purpose of the overall vehicle score, as well 
as the entire safety rating label, is to provide consumers with an easy 
to access and understand indication of a vehicle's relative safety, 
i.e., how the vehicle compares to other similar vehicles. While a 
consumer who has visited, and becomes familiar with information on, the 
Web site http://www.safercar.gov may have a fuller understanding of the 
star ratings that appear on a safety rating label, our whole purpose in 
using a star rating system is to simplify detailed technical 
information to the consumer in an easy-to-understand format.
    We make more detailed information available on http://www.safercar.gov where we describe how the overall vehicle score is the 
weighted average of a vehicle's frontal crash, side crash, and rollover 
scores. Risk curves are used in the determination of safety ratings in 
each of these areas. We further describe how the overall vehicle score 
reflects how well a vehicle compares to the overall vehicle scores of 
representative vehicles in the fleet. While the agency believes that 
the overall vehicle score is a good measure of a vehicle's relative 
overall safety, we will continue to periodically review our data to see 
if the enhanced program can be further refined to provide additional 
useful vehicle safety information to consumers.
3. Correction to Ratings Description
    Recent changes in the side NCAP program include new test dummies 
for the two seating positions in the movable

[[Page 45464]]

deformable barrier (MDB) test, a new oblique pole test with a small 
female crash test dummy in the driver position, and additional injury 
criteria for both the MDB and the new oblique pole tests. As a result 
of these changes, the agency proposed that the statement at the bottom 
of the Side Crash area of the safety rating label read ``Based on the 
risk of injury in side impact tests'' to illustrate that ratings are 
obtained from both the side MDB and new oblique pole tests.
    Honda commented on what it called ``an anomaly in the description 
of the various ratings.'' Referring to the statement, ``based on the 
risk of injury in side impact tests,'' Honda said, ``While the 
description of the side impact rating accurately reflects that the 
ratings are based on two distinct tests, it is still a forecast of the 
risk of injury in a single side impact crash event.''
    Agency Response: The agency agrees with Honda's observation and has 
changed the language to state ``Based on the risk of injury in a side 
impact.''
4. Visibility Obstructions
    The NPRM stated that the safety rating information must be 
presented in a legible, visible, and prominent fashion and cover at 
least 8 percent of the total area of the Monroney label \26\ or an area 
with a minimum of 4\1/2\ inches in length and 3\1/2\ inches in height 
on the Monroney label, whichever is larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The total area of the Monroney label includes the area of 
the safety rating label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NADA reiterated its ``long expressed concerns'' about the size and 
location of the Monroney label because it believes that the label 
obstructs the driver's field of vision and therefore may raise concerns 
under state laws that govern the operation of motor vehicles when 
visibility is obstructed. The association urged NHTSA to encourage 
manufacturers to minimize the overall size of their Monroney labels for 
these reasons.
    Agency Response: The agency is aware of NADA's visibility concerns. 
However, the Monroney label is required by Congress. As previously 
mentioned, it is shared with two other organizations (EPA and DOJ) and 
the information it contains goes beyond the safety rating label section 
of the Monroney label. Even if the agency were to attempt to restrict 
the size of the Monroney label, it could not unilaterally affect such a 
change because of the involvement of other agencies that regulate the 
label content. Other than NADA's comments on this rulemaking and 
others, the agency is not aware of any concern on the part of the 
states as to the size and location of the Monroney label. Therefore, 
there will be no effort at this time to reduce, or increase, the size 
of the Monroney label.

H. Lead Time and Other Timing Considerations

    The NPRM proposed that model year 2011 and later vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2010, would be required to have 
the new safety rating labels. As is the case in the current labeling 
program, manufacturers would be required to place the new Government 5-
Star safety ratings on the Monroney label of new vehicles 30 days after 
receiving notification of NCAP test results from NHTSA. The NPRM 
proposed to permit early compliance for model year 2011 vehicles 
manufactured before September 1, 2010, provided the ratings placed on 
the safety rating label were derived from vehicle testing conducted 
using the updated NCAP testing criteria adopted on July 11, 2008.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 73 FR 40016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance called for a minimum of six months lead time before 
requiring the new label, citing the ``significant programming and 
validation'' required. It indicated that such lead time is consistent 
with that provided for other new or revised labels.
    Nissan also requested six months of lead time to allow for 
``significant modifications to the current process Nissan uses to print 
Monroney labels.'' Nissan said that the addition of the overall vehicle 
score and the ability to identify a safety concern in the overall 
vehicle score area of the label requires software changes and other 
changes to business tools involved.
    Nissan also indicated there will be a temporary need to be able to 
print two differently formatted Monroney labels, those used under the 
previous safety rating program and those used under the revised 
program. Nissan stated it does not currently have the ability to do 
this. The company asked that the agency allow companies to voluntarily 
use the proposed new text in the label header, footer, and other areas 
in labels that are printed for the old ratings program in the time 
leading up to when the revised safety rating label will be required. 
Nissan stated that ``Although this would not alleviate all of the 
challenges related to printing two different labels at the same time, 
it would help streamline the amount of work necessary to move to the 
new label requirements and help limit the amount of investment directed 
at changes that do not provide long-term benefits.'' The company 
further said that past EPA and NHTSA changes to the Monroney label have 
provided enough lead time to allow manufacturers to implement the 
changes.
    Volvo also expressed concern that identical model year vehicles 
could end up having different Monroney labels on them. The company 
pointed out that in January 2010, Volvo released two 2011 model year 
vehicles for sale. Had the new safety rating label gone into effect as 
of September 1, 2010 as originally proposed, those vehicles would have 
had different safety rating labels, depending on when they were 
manufactured, even though they are the same model year, make and model. 
It suggested that these situations would cause significant consumer 
confusion at the point of sale. ``Although Volvo has some flexibility 
to quickly adapt to the proposed changes, it is both economically and 
logistically prohibitive to retrofit a new Monroney label and affix it 
to these vehicles,'' Volvo said.
    The AIAM stated that the amount of time given to manufacturers to 
comply with the new labeling requirements should be six months from the 
date of issuance of the final rule since manufacturers will not know 
the details of the new requirements for certain until then. It 
suggested that manufacturers will need to make several programming and 
process changes to revise labels so that they conform to the new 
requirements.
    Agency Response: The agency has carefully considered the comments 
to the NPRM and has adjusted the implementation date to January 31, 
2012, for the new label. We believe this will address lead time 
concerns expressed by the Alliance and Nissan. With respect to Volvo's 
concern about possibly having two different safety rating labels (i.e., 
the current and the revised), on identical model year vehicles, the 
agency has provided the option for manufacturers to start using the 
revised safety rating label format on model year 2012 vehicles 
manufactured before January 31, 2012. If this option is used, the 
manufacturer will have to place the words ``not rated'' in the section 
of the label for overall vehicle score as well as in any other sections 
of the label for which NCAP ratings under the enhanced ratings program 
are not available. If a model year 2012 vehicle is slated to be tested 
and rated under the enhanced NCAP such that all NCAP ratings for which 
space is provided on the revised safety ratings label will eventually 
be available, the manufacturer is allowed to use the words ``to be 
rated'' on the safety rating label where appropriate.

[[Page 45465]]

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking under Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563 and the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures. The agency has considered carefully 
under Executive Order 13563 seven principles of summary disclosure as a 
regulatory tool when drafting this rulemaking document. This action has 
been determined to be ``non-significant'' under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The agency has 
concluded that the impacts of the amendments in this final rule will be 
so minimal that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not be 
required.
    This final rule requires vehicle manufacturers to add to the 
existing safety rating label the new overall vehicle score rating the 
agency has added to the NCAP program, and to make minor modifications 
to the safety rating label. The agency has considered and concluded 
that the one-time redesign cost and the cost of redesign to replace 
``Not Rated'' or ``To Be Rated'' with stars each time a vehicle is 
rated all to be minor. The cost of the existing label is estimated to 
be less than $0.15 per vehicle, and, under today's final rule, the 
label will remain the same size. Given these considerations, any 
effects on costs will be trivial.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a 
rulemaking notice for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and 
make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. There are four small motor vehicle 
manufacturers in the United States building vehicles that will be 
affected by this rule. I certify that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The rationale for this certification is that the agency does not 
believe that this proposal adds a significant economic cost to a motor 
vehicle. The cost of the existing label is estimated to be less than 
$0.15 per vehicle. The requirements in today's document will result in 
minor costs as it will merely require redesign of that label.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 
(PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. For the following 
reasons, NHTSA concludes that this rulemaking will not impose any new 
collection of information requirements for which a 5 CFR part 1320 
clearance must be obtained. As described previously, this rule will 
require vehicle manufacturers to include on the existing safety rating 
labels, the overall vehicle score rating information by NCAP. This 
final rule details how NHTSA describes the appearance of the label, and 
specifies to the vehicle manufacturers, in both individual letters to 
the manufacturers and on the NHTSA's 5-Star safety ratings Web site 
(http://www.safercar.gov), the information specific to a particular 
motor vehicle make and model that the vehicle manufacturer must place 
on the Monroney label.
    Because NHTSA will specify the format of the safety rating label, 
and the information each vehicle manufacturer must include on the 
label, this ``collection of information'' falls within the exception 
described in 5 CFR Section 1320.3(c)(2) which states in part: ``The 
public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal 
government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public 
is not included within this definition.''
    The Government 5-Star safety ratings are created by NHTSA. This 
final rule requires vehicle manufacturers to take the Government 5-Star 
safety ratings (which NHTSA will provide to each manufacturer) and 
report them on the Monroney labels, thus disclosing them to potential 
customers (i.e., the public). For this reason, this final rule will 
impose a ``collection of information'' requirement for which 5 CFR part 
1320 approval need not be obtained.

D. National Environment Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and has determined that the rule will not have 
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. This final rule will have no 
substantial effects on the States, on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

F. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule will not have any retroactive effect. Parties are 
not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in 
court.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
would otherwise be impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are 
technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The agency searched for, but did not find 
any, voluntary consensus standards relevant to this final rule.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule will not impose any unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995. This rule will not result 
in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, this 
rule is not

[[Page 45466]]

subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

I. Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments or 
petitions received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or 
you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575

    Consumer protection, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 575 is amended to 
read as follows:

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 575 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 32302, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 and 
30168, Pub. L. 104-414, 114 Stat. 1800, Pub. L. 109-59, Stat. 1144, 
15 U.S.C. 1232(g); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Section 575.301 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  575.301  Vehicle labeling of safety rating information 
(applicable unless a vehicle is subject to Sec.  575.302).

* * * * *
    (b) Application. This section applies to automobiles with a GVWR of 
10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 2007, that 
are required by the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 
1231-1233, to have price sticker labels (Monroney labels), e.g. 
passenger vehicles, station wagons, passenger vans, and sport utility 
vehicles, except for vehicles that are subject to Sec.  575.302. Model 
Year 2012 or later vehicles manufactured prior to January 31, 2012 may 
be labeled according to the provisions of Sec.  575.302 instead of this 
section provided the ratings placed on the safety rating label are 
derived from vehicle testing conducted by the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under the enhanced NCAP testing and rating 
program.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 575.302 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  575.302   Vehicle labeling of safety rating information 
(compliance required for model year 2012 and later vehicles 
manufactured on or after January 31, 2012).

    (a) Purpose and scope. The purpose of this section is to aid 
potential purchasers in the selection of new passenger motor vehicles 
by providing them with safety rating information developed by NHTSA in 
its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) testing. Manufacturers of 
passenger motor vehicles described in paragraph (b) of this section are 
required to include this information on the Monroney label. Although 
NHTSA also makes the information available through means such as 
postings at http://www.safercar.gov and http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov, the 
additional Monroney label information is intended to provide consumers 
with relevant information at the point of sale.
    (b) Application. This section applies to automobiles with a GVWR of 
10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 31, 2012 that 
are have vehicle identification numbers that identify the vehicles to 
be model year 2012 or later and that are required by the Automobile 
Information Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233, to have price sticker 
labels (Monroney labels), e.g. passenger vehicles, station wagons, 
passenger vans, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles. Model Year 
2012 or later vehicles manufactured prior to January 31, 2012 may, at 
the manufacturer's option, be labeled according to the provisions of 
this Sec.  575.302 provided the ratings placed on the safety rating 
label are derived from vehicle testing conducted by the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration under the enhanced NCAP testing 
and rating program.
    (c) Definitions.
    (1) Monroney label means the label placed on new automobiles with 
the manufacturer's suggested retail price and other consumer 
information, as specified at 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233.
    (2) Safety rating label means the label with NCAP safety rating 
information, as specified at 15 U.S.C. 1232(g). The safety rating label 
is part of the Monroney label.
    (d) Required label.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (f) of this section, each 
vehicle must have a safety rating label that is part of its Monroney 
label, meets the requirements specified in paragraph (e) of this 
section, and conforms in content, format and sequence to the sample 
label depicted in Figure 1 of this section. If NHTSA has not provided a 
safety rating for any category of vehicle performance for a vehicle, 
the manufacturer may use the smaller label specified in paragraph (f) 
of this section.
    (2) The label must depict the star ratings for that vehicle as 
reported to the vehicle manufacturer by NHTSA.
    (3) Whenever NHTSA informs a manufacturer in writing of a new 
safety rating for a specified vehicle or the continued applicability of 
an existing safety rating for a new model year, including any safety 
concerns, the manufacturer shall include the new or continued safety 
rating on vehicles manufactured on or after the date 30 calendar days 
after receipt by the manufacturer of the information.
    (4) If, for a vehicle that has an existing safety rating for a 
category, NHTSA informs the manufacturer in writing that it has 
approved an optional NCAP test that will cover that category, the 
manufacturer may depict vehicles manufactured on or after the date of 
receipt of the information as ``Not Rated'' or ``To Be Rated'' for that 
category.
    (5) The text ``Overall Vehicle Score,'' ``Frontal Crash,'' ``Side 
Crash,'' ``Rollover,'' ``Driver,'' ``Passenger,'' ``Front Seat,'' 
``Rear Seat'' and where applicable, ``Not Rated'' or ``To Be Rated,'' 
the star graphic indicating each rating, as well as any text in the 
header and footer areas of the label, must have a minimum font size of 
12 point. All remaining text and symbols on the label (including the 
star graphic specified in paragraph (e)(9)(i) of this section), must 
have a minimum font size of 8 point.
    (e) Required information and format.
    (1) Safety rating label border. The safety rating label must be 
surrounded by a solid dark line that is a minimum of 3 points in width.
    (2) Safety rating label size and legibility. The safety rating 
label must be presented in a legible, visible, and prominent fashion 
that covers at least 8 percent of the total area of the Monroney label 
(i.e., including the safety rating label) or an area with a minimum of 
4\1/2\ inches in length and 3\1/2\ inches in height on the Monroney 
label, whichever is larger.
    (3) Heading area. The words ``Government 5-Star Safety Ratings'' 
must be in boldface, capital letters that are light in color and 
centered. The background must be dark.
    (4) Overall vehicle score area.
    (i) The overall vehicle score area must be placed immediately below 
the heading area and must have dark text and a light background. The 
overall vehicle score rating must be displayed with the maximum star 
rating achieved.
    (ii) The words ``Overall Vehicle Score'' must be in boldface 
aligned to the left side of the label. The achieved

[[Page 45467]]

star rating must be on the same line and be aligned to the right side 
of the label and left justified.
    (iii) The words ``Based on the combined ratings of frontal, side 
and rollover.'' followed (on the next line) by the statement ``Should 
only be compared to other vehicles of similar size and weight.'' must 
be placed at the bottom of the overall vehicle score area and left 
justified.
    (iv) If NHTSA has not released the star rating for the ``Frontal 
Crash,'' ``Side Crash,'' or ``Rollover'' area, the text ``Not Rated'' 
must be used in boldface. However, as an alternative, the words ``To Be 
Rated'' (in boldface) may be used if the manufacturer has received 
written notification from NHTSA that the vehicle has been chosen for 
the NCAP frontal, side, and/or rollover testing such that there will be 
ratings in all three areas.
    (5) Frontal crash area.
    (i) The frontal crash area must be placed immediately below the 
overall vehicle score area, separated by a dark line that is a minimum 
of three points in width. The text must be dark against a light 
background. Both the driver and the right front seat passenger frontal 
crash test ratings must be displayed with the maximum star ratings 
achieved.
    (ii) The words ``Frontal Crash'' must be in boldface, cover two 
lines, and be aligned to the left side of the label.
    (iii) The word ``Driver'' must be on the same line as the word 
``Frontal'' in ``Frontal Crash,'' and be horizontally centered, left 
justified and vertically aligned to the top of the frontal crash area. 
The achieved star rating for ``Driver'' must be on the same line and be 
aligned to the right side of the label and left justified.
    (iv) If NHTSA has not released the star rating for the ``Driver'' 
position, the text ``Not Rated'' must be used in boldface. However, as 
an alternative, the words ``To Be Rated'' (in boldface) may be used if 
the manufacturer has received written notification from NHTSA that the 
vehicle has been chosen for NCAP testing. Both texts must be on the 
same line as the text ``Driver'' and be aligned to the right side of 
the label and left justified.
    (v) The word ``Passenger'' must be on the same line as the word 
``Crash'' in ``Frontal Crash,'' below the word ``Driver,'' and be 
horizontally centered, left justified and vertically aligned to the top 
of the frontal crash area. The achieved star rating for ``Passenger'' 
must be on the same line and be aligned to the right side of the label 
and left justified.
    (vi) If NHTSA has not released the star rating for ``Passenger,'' 
the words ``Not Rated'' must be used in boldface. However, as an 
alternative, the words ``To Be Rated'' (in boldface) may be used if the 
manufacturer has received written notification from NHTSA that the 
vehicle has been chosen for NCAP testing. Both texts must be on the 
same line as the text ``Passenger'' and be aligned to the right side of 
the label and left justified.
    (vii) The words ``Based on the risk of injury in a frontal 
impact.'' followed (on the next line) by the statement ``Should ONLY be 
compared to other vehicles of similar size and weight.'' must be placed 
at the bottom of the frontal crash area and left justified.
    (6) Side crash area.
    (i) The side crash area must be immediately below the frontal crash 
area, separated by a dark line that is a minimum of three points in 
width. The text must be dark against a light background. Both the 
driver and the rear seat passenger side crash test rating must be 
displayed with the maximum star rating achieved.
    (ii) The words ``Side Crash'' must cover two lines, and be aligned 
to the left side of the label in boldface.
    (iii) The words ``Front seat'' must be on the same line as the word 
``Side'' in ``Side Crash'' and be horizontally centered, left justified 
and vertically aligned to the top of the side crash area. The achieved 
star rating for ``Front seat'' must be on the same line as the words 
``Front seat'' and be aligned to the right side of the label and left 
justified.
    (iv) If NHTSA has not released the star rating for ``Front Seat,'' 
the words ``Not Rated'' must be used in boldface. However, as an 
alternative, the words ``To Be Rated'' (in boldface) may be used if the 
manufacturer has received written notification from NHTSA that the 
vehicle has been chosen for NCAP testing. Both texts must be on the 
same line as the text ``Front seat'' and be aligned to the right side 
of the label and left justified.
    (v) The words ``Rear seat'' must be on the same line as the word 
``Crash'' in ``Side Crash,'' below the word ``Front seat,'' and be 
horizontally centered, left justified and vertically aligned to the top 
of the side crash area. The achieved star rating for ``Rear seat'' must 
be on the same line as the text ``Rear seat'' and be aligned to the 
right side of the label and left justified.
    (vi) If NHTSA has not released the star rating for ``Rear Seat,'' 
the text ``Not Rated'' must be used in boldface. However, as an 
alternative, the text ``To Be Rated'' (in boldface) may be used if the 
manufacturer has received written notification from NHTSA that the 
vehicle has been chosen for NCAP testing. Both texts must be on the 
same line as the text ``Rear seat'' and be aligned to the right side of 
the label and left justified.
    (vii) The words ``Based on the risk of injury in a side impact.'' 
must be placed at the bottom of the side crash area and left justified.
    (7) Rollover area.
    (i) The rollover area must be immediately below the side crash 
area, separated by a dark line that is a minimum of three points in 
width. The text must be dark against a light background. The rollover 
test rating must be displayed with the maximum star rating achieved.
    (ii) The word ``Rollover'' must be aligned to the left side of the 
label in boldface. The achieved star rating must be on the same line 
and be aligned to the right side of the label and left justified.
    (iii) If NHTSA has not tested the vehicle, the words ``Not Rated'' 
must be used in boldface. However, as an alternative, the words ``To Be 
Rated'' (in boldface) may be used if the manufacturer has received 
written notification from NHTSA that the vehicle has been chosen for 
NCAP testing. Both texts must be on the same line as the text 
``Rollover'' and be aligned to the right side of the label and left 
justified.
    (iv) The words ``Based on the risk of rollover in a single-vehicle 
crash.'' must be placed at the bottom of the rollover area and left 
justified.
    (8) Graphics. The star graphic is depicted in Figure 3 and the 
safety concern graphic is depicted in Figure 4.
    (9) Footer area. The footer area must be placed at the bottom of 
the label; the text must be in boldface letters that are light in color 
and centered. The background must be dark. The text must state the 
following, in the specified order, on separate lines:
    (i) ``Star ratings range from 1 to 5 stars ([starf] [starf] [starf] 
[starf] [starf]) with 5 being the highest.''
    (ii) ``Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA).''
    (iii) ``www.safercar.gov or 1-888-327-4236.''
    (10) Safety concern. For vehicle tests for which NHTSA reports a 
safety concern as part of the safety rating, and for overall vehicle 
scores that are derived from vehicle tests for at least one of which 
NHTSA reports a safety concern as part of the safety rating, the label 
must:
    (i) In both the rating area in which the safety concern was 
identified and in the overall vehicle score area, depict, as a 
superscript to the star rating, the safety

[[Page 45468]]

concern symbol, as depicted in Figure 4 of this section, at \2/3\ the 
font size of the base star, and
    (ii) Include at the bottom of the overall vehicle score area only 
as the last line of that area, in no smaller than 8 point type, the 
related symbol, as depicted in Figure 4 of this section, as a 
superscript of the rest of the line, and the text ``Safety Concern: 
Visit www.safercar.gov or call 1-888-327-4236 for more details.''
    (11) No additional information may be provided in the safety rating 
label area. The specified information provided in a language other than 
English is not considered to be additional information.
    (f) Smaller safety rating label for vehicles with no ratings.
    (1) If NHTSA has not released a safety rating for any category for 
a vehicle, the manufacturer may use a smaller safety rating label that 
meets paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(5) of this section. A sample label 
is depicted in Figure 2.
    (2) The label must be at least 4\1/2\ inches in width and 1\1/2\ 
inches in height, and must be surrounded by a solid dark line that is a 
minimum of 3 points in width.
    (3) Heading area. The text must read ``Government 5-Star Safety 
Ratings'' and be at least in 14-point boldface, capital letters that 
are light in color, and be centered. The background must be dark.
    (4) General information. The general information area must be below 
the header area. The text must be dark and the background must be 
light. The text must state the following, in at least 12-point font and 
be left justified: ``This vehicle has not been rated by the government 
for overall vehicle score, frontal crash, side crash, or rollover 
risk.''
    (5) Footer area. The footer area must be placed at the bottom of 
the label; the text must be at least in 12-point boldface letters that 
are light in color, and centered. The background must be dark. The text 
must state the following, in the specified order, on separate lines:
    (i) ``Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA)'' and
    (ii) ``www.safercar.gov or 1-888-327-4236''.
    (6) No additional information may be provided in the smaller safety 
rating label area. The specified information provided in a language 
other than English is not considered to be additional information.
    (g) Labels for alterers.
    (1) If, pursuant to 49 CFR 567.7, a person is required to affix a 
certification label to a vehicle, and the vehicle has a safety rating 
label with one or more safety ratings, the alterer must also place 
another label on that vehicle as specified in this paragraph.
    (2) The additional label (which does not replace the one required 
by 49 CFR 567.7) must read: ``This vehicle has been altered. The stated 
star ratings on the safety rating label may no longer be applicable.''
    (3) The label must be placed adjacent to the Monroney label or as 
close to it as physically possible.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 45469]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29JY11.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29JY11.001


[[Page 45470]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29JY11.002


    Issued on: July 22, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-19049 Filed 7-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C