Petition for Rulemaking; Diane and Dorsey Smith, 4090-4092 [E6-858]
Download as PDF
4090
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
§ 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for
minimal risk active and inert ingredients.
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
*
Chemical Name
CAS Reg. No.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) .....................................................................................................................................................
Beeswax ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Benzoic acid, sodium salt ....................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Carnauba wax ......................................................................................................................................................................
Carbonic acid, monopotassium salt ....................................................................................................................................
Carbonic acid, monosodium salt (sodium bicarbonate) ......................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
D-Glucitol (sorbitol) ..............................................................................................................................................................
Glycerol (glycerin) (1,2,3-propanetriol) ................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2-Propanol (isopropyl alcohol) .............................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Soap (The water soluble sodium or potassium salts of fatty acids producted by either the saponification of fats and
oils, or the neutralization of fatty acid ..............................................................................................................................
Sorbic acid, potassium salt ..................................................................................................................................................
Sperm oil ..............................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Vanillin .................................................................................................................................................................................
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 06–17, MB Docket No. 03–179, RM
10752]
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Quitaque, TX
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.
AGENCY:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket No. 03–179,
adopted January 4, 2006, and released
January 6, 2006. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center (Room CY–A257),
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC.
The complete text of this decision may
also be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445
12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1–
800–378–3160 or https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. This document is
not subject to the Congressional Review
Act. The Commission, is, therefore, not
required to submit a copy of this Report
and Order to GAO, pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule
was dismissed.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 06–574 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY: The Audio Division dismisses
a petition for rulemaking filed by
Charles Crawford proposing the
allotment of Channel 261C3 at
Quitaque, Texas, as potentially the
community’s second local FM
transmission service. See 68 FR 47284,
August 8, 2003. A showing of
continuing interest is required before a
channel will be allotted. It is the
Commission’s policy to refrain from
making an allotment to a community
absent an expression of interest.
Therefore, we will dismiss the instant
petition.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 06–575 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharon P. McDonald, Media Bureau,
(202) 418–2180.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
50–81–7
8012–89–3
532–32–1
*
8015–86–9
298–14–6
144–55–8
*
50–70–4
56–81–5
*
67–63–0
*
None
24634–61–5
8002–24–2
*
121–33–5
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 580
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22899]
Petition for Rulemaking; Diane and
Dorsey Smith
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition
filed by Diane and Dorsey Smith
requesting that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
amend its regulation concerning
odometer disclosure requirements to
eliminate the exemption for vehicles
having a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of
more than 16,000 pounds.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC
20590.
For technical issues, you may contact
Richard C. Morse, Director of the Office
of Odometer Fraud Investigation, by
phone at (202) 366–4761.
For legal issues, you may contact
Katherine Gehringer of the NHTSA
Office of Chief Counsel by telephone at
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
(202) 366–5263 and by fax at (202) 366–
3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1972, Congress enacted the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act, which included requirements
regarding odometers in motor vehicles.
Public Law 92–513, 86 Stat. 947, 961–
63.1 Among other things, the Act
prohibits disconnecting, resetting, or
altering motor vehicle odometers and
requires the execution of an odometer
disclosure statement on the title
incident to the transfer of ownership of
a motor vehicle. The Act also subjects
violators to civil and criminal penalties
and provides for federal injunctive
relief, state enforcement, and a private
right of civil action.
The Act directs the Secretary of
Transportation (the Secretary) to
promulgate rules governing the making
and retention of odometer disclosure
statements. 49 U.S.C. 32705. Pursuant to
a delegation from the Secretary, 49 CFR
1.51, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR Part
580, which requires that each transferor
of ownership in an automobile must
disclose the mileage to the transferee in
writing on the title, the document being
used to reassign the title, or in cases
where the title has been lost or is being
held by a lienholder, on a secure power
of attorney form issued by the states. In
these cases, the secure power of attorney
form must be returned to the state that
issued it for retention. All dealers and
distributors are required to keep a copy
of each odometer disclosure statement
they issue and receive for a period of
five years.
The regulations exempt certain
categories of vehicles, including
vehicles more than ten years old, from
the disclosure requirements. 49 CFR
580.17(a). Another exemption relates to
vehicles in excess of a certain weight.
One important reason for exempting
these categories of vehicles is that the
odometer reading is not the principal
guide to the condition and value of the
vehicles, either because of their age or
the use to which the vehicles are put.
Because other information is a better
source of the condition of the vehicles,
NHTSA has exempted them from the
odometer disclosure requirements.
The Petition for Rulemaking filed by
Diane and Dorsey Smith pertains to 49
CFR 580.17(a)(1), which provides that
1 The
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act, as amended, was repealed in the
course of the 1994 recodification of various laws
pertaining to the Department of Transportation and
was reenacted and recodified without substantive
change. Public Law 103–272; see 108 Stat. 745,
1048–1056, 1379, 1387 et seq.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
the transferor of a vehicle having a
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR), as
defined in 49 CFR 571.3, of more than
16,000 pounds need not disclose the
vehicle’s odometer mileage.
This exemption for large vehicles was
adopted in 1973. 49 CFR 580.5 (1973),
38 FR 2979 (Jan. 31, 1973). In the course
of a rulemaking, NHTSA agreed with
certain comments, submitted by
Freightliner Corporation, White Motor
Corporation, and the National
Association of Motor Bus Operators,
that buses and large trucks are routinely
driven hundreds of thousands of miles
and their buyers have traditionally
relied on their maintenance records as
the principal guide to their condition
and value. Id. The comments pointed
out that such vehicles often accumulate
more than 100,000 miles in a year and
that major components are often
overhauled or replaced during the life of
a typical bus or large truck. The most
important factor in assessing the
condition of such vehicles is to
determine when and how such
maintenance occurred. Odometer
mileage is linked only to the vehicle as
a whole and provides no indication of
whether and when such important work
was done on major components of these
heavy-use vehicles. Freightliner Corp.,
Comment (January 8, 1973) (docket no.
73–31–N01–029). NHTSA amended the
regulations in 1988 (53 FR 29476) and
1989 (54 FR 35888) and redesignated
the exemptions as § 580.17 in 1997. 62
FR 47765.
The Petition
On June 30, 2005, the Smiths filed a
petition seeking an amendment to
NHTSA’s regulation that would
eliminate the exemption in
§ 580.17(a)(1) for vehicles having a
GVWR of more than 16,000 pounds. The
Smiths purchased a used truck with
450,000 miles on the odometer and, as
recently as the date of their petition,
were unable to determine if the
odometer reading is the actual mileage
or to obtain the maintenance records for
the truck. The Smiths have not provided
any evidence that the odometer reading
on the truck they purchased was
incorrect. Instead, they contend that the
problems they have experienced with
the truck are likely due to its having
more mileage than the odometer shows
or to the previous owner’s having not
done certain maintenance they believed
had been done.
The Smiths believe that an odometer
disclosure requirement for these
vehicles would deter odometer fraud
and that without the odometer
disclosure, the true mileage of the
vehicles can never be ascertained.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4091
According to the Smiths, being assured
that the mileage is true and correct
assists purchasers in determining a
vehicle’s mechanical condition and
value. The Smiths further state that a
vehicle’s mechanical history or
maintenance records are not always
available from the previous owner.
Discussion
As enacted in 1972, the primary
purpose of the odometer disclosure law
was to protect buyers of motor vehicles
who ‘‘rely heavily on the odometer
reading as an index of the condition and
value of such vehicle.’’ 86 Stat. 961, 49
U.S.C. 32701(a)(1). In establishing the
exemptions to its odometer disclosure
regulation in 1973, NHTSA paid close
attention to the purposes of the Act. The
exemptions in the regulations focused
on the types of vehicles for which the
odometer reading is not used as a
principal guide to the condition and
value of the vehicles. Under these
exemptions, the public and state
agencies were not burdened with
paperwork that has not been
particularly beneficial to purchasers.2
The Smiths have not provided
information to persuade NHTSA that
conditions have changed meaningfully
since the agency’s original
determination with regard to the
importance of odometer readings in
purchases of these large vehicles.
Indeed, in a copy of a news article
submitted by the petitioners, the
president of the Used Truck Association
is quoted as saying that high mileage
does not hurt a truck, but the lack of
maintenance does. Sean Kelly,
Something Used, Commercial Carrier
Journal Magazine, July 2005, at https://
www.etrucker.com/apps/news/
article.asp?id=48018. Although some
news articles submitted by the
petitioners address the advantages of
purchasing trucks with lower mileage,
the articles go on to say that those
advantages can vanish if the trucks are
not maintained properly. See, e.g., Sean
Kilcarr, Used Trucks: Maximizing
Value, Drivers Magazine, March 1, 2003,
at https://driversmag.com/ar/
fleet_used_trucks_maximizing/.
With regard to the lack of availability
of maintenance records, a problem of
particular concern to the Smiths with
regard to their own purchase, neither
the Act nor NHTSA’s regulations
2 We also note that in a recent amendment,
Congress endorsed exemptions for classes and
categories of vehicles. Under this amendment, the
Secretary may exempt such classes or categories of
vehicles as the Secretary deems appropriate from
these disclosure requirements. 49 U.S.C.
32705(a)(5). This provision was added by Public
Law 105–178, 7105, 112 Stat. 467.
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
4092
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
require that such records be kept for any
vehicles. However, buyers of heavy
vehicles are free to insist that
maintenance records be made available
to them at the time of, and as a
condition of, purchase of such vehicles,
just as buyers of automobiles, light
trucks, and other motor vehicles not
exempt from odometer disclosure
ensure that the odometer disclosure
statement is available at the time of
purchase. Removing the odometer
certification exemption would not
alleviate this concern over maintenance
records, and purchasers have sufficient
market power to mandate records before
they purchase the vehicles in question.
In NHTSA’s experience, there has not
been a significant odometer fraud
problem involving heavy trucks or
buses. The agency receives very few
complaints pertaining to these types of
vehicles. Eliminating the exemption for
these vehicles would impose costs on
state and the sellers of such vehicles
that, in the aggregate, are not
insignificant. Moreover, expenditure of
agency resources on a rulemaking to
eliminate this exemption would divert
those resources from the agency’s
regulatory priorities, which involve
measures that may save numerous of
lives on the nation’s highways.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition
is denied.
Issued on: January 18, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6–858 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Petitions To Reclassify the
Florida Scrub-Jay From Threatened to
Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on two petitions to
reclassify the Florida scrub-jay
(Aphelocoma coerulescens) from
threatened to endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We find the petitions do
not provide substantial scientific
information indicating that
reclassification of the Florida scrub-jay
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
may be warranted. Therefore, we will
not initiate a further status review in
response to these petitions. However,
the public may submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the status of the species or
threats to it at any time.
DATES: The administrative finding
announced in this document was made
on January 25, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Data, comments,
information, or questions concerning
these petitions should be sent to the
Field Supervisor, Jacksonville
Ecological Services Office, 6620
Southpoint Drive South, Suite 310,
Jacksonville, FL 32216; or by electronic
mail (e-mail) to floridascrubjay@fws.gov.
The petition finding, supporting
information, and comments are
available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David L. Hankla, Field Supervisor, at
the above address (telephone 904/232–
2580; facsimile 904/232–2404).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial information to
indicate that the petitioned action may
be warranted. To the maximum extent
practicable, we are to make this finding
within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition, and publish our notice of this
finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
This finding summarizes information
included in the petitions and
information available to us at the time
of the petition review. Under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and our regulations
in 50 CFR 424.14(b), our review of a 90day finding is limited to a determination
of whether the information in the
petition meets the ‘‘substantial scientific
information’’ threshold. Our standard
for substantial information with regard
to a 90-day petition finding is ‘‘that
amount of information that would lead
a reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
We have to satisfy the Act’s
requirement that we use the best
available science to make our decisions.
However, we do not conduct additional
research at this point, nor do we subject
the petition to rigorous critical review.
Rather, at the 90-day finding stage, we
accept the petitioner’s sources and
characterizations of the information, to
the extent that they appear to be based
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on accepted scientific principles (such
as citing published and peer reviewed
articles, or studies done in accordance
with valid methodologies), unless we
have specific information to the
contrary. Our finding considers whether
the petition states on its face a
reasonable case for reclassification.
Thus our 90-day finding expresses no
view as to the ultimate issue of whether
the species should be reclassified.
Petitions
On March 13, 2002, we received a
petition, dated March 13, 2002, from
John A. Fritschie on behalf of the
Partnership for a Sustainable Future of
Brevard County, Florida; Indian River
Audubon Society; Friends of the Scrub;
Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group;
Conradina Chapter of the Florida Native
Plant Society; Sea Turtle Preservation
Society; League of Women Voters of the
Space Coast, Inc.; and Barrier Island
Preservation Association, Inc. (hereafter
referred to as the 2002 petition). The
2002 petition requested that the Florida
scrub-jay be reclassified from threatened
to endangered and that critical habitat
be designated with reclassification. The
2002 petition contained supporting
information regarding the species’
taxonomy and ecology, historical and
current distribution, present status, and
potential causes of decline. We
acknowledged the receipt of the 2002
petition in a letter to Mr. Fritschie,
dated April 12, 2002.
On May 1, 2003, we received a
petition, dated April 22, 2003, from
Brett M. Paben, WildLaw Florida Office,
on behalf of Save Our Big Scrub, Inc.
(hereafter referred to as the 2003
petition). The 2003 petition requested
that the Florida scrub-jay be reclassified
from threatened to endangered and that
critical habitat be designated with
reclassification. The 2003 petition
contained supporting information
regarding the species’ taxonomy and
ecology, historical and current
distribution, present status, and
potential causes of decline. We
acknowledged the receipt of the 2003
petition in a letter to Mr. Brett Paben,
dated June 20, 2003.
On March 14, 2004, several of the
petitioners filed a complaint (Save Our
Big Scrub, Inc. v. Norton, Case No.
6:04cv349–Orl–28KRS) (M.D. Fla.)
alleging our failure to make 90-day and
12-month petition findings on
reclassifying the Florida scrub-jay and
to revise the critical habitat designation.
In a stipulated settlement agreement
adopted by the court on December 20,
2004, we agreed to submit one 90-day
finding for both petitions to the Federal
Register by January 15, 2006, and to
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4090-4092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-858]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 580
[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22899]
Petition for Rulemaking; Diane and Dorsey Smith
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition filed by Diane and Dorsey Smith
requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) amend its regulation concerning odometer disclosure
requirements to eliminate the exemption for vehicles having a Gross
Vehicle Weight Rating of more than 16,000 pounds.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
For technical issues, you may contact Richard C. Morse, Director of
the Office of Odometer Fraud Investigation, by phone at (202) 366-4761.
For legal issues, you may contact Katherine Gehringer of the NHTSA
Office of Chief Counsel by telephone at
[[Page 4091]]
(202) 366-5263 and by fax at (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1972, Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act, which included requirements regarding odometers in motor
vehicles. Public Law 92-513, 86 Stat. 947, 961-63.\1\ Among other
things, the Act prohibits disconnecting, resetting, or altering motor
vehicle odometers and requires the execution of an odometer disclosure
statement on the title incident to the transfer of ownership of a motor
vehicle. The Act also subjects violators to civil and criminal
penalties and provides for federal injunctive relief, state
enforcement, and a private right of civil action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as
amended, was repealed in the course of the 1994 recodification of
various laws pertaining to the Department of Transportation and was
reenacted and recodified without substantive change. Public Law 103-
272; see 108 Stat. 745, 1048-1056, 1379, 1387 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Act directs the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) to
promulgate rules governing the making and retention of odometer
disclosure statements. 49 U.S.C. 32705. Pursuant to a delegation from
the Secretary, 49 CFR 1.51, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR Part 580, which
requires that each transferor of ownership in an automobile must
disclose the mileage to the transferee in writing on the title, the
document being used to reassign the title, or in cases where the title
has been lost or is being held by a lienholder, on a secure power of
attorney form issued by the states. In these cases, the secure power of
attorney form must be returned to the state that issued it for
retention. All dealers and distributors are required to keep a copy of
each odometer disclosure statement they issue and receive for a period
of five years.
The regulations exempt certain categories of vehicles, including
vehicles more than ten years old, from the disclosure requirements. 49
CFR 580.17(a). Another exemption relates to vehicles in excess of a
certain weight. One important reason for exempting these categories of
vehicles is that the odometer reading is not the principal guide to the
condition and value of the vehicles, either because of their age or the
use to which the vehicles are put. Because other information is a
better source of the condition of the vehicles, NHTSA has exempted them
from the odometer disclosure requirements.
The Petition for Rulemaking filed by Diane and Dorsey Smith
pertains to 49 CFR 580.17(a)(1), which provides that the transferor of
a vehicle having a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR), as defined in 49
CFR 571.3, of more than 16,000 pounds need not disclose the vehicle's
odometer mileage.
This exemption for large vehicles was adopted in 1973. 49 CFR 580.5
(1973), 38 FR 2979 (Jan. 31, 1973). In the course of a rulemaking,
NHTSA agreed with certain comments, submitted by Freightliner
Corporation, White Motor Corporation, and the National Association of
Motor Bus Operators, that buses and large trucks are routinely driven
hundreds of thousands of miles and their buyers have traditionally
relied on their maintenance records as the principal guide to their
condition and value. Id. The comments pointed out that such vehicles
often accumulate more than 100,000 miles in a year and that major
components are often overhauled or replaced during the life of a
typical bus or large truck. The most important factor in assessing the
condition of such vehicles is to determine when and how such
maintenance occurred. Odometer mileage is linked only to the vehicle as
a whole and provides no indication of whether and when such important
work was done on major components of these heavy-use vehicles.
Freightliner Corp., Comment (January 8, 1973) (docket no. 73-31-N01-
029). NHTSA amended the regulations in 1988 (53 FR 29476) and 1989 (54
FR 35888) and redesignated the exemptions as Sec. 580.17 in 1997. 62
FR 47765.
The Petition
On June 30, 2005, the Smiths filed a petition seeking an amendment
to NHTSA's regulation that would eliminate the exemption in Sec.
580.17(a)(1) for vehicles having a GVWR of more than 16,000 pounds. The
Smiths purchased a used truck with 450,000 miles on the odometer and,
as recently as the date of their petition, were unable to determine if
the odometer reading is the actual mileage or to obtain the maintenance
records for the truck. The Smiths have not provided any evidence that
the odometer reading on the truck they purchased was incorrect.
Instead, they contend that the problems they have experienced with the
truck are likely due to its having more mileage than the odometer shows
or to the previous owner's having not done certain maintenance they
believed had been done.
The Smiths believe that an odometer disclosure requirement for
these vehicles would deter odometer fraud and that without the odometer
disclosure, the true mileage of the vehicles can never be ascertained.
According to the Smiths, being assured that the mileage is true and
correct assists purchasers in determining a vehicle's mechanical
condition and value. The Smiths further state that a vehicle's
mechanical history or maintenance records are not always available from
the previous owner.
Discussion
As enacted in 1972, the primary purpose of the odometer disclosure
law was to protect buyers of motor vehicles who ``rely heavily on the
odometer reading as an index of the condition and value of such
vehicle.'' 86 Stat. 961, 49 U.S.C. 32701(a)(1). In establishing the
exemptions to its odometer disclosure regulation in 1973, NHTSA paid
close attention to the purposes of the Act. The exemptions in the
regulations focused on the types of vehicles for which the odometer
reading is not used as a principal guide to the condition and value of
the vehicles. Under these exemptions, the public and state agencies
were not burdened with paperwork that has not been particularly
beneficial to purchasers.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We also note that in a recent amendment, Congress endorsed
exemptions for classes and categories of vehicles. Under this
amendment, the Secretary may exempt such classes or categories of
vehicles as the Secretary deems appropriate from these disclosure
requirements. 49 U.S.C. 32705(a)(5). This provision was added by
Public Law 105-178, 7105, 112 Stat. 467.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Smiths have not provided information to persuade NHTSA that
conditions have changed meaningfully since the agency's original
determination with regard to the importance of odometer readings in
purchases of these large vehicles. Indeed, in a copy of a news article
submitted by the petitioners, the president of the Used Truck
Association is quoted as saying that high mileage does not hurt a
truck, but the lack of maintenance does. Sean Kelly, Something Used,
Commercial Carrier Journal Magazine, July 2005, at https://
www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=48018. Although some news
articles submitted by the petitioners address the advantages of
purchasing trucks with lower mileage, the articles go on to say that
those advantages can vanish if the trucks are not maintained properly.
See, e.g., Sean Kilcarr, Used Trucks: Maximizing Value, Drivers
Magazine, March 1, 2003, at https://driversmag.com/ar/fleet_used_
trucks_maximizing/.
With regard to the lack of availability of maintenance records, a
problem of particular concern to the Smiths with regard to their own
purchase, neither the Act nor NHTSA's regulations
[[Page 4092]]
require that such records be kept for any vehicles. However, buyers of
heavy vehicles are free to insist that maintenance records be made
available to them at the time of, and as a condition of, purchase of
such vehicles, just as buyers of automobiles, light trucks, and other
motor vehicles not exempt from odometer disclosure ensure that the
odometer disclosure statement is available at the time of purchase.
Removing the odometer certification exemption would not alleviate this
concern over maintenance records, and purchasers have sufficient market
power to mandate records before they purchase the vehicles in question.
In NHTSA's experience, there has not been a significant odometer
fraud problem involving heavy trucks or buses. The agency receives very
few complaints pertaining to these types of vehicles. Eliminating the
exemption for these vehicles would impose costs on state and the
sellers of such vehicles that, in the aggregate, are not insignificant.
Moreover, expenditure of agency resources on a rulemaking to eliminate
this exemption would divert those resources from the agency's
regulatory priorities, which involve measures that may save numerous of
lives on the nation's highways.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is denied.
Issued on: January 18, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-858 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P