Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured To Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards |
|---|
|
Daniel C. Smith
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
December 5, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 234 (Thursday, December 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73169-73173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28877]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
49 CFR Part 592
[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0041; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AL43
Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured To
Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to clarify NHTSA regulations on
registered importers (``RIs'') of motor vehicles not originally
manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. The proposal would require RIs to certify to NHTSA, as
appropriate, that an imported vehicle either is not required to comply
with the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard or
that the vehicle complies with those requirements as manufactured, or
as modified prior to importation. The proposal would replace text that
was inadvertently omitted when the regulations were last revised.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than January 6, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process,
[[Page 73170]]
see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information
section of this document. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments 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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: 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 dockets or visit the Docket
Management Facility at the street address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Lindsay, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202) 366-5288. For legal issues, you may call
Nicholas Englund, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (202) 366-5263. You
may call Docket Management at (202) 366-9324. You may visit the Docket
in person from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
NHTSA published a final rule on August 25, 2011 (76 FR 53072)
amending parts 567, 591, 592, and 593 of title 49 to address issues
related to the RI program. In amending the regulations, the agency
inadvertently deleted from 49 CFR 592.6(d)(1) text under paragraphs (i)
and (ii) that requires the RI to certify to NHTSA, as appropriate, that
an imported vehicle either is not required to comply with the parts
marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541)
or that the vehicle complies with those requirements as manufactured,
or as modified prior to importation.
Background and Amendments
The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-
562, ``the 1988 Act''), which became effective on January 31, 1990,
limited the importation of vehicles that did not comply with the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to those capable of
being modified to comply. To enhance oversight, the 1988 Act required
that necessary modifications be performed by RIs. RIs are business
entities that have demonstrated to NHTSA that they are technically and
financially capable of importing nonconforming motor vehicles and of
performing the necessary modifications on those vehicles so that they
conform to all applicable FMVSS. See generally, 49 U.S.C. 30141-30147.
As discussed in the January 14, 2011 proposed rulemaking that preceded
the final rule (76 FR 2631), NHTSA proposed certain amendments to the
RI regulations to protect the integrity of the RI program and to
clarify RI requirements. In the final rule that was published on August
25, 2011 (76 FR 53072), CFR 592.6(d)(1) was amended by adding language
requiring that RIs certify to NHTSA that they destroyed or exported
nonconforming motor vehicle equipment that was removed from imported
vehicles during conformance modifications. The remaining text of the
paragraph remained unchanged and read: ``The Registered Importer shall
also certify, as appropriate, that either:
(i) The vehicle is not required to comply with the parts marking
requirements of the theft prevention standard (part 541 of this
chapter); or
(ii) The vehicle complies with those parts marking requirements as
manufactured, or as modified prior to importation.''
In the regulatory text of the final rule, NHTSA inadvertently
failed to properly mark subparagraphs (i) and (ii), resulting in the
deletion of those paragraphs. In this rulemaking, the agency is
proposing to restore the language that was originally in subparagraphs
(i) and (ii).
The proposed amendment would not change the meaning or application
of the regulations, as explained in the preamble of the final rule at
76 FR 53072.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563, 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.
The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. This action was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. This rulemaking is
not significant. Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is
not significant under Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. Based on the level of the fees and the volume
of affected vehicles, NHTSA currently anticipates that if made final,
the costs of the proposed rule would be so minimal as not to warrant
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. The action does not
involve any substantial public interest or controversy. If made final,
the rule would have no substantial effect upon State and local
governments. There would be no substantial impact upon a major
transportation safety program. A regulatory evaluation analyzing the
economic impact of the final rule establishing the registered importer
program, adopted on September 29, 1989, was prepared, and is available
for review in the docket.
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 notice
of proposed rulemaking 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
[[Page 73171]]
required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for
certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The agency has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that if the
proposed amendments are adopted they would not have a significant
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The proposed amendments would
primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles
and that are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that
these companies would be unable to certify as proposed by this action
that either: (i) The vehicle is not required to comply with the parts
marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (part 541 of this
chapter); or (ii) The vehicle complies with those parts marking
requirements as manufactured, or as modified prior to importation.''
Governmental jurisdictions would not be affected at all since they
are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor
vehicles.
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.
The proposed rule would 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. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The action would not have a significant
effect upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual
volume of motor vehicles imported through registered importers would
not vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the
rule as proposed.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 ``Civil Justice Reform,'' the
agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any
retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that this proposed rule would not
have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of any rule adopted from
this proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section
does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to
seeking judicial review.
F. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues.
In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of
U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be
necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export
and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving
health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues,
international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are
at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the
absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can
also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in
regulatory requirements. NHTSA requests public comment on whether (a)
``regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments'' concerning the
subject matter of this rulemaking and (b) the above policy statement
has any implications for this rulemaking.
G. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined
to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. If the regulatory action meets either
criterion, we must evaluate the adverse energy effects of the proposed
rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by NHTSA. As noted above, this proposed rule is not significant under
E.O. 12866. NHTSA also believes that this proposed rule would not have
any effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
H. 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 a final rule based on
this proposal would 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.
I. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all
[[Page 73172]]
rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain
language includes consideration of the following questions:
--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
--Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that is
unclear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
heading, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this document.
J. 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. Part 592 includes
collections of information for which NHTSA has obtained OMB Clearance
No. 2127-0001, a consolidated collection of information for
``Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards,'' approved
through January 31, 2014. This proposed rule, if made final, would not
affect the burden hours associated with Clearance No. 2127-0001 because
we are proposing only to reinstate regulatory text that was
inadvertently omitted when the regulations were last amended. This
proposed regulation will not impose new collection of information
requirements or otherwise affect the scope of the program.
K. 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.
L. 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, explanations when we decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rule would reinstate regulatory text that was
inadvertently omitted when the regulations at issue were last amended.
We are proposing no substantive changes to the vehicle import program
or any action that would require the use of voluntary consensus
standards. For these reasons, Section 12(d) of the NTTAA would not
apply.
M. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and be in English. To ensure that
your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the
docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not
be more than 15 pages long. 49 CFR 553.21. We established this limit to
encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion.
However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address identified at the
beginning of this document, under ADDRESSES. You may also submit your
comments electronically to the docket following the steps outlined
under ADDRESSES.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit the following to the NHTSA Office of
Chief Counsel (NCC-110), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590: (1) A complete copy of the submission; (2) a redacted copy of
the submission with the confidential information removed; and (3)
either a second complete copy or those portions of the submission
containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and
any additional information that you deem important to the Chief
Counsel's consideration of your confidentiality claim. A request for
confidential treatment that complies with 49 CFR Part 512 must
accompany the complete submission provided to the Chief Counsel. For
further information, submitters who plan to request confidential
treatment for any portion of their submissions are advised to review 49
CFR Part 512, particularly those sections relating to document
submission requirements. Failure to adhere to the requirements of Part
512 may result in the release of confidential information to the public
docket. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have
deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket
Management at the address identified at the beginning of this document
under ADDRESSES.
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date identified at
the beginning of this document under DATES. In accordance with our
policies, to the extent possible, we will also consider comments that
Docket Management receives after the specified comment closing date. If
Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in
developing the proposed rule, we will consider that comment as an
informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address and times identified at the beginning of this document under
ADDRESSES.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, go to http://
[[Page 73173]]
www.regulations.gov and follow the on-line instructions provided.
You may download the comments. The comments are imaged documents,
in either TIFF or PDF format. Please note that even after the comment
closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late
comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the
Docket for new material.
N. 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 that appears in the heading on the first page of this
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 592 as follows:
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 592
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
PART 592--REGISTERED IMPORTERS OF VEHICLES NOT ORIGINALLY
MANUFACTURED TO CONFORM TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY
STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 592 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 100-562, 49 U.S.C. 322(a), 30117, 30141-
30147; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Amend Sec. 592.6 to add subparagraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii):
Sec. 592.6 Duties of a registered importer.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The vehicle is not required to comply with the parts marking
requirements of the theft prevention standard (part 541 of this
chapter); or
(ii) The vehicle complies with those parts marking requirements as
manufactured, or as modified prior to importation.
* * * * *
Issued on November 27, 2013.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013-28877 Filed 12-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P