53572 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 102–36.65 [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 102–36.65 by removing 

‘‘FEDS’’ and adding ‘‘GSAXcess’’ in its 

place. 

■ 9. Amend § 102–36.90 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 102–36.90 How do we find out what 

personal property is available as excess? 

* * * * * 

(a) Check GSAXcess, GSA’s website 

for searching and selecting excess 

personal property. For information on 

GSAXcess, access http:// 

www.gsaxcess.gov. 

* * * * * 

(c) Check any available holding 

agency websites. 

* * * * * 

§ 102–36.125 [Amended] 

■ 10. Amend § 102–36.125 by removing 

from paragraph (a) ‘‘(FEDS)’’ and adding 

‘‘(GSAXcess)’’ in its place. 

§ 102–36.190 [Amended] 

■ 11. Amend § 102–36.190 by removing 

from paragraph (d) ‘‘part 101–44 of this 

title’’ and adding ‘‘part 102–37 of this 

chapter’’ in its place. 

§ 102–36.225 [Amended] 

■ 12. Amend § 102–36.225 by removing 

‘‘part 101–47 of this title’’ and adding 

‘‘part 102–75 of this chapter’’ in its 

place. 

§ 102–36.230 [Amended] 

■ 13. Amend § 102–36.230 by removing 

from paragraph (a) ‘‘the Federal 

Disposal System (FEDS)’’ and adding 

‘‘GSAXcess’’ in its place. 

§ 102–36.295 [Amended] 

■ 14. Amend § 102–36.295 by removing 

the last sentence. 

§ 102–36.300 [Amended] 

■ 15. Amend § 102–36.300 by—

■ a. Removing from paragraph (a) 

‘‘Personal Property Management Policy 

Division (MTP)’’ and adding ‘‘Office of 

Travel, Transportation, and Asset 

Management (MT)’’ in its place; and 

■ b. Removing from paragraph (a) ‘‘the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 

Commonwealth of’’ and adding ‘‘Puerto 

Rico, the Federated States of 

Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, 

and’’ in its place. 

§ 102–36.320 [Amended] 

■ 16. Amend § 102–36.320, by removing 

‘‘part 101–44 of this title’’ each time it 

appears and adding ‘‘part 102–37 of this 

chapter’’ in its place. 

§ 102–36.325 [Amended] 

■ 17. Amend § 102–36.325 by removing 

‘‘part 101–45 of this title’’ and adding 

‘‘part 102–38 of this chapter’’ in its 

place. 

§ 102–36.340 [Amended] 

■ 18. Amend § 102–36.340 by—

■ a. Removing from paragraph (a)(4) the 

first ‘‘DOD’’ and adding ‘‘the 

Department of Defense (DOD)’’ in its 

place; 

■ b. Removing from paragraph (b) 

‘‘dataplate to GSA Property 

Management Branch, San Francisco, 

California’’ and adding ‘‘data plate to 

GSA Property Management Branch 

(9FBP), San Francisco, CA 94102–3434’’

in its place; 

■ c. Removing from paragraph (c) 

‘‘Aircraft Management Policy Division 

(MTA)’’ and adding ‘‘Office of Travel, 

Transportation, and Asset Management 

(MT)’’ in its place; and 

■ d. Removing from paragraph (c) 

‘‘FAIRS see part 101–37 of this title’’

and adding ‘‘FAIRS, see part 102–33 of 

this chapter’’ in its place. 

§ 102–36.345 [Amended] 

■ 19. Amend § 102–36.345 by removing 

‘‘part 101–37, subpart 101–37.6, of this 

title’’ and adding ‘‘part 102–33, subpart 

D, of this chapter’’ in its place. 

§ 102–36.360 [Amended] 

■ 20. Amend § 102–36.360 by removing 

‘‘part 101–37 of this title’’ and adding 

‘‘part 102–33 of this chapter’’ in its 

place. 

§ 102–36.365 [Amended] 

■ 21. Amend § 102–36.365 by removing 

‘‘Public Law 105–27 (111 Stat. 244)’’

and adding ‘‘40 U.S.C. 555’’ in its place. 

§ 102–36.370 [Amended] 

■ 22. Amend § 102–36.370 by removing 

‘‘Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Public Law 

93–288 (42 U.S.C. 5121) and Executive 

Orders 11795 (3 CFR, 1971–1975 Comp., 

p. 887) and’’ and adding ‘‘Robert T. 

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121–5206) 

and Executive Order’’ in its place. 

§ 102–36.380 [Amended] 

■ 23. Amend § 102–36.380 by removing 

‘‘title IV of the Property Act’’ and 

adding ‘‘chapter 7 of title 40 of the 

United States Code’’ in its place. 

§ 102–36.390 [Amended] 

■ 24. Amend § 102–36.390 by removing 

from paragraph (e) ‘‘sec. 402(a) of the 

Property Act’’ and adding ‘‘40 U.S.C. 

527’’ in its place. 

§ 102–36.400 [Amended] 

■ 25. Amend § 102–36.400 by removing 

‘‘Sections 202 and 203 of the Property 

Act’’ and adding ‘‘40 U.S.C. 521–529, 

549, and 551’’ in its place; and by 

removing ‘‘receiving agency’’ and 

adding ‘‘Federal agency, State agency, or 

donee receiving the property’’ in its 

place. 

§ 102–36.405 [Amended] 

■ 26. Amend § 102–36.405 by removing 

‘‘part 101–49 of this title’’ and adding 

‘‘part 102–42 of this chapter’’ in its 

place. 

■ 27. Revise § 102–36.420 to read as 

follows: 

§ 102–36.420 How do we dispose of gifts 

from foreign governments or entities? 

Report foreign gifts on a SF 120 to 

GSA, Property Management Division 

(FBP), Washington, DC 20406, for 

possible transfer, donation or sale in 

accordance with the provisions of part 

102–42 of this chapter. 

§ 102–36.440 [Amended] 

■ 28. Amend § 102–36.440 by removing 

‘‘North Capitol and H Streets, NW’’ and 

adding ‘‘732 North Capitol Street, NW’’

in its place. 

§ 102–36.465 [Amended] 

■ 29. Amend § 102–36.465 by removing 

‘‘part 101–46 of this title’’ and adding 

‘‘part 102–39 of this chapter’’ in its 

place. 

§ 102–36.470 [Amended] 

■ 30. Amend § 102–36.470, by removing 

from paragraph (b) ‘‘section 203(i) of the 

Property Act’’ and adding ‘‘40 U.S.C. 

548’’ in its place; and by removing from 

paragraph (c) ‘‘and’’ and adding ‘‘or’’ in 

its place. 

[FR Doc. E6–15042 Filed 9–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–14–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 575 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25772] 

RIN 2127–AJ76 

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP); 

Safety Labeling 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: A provision of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users requires new passenger vehicles 

to be labeled with safety rating 

information published by the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53573 

1P.L. 109–59 (August 10, 2005); 119 Stat. 1144. 

2The Monroney label is required by the 

Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) 

Title 15, United States Code, Chapter 28, Sections 

1231–1233. SAFETEA–LU amended AIDA to 

require that NCAP ratings be placed on each vehicle 

required to have a Monroney label. 

3 ‘‘(g) if one or more safety ratings for such 

automobile have been assigned and formally 

published or released by the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration under the New Car 

Assessment Program, information about safety 

ratings that—

‘‘(1) Includes a graphic depiction of the number 

of stars, or other applicable rating, that corresponds 

to each such assigned safety rating displayed in a 

clearly differentiated fashion indicating the 

maximum possible safety rating; 

‘‘(2) refers to frontal impact crash tests, side 

impact crash tests, and rollover resistance tests 

(whether or not such automobile has been assigned 

a safety rating for such tests); 

‘‘(3) contains information describing the nature 

and meaning of the crash test data presented and 

a reference to additional vehicle safety resources, 

including http://www.safecar.gov; and 

‘‘(4) is presented in a legible, visible, and 

prominent fashion and covers at least—

‘‘(A) 8 percent of the total area of the label; or 

‘‘(B) an area with a minimum length of 41⁄2 inches 

and a minimum height of 31⁄2 inches; and 

‘‘(h) if an automobile has not been tested by the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

under the New Car Assessment Program, or safety 

ratings for such automobile have not been assigned 

in one or more rating categories, a statement to that 

effect.’’. 

under its New Car Assessment Program. 

NHTSA is required to issue regulations 

to ensure that the labeling requirements 

‘‘are implemented by September 1, 

2007.’’ This final rule is issued to fulfill 

that mandate. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective November 13, 2006. 

Compliance Date: This final rule 

applies to covered vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2007. Optional early compliance by 

vehicle manufacturers is permitted 

before that date. 

Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions 

for reconsideration of this final rule 

must be received not later than October 

27, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

of the final rule must refer to the docket 

number set forth above and be 

submitted to: Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. In addition, a copy of the 

petition should be submitted to: Docket 

Management, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues regarding the 

information in this document, please 

contact Mr. Nathaniel Beuse at (202) 

366–1740. For legal issues, please 

contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama (202) 366– 

2992. Both of these individuals may be 

reached by mail at the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of SAFETEA–LU Labeling 

Provisions and Final Rule 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

III. The Final Rule 

A. Vehicles Covered by This Final Rule 

1. Comment Requesting Narrower Coverage 

2. Comments on Pickup Trucks 

3. Vehicles Manufactured in More Than 

One Stage 

4. Altered Vehicles 

B. Size of the Safety Rating Label 

C. Smaller Labels for Vehicles With No 

Ratings 

D. No Additional Information May Be 

Provided in the Safety Rating Label 

E. Content of the Label 

1. Use of Solid Stars 

2. ‘‘Not Rated’’ 

3. Safety Concerns on the Rating Label 

4. No Specific Font Type 

5. Font Sizes of Text and Star Ratings 

F. Layout of the Safety Rating Label 

1. Heading Area 

2. Frontal Area 

3. Side Area 

4. Rollover Area 

5. General Area 

6. Footer Area 

7. Color of Font Must Contrast Easily With 

a Dark Background 

G. New Labeling and Re-Labeling Issues 

1. Optional Testing, Non-Carryover 

Vehicles and Redesigned Vehicles 

2. Re-Labeling of Vehicles Produced Before 

NHTSA Notifies Manufacturers of Safety 

Ratings 

H. NCAP Rating Labels Are Placed Within 

30 Days After Receipt of NHTSA 

Notification of Test Results 

I. Other Issues 

IV. Statutory Basis for the Final Rule 

V. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

F. Civil Justice Reform 

G. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Regulatory Text of the Final Rule 

I. Overview of SAFETEA–LU Labeling 

Provisions and Final Rule 

Section 10307 of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) 1 requires that 

each new passenger automobile that has 

been rated under the NHTSA’s New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP) must have 

those ratings displayed on a label on its 

new vehicle price sticker, known as the 

Monroney label.2 SAFETEA–LU 

specifies detailed requirements for the 

label, including its content, size, 

location, and applicability, leaving the 

agency only limited discretion regarding 

the label.3 It also requires NHTSA (by 

delegation of authority from the 

Department of Transportation) to issue 

regulations to ensure that the new 

labeling requirements are implemented 

by September 1, 2007. 

As required by SAFETEA–LU, the 

final rule provides that: 

(1) New passenger automobiles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2007 must display specified NCAP 

information on a safety rating label that 

is part of their Monroney label; 

(2) The specified information must 

include a graphical depiction of the 

number of stars achieved by a vehicle 

for each safety test; 

(3) Information describing the nature 

and meaning of the test data, and 

references to http://www.safercar.gov 

and NHTSA’s toll-free hotline number 

for additional vehicle safety 

information, must be placed on the 

label; 

(4) The label must be legible with a 

minimum length of 41⁄2 inches and a 

minimum width of 31⁄2 inches or 8 

percent of the Monroney label, 

whichever is larger; 

(5) Ratings must be placed on new 

vehicles manufactured 30 or more days 

after the manufacturer receives 

notification from NHTSA of NCAP 

ratings for those vehicles. 

In its discretion, the agency decided 

to require that the label indicate the 

existence of safety concerns identified 

during NCAP testing, but not reflected 

in the resulting NCAP ratings. We have 

also required that the agency’s toll-free 

hotline number appear on the label and 

adopted specifications for such matters 

as the wording and arrangement of some 

of the messages and the size of the font. 

Given the extent to which the content 

of this rule is dictated by SAFETEA–LU, 

the final rule does not significantly 

differ from the proposed version of the 

rule. Nevertheless, in response to public 

comments, the final rule does differ 

from the proposal in several relatively 

minor respects. For example, it permits 

a smaller safety rating label for vehicles 

not tested by NHTSA and for which no 

safety ratings have been provided in any 

category of vehicle performance. In 

addition, it requires that, in addition to 

the agency’s Web site, the agency’s 

hotline number also appear on the label. 

Other changes include moving the 

safety concern information so that it is 

closer to the rating to which it applies. 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On January 30, 2006, NHTSA 

published in the Federal Register (71 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53574 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

4For a complete discussion of the issues raised 

in the NPRM, please refer to the January 30, 2006 

NPRM (71 FR 4854). 

5See http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/ocl/monograph 

and click on ‘‘Automobile Information Disclosure.’’

See discussion of pickup trucks in congressional 

debates on AIDA: 104 CONG. REC. H12387 (daily 

ed. June 26, 1958). 

6Frontal and rollover rating have been done for 

vehicles under 8,500 lbs GVWR, and side impact 

ratings for vehicles under 6,000 lbs. 

FR 4854) a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to implement the 

SAFETEA–LU labeling requirements. 

The agency described the proposed 

safety label requirements and provided 

rationales for them. NHTSA noted that, 

given the specificity of SAFETEA–LU, 

the agency had little discretion 

regarding most aspects of the proposed 

label. 

In response to the NPRM, we received 

comments from: Advocates for Highway 

and Auto Safety (Advocates), 

Association of International Automobile 

Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), BMW, 

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), 

DaimlerChrysler (DCX), U.S. Senator 

Mike DeWine of Ohio, Ford, General 

Motors (GM), Honda, Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety (IIHS), National 

Automobile Dealers Association 

(NADA), National Mobility Equipment 

Dealers Association (NMEDA), Porsche, 

and Public Citizen. Several commenters 

urged that pickup trucks be labeled. 

Because of the specificity of the 

SAFETEA–LU provisions and because 

the NPRM was drafted in accordance 

with those provisions, the comments 

generally did not suggest labeling 

approaches that differed from that in the 

proposal. Among other things, they 

urged that labels for unrated vehicles be 

permitted to be smaller than the labels 

for rated vehicles, that a minimum font 

size be specified, that the provision of 

additional information on the labels of 

rated vehicles be permitted or required, 

and that the hotline phone number be 

placed on the labels. Comments were 

also offered on NHTSA’s administration 

of the NCAP Program. The comments of 

each commenter are discussed below on 

an issue by issue basis. 

III. The Final Rule 

In this section, we describe the 

proposal 4 and the public comments, 

and explain our response to the 

comments and our selection of the final 

rule language. 

A. Vehicles Covered by This Final Rule 

Per SAFETEA–LU, this final rule 

applies to all vehicles required to have 

Monroney labels. Those labels are 

required on new ‘‘automobiles’’ by the 

Automobile Information Disclosure Act 

(AIDA) and derive their name from the 

primary author of AIDA, former Senator 

Mike Monroney. The Department of 

Justice (DOJ), which generally 

administers AIDA, interprets the term 

‘‘automobiles,’’ by definition, to include 

passenger vehicles and station wagons, 

and, by extension, passenger vans. 

However, it does not include pickup 

trucks, as explained in AIDA’s 

legislative history.5 Also per SAFETEA–

LU, the new safety labeling 

requirements apply to the included 

vehicles, whether or not they have been 

rated by the agency. 

Accordingly, we proposed to require 

all new passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles (sport utility vehicles 

and vans) and buses with a Gross 

Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 

10,000 lbs or less to have a section for 

NCAP ratings on the Monroney label, 

whether or not they have been rated by 

NHTSA. Vehicles under 10,000 lbs 

GVWR generally comprise the light 

passenger vehicle fleet. Although NCAP 

ratings have thus far normally been 

conducted following the respective 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

(FMVSS) vehicle applicability,6 the 

NCAP testing is not constrained by the 

FMVSS and could be changed in the 

future. For example, a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking for FMVSS No. 

214, ‘‘Side impact protection,’’ has 

proposed application for vehicles up to 

10,000 lbs GVWR. Additionally, the 

agency posts information about the 

safety features of these vehicles on its 

Web site. SAFETEA–LU also directed 

the agency to provide rollover ratings 

for 15-passenger vans that have a GVWR 

of more than 8,500 lbs. 

1. Comment Requesting Narrower 

Coverage—In response to the NPRM, the 

AIAM recommended that NHTSA revise 

the proposed applicability section 

(Section 575.301(b)) to establish a 

narrower scope by using the vehicle 

class definitions in 49 CFR Section 

571.3 for the FMVSSs, or by adding 

language at the end of the definition that 

simply references the AIDA. AIAM cited 

the language from DOJ that NHTSA 

referred to in the NPRM, and argued 

that the proposed rule ‘‘would extend 

the scope of the NCAP labeling 

requirement even further to include 

multipurpose passenger vehicles and 

buses up to 10,000 gross vehicle weight, 

a level much higher than passenger cars 

and station wagons of the late 1950’s 

when the AIDA was enacted.’’ AIAM 

argued that the MPV class includes 

passenger and cargo vans as well as twoand four-wheel drive utility vehicles 

and potentially even certain pure trucks. 

As noted above, we sought in the 

proposal to follow the guidance 

provided by DOJ, while also providing 

a clear definition of the vehicles covered 

by the proposed regulation. As 

indicated above, the term ‘‘automobile’’

is a statutory term used in AIDA. The 

statute is administered by DOJ, which 

has provided guidance on the meaning 

of ‘‘automobile’’ in light of current 

vehicles. DOJ has explained on its Web 

site that ‘‘(a)utomobiles, by definition, 

include passenger vehicles and station 

wagons, and by extension passenger 

vans and recreational vehicles. Not 

included, as explained in the legislative 

history, are pickup trucks.’’

We note that multipurpose passenger 

vehicles are, as the name implies, 

passenger vehicles, and small buses are 

passenger vans. We used these terms in 

the proposed applicability section 

because they are well understood terms. 

We also explained why vehicles up to 

10,000 pounds GVWR were intended to 

be covered under SAFETEA–LU. 

We did not include trucks in the 

proposed applicability section. 

Therefore, ‘‘pure trucks’’ were not 

covered. Moreover, since cargo vans are 

generally classified by the manufacturer 

as trucks, they were also not covered. 

For purposes of the final rule, 

however, we have decided to express 

the applicability section of the 

regulation by reference to AIDA and 

language based on the DOJ guidance, 

rather than referring to terms as used in 

Part 571.3 for safety standards. 

Specifically, the regulatory text states 

that the section applies to ‘‘automobiles 

with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2007, that are required by the 

Automobile Information Disclosure Act, 

15 U.S.C. 1231–1233, to have price 

sticker labels (Monroney labels), e.g., 

passenger vehicles, station wagons, 

passenger vans, sport utility vehicles, 

and recreational vehicles.’’

We are adopting this approach 

because Congress made the applicability 

of the NCAP labeling requirement 

dependent on whether a vehicle is an 

‘‘automobile’’ required to have a 

Monroney label under AIDA, and 

because it is DOJ, rather than NHTSA, 

that administers and issues authoritative 

interpretations of that part of AIDA. 

Thus, while we want our regulation to 

be as clear as possible, we recognize that 

it is DOJ, rather than NHTSA, that 

would make any necessary 

interpretations under AIDA as to the 

meaning of ‘‘automobile.’’

We specified a 10,000 pound GVWR 

limit in the applicability section since 

that represents the highest weight rating 

that we currently anticipate might 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53575 

7We note that in 1994, the agency published two 

notices in the Federal Register in which it claimed 

authority to require vehicle manufacturers to 

provide safety performance information developed 

through testing by NHTSA. However, the agency 

did not address in those notices the fact that the 

relevant provision of the Cost Savings Act provides 

that the agency may require passenger motor 

vehicle dealers, rather than manufacturers, to 

distribute the information to prospective buyers. 

receive NCAP ratings. The examples of 

covered vehicles are generally taken 

from the DOJ guidance. However, we 

added the term ‘‘sport utility vehicle’’

because it is a commonly used term and 

because we were advised by DOJ that it 

considered sport utility vehicles to be 

recreational vehicles under its guidance. 

We also confirmed with DOJ that 15- 

passenger vans are regarded as 

passenger vans. 

In the NPRM, we discussed the fact 

that, as explained by DOJ, AIDA does 

not require Monroney labels for pickup 

trucks. Since Congress did not require 

NCAP information on vehicles not 

required to have a Monroney label, we 

did not propose to require any NCAP 

information on pickup trucks. However, 

because manufacturers routinely 

include labels essentially the same as 

Monroney labels on this class of vehicle, 

we stated that we anticipate that 

manufacturers will voluntarily include 

the NCAP information on them. 

2. Comments on Pickup Trucks—

Advocates, Public Citizen, and Senator 

Mike DeWine expressed the view that 

NHTSA had statutory authority 

independent of SAFETEA–LU to require 

NCAP ratings on pickup trucks. They 

cited 49 U.S.C. 30117(a), which states: 

(a) Providing information and notice. 

[NHTSA] may require that each manufacturer 

of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment provide technical information 

related to performance and safety required to 

carry out this chapter. The Secretary may 

require the manufacturer to give the 

following notice of that information when the 

Secretary decides it is necessary: 

(1) to each prospective purchaser of a 

vehicle or equipment before the first sale 

other than for resale at each location at which 

the vehicle or equipment is offered for sale 

by a person having a legal relationship with 

the manufacturer, in a way the Secretary 

decides is appropriate. 

(2) to the first purchaser of a vehicle or 

equipment other than for resale when the 

vehicle or equipment is bought, in printed 

matter placed in the vehicle or attached to or 

accompanying the equipment. 

NHTSA notes that in their public 

comments, Ford and GM stated that 

they would voluntarily place NCAP 

ratings on their pickup trucks. 

For the following reasons, NHTSA is 

not adopting a requirement requiring 

manufacturers to provide NCAP ratings 

on new pickup trucks. 

First, the purpose of this rulemaking 

is to implement SAFETEA–LU’s 

requirements for labeling automobiles 

with NCAP ratings. Congress selected 

the approach of using the Monroney 

labels to convey the NCAP ratings to 

consumers at the point of sale. The 

statute that requires those labels, AIDA, 

does not, according to DOJ, apply to 

pickup trucks. 

Second, we believe that the 

availability of authority under section 

30117(a) of the Vehicle Safety Act to 

conduct a rulemaking to supplement the 

SAFETEA–LU is unclear. That Act 

authorizes NHTSA to require vehicle 

manufacturers to provide the agency 

‘‘technical information related to 

performance and safety’’ and also to 

require manufacturers to provide such 

information to prospective purchasers at 

dealerships in a way that the agency 

decides is appropriate. This authority 

dates back to 1970 and before. 

The specific language and structure of 

current section 30117(a), as well as that 

of the pre-codification version of that 

section, indicate that it is referring to 

information that is generated by the 

vehicle manufacturer. A natural reading 

of the language would not extend to test 

information and ratings generated by the 

government. The information that the 

Secretary may require manufacturers to 

provide is logically limited to 

information that the Secretary did not 

generate, as it would serve no purpose 

for the Secretary to require 

manufacturers to provide him/her with 

information that he/she has generated 

and thus already possesses. 

Moreover, section 32302 (formerly in 

Title II of the Cost Savings Act, enacted 

in 1972), which authorized the NCAP 

program, includes an express provision 

providing that the agency may require 

passenger motor vehicle dealers to 

distribute the information to prospective 

buyers. The fact that Congress 

specifically spoke in this later enacted 

statute as to the nongovernmental 

avenue by which the agency could 

provide for dissemination of NCAP 

information is an added reason not to 

read section 30117(a) in an unusual 

manner as applying to this information.7

Third, since we anticipate that the 

vehicle manufacturers will voluntarily 

label their pickup trucks with NCAP 

ratings, we believe that a supplementary 

requirement is unnecessary in any 

event. As noted above, Ford and GM 

stated that they would voluntarily place 

NCAP ratings on new pickup trucks. 

Finally, if Congress wants the 

provision of that information on pickup 

trucks to be mandatory, we believe that 

the best course of action would be to 

provide for that in legislation. 

3. Vehicles manufactured in more 

than one stage—Raising an issue not 

expressly addressed in the NPRM, 

several commenters asked whether the 

NCAP ratings would apply to vehicles 

manufactured in more than one stage. 

We note that neither Section 10307 of 

SAFETEA–LU nor AIDA limit their 

requirements to vehicles manufactured 

in a single stage. However, NHTSA also 

notes that vehicles manufactured in 

more than one stage (which are 

manufactured in relatively small 

volumes) have never been the subject of 

NCAP testing, which tests only those 

passenger vehicles that are sold in high 

volumes. 

SAFETEA–LU states: ‘‘(h) If an 

automobile has not been tested by the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration under the New Car 

Assessment Program, or safety ratings 

for such automobiles have not been 

assigned in one or more rating 

categories, a statement to that effect’’

must be provided on the safety rating 

label. Thus, although NCAP labeling 

requirements will apply to vehicles 

built in more than one stage, it is 

expected that manufacturers of those 

vehicles will only need to apply the 

shorter, smaller NCAP label (to be 

discussed subsequently in ‘‘Smaller 

Labels for Vehicles With No Ratings’’), 

with the statement: ‘‘This vehicle has 

not been rated by the government for 

frontal crash, side crash, or rollover 

risk.’’

Finally, we note that any issue as to 

whether a specific multi-stage vehicle 

will be required under AIDA to have a 

Monroney label would need to be 

resolved by DOJ. 

4. Altered Vehicles—The National 

Mobility Equipment Dealers Association 

(NMEDA) asked that ‘‘the proposed 

labeling requirements not apply to 

* * * altered vehicles, including those 

that have been altered in such a manner 

as to render void any previous NCAP 

results.’’ NMEDA is an association 

‘‘dedicated to providing safe and quality 

adaptive transportation and mobility for 

consumers with disabilities.’’ To 

accommodate special needs drivers, 

NMEDA members (and others) may 

make vehicle alterations that require 

affixing an alterers’ label to the vehicle 

pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567.7, 

‘‘Requirements for persons who alter 

certified vehicles.’’ NHTSA agrees that 

in such cases, the continuing 

applicability of ratings on the safety 

rating label may be at issue. Therefore, 

in this final rule, if an alterer places a 

Part 567.7 alterers’ label on a vehicle 

with a safety rating label, the alterer will 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53576 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

8We note that the size of the safety rating label 

is specified at paragraph (g)(4) of 15 U.S.C. 1232 

(Automobile Information Disclosure Act). Paragraph 

(g) applies ‘‘if one or more safety ratings for such 

automobile have been assigned or formally 

published or released by the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration under the New Car 

Assessment Program.’’ A separate paragraph (h) 

applies to automobiles not tested under NCAP or 

not assigned safety ratings in one or more 

categories. Paragraph (h) includes no size 

specifications for the labels for non-rated 

automobiles. 

be required to place another label 

(adjacent to the Monroney label) stating: 

‘‘This vehicle has been altered. The 

stated star ratings on the safety rating 

label may no longer be applicable.’’

B. Size of the Safety Rating Label 

In the NPRM, we noted that 

SAFETEA–LU limits the space for the 

NCAP label to 8 percent of the total area 

of the existing label or to an area with 

a minimum length of 41⁄2 inches and a 

minimum height of 31⁄2 inches. The 

relevant SAFETEA–LU language 

(paragraph (g)(4)) states that the NCAP 

safety rating label 

is presented in a legible, visible, and 

prominent fashion and covers at least—

(A) 8 percent of the total area of the label; 

or 

(B) an area with a minimum length of 41⁄2

inches and a minimum height of 31⁄2 inches. 

In its comments, Public Citizen stated 

that SAFETEA–LU requires a minimum, 

not maximum, space for the label; 

therefore, NHTSA is free to require 

automakers to place a larger label on the 

vehicle if it better facilitates consumer 

comprehension. In contrast, the 

National Automobile Dealers’

Association urged NHTSA to specify 8 

percent as the minimum label size, not 

the 41⁄2 by 31⁄2 (inches) minimum size. 

NADA stated that manufacturers should 

be urged to minimize the size of 

Monroney labels in order to limit fieldof-view obstructions. It noted that new 

motor vehicles are often operated before 

first sale or lease during prospective test 

drives. Because of this, and AIDA’s 

mandate that dealers maintain 

Monroney labels on vehicles until they 

are delivered to first purchasers, the 

labels are usually posted on side 

windows. NADA expressed concerns 

about field-of-vision obstructions posed 

by the Monroney labels. 

NHTSA disagrees with Public Citizen 

that NHTSA can specify a larger 

minimum size for the safety rating label 

than the minimum sizes specified in 

SAFETEA–LU. As indicated above, the 

statute provides that the NCAP safety 

rating information must be presented in 

a legible, visible, and prominent fashion 

that ‘‘covers at least—(A) 8 percent of 

total area of the label; or (B) an area with 

a minimum length of 41⁄2 inches and a 

minimum height of 31⁄2 inches.’’ We 

read this language as a determination by 

Congress as to the appropriate minimum 

size for the label, as opposed to 

delegating that decision to the 

discretion of the agency. 

We recognize, however, that the 

language is potentially ambiguous. For 

example, one could read the language as 

providing manufacturers the option of 

selecting either (A) or (B), regardless of 

the size of the label. A second reading 

would be that the relevant area for 

NCAP information must be at least 41⁄2

inches by 31⁄2 inches (15.75 square 

inches). If 8 percent of the total area of 

the label is larger than 15.75 inches, the 

information area must be at least 8 

percent of the label. 

Given the overall language of 

paragraph (g)(4), we believe the second 

reading is the better reading. As 

indicated above, this paragraph 

specifies that the NCAP information 

must be presented in ‘‘a legible, visible, 

and prominent fashion,’’ and then 

specifies the minimum size for the area 

of the label that must be devoted to the 

information. The requirement that the 

area be at least 8 percent of the total area 

of the label helps ensure that the 

information will be prominent. We 

believe that the requirement that the 

area be at least 41⁄2 inches by 31⁄2 inches 

is necessary, in the case of very small 

Monroney labels where 8 percent of the 

total area would be less than 15.75 

square inches, to ensure that the 

information will be legible. We believe 

that this should be readily evident to 

anyone who examines current 

Monroney labels. For this reason, while 

we appreciate the concerns expressed 

by NADA relating to possible field-ofvision obstructions posed by the 

Monroney labels, we believe that these 

minimum area requirements are 

statutorily required and necessary to 

accomplish Congress’ purposes. We are 

therefore specifying in the regulatory 

text that the minimum area for the 

NCAP information must be 41⁄2 by 31⁄2

inches or 8 percent of the Monroney 

label, whichever is larger. 

General Motors noted that SAFETEA–

LU requires that the label be wider than 

it is high. GM noted that NHTSA’s 

sample label in the NPRM appeared to 

be higher than it was wide. NHTSA 

agrees with GM’s comment. SAFETEA–

LU specifies that the label have an ‘‘area 

with a minimum length of 41⁄2 inches 

and a minimum height of 31⁄2 inches.’’

Accordingly, the agency is revising the 

safety rating label example. In this final 

rule, we will provide length (41⁄2 inches) 

and height (31⁄2 inches) dimensions with 

the sample label example. 

C. Smaller Labels for Vehicles With No 

Ratings 

DaimlerChrysler and Porsche 

recommended that NHTSA permit a 

smaller label for vehicles with no 

ratings. NHTSA notes that it has never 

rated any Porsche vehicle, nor has it 

rated many Mercedes-Benz vehicles 

under NCAP. SAFETEA–LU states: ‘‘(h) 

if an automobile has not been tested by 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration under the New Car 

Assessment Program, or safety ratings 

for such automobile have not been 

assigned in one or more rating 

categories, a statement to that effect’’

must be provided on the safety rating 

label.8

To avoid the redundancy of stating 

‘‘Not Rated’’ five times, statements that 

would not provide customers and 

potential customers with additional 

information, NHTSA is permitting 

manufacturers of automobiles that are 

not rated in any NCAP category the 

option of using a smaller safety rating 

label in lieu of the full size label. This 

smaller label is permitted for 

automobiles with no ratings, 

automobiles not selected for NCAP 

testing, and automobiles selected for, 

but not yet rated for, front, side, or 

rollover risk. The option for the smaller 

safety rating label is not available for an 

automobile if NHTSA has provided at 

least one safety rating for the 

automobile. The smaller labels may also 

be used on automobiles to which NCAP 

tests do not apply (i.e., because they are 

over the weight rating limit). 

The smaller safety rating label is 

described as follows: 

(1) The minimum size of this label is 

41⁄2 inches in width and 11⁄2 inch in 

height. 

(2) The label will have the same 

header, footer, and font size 

requirements as the 8 percent/41⁄2

inches by 31⁄2 inches label. 

(3) The label will state: ‘‘This vehicle 

has not been rated by the government 

for frontal crash, side crash, or rollover 

risk’’ and ‘‘Source: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA).’’

These specifications for the smaller 

safety label requirements provide 

information for customers who want 

additional information on why an 

automobile is not rated, and will 

identify the statement that the vehicle 

has not been rated as coming from a 

government agency, with at least the 

same header and footer information 

(with the NCAP Web site and NHTSA 

toll-free number) as the 8 percent/41⁄2

inches by 31⁄2 inches label. 

We note that manufacturers should be 

aware that for vehicles that are 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53577 

subsequently rated by the agency, they 

will still have 30 days to post new 

ratings in the proper format for a vehicle 

with one or more ratings. The agency is 

not providing additional time to a 

manufacturer that must modify the 

Monroney label to make room for the 

larger 8 percent/41⁄2 inches by 31⁄2

inches label. This is necessary to ensure 

that agency’s providing the opportunity 

to use a smaller label does not result in 

delaying the labeling of vehicles once 

they have been assigned one or more 

NCAP ratings. 

D. No Additional Information May Be 

Provided in the Safety Rating Label 

In the NPRM, NHTSA stated its belief 

that Congress intended to limit the 

NCAP label information to that 

specified in SAFETEA–LU. Thus, 

NHTSA proposed that no additional 

information of any kind, other than the 

same information provided in a 

language other than English, may be 

voluntarily provided in the NCAP label 

area. NHTSA does not construe the 

same information provided in a 

language other than English to be 

additional information. In response to 

the NPRM, NADA stated that the option 

of safety ratings labels in languages 

other than English should not be 

permitted, since nothing in AIDA, as 

amended ‘‘suggests the authority or 

discretion to do so.’’ NHTSA notes that 

providing NCAP in a language other 

than English is entirely at the 

manufacturer’s discretion. 

Ford suggested that the safety rating 

label allow for the inclusion of 

additional footnotes or information on 

the label indicating the presence of 

safety features (such as electronic 

stability control), the www.safercar.gov 

reasons for no ratings and other 

information as listed on 

www.safercar.gov, and certification label 

language to indicate compliance with all 

applicable FMVSSs. The Advocates, 

BMW, IIHS, and Public Citizen 

suggested adding IIHS and Consumer 

Reports ratings and Web addresses. The 

CEI suggested adding language stating 

that large cars usually offer more 

protection in a crash than do small cars. 

Senator DeWine provided the following 

comments: 

My statements on the Senate Floor on 

March 8, 2005, and May 12, 2005, reinforce 

the requirement that frontal, side impact, and 

rollover testing information be included. 

Neither of these statements refer to inclusion 

of any other safety data, and an explanatory 

diagram utilized on the Senate Floor did not 

include information other than the three 

types of ratings previously mentioned. In this 

sense, the NPRM accurately reflects 

congressional intent by restricting the 

‘‘Government Safety Ratings’’ portion of the 

label to only those ratings identified in 

SAFETEA–LU, plus any foreign language 

interpretations of the same. 

In this final rule, NHTSA adopts as 

final its NPRM language, and is not 

permitting any information on the safety 

rating label other than that specified in 

SAFETEA–LU. The safety rating label is 

not intended to provide all of NHTSA’s 

Web-based information, but to provide 

consumers with certain important pointof-sale information about a specific 

vehicle’s star ratings, and to encourage 

consumers to visit www.safercar.gov or 

to call NHTSA’s hotline for more 

specific information regarding vehicle 

safety. NHTSA does not see a feasible 

way to permit the suggested additional 

information in a meaningful way 

without detracting from or creating 

confusion about either information 

specified by SAFETEA–LU or the 

additional information regarding safety 

concerns, which NHTSA considers 

pertinent consumer information. 

Further, including the suggested 

additional information could adversely 

affect the visibility, legibility and 

prominence of the mandated 

information, especially if minimum size 

labels were used. 

The AIAM noted that the proposed 

regulatory text did not prohibit 

additional information in the safety 

rating label area. NHTSA agrees with 

this comment. In Section 575.301(e)(10) 

of the final rule, the agency has 

included a prohibition against 

additional information. The specified 

NCAP information provided in a 

language other than English is not 

construed to be ‘‘additional 

information.’’

In addition, NHTSA will not require 

that information that is already 

provided on vehicle certification labels 

be placed on the safety rating label. 

Providing certification label information 

in two places provides no additional 

information to the consumer. The 

presence of additional information on 

the NCAP label would detract from the 

required information. 

In his comments, Senator DeWine 

also stated the following: 

It is worth noting, however, that 

automakers have included various forms of 

safety data on Monroney labels in the past, 

including selected NCAP results, ratings from 

the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 

and so on. Given the intent of the legislation 

to improve consumers’ ability to make 

safety—conscious choices at the point of sale, 

I do not suggest that the final rule include a 

restriction on placement of additive safety 

data elsewhere on the Monroney label, so 

long as inclusion of additive data is legal 

under all applicable statutes and regulations, 

does not mislead consumers or contradict the 

information required pursuant to the AIDA 

amendment, and presents a meaningful 

improvement on the safety data included 

inside the ‘‘Government Safety Information’’

box. 

Consistent with Senator DeWine’s 

comments, nothing in this final rule 

prevents any manufacturer from 

providing the suggested additional 

information on the Monroney label, 

outside of the NCAP safety rating area. 

However, since authority to regulate the 

Monroney label outside of the safety 

rating label resides with DOJ, NHTSA is 

not amending its regulatory text of the 

final rule to address the placing of 

additional information outside of the 

safety rating label. 

E. Content of the Label 

SAFETEA–LU requires that the safety 

label include ‘‘a graphic depiction of the 

number of stars, or other applicable 

rating, that corresponds to each such 

assigned safety rating displayed in a 

clearly differentiated fashion indicating 

the maximum possible safety rating’’ for 

front, side, and rollover testing 

conducted by the agency. The statute 

further specifies that the label must be 

legible, visible, and prominent, and that 

it contain ‘‘information describing the 

nature and meaning of the crash test 

data presented and a reference to 

additional vehicle safety resources, 

including http://www.safercar.gov,’’ the 

NHTSA safety rating Web site. Finally, 

with regard to content, SAFETEA–LU 

specifies that ‘‘if an automobile has not 

been tested by the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration under the 

New Car Assessment Program, or safety 

ratings for such automobile have not 

been assigned in one or more rating 

categories, a statement to that effect’’

must appear. The following sections 

describe the proposed contents of the 

safety rating label, the public comments, 

and NHTSA’s response to the 

comments. 

1. Use of Solid Stars—Since 1994, the 

agency has used solid stars to 

communicate vehicle test results to 

consumers. NHTSA has conducted a 

substantial amount of research, and has 

found that consumers easily understand 

the stars. 

Based on that research, NHTSA stated 

in the NPRM its belief that using solid 

stars is the most effective way to display 

a vehicle’s star rating to consumers. 

Therefore, the agency proposed that the 

label use solid stars to represent a 

vehicle’s star rating in a particular rating 

category. We also proposed to require 

the label to include a statement that 

‘‘Star ratings range from 1 to 5 stars 

(★★★★★) with 5 being the highest’’. 

This proposed approach would fulfill 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53578 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

9 ‘‘Focus Groups Regarding Presentations of Crash 

Test Anomalies’’ NHTSA–2004–19104–1. 10 Detailed information concerning the specific 

safety rating will be published in a NHTSA press 

release as well as posted on the safercar.gov Web 

site 

the statutory requirement that the 

graphic depiction of the vehicle rating 

be displayed in a clearly differentiated 

fashion while also indicating the 

maximum possible rating. 

Senator DeWine wrote in support of 

the use of solid stars ‘‘[i]n light of 

[NHTSA’s] research, and the legislative 

intent of maximizing consumer 

awareness of safety factors.’’ In this final 

rule, solid stars are specified. NHTSA 

also received comments on the 

proposed statement. These comments, 

and NHTSA’s response, are addressed 

in the section on ‘‘General Area.’’

2. ‘‘Not Rated’’—In the NPRM, 

NHTSA explained that new models 

selected for testing by NHTSA cannot be 

tested simultaneously and, therefore, 

not all ratings can be available at the 

same time. We rely on http:// 

www.safercar.gov to keep consumers 

informed of the status of vehicles that 

will be tested and availability of new 

ratings as soon as they are available. 

Since the agency understood that 

manufacturers will not be able to keep 

information on the safety rating label as 

current as NHTSA can on a Web site, we 

proposed that ‘‘Not Rated’’ be used in 

the appropriate rating category until a 

rating has been released by the agency. 

NHTSA proposed ‘‘Not Rated’’ rather 

than ‘‘Not Tested’’ to prevent any 

consumer misconception that a vehicle 

has not been tested to ensure 

compliance with NHTSA’s Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 

In response to the NPRM, AIAM 

suggested use of the phrases ‘‘to be 

tested’’ and/or ‘‘no seat,’’ in addition to 

or in place of ‘‘Not Rated.’’ NADA stated 

that it ‘‘objects’’ to using ‘‘not rated’’ as 

it would confuse consumers, and 

suggested that for vehicles without rear 

seats, manufacturers be permitted to use 

the phrase ‘‘not applicable’’ in the test 

results section of the label where rear 

seat ratings would have been posted had 

the vehicle had a rear seat. 

For this final rule, NHTSA has 

decided to let manufacturers have the 

option of using the phrase ‘‘to be rated,’’

if the manufacturer has received 

documentation from NHTSA that the 

vehicle will be tested. This option 

applies to any vehicle otherwise 

required to be labeled ‘‘Not Rated.’’ For 

vehicles with very small or no rear 

seats, the final rule maintains that the 

label state ‘‘Not Rated.’’ NHTSA has 

decided to specify ‘‘Not Rated’’ rather 

than ‘‘Not Applicable’’ to minimize 

confusion. NHTSA is concerned that a 

‘‘Not Applicable’’ designation for the 

rear seat area may be misunderstood to 

mean that the FMVSSs or NCAP testing 

do not apply to the rear seat area. 

Further, this is consistent with the 

terminology we use on http:// 

www.safercar.gov. 

3. Safety Concerns on the Safety 

Rating Label—For the past several years, 

NHTSA has informed consumers of test 

occurrences resulting in safety concerns 

that are not reflected in the star rating. 

Examples of such safety concerns are 

high likelihoods of thigh injury, pelvic 

injury, or head injury; fuel leakage; and 

door openings. When asked about how 

safety concerns would influence their 

decision, most respondents responded 

that ‘‘having information about crash 

test anomalies is important and they 

would use the information to assist 

them in making a decision to purchase 

one vehicle over another’’.9

Furthermore, the agency stated its belief 

that consumers would be misled if, 

when shopping for a vehicle, the 

NHTSA Web site indicated that there 

was a safety concern but none appeared 

on the label at the point of sale. On the 

NHTSA Web site, information 

describing the safety concern and any 

remedy taken by the manufacturer is 

described by clicking on the hypertext. 

Given the space constraints for safety 

information and for the Monroney label 

in general, NHTSA recognizes that 

requiring manufacturers to include the 

same level of information on the label 

as appears on the NHTSA Web site 

could easily result in the text’s being so 

small as to be illegible. NHTSA believed 

it important that the label show 

consumers how to find more 

information on the safety concern. 

For these reasons, NHTSA proposed 

that when testing identifies a safety 

concern associated with a vehicle, the 

symbol 

be placed in the appropriate rating 

category positioned as a superscript to 

the right of the right-most star in the 

rating category.10 NHTSA also proposed 

to require the text ‘‘Safety Concern: Visit 

http://www.safercar.gov. 

NADA stated that it ‘‘objects to the 

idea of requiring the use of the 

exclamation point concern symbol,’’

stating that several dealers suggested 

that the symbol would ‘‘raise 

unnecessary questions for prospective 

purchasers.’’ NADA suggested that in 

lieu of the safety warning, the proposed 

reference to http://www.safercar.gov be 

revised to read: ‘‘Visit http:// 

www.safercar.gov for more detailed 

vehicle safety information.’’

While we have considered NADA’s 

comment, we continue to believe, for 

the reasons stated above, that there is a 

need to alert prospective purchasers to 

test occurrences resulting in safety 

concerns that are not included in the 

star rating. With the inclusion of 

NHTSA’s toll-free hotline number in the 

footer area, prospective purchasers who 

wish further information about the 

safety concern can either visit http:// 

www.safercar.gov or call the toll-free 

number. 

The AIAM commented that by 

convention, a superscript is 

proportional to the base text size. 

Therefore, NHTSA should clarify 

whether the safety concern icon, a 

superscript to the star rating, needs to be 

proportional to the font size of the base 

star rating. NHTSA agrees that this 

recommendation would make the size of 

the safety concern icon more objective. 

In this final rule, the safety concern icon 

is specified to make it proportional to 

the font size of the star ratings. 

Therefore, when placed next to a star as 

a superscript, the safety concern icon 

maintains a proportional ratio of 3:2, or 

66 percent of the font size of the star(s). 

However, when used as an explanatory 

symbol (in the general area of the label), 

the safety concern symbol is not a 

superscript, and therefore, it should be 

the same font size as the explanatory 

text. 

4. No Specific Font Type—After 

reviewing the literature, NHTSA 

concluded that there is no single ‘‘best’’

font type for readability. Therefore, in 

the NPRM, we did not propose a single 

font type for use on the label. NADA 

commented that NHTSA should specify 

a font type to ‘‘promote consistency,’’

but did not offer a suggestion for a font 

type. Other than this, NHTSA received 

no comments addressing the font type 

issue. Thus, this final rule specifies no 

font type for the safety rating label. 

5. Font Sizes of Text and Star 

Ratings—In order to ensure that the 

label is readable, NHTSA proposed that 

the text ‘‘Frontal Crash,’’ ‘‘Side Crash,’’

‘‘Rollover,’’ ‘‘Driver,’’ ‘‘Passenger,’’

‘‘Front Seat,’’ ‘‘Rear Seat,’’ and ‘‘Not 

Rated,’’ and where applicable, the star 

graphic indicating each rating, as well 

as any text in the header and footer 

areas of the label have a minimum font 

size of 12 point. NHTSA noted that 12 

point would make the safety rating label 

consistent with NHTSA’s Automobile 

Parts Content Label (49 CFR part 583) 

which is often placed on the Monroney 

label. NHTSA further proposed that all 

other text or symbols on the label have 

a minimum font size of 8 point. 

In response to the NPRM, GM stated 

that it supports NHTSA’s proposed font 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULESER12SE06.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53579 

11 ‘‘http://www.safercar.gov, Agency Press 

Releases, Buying a Safer Car Brochure.’’

sizes. The Advocates and Public Citizen 

urged that all fonts on the safety rating 

label be a minimum of 12 point. Senator 

DeWine urged that the explanatory 

statements on the safety rating label be 

a minimum of 10 point. NADA 

recommended that the font size of the 

label be consistent with the 8 percent of 

the Monroney label standard, and not be 

a specific minimum font size. 

In this final rule, NHTSA has decided 

to make final the font sizes that it 

proposed in the NPRM; 12-point font for 

the header and footer, 8 point font for 

the explanatory information, and 12 

point font for everything else. NHTSA 

has decided not to provide all 

information in the same font size (12 

point font) because to do so would 

detract from the star ratings themselves. 

Assuming that the labels are kept to the 

minimum size, use of the same font size 

would result in less open space on the 

safety rating label and could make the 

label appear crowded and confusing. 

Using a 10 point font for the explanatory 

notes makes the information on the 

safety rating label seem too uniform, 

with less focus on the star ratings 

themselves. 

F. Layout of the Safety Rating Label 

The agency proposed to require that 

the safety rating label portion of the 

Monroney label be surrounded by a dark 

line and be sub-divided into the 

following six areas: (1) A heading area; 

(2) frontal crash area; (3) side crash area; 

(4) rollover area; (5) general text area; 

and (6) footer area. The areas would be 

placed horizontally in the following 

descending order, and that each area 

would take up the entire horizontal 

area: the heading area is at the top, 

followed by the frontal, side, rollover, 

general, and footer area (at the bottom). 

NHTSA also proposed that the border of 

the label be surrounded by a dark line 

and that the frontal, side, rollover, and 

general areas be separated from each 

other by dark lines. All dark lines would 

have a minimum width of 3 points. We 

stated our belief that the dark lines 

would enable consumers to readily 

distinguish among and decipher the 

information on the safety rating label. 

NHTSA received no comments on the 

overall format of the safety rating label 

or on the heading area and rollover area. 

For these areas, NHTSA adopts as final 

its proposed format for these areas. The 

format of each sub area is outlined 

below. 

1. Heading Area—The heading area 

would help consumers find and identify 

the NHTSA safety rating information on 

the Monroney label. The agency 

proposed that the heading read 

‘‘Government Safety Ratings’’ in white 

lettering and that the heading area be 

printed with a dark background that 

easily contrasts with white lettering. 

NHTSA received no comments on the 

heading area and is adopting as final its 

proposal. 

2. Frontal Area—Currently, NHTSA 

provides consumers with frontal crash 

ratings for two seating positions; the 

driver and the right front passenger. 

Ratings for each seating position are 

based on the combined chance of 

serious injury to the head and chest. 

The term ‘‘Frontal Crash’’ and ‘‘Frontal 

Star Rating’’ are used interchangeably to 

describe the frontal crash test results, 

while the driver and the right front 

passenger test positions are only 

referred to as ‘‘Driver’’ and ‘‘Passenger,’’

respectively. Consistent with these 

terms, NHTSA proposed that ‘‘Frontal 

Crash’’ be used to describe the frontal 

crash test ratings and that ‘‘Driver’’ and 

‘‘Passenger’’ be used to describe the 

seating positions and the applicable star 

rating. 

For the frontal area section, NHTSA 

also proposed to require that the 

statements: ‘‘Star ratings based on the 

risk of injury in a frontal impact’’ and 

‘‘Frontal ratings should ONLY be 

compared to other vehicles of similar 

size and weight’’ be provided at the 

bottom of the frontal area to help 

explain to consumers the nature and 

meaning of the test. 

In response to the NPRM, NADA 

expressed concern about the language 

making comparisons with vehicles of 

‘‘similar size and weight.’’ NADA stated 

that since it may be ‘‘too presumptive’’

to assume that prospective purchasers 

know what is meant by ‘‘similar size or 

weight,’’ there should be reference to 

http://www.safercar.gov (which ‘‘does a 

good job of defining the NCAP vehicle 

classes’’) or a footnote noting it in the 

frontal crash area of the label. The CEI 

made a similar suggestion about http:// 

www.safercar.gov in the frontal crash 

area. 

NHTSA is not adopting these 

suggestions because the reference to 

http://www.safercar.gov is repetitive. 

For these reasons, NHTSA will adopt as 

final its proposal. 

3. Side Area—The agency currently 

conducts side impact tests that provide 

consumers with side ratings for the first 

and second row of a vehicle. For each 

of these positions, ratings are based on 

the chance of serious injury to the chest. 

The terms ‘‘Side Crash’’ and ‘‘Side Star 

Rating’’ are used interchangeably to 

describe the side crash test results. The 

first and second row test positions are 

referred to as ‘‘Front Seat’’ and ‘‘Rear 

Seat,’’ and ‘‘Front Passenger’’ and ‘‘Rear 

Passenger’’ interchangeably. Consistent 

with this terminology, NHTSA proposed 

that ‘‘Side Crash’’ be used to describe 

the side crash test ratings, and that 

‘‘Front Seat’’ and ‘‘Rear Seat’’ be used to 

describe the seating positions and the 

applicable star rating. For the side area, 

NHTSA also proposed that the 

statement ‘‘Star ratings based on the risk 

of injury in a side impact’’ be used at 

the bottom of this section to help 

explain to consumers the nature and 

meaning of the test. 

NADA suggested that for vehicles 

without rear seats, manufacturers be 

permitted to use the phrase ‘‘Not 

Applicable’’ in the test results section of 

the label where rear seat ratings would 

have been posted had the vehicle had a 

rear seat. This issue was addressed 

above under the heading: ‘‘Not Rated.’’

4. Rollover Area—The rollover 

resistance ratings currently provided by 

the agency estimate the risk that a 

vehicle will roll over if it is involved in 

a single-vehicle crash. Ratings are based 

on the combined result of the static 

measurement of certain vehicle 

properties and the results of a dynamic 

maneuver test. The terms ‘‘Rollover’’

and ‘‘Rollover Rating’’ are used 

interchangeably to describe the risk 

estimates. Consistent with this 

terminology, NHTSA proposed that 

‘‘Rollover’’ be used to describe the 

rollover resistance ratings. 

Some vehicles can have both a 4x2 

and 4x4 version, each of which can have 

a different rollover rating. In the NPRM, 

the agency stated that it wants to make 

clear that the NCAP rollover rating that 

appears on a vehicle must be the rating 

that applies to the appropriate trim 

version of that vehicle, i.e., 4x2 or 4x4. 

NHTSA also proposed that the 

statement ‘‘Star ratings based on the risk 

of rollover in a single-vehicle crash’’ be 

used at the bottom of the rollover area 

to explain to consumers the nature and 

meaning of the rollover tests. NHTSA 

received no comments on the rollover 

area and thus adopts as final its 

proposal. 

5. General Area—By their very nature, 

rating systems have a highest and lowest 

scale. NHTSA has described its five-star 

rating system in terms such as ‘‘ratings 

range from one to five stars,’’ indicating 

to consumers that the maximum rating 

in each category is five stars.11 In the 

NPRM, NHTSA stated its belief that the 

safety label should also contain similar 

wording which would be the first line 

in the general area. Therefore, NHTSA 

proposed that the text ‘‘Star ratings 

range from 1 to 5 stars (★★★★★) with 

5 being the highest,’’ be in the general 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53580 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

12Carry-over vehicles are vehicles that have been 

tested under the NCAP program in previous years, 

and whose design has not changed, therefore 

retaining its safety rating. 

13Through carry-over vehicles and new testing, 

NCAP provides ratings for about 80 percent of the 

(non-motorcycle) passenger vehicle fleet each year. 

14Most car models come in more than one trim 

line, each of which has different standard 

equipment and available options. 

15 Initial criteria published on August 21, 1987 

(52 FR 31691), and then revised on February 5, 

1988 (53 FR 3479). 

area to remind consumers that the 

maximum rating is five stars. We stated 

that in this way, the Congressional 

requirement that the graphic depiction 

of the vehicle rating be displayed in a 

clearly differentiated fashion while also 

indicating the maximum possible rating, 

would be fulfilled. 

In response to the NPRM, Senator 

DeWine and Public Citizen suggested 

that NHTSA specify a blanket statement 

indicating that star ratings range from 1 

star to 5 stars, with 5 being the highest, 

and that all vehicles receive at least one 

star. NHTSA notes that a statement 

largely to this effect was proposed for 

the general area on the safety rating 

label. NHTSA does not believe it 

necessary to emphasize the fact that any 

rated vehicle receives at least one star. 

Thus, in this final rule, NHTSA adopts 

as final the text proposed in the NPRM. 

Finally, NHTSA proposed that the 

text ‘‘Source: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA)’’ appear 

as the last line in the general area. 

NHTSA stated its belief that placing this 

statement at the bottom of the general 

area would give consumers the added 

confidence that manufacturers are not 

supplying the ratings and that instead 

the ratings are from a government 

agency. NHTSA received no comments 

on the last line, and adopts as final the 

language it proposed. 

6. Footer Area—A footer area would 

help consumers identify the agency’s 

Web site where additional NHTSA 

safety information can be found. The 

agency proposed that the heading read 

‘‘VISIT www.safercar.gov’’ in white 

lettering and that the footer area be 

printed with a dark background that 

easily contrasts with white lettering. 

This also would fulfill the mandate from 

Congress that the label contain reference 

to www.safercar.gov and additional 

vehicle safety resources, as the Web site 

provides other safety information. 

In response to the NPRM, Senator 

DeWine and Public Citizen suggested 

that NHTSA’s toll-free hotline number 

be specified on the safety rating label, in 

addition to http://www.safercar.gov. 

NHTSA concurs with this suggestion. 

Including the hotline number may make 

it easier for consumers without internet 

access to find out more about a 

particular vehicle’s rating. Thus, in the 

final rule, the footer area will specify 

NHTSA’s hotline number in addition to 

http://www.safercar.gov. To save space, 

the word ‘‘Visit’’ is removed. As 

discussed in the next section, in this 

final rule, NHTSA is also revising the 

regulatory text wording for the footer 

area to ‘‘a font that easily contrasts with 

a dark background.’’

7. Color of Font Must Contrast Easily 

With a Dark Background—NHTSA 

proposed to require that, unless 

otherwise noted, the background be in 

a color that contrasts easily with dark 

text and that dark text be used. This 

proposal sought to ensure a stark 

contrast so that the information can be 

easily read. In response to the NPRM, 

Ford noted that the regulatory text 

under the heading area specifies ‘‘a font 

that easily contrasts with a dark 

background,’’ but the text under ‘‘footer 

area’’ specifies a white font on the dark 

background. Ford further noted that the 

regulatory text under ‘‘Footer Area’’ and 

‘‘General Information’’ specifies that a 

black line be used, but that several 

sections of the text specify the use of a 

dark line within the label format. Public 

Citizen stated that NHTSA should 

require a background color of white or 

off-white. 

After reviewing the public comments, 

in this final rule, NHTSA is revising the 

regulatory text in its final rule to specify 

a font/background that easily contrasts, 

rather than specifying colors. To do so 

will allow manufacturers to provide 

color safety rating labels if they wish to 

do so. Therefore, NHTSA revises the 

regulatory text wording for the footer 

area to ‘‘a font that easily contrasts with 

a dark background.’’

G. New Labeling and Re-Labeling Issues 

In the NPRM, NHTSA explained the 

labeling procedure for newly introduced 

vehicles, carry-over vehicles,12 and 

redesigned vehicles. In June of each 

year, NHTSA collects vehicle 

information from vehicle manufacturers 

to help the agency identify new vehicle 

models, redesigned vehicles, and carryover vehicles. After it analyzes the 

information provided, NHTSA 

determines and announces at NHTSA’s 

NCAP Web site: http:// 

www.safercar.gov,13 which models are 

carry-over models, which new models 

are not being tested, and new models 

that are being tested. NHTSA also sends 

a letter to each manufacturer, indicating 

the manufacturer’s vehicles that have 

been selected for NCAP testing. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA stated its intent 

to maintain this current process. 

However, in addition to the letter sent 

to manufacturers indicating the models 

that have been selected for testing with 

the advent of the safety rating labels on 

the Monroney label, NHTSA now plans 

to send a separate letter officially 

informing each manufacturer as to the 

models NHTSA has determined are 

carry-over models, and the NCAP star 

rating(s) of those models. NHTSA plans 

to provide these letters to the 

manufacturers as soon as a 

determination is made regarding the 

status of models (i.e., carry-over or noncarryover) to ensure that the 

manufacturers can place NCAP star 

ratings on these models as soon as the 

new year of production is begun. 

For newly tested vehicles, NHTSA 

stated that it will maintain its current 

quality control process and posting of 

results on www.safercar.gov. Once 

NHTSA has completed the quality 

control process, it plans to send a letter 

to the manufacturer of the tested model 

informing them of the model’s NCAP 

rating. This letter will also inform the 

manufacturer of the agency’s 

determination as to trim lines 14 and 

corporate twin models to which the 

ratings will apply. 

1. Optional Testing, Non-Carryover 

Vehicles and Redesigned Vehicles—

Although it provides information on a 

significant portion of vehicles sold in 

the U.S., the agency does not rate every 

single vehicle nor is it able to retest 

vehicles that have undergone a 

significant safety improvement during 

the model year. Therefore, in 1987, the 

agency published a notice establishing 

an optional test program.15 The optional 

program serves to provide consumers 

with up-to-date safety information on 

new vehicles that have undergone a 

mid-model year production change, 

models with optional safety equipment 

that the agency had not selected for 

testing, or a make and model not 

selected for testing by the agency. The 

optional NCAP program operates 

according to the same guidelines and 

procedures as the regular NCAP. 

Further, in order for a vehicle that has 

already been tested by the agency to 

qualify for testing under the optional 

NCAP program, the vehicle’s 

manufacturer must submit to NHTSA 

evidence that it has changed the vehicle 

in a way likely to improve significantly 

the NCAP test results for that vehicle. 

The agency then analyzes the 

manufacturer’s submission and informs 

the manufacturer whether it has 

approved the vehicle for optional 

testing. 

Every year, a number of tests are 

conducted under this program, with 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53581 

many being mid-model year safety 

changes. For those vehicles that fall into 

this category, and whose ratings may no 

longer be accurate (because the 

production change has occurred prior to 

NHTSA granting the request), the 

agency proposed that when the agency 

grants an optional NCAP test request, a 

manufacturer may immediately begin to 

label those changed vehicles as ‘‘Not 

Rated.’’ Upon completion of the 

optional NCAP testing, the 

manufacturer would be notified of the 

results. Thirty days after notification, it 

would then be required to display the 

ratings on the safety rating label. 

A non-carryover vehicle is a vehicle 

whose safety rating would no longer 

apply when the vehicle is continued 

into the new model year. In most cases, 

the inapplicability results from the 

vehicle’s having undergone significant 

changes between model years. 

Addressing the issue of non-carryover 

vehicles, Senator DeWine stated that 

NHTSA should maintain the previous 

NCAP ratings on non-carryover vehicles 

until NHTSA re-tests the new model 

and the manufacturer starts labeling 

with the ‘‘new’’ rating. Senator DeWine 

noted: 

The language of the AIDA amendment is 

clear on this point and does not appear to 

give NHTSA the flexibility to rescind NCAP 

ratings once they have been published. 

Section 10307 of SAFETEA–LU states that ‘‘if 

one or more safety ratings * * * have been 

assigned and formally published or released 

by the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration under the New Car 

Assessment Program,’’ that information must 

be included on the Monroney label. Labeling 

a vehicle that has been rated as ‘‘not rated’’

may, in some cases, be a prima facie violation 

of the law. 

Senator DeWine also stated that, on 

redesigned vehicles (a vehicle whose 

safety rating ceases to be applicable due 

to design changes made during the 

model year), the previous NCAP rating 

should be maintained, but the label 

should include a graphic notation and a 

short statement that a design change has 

been made, which may affect the 

displayed rating. Public Citizen stated 

that for vehicles that were redesigned 

during the year, the pre-model year 

score and any applicable safety 

concerns should be maintained, but the 

following text should also be on the 

label: ‘‘This model has been redesigned 

and is being retested. Prior test results 

may or may not apply. To check 

whether new test results are now 

available, call 1–800–XXXX.’’ Public 

Citizen further commented that for 

redesigned vehicles, the term ‘‘unrated’’

is inaccurate and misleading to 

consumers. Advocates commented that 

for vehicles that were redesigned midyear, the previous NCAP ratings should 

be maintained until NHTSA performs 

an optional NCAP test of the new 

model. 

The concern expressed by Advocates, 

Senator DeWine and Public Citizen 

appears to be that under the NPRM, 

once NHTSA approves optional NCAP 

testing for a vehicle model that has been 

redesigned during the model year, the 

safety ratings on the new production of 

that vehicle would be ‘‘Not Rated.’’

Although manufacturers would have an 

incentive to redesign vehicles with poor 

safety ratings, Advocates noted that 

‘‘there is no guarantee that a redesign 

will improve the vehicle safety ratings 

of the redesigned vehicle line.’’ Even if 

the vehicle safety ratings turn out to be 

the same as they were before the 

redesign, the manufacturer gains by 

having ‘‘Not Rated’’ on the safety labels 

of the redesigned vehicles for the period 

before the vehicle is rated again. 

In response, NHTSA notes that 

optional tests are carried out as soon as 

vehicles are available. There could be 

ratings as early as 14 days after vehicles 

become available. In addition, one of the 

purposes of NCAP rating is to provide 

an incentive for manufacturers to 

redesign vehicles with ‘‘poor safety 

ratings.’’ The use of a ‘‘Not Rated’’ label 

in the interim period during which the 

vehicle is being tested and rated is 

worthwhile as the agency only grants 

permission for optional tests for 

vehicles that have undergone a safety 

improvement if the improvement is 

deemed likely to significantly increase 

one of the vehicles’ NCAP ratings. 

Customers with a special interest in a 

particular vehicle and who are willing 

to wait to buy a redesigned vehicle, can 

be informed of updates about the 

vehicle’s safety rating by visiting http:// 

www.safercar.gov, or calling NHTSA’s 

toll-free hotline number. Because there 

are many competing vehicles in the 

marketplace, those consumers unwilling 

to wait, and who may be wary of a ‘‘Not 

Rated’’ label, may decide to focus only 

on similar vehicles with high ratings. 

After reviewing the comments, in this 

final rule, NHTSA has decided not to 

require the manufacturer to provide 

‘‘old ratings’’ on redesigned vehicles or 

vehicles with NHTSA recognized safety 

changes. Specifying ‘‘old ratings’’ would 

be to require manufacturers to provide 

information that NHTSA has 

determined is no longer accurate for that 

vehicle. 

Before a manufacturer may begin 

labeling redesigned or non-carryover 

vehicles as ‘‘Not Rated’’ and/or ‘‘To Be 

Rated,’’ NHTSA must first conduct an 

engineering analysis on changes that 

were made to the vehicle and then 

determine whether those changes will 

likely affect the vehicle’s safety 

performance. Therefore, the vehicle 

must have had an engineering change 

that would affect the safety performance 

of the vehicle in an NCAP test. NHTSA 

will not perform a test on, allow an 

optional test on, or require a 

manufacturer to label as ‘‘Not Rated,’’ a 

vehicle if the vehicle only has cosmetic 

changes. This policy is consistent with 

http://www.safercar.gov, which posts a 

‘‘Not Rated’’ or ‘‘To Be Rated’’ on the 

Web site for redesigned vehicles and 

vehicles with significant safety changes. 

Finally, BMW suggested that NHTSA 

should allow each manufacturer to 

apply the safety rating(s) to all model 

variants that the manufacturer believes 

should have that specific rating, without 

notifying NHTSA. NHTSA does not 

agree with this suggestion. SAFETEA–

LU requires that manufacturers label 

vehicles with NCAP ratings that have 

been formally published or released. In 

the NPRM, NHTSA proposed that 

formal release of the NCAP ratings 

would occur when NHTSA sends a 

letter to the manufacturer informing it of 

the vehicles and trim lines, or variants 

of a vehicle, to which the ratings will 

apply. Allowing manufacturers to label 

vehicles without this NHTSA letter 

would not be consistent with 

SAFETEA–LU, as the ratings would not 

have been officially published or 

released by the agency. NHTSA believes 

it is important to review the 

manufacturers’ test data that establish 

the trim lines or variants of a vehicle 

that have the same NCAP rating, to 

ensure legitimacy and customer 

confidence in the ratings program. The 

agency has also evaluated selfcertification as an option for 

manufacturers to provide ratings. Of the 

new vehicles tested under the NCAP 

Program, a relatively small percentage 

(approximately 7 percent of the entire 

vehicle fleet) will arrive at dealers 

before ratings have been released and 

labels bearing those ratings can be 

placed on them. While the agency has 

evaluated many ways of reducing the 

number of tested vehicles without 

ratings, including buying vehicles 

directly from the manufacturer (as 

opposed to a dealer) and allowing the 

manufacturers to provide their own 

NCAP ratings, the agency has decided 

not to change its current procedures 

because it does not want the integrity of 

the program to be at issue and because 

manufacturer-provided ratings may not 

reveal potential safety concerns. 

2. Re-Labeling of Vehicles Produced 

Before NHTSA Notifies Manufacturers 

of Safety Rating Information—NHTSA 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53582 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

did not propose to require 

manufacturers to re-label vehicles 

produced before NHTSA has notified 

them of safety rating information for 

those vehicles; the vehicles that are 

required to have the NCAP star rating 

will be determined based on the date of 

notification and on the date of vehicle 

manufacture. NHTSA tentatively 

determined that the cost and burden on 

manufacturers of a re-labeling 

requirement would have little benefit in 

a large number of cases. This is 

especially true since some vehicles 

would have already been sold. However, 

under NHTSA’s proposal, 

manufacturers would be able to re-label 

vehicles voluntarily, should they 

choose, by replacing the entire 

Monroney label (not just the section 

with the NCAP information). 

In response to the NPRM, Advocates 

commented that NHTSA should require 

re-labeling of all vehicles manufactured 

prior to an NCAP test if they have not 

yet been sold. Similarly, Senator 

DeWine stated that NHTSA should 

require re-labeling of all vehicles still at 

the plant, whether they have been 

labeled yet or not. Ford stated that 

manufacturers should have the option of 

re-labeling such vehicles, but it should 

not be mandatory. GM supported 

NHTSA’s decision not to make relabeling mandatory. NADA concurred 

with NHTSA’s decision to allow 

manufacturers to send out replacement 

Monroney labels for those vehicles 

displaying old or no safety labels, once 

new test data are available. 

After carefully considering the public 

comments, NHTSA is adopting the 

position it proposed in the NPRM and 

is not requiring re-labeling of vehicles 

that were manufactured prior to the 

labeling deadline (30 days after NCAP 

test results are provided to the 

manufacturer). Requiring manufacturers 

to re-label would result in significant 

costs to manufacturers both in relabeling of vehicles and in potential 

delays in new vehicles’ being shipped to 

dealers. 

After consulting with DOJ, both DOJ 

and this agency believe that 

manufacturers may voluntarily re-label 

vehicles to reflect updated NCAP 

information by replacing the entire 

Monroney label (not just the section 

with the NCAP information). We note, 

however, that DOJ further advises that 

while this is permissible, the re-labeling 

must be done in a manner so that the 

consumers do not see the vehicle while 

it is without a Monroney label. 

H. NCAP Rating Labels Are Placed 

Within 30 Days After Receipt of NHTSA 

Notification of Test Results 

To reach as many consumers as 

possible, vehicles should have their 

ratings displayed as soon as possible. 

Therefore, NHTSA proposed to require 

vehicle manufacturers to place the 

NCAP ratings on the Monroney label of 

new vehicles 30 days after their receipt 

of NHTSA’s notification of the test 

results. The agency indicated that it had 

tentatively concluded that this is a 

reasonable time frame since 

manufacturers know that they may need 

to add the NCAP rating, and can take 

that into account in designing the 

Monroney labels. The only change that 

would need to be made on the label is 

placing the number of stars and safety 

concern (if applicable) that the vehicle 

received in the appropriate area. 

In response to the NPRM, both AIAM 

and GM wrote in support of the 30 day 

period for inclusion of ratings on the 

Monroney label. Senator DeWine and 

Public Citizen recommended that the 30 

day period be shortened. Public Citizen 

recommended shortening the time 

period to 5, or at most, 10 days, since 

manufacturers receive advance notice of 

the test results from NHTSA. Ford and 

AIAM generally supported the 30 day 

period, but requested the possibility of 

an extension if technical concerns 

should arise. DaimlerChrysler suggested 

that NHTSA specify ‘‘30 business days’’

rather than ‘‘30 calendar days’’ because 

national and corporate holidays that 

occur throughout the year may interfere 

with the 30 day period, and may result 

in insufficient time to label vehicles if 

only ‘‘30 calendar’’ days are allowed. 

NHTSA notes that the term ‘‘business 

days’’ may differ depending on the 

company (since many companies have 

official shut down periods during the 

summer and/or around the end of the 

year), and may even differ depending on 

the national origin of the company since 

U.S. Federal holidays differ from the 

holidays of other nations. 

In proposing ‘‘30 days,’’ NHTSA 

meant ‘‘30 calendar days.’’ NHTSA 

decided on ‘‘30 days’’ after considering 

the time needed to implement labeling 

of vehicles and taking national and 

corporate holidays into account, along 

with existing labeling procedures, 

manufacturing locations, and shipping, 

when it concluded that 30 calendar days 

provided enough time for manufacturers 

to label vehicles. Allowing a time period 

longer than 30 days would mean 

customers would have less timely 

information. No technical or other 

convincing reasons were offered to 

justify a longer time. 

Advocates noted that under NHTSA’s 

proposal, manufacturers would not be 

required to change the safety rating 

labels on any vehicle built before 

NHTSA notification of the safety 

ratings, i.e., up to 30 days after the 

notification, even though the vehicles 

built pre-and-post 30 days after 

notification would be identical in terms 

of safety performance. Since re-labeling 

of vehicles built before the 30-day 

period would not be mandatory, if the 

safety ratings are not ‘‘impressive,’’

Advocates stated: ‘‘Consumers who see 

the previously built vehicles will only 

see out-of-date information on the safety 

labels of these vehicles.’’ NHTSA notes 

that consumers will be able to access the 

most current safety rating information 

about a vehicle by visiting the http:// 

www.safercar.gov Web site or by calling 

NHTSA’s toll-free hotline number. 

Before issuing the NPRM, NHTSA 

considered whether to propose a time 

period shorter than 30 days. NHTSA 

concluded that a shorter time period 

does not allow sufficient time for 

labeling by some manufacturers, 

especially those manufacturing vehicles 

outside the United States. Factors that 

might result in delays in label 

production by manufacturers include 

labeling of imported vehicles at ports; 

the fact that in many cases, label 

production is contracted out to another 

company; and differences in printing 

processes and printing equipment 

among manufacturers. 

Regarding Public Citizen’s comment 

that manufacturers receive advance 

notice of the ratings, NHTSA notes that 

this statement is not fully accurate. 

While many manufacturers attend the 

tests and thus receive the preliminary 

test results, not every one does so. Thus, 

shortening the 30 day time period 

would put an undue burden on those 

manufacturers that do not. Even if a 

manufacturer were present at the NCAP 

test, the manufacturer would not have 

access to the final, official results until 

NHTSA releases the ratings 

simultaneously to them and to 

consumers. Before making a final 

determination on the rating, NHTSA 

performs a thorough quality control 

check of the data. During this quality 

control process and analysis, the lab test 

results could change from those 

preliminarily reported. The quality 

control process, which occurs between 

the test and the official release of the 

test results, is not included in the 

manufacturers’ 30 day deadline to label 

vehicles with NCAP results. The 30-day 

requirement reflects the time needed by 

manufacturers to implement the 

labeling change upon official 

notification of ratings by the agency. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53583 

Finally, regarding Ford’s comment 

that in the event of technical concerns, 

manufacturers may need an extension of 

the 30 day time period, NHTSA notes 

that technical concerns are resolved 

during the agency’s quality control 

process. Once quality control of the test 

results is complete, manufacturers are 

notified of results and have 30 days to 

begin labeling the vehicles. 

For the reasons explained above, the 

agency has clarified ‘‘30 days’’ so that it 

now reads ‘‘30 calendar days’’ in the 

regulatory text. 

I. Other Issues 

In response to the NPRM, commenters 

raised the following additional issues 

regarding the administration of the 

NCAP Program, but not with the safety 

rating labels. Since changes to the safety 

rating labels were not suggested, the 

raising of these issues did not result in 

changes to the final regulatory text. The 

issues, and NHTSA’s response, are as 

follows. 

Public Citizen stated that as an 

alternative to stars, NHTSA should use 

an A through F grading scale, ‘‘as in 

school grading systems.’’ This is a 

suggestion to make a fundamental 

change to the NCAP star rating program, 

which has been in effect since 1994. 

Regarding the safety labeling 

rulemaking at issue, since the A through 

F grading scale was not proposed in the 

NPRM, it is outside the scope of the 

rulemaking, and therefore, will not be 

adopted in the final rule. Public Citizen 

also suggested that NHTSA upgrade its 

crash test criteria and add new tests for 

compatibility, handling or active safety, 

rollover crashworthiness and pedestrian 

safety. The Advocates similarly urged 

NHTSA to upgrade the NCAP Program 

by ‘‘providing consumers with more 

comparative safety information.’’

NHTSA notes that it is considering 

potential improvements to make it more 

effective. However, since these 

comments address the broader issue of 

NCAP program administration, not 

specifically safety rating labeling, they 

are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

Ford commented that when agency 

determines test dates for vehicle testing, 

NHTSA should ‘‘batch’’ (test the same 

class of vehicles during the same time 

period) NCAP tests to prevent 

manufacturers whose vehicles were 

rated first from having a competitive 

advantage. NHTSA is not adopting this 

recommendation. In view of the large 

number of vehicles that the agency tests 

annually, batching vehicles is 

inconsistent with providing consumers 

with safety ratings in a timely manner. 

For any one class of vehicles, models 

are introduced into the market 

throughout the year, and not in 

‘‘batches.’’

DaimlerChrysler recommended that 

NHTSA notify manufacturers by midMarch of each calendar year about the 

vehicles which NHTSA will consider as 

carryovers for the subsequent model 

year. DaimlerChrysler noted that 

introduction of carryover vehicles can 

begin as early as May in any calendar 

year. NHTSA notes that it annually 

issues request letters to manufacturers 

for new model year vehicles and sets a 

deadline of early June for manufacturers 

to provide NHTSA with this 

information. However, NHTSA notes 

that a manufacturer is free to provide 

NHTSA with carry-over information 

even earlier. We consistently review 

requests throughout the year, and have 

always provided a prompt response to 

the manufacturer. 

Ford also suggested that NHTSA 

request information on new, redesigned, 

and carryover vehicles bi-annually since 

many new vehicles are introduced 

throughout the calendar year. NHTSA 

notes that since manufacturers are 

already free to submit information to 

NHTSA throughout the year, it sees no 

need to limit manufacturers to bi-annual 

submissions or to require such 

submissions. The present system, under 

which manufacturers provide 

information to the agency at their 

discretion, has made NHTSA aware of 

early vehicle launches (since 

manufacturers frequently provide this 

information in their June submissions). 

NHTSA has often included vehicles 

launched mid-year in its vehicle 

selections for NCAP testing. In addition, 

even if NHTSA does not select a vehicle 

for testing, the manufacturer can always 

request an optional NCAP test. 

Senator DeWine commented that it is 

essential that the NCAP rollover ratings 

apply only to the trim line of the vehicle 

tested, be it 4x2 or 4x4. Along these 

lines, Ford suggested that NHTSA meet 

with each manufacturer individually to 

discuss which of its vehicles NHTSA 

plans to test and the trim lines or 

variants to which the rating will apply. 

NHTSA notes that manufacturers 

already provide trim line information 

when the information is requested in 

June. NHTSA then uses this information 

(and when necessary, test data) to make 

an engineering judgment as to the trim 

lines to which the rating will apply. In 

addition, in its annual request letter, 

NHTSA asks manufacturers for the 

names of trim lines and variants of each 

model vehicle. NHTSA reviews the 

provided information and promptly 

responds in a letter to the 

manufacturers, specifying the vehicles 

to which the NCAP rating applies, 

before the vehicle is tested. This 

procedure prevents unnecessary delay 

in providing the results to customers 

(for certain trim variants) and prevents 

manufacturers from waiting until they 

receive notification of their NCAP test 

results before notifying NHTSA of sister 

vehicles and similar trim variants. 

NHTSA encourages manufacturers to 

review the letter promptly to make sure 

NHTSA’s decision on the applicability 

of ratings to sister vehicles and any trim 

variants are accurate before a vehicle is 

tested and rated. 

Ford recommended that NHTSA 

publish safety concern test procedures 

and criteria and establish a procedure 

for the agency to notify manufacturers of 

potential future safety concern items 

and criteria so that the manufacturers 

may evaluate them. In a press release 

dated April 18, 2002, NHTSA discussed 

the criteria used by the agency for safety 

concerns. In that press release, NHTSA 

stated that results that raise serious 

safety issues, but are not reflected in star 

ratings, would be noted as safety 

concerns. Because it cannot predict in 

advance all possible safety concerns, the 

agency does not believe that it is 

possible to generate an exhaustive list of 

all future safety concerns. Past safety 

concerns have included fuel leaks in 

excess of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard No. 301, door openings greater 

than six inches, injury values (not 

reflected in the star ratings) that exceed 

thresholds set forth by corresponding 

FMVSSs, and structural failure or nonintended performance of vehicle 

components during testing. Further, 

NHTSA has already made 

manufacturers aware of the types of 

issues that occurred in the past and that 

NHTSA has deemed to be safety 

concerns. Therefore, NHTSA sees no 

reason to establish yet another review 

process. 

Ford suggested that a consumer 

education program be established to 

help launch the addition of NCAP 

ratings to the Monroney label. Suggested 

information for consumers would 

include: Clear definitions of all ratings 

and terminology used on the NCAP 

label, the http://www.safercar.gov Web 

site, and the Buying a Safer Car 

Brochure; the vehicle selection process 

for vehicles scheduled for NCAP testing; 

and NCAP testing parameters and test 

timing. Many of these issues are already 

addressed at http://www.safercar.gov. 

Additionally, we will work with NADA 

and other interested parties to help 

educate dealers and consumers about 

the new safety label. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53584 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Statutory Basis for the Final Rule 

The statutory basis for the final rule 

is Section 10307 of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU), Pub. L. 109–59 

(August 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144). That 

section requires each new passenger 

automobile that has been rated under 

NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP) to have those ratings displayed 

on the Monroney label. SAFETEA–LU 

specifies a number of detailed 

requirements for the label, including 

content, format, and location. It also 

requires NHTSA (by delegation of 

authority from the Department of 

Transportation) to issue regulations to 

ensure that the new labeling 

requirements are implemented by 

September 1, 2007. 

More specifically, section 10307 

specifies that the label must: 

(1) Include a graphic depiction of the 

number of stars, or other applicable 

rating, that corresponds to each such 

assigned safety rating displayed in a 

clearly differentiated fashion indicating 

the maximum possible safety rating: 

(2) Refer to frontal impact crash tests, 

side impact crash tests, and rollover 

resistance tests; 

(3) Contain information describing the 

nature and meaning of the crash test 

data presented and a reference to 

additional vehicle safety resources, 

including http://safercar.gov; and 

(4) Present its information in a legible, 

visible, and prominent fashion and 

cover at least—

(A) 8 percent of the total area of the 

label; or 

(B) An area with a minimum length of 

41⁄2 inches and a minimum height of 31⁄2

inches. 

If an automobile has not been tested 

under the NCAP Program or safety 

ratings for such automobile have not 

been assigned in one or more categories, 

section 10307 requires a statement to 

that effect to be provided. 

In this final rule, NHTSA implements 

the requirements of section 10307 of 

SAFETEA–LU by adding a new section 

to 49 CFR part 575, Consumer 

Information. Section 575.301, Vehicle 

Labeling of Safety Rating Information, 

provides that: 

(1) New passenger automobiles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2007 must display specified NCAP 

information on a safety rating label that 

is part of their Monroney label; 

(2) The specified information must 

include a graphical depiction of the 

number of stars achieved by a vehicle 

for each safety test; 

(3) Information describing the nature 

and meaning of the test data, and 

references to http://www.safercar.gov 

and NHTSA’s toll-free hotline number 

for additional vehicle safety 

information, must be placed on the 

label; 

(4) The label must be legible with a 

minimum length of 41⁄2 inches and a 

minimum width of 31⁄2 inches or 8 

percent of the Monroney label, 

whichever is larger; 

(5) Ratings must be placed on new 

vehicles manufactured 30 or more days 

after the manufacturer receives 

notification from NHTSA of NCAP 

ratings for those vehicles. 

As discussed above, in its discretion, 

the agency decided to require that the 

label indicate the existence of safety 

concerns identified during NCAP 

testing, but not reflected in the resulting 

NCAP ratings. It also decided to require 

that the agency’s toll-free hotline 

number appear on the label and adopted 

specifications for such matters as the 

wording and arrangement of some of the 

messages and the size of the font. 

Section 575.301 permits a smaller safety 

rating label for vehicles not tested by 

NHTSA and for which no safety ratings 

have been provided in any category of 

vehicle performance. 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rule under Executive Order 12866 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. This 

rulemaking document was not reviewed 

under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning 

and Review.’’ This action has been 

determined to be ‘‘non-significant’’

under the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. The agency has concluded 

that the impacts of this rule are so 

minimal that preparation of a full 

regulatory evaluation is not required. 

This final rule implements a statutory 

requirement for manufacturers to add 

NCAP rating information to the existing 

Monroney label. We have considered 

and concluded that the one-time design 

cost, the cost of redesign to replace ‘‘Not 

Rated’’ with stars each time a vehicle is 

rated, and the increase in cost of adding 

the NCAP safety information to the 

existing Monroney label all to be minor. 

No other NCAP procedures need to be 

modified as a result of this rulemaking. 

We estimate that the cost of a label 

would be $0.08 to $0.14 per vehicle (in 

2004 dollars). This estimate assumes 

that the size of the Monroney label is 

made larger to include this information. 

If the label is kept the same size and this 

information is just added to the label, 

the cost would be about $0.01 per 

vehicle. In either case, the costs are 

considered minimal. 

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 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 

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 rule under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. There are four small 

motor vehicle manufacturers in the 

United States building vehicles that will 

be affected by this rule. There are other 

small businesses involved in multistage 

manufacturing. Those small businesses 

that are final stage manufacturers of 

covered vehicles must label their 

vehicles with the abbreviated label 

specified in this final rule as ‘‘Not 

Rated.’’ I certify that this final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The statement for the factual 

basis for this certification is that this 

rule does not add a significant economic 

cost (estimated to be less than $0.15 per 

vehicle) to the cost of a motor vehicle. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), 

a person is not required to respond to 

a collection of information by a Federal 

agency unless the collection displays a 

valid OMB control number. For the 

following reasons, NHTSA concludes 

that this final rule will not impose any 

new collection of information 

requirements for which a 5 CFR Part 

1320 clearance must be obtained. As 

earlier described, this final rule will 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53585 

require vehicle manufacturers to 

include on their Monroney labels the 

safety rating information published for 

NCAP. In the NPRM, we proposed how 

NHTSA would describe the appearance 

of the label, and specify to the 

manufacturers, in both individual letters 

to the manufacturers and on NHTSA’s 

NCAP Web site (http:// 

www.safercar.gov), the information 

specific to a particular motor vehicle 

model and make that the vehicle 

manufacturer must put on the 

Monroney label. 

Because, in this final rule, NHTSA 

specifies the format of the label, and the 

information each manufacturer must 

include on the Monroney label, this 

‘‘collection of information’’ falls within 

the exception described in 5 CFR 

Section 1320.3(c)(2) which states in 

part: ‘‘The public disclosure of 

information originally supplied by the 

Federal government to the recipient for 

the purpose of disclosure to the public 

is not included within this definition.’’

NCAP ratings are created by NHTSA. 

This final rule requires vehicle 

manufacturers to take NHTSA’s NCAP 

ratings (which NHTSA will supply to 

each manufacturer) and report them on 

Monroney labels, thus disclosing them 

to potential customers (i.e., the public). 

For vehicles with no NCAP ratings, in 

this final rule, NHTSA specifies 

verbatim, an abbreviated label with the 

statement: ‘‘This vehicle has not been 

rated by the government for frontal 

crash, side crash, or rollover risk.’’

Alterers of previously certified vehicles 

would include the following NHTSAspecified phrase on a label: ‘‘This 

vehicle has been altered. The stated star 

ratings on the safety rating label may no 

longer be applicable.’’ For these reasons, 

this final rule imposes a ‘‘collection of 

information’’ requirement for which 5 

CFR part 1320 approval need not be 

obtained. 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act and has determined that it 

will not have any significant impact on 

the quality of the human environment. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

The agency has analyzed this rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 and has determined that it does 

not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a federalism summary impact 

statement. This rule has no substantial 

effects on the States, on the current 

Federal-State relationship, or on the 

current distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various local 

officials. 

F. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule will not have any retroactive 

effect. Parties are not required to 

exhaust administrative remedies before 

filing suit in court. 

G. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 

directs us to use voluntary consensus 

standards in 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 agency searched for, but did not 

find any voluntary consensus standards 

relevant to this rule. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule will not impose any 

unfunded mandates under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. This rule will not result in costs 

of $100 million or more to either State, 

local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, 

this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575 

Consumer protection, Motor vehicle 

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tires. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 49 

CFR part 575 is amended to read as 

follows: 

PART 575—CONSUMER 

INFORMATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 575 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 30111, 301115, 

30117, 30166, and 30168, Pub. L. 104–414, 

114 Stat. 1800, Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 

1144, 15 U.S.C. 1232(g); delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

Subpart A—Regulations Issued Under 

Section 112(d) of the National Traffic 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act; General 

■ 2. The heading for subpart A is 

revised to read as set forth above. 

■ 3. Subpart D is added to read as 

follows: 

Subpart D—Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU); Consumer Information 

§ 575.301 Vehicle Labeling of Safety 

Rating Information. 

(a) Purpose and Scope. The purpose 

of this section is to aid potential 

purchasers in the selection of new 

passenger motor vehicles by providing 

them with safety rating information 

developed by NHTSA in its New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP) testing. 

Manufacturers of passenger motor 

vehicles described in paragraph (b) of 

this section are required to include this 

information on the Monroney label. 

Although NHTSA also makes the 

information available through means 

such as postings at http:// 

www.safercar.gov and http:// 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov, the additional 

Monroney label information is intended 

to provide consumers with relevant 

information at the point of sale. 

(b) Application. This section applies 

to automobiles with a GVWR of 10,000 

pounds or less, manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2007, that are required by 

the Automobile Information Disclosure 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1231–1233, to have price 

sticker labels (Monroney labels), e.g., 

passenger vehicles, station wagons, 

passenger vans, sport utility vehicles, 

and recreational vehicles. 

(c) Definitions. (1) Monroney label 

means the label placed on new 

automobiles with the manufacturer’s 

suggested retail price and other 

consumer information, as specified at 15 

U.S.C. 1231–1233. 

(2) Safety rating label means the label 

with NCAP safety rating information, as 

specified at 15 U.S.C. 1232(g). The 

safety rating label is part of the 

Monroney label. 

(d) Required Label. (1) Except as 

specified in paragraph (f) of this section, 

each vehicle must have a safety rating 

label that is part of its Monroney label, 

meets the requirements specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section, and 

conforms in content, format and 

sequence to the sample label depicted in 

Figure 1 of this section. If NHTSA has 

not provided a safety rating for any 

category of vehicle performance for a 

vehicle, the manufacturer may use the 

smaller label specified in paragraph (f) 

of this section. 

(2) The label must depict the star 

ratings for that vehicle as reported to the 

vehicle manufacturer by NHTSA. 

(3) Whenever NHTSA informs a 

manufacturer in writing of a new safety 

rating for a specified vehicle or the 

continued applicability of an existing 

safety rating for a new model year, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53586 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

including any safety concerns, the 

manufacturer shall include the new or 

continued safety rating on vehicles 

manufactured on or after the date 30 

calendar days after receipt by the 

manufacturer of the information. 

(4) If, for a vehicle that has an existing 

safety rating for a category, NHTSA 

informs the manufacturer in writing that 

it has approved an optional NCAP test 

that will cover that category, the 

manufacturer may depict vehicles 

manufactured on or after the date of 

receipt of the information as ‘‘Not 

Rated’’ or ‘‘To Be Rated’’ for that 

category. 

(5) The text ‘‘Frontal Crash,’’ ‘‘Side 

Crash,’’ ‘‘Rollover,’’ ‘‘Driver,’’

‘‘Passenger,’’ ‘‘Front Seat,’’ ‘‘Rear Seat’’

and where applicable, ‘‘Not Rated’’ or 

‘‘To Be Rated,’’ the star graphic 

indicating each rating, as well as any 

text in the header and footer areas of the 

label, must have a minimum font size of 

12 point. All remaining text and 

symbols on the label (including the star 

graphic specified in paragraph 

(e)(8)(i)(A) of this section, must have a 

minimum font size of 8 point. 

(e) Required Information and Format. 

(1) Safety Rating Label Border. The 

safety rating label must be surrounded 

by a solid dark line that is a minimum 

of 3 points in width. 

(2) Safety Rating Label Size and 

Legibility. The safety rating label must 

be presented in a legible, visible, and 

prominent fashion that covers at least 8 

percent of the total area of the 

Monroney label (i.e., including the 

safety rating label) or an area with a 

minimum of 41⁄2 inches in length and 

31⁄2 inches in height on the Monroney 

label, whichever is larger. 

(3) Heading Area. The words 

‘‘Government Safety Ratings’’ must be in 

boldface, capital letters that are light in 

color and centered. The background 

must be dark. 

(4) Frontal Crash Area. (i) The frontal 

crash area must be placed immediately 

below the heading area and must have 

dark text and a light background. Both 

the driver and the right front passenger 

frontal crash test ratings must be 

displayed with the maximum star 

ratings achieved. 

(ii) The words ‘‘Frontal Crash’’ must 

be in boldface, cover two lines, and be 

aligned to the left side of the label. 

(iii) The word ‘‘Driver’’ must be on 

the same line as the word ‘‘Frontal’’ in 

‘‘Frontal Crash,’’ and must be aligned in 

the center of the label. The achieved star 

rating for ‘‘Driver’’ must be on the same 

line, aligned to the right side of the 

label. 

(iv) If NHTSA has not released the 

star rating for the ‘‘Driver’’ position, the 

text ‘‘Not Rated’’ must be used in 

boldface. However, as an alternative, the 

words ‘‘To Be Rated’’ (in boldface) may 

be used if the manufacturer has received 

written notification from NHTSA that 

the vehicle has been chosen for NCAP 

testing. 

(v) The word ‘‘Passenger’’ must be on 

the same line as the word ‘‘Crash’’ in 

‘‘Frontal Crash,’’ below the word 

‘‘Driver,’’ and centered. The achieved 

star rating for ‘‘Passenger’’ must be on 

the same line, aligned to the right side 

of the label. 

(vi) If NHTSA has not released the 

star rating for ‘‘Passenger,’’ the words 

‘‘Not Rated’’ must be used in boldface. 

However, as an alternative, the words 

‘‘To Be Rated’’ (in boldface) may be 

used if the manufacturer has received 

written notification from NHTSA that 

the vehicle has been chosen for NCAP 

testing. 

(vii) The words ‘‘Star ratings based on 

the risk of injury in a frontal impact.’’, 

followed (on the next line) by the 

statement ‘‘Frontal ratings should ONLY 

be compared to other vehicles of similar 

size and weight.’’ must be placed at the 

bottom of the frontal crash area. 

(5) Side Crash Area. (i) The side crash 

area must be immediately below the 

frontal crash area, separated by a dark 

line that is a minimum of three points 

in width. The text must be dark against 

a light background. Both the driver and 

the rear seat passenger side crash test 

rating must be displayed with the 

maximum star rating achieved. 

(ii) The words ‘‘Side Crash’’ must 

cover two lines, and be aligned to the 

left side of the label in boldface. 

(iii) The words ‘‘Front Seat’’ must be 

on the same line as the word ‘‘Side’’ in 

‘‘Side Crash’’ and be centered. The 

achieved star rating for ‘‘Front Seat’’

must be on the same line and aligned to 

the right side of the label. 

(iv) If NHTSA has not released the 

star rating for ‘‘Front Seat,’’ the words 

‘‘Not Rated’’ must be used in boldface. 

However, as an alternative, the words 

‘‘To Be Rated’’ (in boldface) may be 

used if the manufacturer has received 

written notification from NHTSA that 

the vehicle has been chosen for NCAP 

testing. 

(v) The words ‘‘Rear Seat’’ must be on 

the same line as the word ‘‘Crash’’ in 

‘‘Side Crash,’’ below the words ‘‘Front 

Seat,’’ and centered. The achieved star 

rating for ‘‘Rear Seat’’ must be on the 

same line, aligned to the right side of 

the label. 

(vi) If NHTSA has not released the 

star rating for ‘‘Rear Seat,’’ the text ‘‘Not 

Rated’’ must be used in boldface. 

However, as an alternative, the text ‘‘To 

Be Rated’’ (in boldface) may be used if 

the manufacturer has received written 

notification from NHTSA that the 

vehicle has been chosen for NCAP 

testing. 

(vii) The words: ‘‘Star ratings based 

on the risk of injury in a side impact.’’

must be placed at the bottom of the side 

crash area. 

(6) Rollover Area. (i) The rollover area 

must be immediately below the side 

crash area, separated by a dark line that 

is a minimum of three points in width. 

The text must be dark against a light 

background. The rollover test rating 

must be displayed with the maximum 

star rating achieved. 

(ii) The word ‘‘Rollover’’ must be 

aligned to the left side of the label in 

boldface. The achieved star rating must 

be on the same line, aligned to the right 

side of the label. 

(iii) If NHTSA has not tested the 

vehicle, the words ‘‘Not Rated’’ must be 

used in boldface. However, as an 

alternative, the words ‘‘To Be Rated’’ (in 

boldface) may be used if the 

manufacturer has received written 

notification from NHTSA that the 

vehicle has been chosen for NCAP 

testing. 

(iv) The words: ‘‘Star ratings based on 

the risk of rollover in a single vehicle 

crash.’’ must be placed at the bottom of 

the rollover area. 

(7) Graphics. The star graphic is 

depicted in Figure 3 and the safety 

concern graphic is depicted in Figure 4. 

(8) General Information Area. (i) The 

general information area must be 

immediately below the rollover area, 

separated by a dark line that is a 

minimum of three points in width. The 

text must be dark and the background 

must be light. The text must state the 

following, in the specified order, on 

separate lines: 

(A) ‘‘ Star ratings range from 1 to 5 

stars (★★★★★), with 5 being the 

highest.’’ and 

(B) ‘‘Source: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA)’’

(9) Footer Area. The text 

‘‘www.safercar.gov or 1–888–327–4236’’

must be provided in boldface letters that 

are light in color, and be centered. The 

background must be dark. 

(10) Safety Concern. For vehicle tests 

for which NHTSA reports a safety 

concern as part of the star rating, the 

label must: 

(i) Depict, as a superscript to the star 

rating, the related symbol, as depicted 

in Figure 4 of this section, at 2⁄3 the font 

size of the base star, and 

(ii) Include at the bottom of the 

relevant area (i.e., frontal crash area, 

side crash area, rollover area), as the last 

line of that area, the related symbol, as 

depicted in Figure 4 of this section, in 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53587 

the same font size as the rest of the line, 

and the text ‘‘Safety Concern: Visit 

http://www.safecar.gov or call 1–888–

327–4236 for more details.’’

(11) No additional information may be 

provided in the safety rating label area. 

The specified information provided in a 

language other than English is not 

considered to be additional information. 

(f) Smaller Safety Rating Label for 

Vehicles with No Ratings. (1) If NHTSA 

has not released a safety rating for any 

category for a vehicle, the manufacturer 

may use a smaller safety rating label that 

meets paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(5) of 

this section. A sample label is depicted 

in Figure 2. 

(2) The label must be at least 41⁄2

inches in width and 11⁄2 inches in 

height. 

(3) Heading Area. The text must read 

‘‘Government Safety Ratings’’ and be in 

12-point boldface, capital letters that are 

light in color, and be centered. The 

background must be dark. 

(4) General Information. The general 

information area must be below the 

header area. The text must be dark and 

the background must be light. The text 

must state the following, in 8-point font, 

in the specified order: 

(i) ‘‘This vehicle has not been rated by 

the government for frontal crash, side 

crash, or rollover risk.’’

(ii) ‘‘Source: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA).’’

(5) Footer Area. The text 

‘‘www.safercar.gov or 1–888–327–4236’’

must be provided in boldface letters that 

are light in color, and be centered. The 

background must be dark. 

(6) No additional information may be 

provided in the smaller safety rating 

label area. The specified information 

provided in a language other than 

English is not considered to be 

additional information. 

(g) Labels for alterers. (1) If, pursuant 

to 49 CFR 567.7, a person is required to 

affix a certification label to a vehicle, 

and the vehicle has a safety rating label 

with one or more safety ratings, the 

alterer must also place another label on 

that vehicle as specified in this 

paragraph. 

(2) The additional label (which does 

not replace the one required by 49 CFR 

567.7) must read: ‘‘This vehicle has 

been altered. The stated star ratings on 

the safety rating label may no longer be 

applicable.’’

(3) The label must be placed adjacent 

to the Monroney label or as close to it 

as physically possible. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53588 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULESER12SE06.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53589 

Issued on: September 1, 2006. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–7501 Filed 9–7–06; 10:00 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU32 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Rota Bridled White-Eye 

(Zosterops rotensis) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for the Rota 

Bridled White-eye (Zosterops rotensis) 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, 

approximately 3,958 acres (ac) (1,602 

hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation on the 

Island of Rota, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

October 12, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, will be available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at the 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Ala 

Moana Boulevard, Room 3–122, Box 

50088, Honolulu, HI 96850 (telephone 

808–792–9400). The final rule and 

economic analysis will also be available 

on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ 

pacificislands. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor, 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 

at the above address (telephone 808–

792–9400; facsimile 808–792–9581). 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339, 7 days a week 

and 24 hours a day. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act 

Attention to and protection of habitat 

is paramount to successful conservation 

actions. The role that designation of 

critical habitat plays in protecting 

habitat of listed species, however, is 

often misunderstood. As discussed in 

more detail below in the discussion of 

exclusions under the Act section 4(b)(2), 

there are significant limitations on the 

regulatory effect of designation under 

the Act section 7(a)(2). In brief, (1) 

Designation provides additional 

protection to habitat only where there is 

a Federal nexus; (2) the protection is 

relevant only when, in the absence of 

designation, destruction or adverse 

modification of the critical habitat 

would in fact take place (in other words, 

other statutory or regulatory protections, 

policies, or other factors relevant to 

agency decision-making would not 

prevent the destruction or adverse 

modification); and (3) designation of 

critical habitat triggers the prohibition 

of destruction or adverse modification 

of that habitat, but it does not require 

specific actions to restore or improve 

habitat. 

Currently, only 475 species, or 36 

percent of the 1,310 listed species in the 

U.S. under the jurisdiction of the 

Service, have designated critical habitat. 

We address the habitat needs of all 

1,310 listed species through 

conservation mechanisms such as 

listing, section 7 consultations, the 

section 4 recovery planning process, the 

section 9 protective prohibitions of 

unauthorized take, section 6 funding to 

the States, the section 10 incidental take 

permit process, and cooperative, 

nonregulatory efforts with private 

landowners. The Service believes that it 

is these measures that may make the 

difference between extinction and 

survival for many species. 

In considering exclusions of areas 

originally proposed for designation, we 

evaluated the benefits of designation in 

light of Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004). In that 

case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the 

Service’s regulation defining 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat.’’ In response, on 

December 9, 2004, the Director issued 

guidance to be considered in making 

section 7 adverse modification 

determinations. This critical habitat 

designation does not use the invalidated 

regulation in our consideration of the 

benefits of including areas in this final 

designation. The Service will carefully 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULESER12SE06.003</GPH> ER12SE06.004</GPH>