Final Rule, 71714-71717 [2012-29132]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
71714
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
adopted a Tribal Priority under Section
307(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, to assist federally
recognized Native American Tribes and
Alaska Native Villages (‘‘Tribes’’) and
entities primarily owned or controlled
by Tribes in obtaining broadcast radio
construction permits designed primarily
to serve Tribal Lands (the ‘‘Tribal
Priority’’). Tribal affiliated applicants
that meet certain conditions regarding
Tribal membership and signal coverage
qualify for the Tribal Priority, which in
most cases will enable the qualifying
applicants to obtain radio construction
permits without proceeding to
competitive bidding, in the case of
commercial stations, or to a point
system evaluation, in the case of
noncommercial educational (‘‘NCE’’)
stations. On March 3, 2011, the
Commission adopted a Second Report
and Order (‘‘Rural Second R&O’’), First
Order on Reconsideration, and Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
in MB Docket No. 09–52, FCC 11–28, 26
FCC Rcd 2556 (2011). On December 28,
2011, the Commission adopted a Third
Report and Order in MB Docket No. 09–
52, FCC 11–190, 26 FCC Rcd 17642
(2011) (‘‘Rural Third R&O’’). In the
Rural Third R&O the Commission
further refined the use of the Tribal
Priority in the commercial FM radio
context, specifically adopting a
‘‘Threshold Qualifications’’ approach to
commercial FM application processing.
Furthermore, under the Commission’s
Tribal Priority procedures, entities
obtaining:
(a) An AM authorization for which
the applicant claimed and received a
dispositive Section 307(b) priority
because it qualified for the Tribal
Priority; or
(b) An FM commercial non-reserved
band station awarded:
(1) To the applicant as a singleton
Threshold Qualifications Window
applicant,
(2) To the applicant after a settlement
among Threshold Qualifications
Window applicants, or
(3) To the applicant after an auction
among a closed group of bidders
composed only of threshold qualified
Tribal applicants; or
(c) A reserved-band NCE FM station
for which the applicant claimed and
received the Tribal Priority in a fair
distribution analysis as set forth in 47
CFR 73.7002(b)(1), may not assign or
transfer the authorization during the
period beginning with issuance of the
construction permit, until the station
has completed four years of on-air
operations, unless the assignee or
transferee also qualifies for the Tribal
Priority. Pursuant to procedures set
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:05 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
forth in the Rural Third R&O, 26 FCC
Rcd at 17645–50, the Tribal Priority
Holding Period is now applied in the
context of authorizations obtained using
Tribal Priority Threshold Qualifications.
Consistent with actions taken by the
Commission in the Rural Third R&O,
the following changes are made to
Forms 314 and 315: Section I of each
form includes a question asking
applicants to indicate whether any of
the authorizations involved in the
subject transaction were obtained: after
award of a dispositive Section 307(b)
preference using the Tribal Priority;
through Threshold Qualification
procedures; or through the Tribal
Priority as applied before the NCE fair
distribution analysis. A subsequent
question then asks whether both the
assignor/transferor and assignee/
transferee qualify for the Tribal Priority
in all respects. Applicants not meeting
the Tribal Priority qualifications and
proposing an assignment or transfer
during the Holding Period must provide
an exhibit demonstrating that the
transaction is consistent with the Tribal
Priority policies or that a waiver is
warranted. The instructions for Section
I of Forms 314 and 315 have been
revised to assist applicants with
completing the questions.
Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison, Office of the
Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2012–26009 Filed 12–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 567
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0093 Notice 2]
RIN 2127–AL18
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This document amends
regulations that prescribe the format and
contents labels that manufacturers are
required to affix to motor vehicles
manufactured for sale in the United
States to certify the compliance of those
vehicles with U.S. safety standards. The
amendment will require specified
certification language to be included on
the labels affixed to certain types of
vehicles.
SUMMARY:
Frm 00028
Petitions for reconsideration
of this final rule should refer to the
docket and notice numbers identified
above and be submitted to:
Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590. It is requested,
but not required, that 10 copies of the
petition be submitted. The petition must
be received not later than 45 days after
publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. Petitions filed after
that time will be considered petitions
filed by interested persons to initiate
rulemaking pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301.
The petition must contain a brief
statement of the complaint and an
explanation as to why compliance with
the final rule is not practicable, is
unreasonable, or is not in the public
interest. Unless otherwise specified in
the final rule, the statement and
explanation together may not exceed 15
pages in length, but necessary
attachments may be appended to the
submission without regard to the 15page limit. If it is requested that
additional facts be considered, the
petitioner must state the reason why
they were not presented to the
Administrator within the prescribed
time. The Administrator does not
consider repetitious petitions and
unless the Administrator otherwise
provides, the filing of a petition does
not stay the effectiveness of the final
rule.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366–
3151.
NHTSA
published a final rule on February 14,
2005 (70 FR 7414) that amended certain
provisions of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, that pertain to the
certification of motor vehicles to
standards administered by NHTSA. In
amending the provisions that establish
the format and content requirements for
certification labels, the agency
inadvertently omitted from 49 CFR
576.4(g)(5) the requirement for
manufacturers to include a specific
certification statement in the labels they
affix to certain types of motor vehicles.
This rule corrects that inadvertent
omission.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Final Rule
PO 00000
This rule is effective January 3,
2013. Petitions for reconsideration must
be received by NHTSA not later than
January 18, 2013.
DATES:
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Background and Amendments
This rule was preceded by a notice of
proposed rulemaking that NHTSA
published on August 6, 2012 (77 FR
46677). There were no comments in
response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Under the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended,
(49 U.S.C. 30112(a), 30115), a motor
vehicle manufactured for sale in the
United States must be manufactured to
comply with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS)
and bear a label certifying such
compliance that is permanently affixed
by the vehicle’s original manufacturer.
The label constitutes the manufacturer’s
certification that the vehicle complies
with the applicable standards. Under 49
CFR 567.4, the label, among other
things, must identify the vehicle’s
manufacturer, its date of manufacture,
its gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR,
the gross axle weight rating or GAWR of
each axle, the vehicle type classification
(e.g., passenger car, multipurpose
passenger vehicle, truck, bus,
motorcycle, trailer, low-speed vehicle),
and the vehicle’s Vehicle Identification
Number or ‘‘VIN.’’ The certification
label must also contain a variant of the
statement: ‘‘This vehicle conforms to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards in effect on the date of
manufacture shown above.’’ For
example, passenger cars are subject to
safety, bumper, and theft prevention
standards; therefore, a passenger car
certification label must contain the
statement: ‘‘This vehicle conforms to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety,
bumper, and theft prevention standards
in effect on the date of manufacture
shown above.’’ The expression ‘‘U.S.’’ or
‘‘U.S.A.’’ may be inserted before the
word ‘‘Federal’’ as it appears in this
statement.
In the final rule published on
February 14, 2005 (70 FR 7414), 49 CFR
567.4(g)(5) was amended by replacing
the statement ‘‘This vehicle conforms to
all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety standards in effect on the date of
manufacture shown above’’ with the
language, ‘‘One of the following
statements, as appropriate’’ followed by
subparagraphs i, ii, and iii, which
pertain, respectively, to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles
(MPVs) and trucks with a GVWR of
6,000 pounds or less, and multipurpose
passenger vehicles and trucks with a
GVWR of over 6,000 pounds.
Manufacturers of other types of motor
vehicles remained subject to the
statutory duty to certify those vehicles
to the applicable FMVSS. And the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:05 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
logical certification language for these
manufacturers to use was: ‘‘This vehicle
conforms to all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards in effect on the
date of manufacture shown above.’’ But
due to an inadvertent omission in the
course of amendments to the
regulations, the regulations did not
specifically state that manufacturers of
trailers, buses, motorcycles, and lowspeed vehicles (those vehicle types not
identified by subparagraphs i, ii, and iii)
were required to use this specific
language. To address this lack of
specificity, the agency is amending
section 567.4(g) to add a new
subparagraph (iv) that covers these
vehicle types. Subparagraphs i, ii, and
iii remain unchanged.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), provides for making
determinations whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
NHTSA has considered the impact of
this rulemaking under Executive Order
12866 and the Department of
Transportation’s regulatory policies and
procedures. This rulemaking is not
significant. Accordingly, the Office of
Management and Budget has not
reviewed this rulemaking under
Executive Order 12886. Further, NHTSA
has determined that the rulemaking is
not significant under Department of
Transportation’s regulatory policies and
procedures. Manufacturers are required
by statute (49 U.S.C. 30115(a)) to
permanently affix a tag or label to a
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71715
vehicle certifying the vehicle’s
compliance with applicable safety
standards. The agency is not aware of
any manufacturer that has discontinued
inserting the certification language on
the certification labels affixed to trailers,
buses, motorcycles, and low-speed
vehicles manufactured since the
regulations were revised in 2005. Based
on this, NHTSA currently anticipates
that the costs of the final rule would be
so minimal as not to warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation.
The action does not involve any
substantial public interest or
controversy. The rule would have no
substantial effect upon State and local
governments. There would be no
substantial impact upon a major
transportation safety program.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996)
provides that 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 rulemaking under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and certifies that the
rule being adopted will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, the agency has not
prepared a final regulatory flexibility
analysis for this rulemaking. NHTSA
makes these statements on the basis that
covered entities have been and are
subject to a statutory obligation to
certify vehicles they manufacture, this
rulemaking merely restores text that was
part of the regulation before it was last
amended in 2005, and manufacturers
have continued to affix labels that
include the appropriate certification
language on trailers, buses, motorcycles,
and low-speed vehicles manufactured
since then. As a consequence, this
rulemaking will not impose any
significant costs on anyone. Therefore, it
has not been necessary for NHTSA to
conduct a regulatory evaluation or
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this
rulemaking.
The costs of the 2005 amendments
were analyzed at the time they were
issued as a final rule. At that time, we
explained that the rule did not impose
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
71716
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
any significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small businesses.
The agency explained that the rule
would, in fact, reduce burdens on finalstage manufacturers, many of which are
small businesses.
The agency is not aware that any
vehicle manufacturers have stopped
including the certification language that
is the subject of this rule on the labels
they affix to trailers, buses, motorcycles,
or low-speed vehicles. For this reason,
we view this rulemaking as merely
restoring to the regulation text that was
inadvertently omitted in the 2005
amendment and find that there is no
change in the meaning or application of
the rule as explained in the preamble at
70 FR 7414.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 on
‘‘Federalism’’ requires NHTSA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications.’’
Executive Order 13132 defines the term
‘‘policies that have federalism
implications’’ to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ Under Executive
Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or NHTSA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply to this
rulemaking action.
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
Executive Order 12988 requires that
agencies review proposed regulations
and legislation and adhere to the
following general requirements: (1) The
agency’s proposed legislation and
regulations shall be reviewed by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:05 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
agency to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity; (2) The agency’s proposed
legislation and regulations shall be
written to minimize litigation; and (3)
The agency’s proposed legislation and
regulations shall provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather
than a general standard, and shall
promote simplification and burden
reduction.
When promulgating a regulation,
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires the agency to make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies
in clear language the preemptive effect;
(2) specifies in clear language the effect
on existing Federal law or regulation,
including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or
modified; (3) provides a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather
than a general standard, while
promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies in clear language
the retroactive effect; (5) specifies
whether administrative proceedings are
to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly
defines key terms; and (7) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship of
regulations.
NHTSA has reviewed this rulemaking
according to the general requirements
and the specific requirements for
regulations set forth in Executive Order
12988. This rulemaking simply restores
text that existed before the regulation
was amended in 2005 and makes clear
the requirement that manufacturers
include language in the certification
labels that they must affix to vehicles
under 49 U.S.C. 30115 and the
regulations at 49 CFR part 567. This
change does not result in any
preemptive effect and does not have a
retroactive effect. A petition for
reconsideration or other administrative
proceeding is not required before parties
may file suit in court.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and
other effects of proposed or final rules
that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local,
or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted for
inflation with the base year of 1995).
Before promulgating a rule for which a
written assessment is needed, Section
205 of the UMRA generally requires
NHTSA to identify and consider a
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and to adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of Section 205 do not apply
when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, Section 205
allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
if the agency publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Because this final rule
will not require the expenditure of
resources beyond $100 million
annually, this action is not subject to the
requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid OMB control
number. This final rule includes a
‘‘collection of information,’’ as that term
is defined in 5 CFR part 1320
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the
Public, because it requires manufactures
to insert text in the certification labels
they affix to trailers, buses, motorcycles,
and low-speed vehicles that is not
specified in the regulations as they
currently exist. There is no burden on
the general public.
OMB has approved NHTSA’s
collection of information associated
with motor vehicle labeling
requirements under OMB clearance no.
2127–0512, Consolidated Labeling
Requirements for Motor Vehicles
(Except the Vehicle Identification
Number). NHTSA’s request for the
extension of this approval was granted
on June 6, 2011, and remains in effect
until June 30, 2014. For the following
reasons, NHTSA believes that the
requirements imposed by this rule will
not increase the information collection
burden on the public. Manufacturers of
all motor vehicles manufactured for sale
in the United States are required by
statute to certify their vehicles’
compliance with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards. See 49
U.S.C. 30115(a). The statute provides
that ‘‘[c]ertification of a vehicle must be
shown by a label or tag permanently
fixed to the vehicle.’’ Ibid. To satisfy
this requirement, manufacturers of all
motor vehicles, including trailers, buses,
motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles,
have been affixing certification labels to
those vehicles containing the required
certification language even though there
has been no certification language
specified in the regulations since they
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
were amended in 2005. Reinstating the
specific language in the regulations will
therefore not increase the paperwork
burden on those manufacturers.
H. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be
‘‘economically significant’’ as defined
under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental, health, or safety risk that
NHTSA has reason to believe may have
a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
we must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned
rule on children, and explain why the
planned rule is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rulemaking is not economically
significant and does not concern an
environmental, health, or safety risk.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
I. 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 its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise 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
NTTAA directs the agency to provide
Congress, through the OMB, with
explanations when we decide not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
In this final rule, we are adding to 49
CFR 576.4(g)(5) the requirement that
manufacturers include in the
certification labels that they affix to
certain types of motor vehicles a
statement certifying that the vehicle
conforms to all applicable FMVSS. This
language was inadvertently omitted
from the regulation in 2005 and we are
adopting no substantive changes to the
regulation nor do we propose any
technical standards. For these reasons,
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA would not
apply.
J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:05 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 567
Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, Part
567, Certification, in Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 567—CERTIFICATION
1. The authority citation for part 567
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, 30166, 32502, 32504, 33101–33104,
33108, and 33109; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.95.
2. Amend § 567.4 by adding paragraph
(g)(5)(iv) to read as follows:
■
§ 567.4 Requirements for manufacturers of
motor vehicles.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) For all other vehicles, the
statement: ‘‘This vehicle conforms to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards in effect on the date of
manufacture shown above.’’ The
expression ‘‘U.S.’’ or ‘‘U.S.A.’’ may be
inserted before the word ‘‘Federal’’.
*
*
*
*
*
71717
blue and green color boundaries that
were removed when the agency
published a final rule reorganizing that
standard on December 4, 2007.
DATES: Effective date: December 4, 2012.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions
for reconsideration of this final rule
must be received not later than January
18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for
reconsideration should refer to the
docket number of this document and be
submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building, Ground Floor, Docket Room
W12–140, Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical issues: Ms. Marisol Medri,
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards,
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
West Building, Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone: (202) 366–6987) (Fax: (202)
366–7002).
For legal issues: Mr. Thomas Healy,
Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building, Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone: (202) 366–2992) (Fax: (202)
366–3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment, has
been in existence since 1968. The
standard had been amended on an ad
hoc basis over time resulting in a
patchwork organization of the standard.
NHTSA published a final rule on
December 4, 2007,1 amending FMVSS
No. 108 by reorganizing the regulatory
text so that it provides a more
straightforward and logical presentation
of the applicable regulatory
requirements; incorporating important
agency interpretations of the existing
requirements; and reducing reliance on
third-party documents incorporated by
reference. The preamble of the final rule
stated that the rewrite of FMVSS No.
108 was administrative in nature and
would have no impact on the
substantive requirements of the
standard. The December 4, 2007 final
rule made several changes to the
proposal contained in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for that rule
including removing the blue and green
color boundary requirements from
paragraph S14.4.1.3.2 and eliminating
references to three additional SAE
documents.
NHTSA is amending the
Federal motor vehicle safety standard
(FMVSS) on lamps, reflective devices,
and associated equipment to restore the
1 72 FR 68234, (Dec. 4, 2007). The agency
published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
proposing to reorganize the standard on December
30, 2005. 70 FR 77454, (Dec. 30, 2005).
Issued on: November 28, 2012.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012–29132 Filed 12–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0171]
RIN 2127–AK99
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices,
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71714-71717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29132]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 567
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0093 Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AL18
Final Rule
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends regulations that prescribe the format and
contents labels that manufacturers are required to affix to motor
vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to certify the
compliance of those vehicles with U.S. safety standards. The amendment
will require specified certification language to be included on the
labels affixed to certain types of vehicles.
DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 2013. Petitions for
reconsideration must be received by NHTSA not later than January 18,
2013.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule should
refer to the docket and notice numbers identified above and be
submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590. It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies of the
petition be submitted. The petition must be received not later than 45
days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
Petitions filed after that time will be considered petitions filed by
interested persons to initiate rulemaking pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Chapter
301.
The petition must contain a brief statement of the complaint and an
explanation as to why compliance with the final rule is not
practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest. Unless
otherwise specified in the final rule, the statement and explanation
together may not exceed 15 pages in length, but necessary attachments
may be appended to the submission without regard to the 15-page limit.
If it is requested that additional facts be considered, the petitioner
must state the reason why they were not presented to the Administrator
within the prescribed time. The Administrator does not consider
repetitious petitions and unless the Administrator otherwise provides,
the filing of a petition does not stay the effectiveness of the final
rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
(202) 366-3151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA published a final rule on February 14,
2005 (70 FR 7414) that amended certain provisions of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, that pertain to the certification of motor
vehicles to standards administered by NHTSA. In amending the provisions
that establish the format and content requirements for certification
labels, the agency inadvertently omitted from 49 CFR 576.4(g)(5) the
requirement for manufacturers to include a specific certification
statement in the labels they affix to certain types of motor vehicles.
This rule corrects that inadvertent omission.
[[Page 71715]]
Background and Amendments
This rule was preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking that
NHTSA published on August 6, 2012 (77 FR 46677). There were no comments
in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking.
Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as
amended, (49 U.S.C. 30112(a), 30115), a motor vehicle manufactured for
sale in the United States must be manufactured to comply with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and bear a
label certifying such compliance that is permanently affixed by the
vehicle's original manufacturer. The label constitutes the
manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with the
applicable standards. Under 49 CFR 567.4, the label, among other
things, must identify the vehicle's manufacturer, its date of
manufacture, its gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, the gross axle
weight rating or GAWR of each axle, the vehicle type classification
(e.g., passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus,
motorcycle, trailer, low-speed vehicle), and the vehicle's Vehicle
Identification Number or ``VIN.'' The certification label must also
contain a variant of the statement: ``This vehicle conforms to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date
of manufacture shown above.'' For example, passenger cars are subject
to safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards; therefore, a
passenger car certification label must contain the statement: ``This
vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety,
bumper, and theft prevention standards in effect on the date of
manufacture shown above.'' The expression ``U.S.'' or ``U.S.A.'' may be
inserted before the word ``Federal'' as it appears in this statement.
In the final rule published on February 14, 2005 (70 FR 7414), 49
CFR 567.4(g)(5) was amended by replacing the statement ``This vehicle
conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in
effect on the date of manufacture shown above'' with the language,
``One of the following statements, as appropriate'' followed by
subparagraphs i, ii, and iii, which pertain, respectively, to passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and trucks with a GVWR of
6,000 pounds or less, and multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks
with a GVWR of over 6,000 pounds. Manufacturers of other types of motor
vehicles remained subject to the statutory duty to certify those
vehicles to the applicable FMVSS. And the logical certification
language for these manufacturers to use was: ``This vehicle conforms to
all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the
date of manufacture shown above.'' But due to an inadvertent omission
in the course of amendments to the regulations, the regulations did not
specifically state that manufacturers of trailers, buses, motorcycles,
and low-speed vehicles (those vehicle types not identified by
subparagraphs i, ii, and iii) were required to use this specific
language. To address this lack of specificity, the agency is amending
section 567.4(g) to add a new subparagraph (iv) that covers these
vehicle types. Subparagraphs i, ii, and iii remain unchanged.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking under Executive
Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant. Accordingly, the
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rulemaking under
Executive Order 12886. Further, NHTSA has determined that the
rulemaking is not significant under Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. Manufacturers are required by
statute (49 U.S.C. 30115(a)) to permanently affix a tag or label to a
vehicle certifying the vehicle's compliance with applicable safety
standards. The agency is not aware of any manufacturer that has
discontinued inserting the certification language on the certification
labels affixed to trailers, buses, motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles
manufactured since the regulations were revised in 2005. Based on this,
NHTSA currently anticipates that the costs of the final rule would be
so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation.
The action does not involve any substantial public interest or
controversy. The rule would have no substantial effect upon State and
local governments. There would be no substantial impact upon a major
transportation safety program.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996) provides that 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 rulemaking under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that the rule being adopted
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a final
regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. NHTSA makes these
statements on the basis that covered entities have been and are subject
to a statutory obligation to certify vehicles they manufacture, this
rulemaking merely restores text that was part of the regulation before
it was last amended in 2005, and manufacturers have continued to affix
labels that include the appropriate certification language on trailers,
buses, motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles manufactured since then. As
a consequence, this rulemaking will not impose any significant costs on
anyone. Therefore, it has not been necessary for NHTSA to conduct a
regulatory evaluation or Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this
rulemaking.
The costs of the 2005 amendments were analyzed at the time they
were issued as a final rule. At that time, we explained that the rule
did not impose
[[Page 71716]]
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses. The agency explained that the rule would, in fact, reduce
burdens on final-stage manufacturers, many of which are small
businesses.
The agency is not aware that any vehicle manufacturers have stopped
including the certification language that is the subject of this rule
on the labels they affix to trailers, buses, motorcycles, or low-speed
vehicles. For this reason, we view this rulemaking as merely restoring
to the regulation text that was inadvertently omitted in the 2005
amendment and find that there is no change in the meaning or
application of the rule as explained in the preamble at 70 FR 7414.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires NHTSA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
Federalism implications.'' Executive Order 13132 defines the term
``policies that have federalism implications'' to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rulemaking action.
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
Executive Order 12988 requires that agencies review proposed
regulations and legislation and adhere to the following general
requirements: (1) The agency's proposed legislation and regulations
shall be reviewed by the agency to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity; (2) The agency's proposed legislation and regulations shall
be written to minimize litigation; and (3) The agency's proposed
legislation and regulations shall provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general standard, and shall promote
simplification and burden reduction.
When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires the agency to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the
preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
NHTSA has reviewed this rulemaking according to the general
requirements and the specific requirements for regulations set forth in
Executive Order 12988. This rulemaking simply restores text that
existed before the regulation was amended in 2005 and makes clear the
requirement that manufacturers include language in the certification
labels that they must affix to vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30115 and the
regulations at 49 CFR part 567. This change does not result in any
preemptive effect and does not have a retroactive effect. A petition
for reconsideration or other administrative proceeding is not required
before parties may file suit in court.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year
of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is
needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, Section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation
why that alternative was not adopted. Because this final rule will not
require the expenditure of resources beyond $100 million annually, this
action is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final rule
includes a ``collection of information,'' as that term is defined in 5
CFR part 1320 Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public, because it
requires manufactures to insert text in the certification labels they
affix to trailers, buses, motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles that is
not specified in the regulations as they currently exist. There is no
burden on the general public.
OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of information associated with
motor vehicle labeling requirements under OMB clearance no. 2127-0512,
Consolidated Labeling Requirements for Motor Vehicles (Except the
Vehicle Identification Number). NHTSA's request for the extension of
this approval was granted on June 6, 2011, and remains in effect until
June 30, 2014. For the following reasons, NHTSA believes that the
requirements imposed by this rule will not increase the information
collection burden on the public. Manufacturers of all motor vehicles
manufactured for sale in the United States are required by statute to
certify their vehicles' compliance with all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. See 49 U.S.C. 30115(a). The statute provides
that ``[c]ertification of a vehicle must be shown by a label or tag
permanently fixed to the vehicle.'' Ibid. To satisfy this requirement,
manufacturers of all motor vehicles, including trailers, buses,
motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles, have been affixing certification
labels to those vehicles containing the required certification language
even though there has been no certification language specified in the
regulations since they
[[Page 71717]]
were amended in 2005. Reinstating the specific language in the
regulations will therefore not increase the paperwork burden on those
manufacturers.
H. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) is determined to
be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2)
concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This
rulemaking is not economically significant and does not concern an
environmental, health, or safety risk.
I. 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 its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise 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 NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress,
through the OMB, with explanations when we decide not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
In this final rule, we are adding to 49 CFR 576.4(g)(5) the
requirement that manufacturers include in the certification labels that
they affix to certain types of motor vehicles a statement certifying
that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS. This language was
inadvertently omitted from the regulation in 2005 and we are adopting
no substantive changes to the regulation nor do we propose any
technical standards. For these reasons, Section 12(d) of the NTTAA
would not apply.
J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 567
Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 567, Certification, in
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 567--CERTIFICATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 567 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, 32502,
32504, 33101-33104, 33108, and 33109; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.95.
0
2. Amend Sec. 567.4 by adding paragraph (g)(5)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 567.4 Requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) For all other vehicles, the statement: ``This vehicle conforms
to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on
the date of manufacture shown above.'' The expression ``U.S.'' or
``U.S.A.'' may be inserted before the word ``Federal''.
* * * * *
Issued on: November 28, 2012.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-29132 Filed 12-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
