[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 12, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53572-53589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7501]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 53573]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ P.L. 109-59 (August 10, 2005); 119 Stat. 1144.
    \2\ The 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 4\1/2\ inches and a 
minimum height of 3\1/2\ 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.''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 4\1/2\ 
inches and a minimum width of 3\1/2\ 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

[[Page 53574]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For a complete discussion of the issues raised in the NPRM, 
please refer to the January 30, 2006 NPRM (71 FR 4854).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Frontal and rollover rating have been done for vehicles 
under 8,500 lbs GVWR, and side impact ratings for vehicles under 
6,000 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 two- and 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

[[Page 53575]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 53576]]

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 4\1/2\ inches and a minimum height of 
3\1/2\ 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 4\1/2\ inches and a minimum 
height of 3\1/2\ 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 4\1/2\ by 3\1/2\ (inches) minimum size. 
NADA stated that manufacturers should be urged to minimize the size of 
Monroney labels in order to limit field-of-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 4\1/2\ 
inches and a minimum height of 3\1/2\ 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 4\1/2\ inches by 3\1/2\ 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 
4\1/2\ inches by 3\1/2\ 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-of-vision 
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 
4\1/2\ by 3\1/2\ 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 4\1/2\ inches and a minimum height of 3\1/2\ inches.'' 
Accordingly, the agency is revising the safety rating label example. In 
this final rule, we will provide length (4\1/2\ inches) and height 
(3\1/2\ 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 4\1/2\ inches in width and 
1\1/2\ inch in height.
    (2) The label will have the same header, footer, and font size 
requirements as the 8 percent/4\1/2\ inches by 3\1/2\ 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/4\1/2\ inches by 3\1/2\ 
inches label.
    We note that manufacturers should be aware that for vehicles that 
are

[[Page 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/4\1/2\ inches by 3\1/2\ 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 point-of-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 
([starf][starf][starf][starf][starf]) with 5 being the highest''. This 
proposed approach would fulfill

[[Page 53578]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Focus Groups Regarding Presentations of Crash Test 
Anomalies'' NHTSA-2004-19104-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, NHTSA proposed that when testing identifies a 
safety concern associated with a vehicle, the symbol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE06.001

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 53579]]

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 ([starf][starf][starf][starf][starf]) 
with 5 being the highest,'' be in the general

[[Page 53580]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``http://www.safercar.gov, Agency Press Releases, Buying a 
Safer Car Brochure.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 carry-over 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Carry-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.
    \13\ Through carry-over vehicles and new testing, NCAP provides 
ratings for about 80 percent of the (non-motorcycle) passenger 
vehicle fleet each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-carryover) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Most car models come in more than one trim line, each of 
which has different standard equipment and available options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Initial criteria published on August 21, 1987 (52 FR 
31691), and then revised on February 5, 1988 (53 FR 3479).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every year, a number of tests are conducted under this program, 
with

[[Page 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 mid-year, 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 self-certification 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

[[Page 53582]]

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 
re-labeling 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 re-labeling 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.

[[Page 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 mid-
March 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 
non-intended 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.

[[Page 53584]]

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 4\1/2\ inches and a minimum 
height of 3\1/2\ 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 4\1/2\ 
inches and a minimum width of 3\1/2\ 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

[[Page 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 
NHTSA-specified 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.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 575 is amended to read 
as follows:

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 575 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

0
2. The heading for subpart A is revised to read as set forth above.
0
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


Sec.  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,

[[Page 53586]]

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 
4\1/2\ inches in length and 3\1/2\ inches in height on the Monroney 
label, whichever is larger.
    (3) Heading Area. The words ``Government 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 
([starf][starf][starf][starf][starf]), 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

[[Page 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 4\1/2\ inches in width and 1\1/2\ 
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

[[Page 53588]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE06.002


[[Page 53589]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE06.004


    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