274 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

SUMMARY: This final rule completes the

rulemaking necessary to issue revisions

to the Transportation Acquisition

Regulation (TAR) which were published

in the November 3, 1995 Federal

Register (60 FR 55801) as an interim

final rule with a request for comments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elaine Wheeler, Office of Acquisition

and Grant Management, M–61, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590: (202) 366–4272.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

On November 3, 1995, revisions to the

TAR were published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 55801) as an interim

final rule. Comments were solicited

from interested parties, including the

public and other Federal agencies and

none were received. The interim final

rule established a public comment

period which closed on December 4,

1995. This notice finalizes that

rulemaking.

B. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

The Department has determined that

this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities because the

basic policies remain unchanged and

only editorial corrections or

administrative changes are being made.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because the changes to the

TAR do not impose additional record

keeping information collection

requirements, or additional collections

of information from offerors,

contractors, or members of the public

which require the approval of the Office

of Management and Budget under 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1215,

1252, and 1253

Government procurement.

The interim final rule amending 12

CFR parts 1215, 1252, and 1253 which

was published at 60 FR 55801 on

November 3, 1995, is adopted as a final

rule without change.

This final rule is issued under

delegated authority under 49 CFR part

1.59(q). This authority has been

redelegated to the Senior Procurement

Executive.

Issued this 22nd day of December 1995, at

Washington, DC.

David J. Litman,

Senior Procurement Executive.

[FR Doc. 96–105 Filed 1–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 573, 576, and 577

[Docket No. 93–68; Notice 8]

RIN 2127–AG15

Defect and Noncompliance Reports;

Record Retention; and Defect and

Noncompliance Notification

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant in part and denial in part

of petitions for reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) is granting in

part petitions for reconsideration of an

April 5, 1995 final rule that, among

other things, amended 49 CFR Parts 573,

576, and 577 (60 FR 17254). On

reconsideration, the agency is amending

provisions of that final rule concerning

submission by manufacturers of

schedules for recall campaigns,

recordkeeping regarding recalls of

leased vehicles, record retention period,

and notification to lessees of recall

campaigns. NHTSA has concluded that

these changes will reduce manufacturer

burdens without adversely affecting the

agency’s recall program.

DATES: Effective date: The amendments

made by this final rule are effective on

January 4, 1996.

Any petitions for reconsideration

must be received by NHTSA no later

than February 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for

reconsideration should refer to the

docket and notice number of this notice

and be submitted to: Docket Section,

Room 5109, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.

(Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4

p.m., Monday through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonathan D. White, Office of Defects

Investigation, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Room 5319, Washington, DC

20590; (202) 366–5227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This final rule amends several

sections of 49 CFR Parts 573, 576, and

577, as those parts were recently

amended on April 5, 1995. These

changes are being adopted by NHTSA in

response to four petitions for

reconsideration of the April 5 final rule

that were submitted by the Association

of International Automobile

Manufacturers (AIAM), Chrysler

Corporation (Chrysler), Ford Motor

Company (Ford), and General Motors

Corporation (GM).

In addition to seeking substantive

changes, the petitions asked for an

extension of the original May 5, 1995

effective date of the April 5

amendments on the ground that it

would be difficult to achieve

compliance by that date. On May 16,

1995, the agency published a notice in

the Federal Register setting a new

effective date of July 7, 1995 for the

April 5 amendments. 60 FR 26002.

Subsequently, on July 7, 1995, NHTSA

suspended until further notice the

effective date of four of the provisions

for which the petitioners had sought

reconsideration. 60 FR 35458. That

notice also confirmed that all other

provisions of the April 5 final rule

would go into effect on July 7, 1995.

In September 1995, the Office of the

Federal Register informed NHTSA that

it could not leave the effective date of

a regulation indefinite, as it had done in

the July 7 Federal Register notice.

Accordingly, NHTSA published another

notice setting January 2, 1996, as the

effective date of those four provisions,

pending the decision on

reconsideration. 60 FR 50476 (Sept. 29,

1995).

Based on its review of the petitions

for reconsideration, NHTSA also

decided that it would be advisable to

obtain further information from the

public on four of the issues raised in the

petitions. Accordingly, the agency

announced that it would hold a public

meeting in Detroit, Michigan to receive

oral presentations on those issues and to

ask questions of those present, and that

it would also receive written comments

on those issues. 60 FR 35459 (July 7,

1995).

The following five entities made

presentations at the Detroit meeting,

which took place on July 24, 1995:

AIAM, Chrysler, Ford, GM, and the R.

L. Polk Company (Polk). The following

ten entities submitted written comments

to the public docket: Advocates for

Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates),

American Automotive Leasing

Association (AALA), American Honda

Motor Company, Inc. (Honda),

Association of Consumer Vehicle

Lessors (ACVL), Ford, GM, Institute of

International Container Lessors (IICL),

National Automobile Dealers

Association (NADA), National Vehicle

Leasing Association (NVLA), and Truck

Renting and Leasing Association

(TRALA). In addition, NHTSA placed a

written transcript of the Detroit meeting

in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 275

The notice published today grants the

petitions for reconsideration with

respect to the four provisions specified

above and denies the petitions insofar as

they sought amendments to other

provisions of the April 5 final rule. The

four provisions pertain to the

enforcement of the provisions of

Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United

States Code (49 U.S.C. § § 30101–30169)

that set forth the obligations of

manufacturers of motor vehicles and

motor vehicle equipment to provide

notification that motor vehicles or items

of motor vehicle equipment contain a

safety-related defect or do not comply

with a Federal motor vehicle safety

standard and to remedy the defect or

noncompliance without charge. 49

U.S.C. 30116–30121. The provisions of

the final rule regarding notification of

defects and noncompliances in leased

vehicles implement a provision of the

Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) that

requires vehicle lessors to send their

lessees a copy of notifications received

from manufacturers regarding a safetyrelated defect or noncompliance in the

lessees’ vehicles. 49 U.S.C. 30119(f).

Amendments to Part 573—Defect and

Noncompliance Reports

NHTSA is amending two sections of

49 CFR Part 573, one that sets forth

requirements regarding the submittal by

manufacturers of schedules for owner

notification and remedy campaigns

(recalls) under certain circumstances

(section 573.5(c)(8)), and one that

specifies recordkeeping requirements

for manufacturers in connection with

recalls of leased vehicles (section

573.7(d) and (e)).

Schedule for Recall Campaigns

In order to address an increase in the

number of recalls in which there has

been a significant delay between the

manufacturer’s decision that a defect or

noncompliance exists and the

commencement and conclusion of the

manufacturer’s recall campaign, NHTSA

included in the April 5 final rule a

requirement that manufacturers include

in their defect/noncompliance reports

submitted to NHTSA pursuant to 49

U.S.C. 30119 and 49 CFR Part 573 (Part

573 Report) a detailed schedule for

those notification campaigns that would

not begin within thirty days of the Part

573 Report or end within 75 days of that

Report. Several petitioners objected to

this requirement as unnecessary and

unduly burdensome. In oral statements

at the public meeting and in their

written comments, manufacturers

indicated that the time periods specified

in the final rule would mean that

detailed schedules would be required in

most recalls, because most notification

campaigns are either begun more than

30 days after the Part 573 Report or not

completed within 75 days of that

Report. In addition, they asserted that

the need to file detailed scheduling

information with NHTSA at the outset

of most recalls would have the effect of

delaying implementation of recalls,

because personnel and resources would

have to be taken away from other

aspects of recall implementation to

ensure compliance with the added

reporting requirements.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30119(c),

manufacturers must notify owners,

purchasers, and dealers of safety defects

and noncompliances ‘‘within a

reasonable time’’ after the decision that

the defect or noncompliance exists.

NHTSA continues to believe strongly

that safety recalls should be

implemented as soon as reasonably

possible. However, it also recognizes

that the concerns raised by the

manufacturers are serious and need to

be considered.

In order to make the rule more

responsive both to the manufacturers’

concerns and to the public safety

interest in prompt notification of safetyrelated defects and noncompliances,

NHTSA has decided to modify the

burdensome aspects of the recall

schedule provisions of the April 5 final

rule. Thus, the agency is deleting the

requirement that extensive scheduling

information and explanatory material be

provided in the manufacturer’s Part 573

Report in instances where notification

would begin more than 30 days after the

Part 573 Report is submitted or end

more than 75 days after the Report.

Instead, under the rule adopted today,

manufacturers will only be required to

include in their Part 573 Reports the

estimated date when owners will first be

notified that a remedy for the defect or

noncompliance is available and the

estimated date when all owners will

have been so notified.

No additional scheduling information

will be required under the regulation. In

those relatively rare instances where the

agency wishes to further examine

whether the manufacturer’s time frame

for the recall is reasonable under the

circumstances, it may request more

detailed information from the

manufacturer on a case-by-case basis.

As NHTSA noted in the preamble to

the April 5 final rule, in most cases,

manufacturers develop a recall

implementation schedule for their own

internal use at the time they decide that

a defect or noncompliance exists, or

promptly thereafter. The final rule

adopted today simply requires

manufacturers to provide the agency

with the two most basic elements of this

scheduling information when they file

their Part 573 Reports. Under this

revision, manufacturers will have

flexibility to tailor the recall notification

schedule to the circumstances of the

particular recall, with far less of a

reporting burden, while NHTSA will

retain the ability, on a case-by-case

basis, to ensure that the timing of recall

notification is reasonable. The agency is

retaining its authority, as set forth in

new section 577.7(a)(1), to order a

manufacturer to notify owners on a

specific date when it finds, after

consideration of available information

and the views of the manufacturer, that

such notification is in the public

interest.

NHTSA recognizes that in some cases

a manufacturer may not have any

scheduling information at the time it

submits its Part 573 Report (e.g., where

the remedy has not been developed or

tested, or where the scope of the recall

is uncertain). In such instances, the

manufacturer should indicate in the

Report that the information is not

available. Thereafter, in accordance

with section 573.5(b), the required

information ‘‘shall be submitted as it

becomes available.’’

On reconsideration, NHTSA has also

decided to rescind new section

573.5(c)(8)(iii), which would have

required a manufacturer to describe all

factors that it anticipated could interfere

with its ability to adhere to the

proposed recall schedule and to

describe with specificity the likely effect

of each of those factors. The agency

believes that the burden of requiring

advance information about events

which might never actually have any

effect on the recall significantly

outweighs whatever safety benefit might

be derived from it. In addition, the

agency believes that the purpose of that

requirement can as readily be served by

the requirement, retained in today’s

final rule, that a manufacturer must

promptly advise NHTSA if

circumstances arise that can result in

unanticipated delays of two weeks or

more in recall campaign

implementation. This requirement,

formerly included in section

573.5(c)(8)(iv), is now renumbered as

§ 573.5(c)(8)(ii).

This final rule renumbers sections

573.5(c)(8) (v) and (vi) as sections

573.5(c)(8) (iii) and (iv), respectively,

and makes minor changes in those

paragraphs to reflect the changes to this

section described above, but makes no

substantive changes. These provisions

are concerned with the effect on the

requirement to file a notification
276 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

schedule of a manufacturer’s intent to

submit a petition for an exemption from

the recall requirements of the statute on

the ground that the defect or

noncompliance is inconsequential.

Recordkeeping Regarding Recalls of

Leased Vehicles

After reviewing the petitions for

reconsideration and the oral and written

comments, NHTSA has decided to

revise 49 CFR § 573.7 (d) and (e), which

imposed requirements on manufacturers

and lessors to maintain lists of the

names and addresses of ‘‘known’’

lessees of vehicles covered by recall

campaigns.

All of the manufactures that

participated in the reconsideration

process stated that the divisions of the

company that deal with recalls and

maintain owner lists do not know

whether a particular vehicle is leased.

However, the manufacturers were

concerned that they could be held

responsible under the rule for

‘‘knowing’’ that a vehicle was leased

because that information is contained in

records maintained elsewhere in the

organization, such as corporate offices

or subsidiaries involved with fleet

operations or consumer credit matters.

These manufacturers stated that it

would be extremely costly and timeconsuming to integrate their leased

vehicle records with the vehicle owner

lists prepared in connection with recall

campaigns. Such records are generally

maintained in separate databases in

separate parts of the company and

integrating the databases and

reprogramming the systems to generate

the information in the manner required

by section 573.7(d) would require many

months of work and substantial

additional financial cost. Similarly,

Polk, which is the principal source of

vehicle registration information used by

manufacturers in recall mailings, stated

at the public meeting that it could not

specifically identify for their

manufacturer clients which vehicles on

a given list of registered vehicles were

leased. Finally, even apart from cost

considerations, the manufacturers

contended that they should not have to

bear the burden of maintaining records

reflecting lessee notification, since that

should be the responsibility of the

vehicle lessors.

On the basis of the foregoing

information, NHTSA has concluded that

any benefit to be gained by requiring

manufacturers to identify those vehicles

on its recall notification lists that are

leased and the person or entity to whom

notification was sent as the lessor or

lessee is far outweighed by the cost and

time burdens that manufacturers would

incur to implement such a system.

Moreover, the agency agrees that it is

not appropriate to require

manufacturers to bear the burdens

associated with keeping records

regarding the notification of lessees,

when Congress imposed the

responsibility for such notification on

the lessors.

Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to

rescind in its entirety section 573.7(d) of

the April 5 final rule. The agency will

monitor lessor compliance with

notification requirements of section

30119(f) through direct contact with

lessors rather than by reviewing

manufacturer records. To identify such

lessors, NHTSA plans to obtain

information from manufacturers and

lessor organizations.

For similar reasons, the agency is also

amending section 573.7(e), which

primarily sets forth recordkeeping

requirements applicable to lessors, by

deleting language in the last two

sentences that are applicable to record

retention by manufacturers who send

out recall notifications directly to

lessees pursuant to agreements with

lessors. Such lessees are, in effect, being

notified as if they were owners, without

any lessor involvement, so there is no

need to apply additional recordkeeping

burdens on the manufacturers to assure

compliance requirements of section

30119(f).

Two commenters, AALA and TRALA,

representing lessors, contended that the

recordkeeping requirements for lessors

set forth in section 573.7(e) are overly

burdensome and time consuming

because they require them to establish

new systems for keeping these records.

In addition, AALA questioned the

utility of requiring lessors to maintain

these records in light of the fact that,

once the lease has expired, the vehicle

generally undergoes one or more rapid

changes of ownership. AALA

questioned the purpose behind the

requirement to maintain records on

‘‘vehicles whose future ownership the

lessor would be unable to verify.’’

The purpose of this recordkeeping

requirement is not to verify ‘‘future

ownership’’ of vehicles; it is to give

NHTSA a means of verifying that lessors

are complying with their duty to

provide their lessees with copies of

safety recall notifications. This is

analogous to the requirement that

manufacturers must keep a record of

recall notifications sent to registered

owners.

The agency has made every effort to

ensure that the recordkeeping

requirements impose as little burden as

possible on lessors. The information

required is minimal (less than what is

required of manufacturers), and it

should not entail great expenditure of

resources to develop and maintain a

record retention system. For these

reasons, NHTSA is retaining the

substantive requirements of section

573.7(e) as they apply to the lists that

must be maintained by lessors.

Amendments to Part 576—Record

Retention

Prior to the April 5 final rule, 49 CFR

§ 576.5 required vehicle manufacturers

to retain relevant records for five years

from the date they are generated or

acquired. The April 5 rule amended

section 576.5 to require such records to

be maintained for eight years from the

last date of the model year in which the

vehicle to which the records relate was

produced. After considering the

petitions for reconsiderations and the

oral and written comments submitted

on this subject, NHTSA has decided to

rescind the amendment to section 576.5

and reinstate the preexisting

requirement.

The primary reason for this decision

is the time and cost burdens that the

amendment would have placed upon

vehicle manufacturers. Several

manufacturers stated that it would be

highly costly and extremely time

consuming to change their

computerized record keeping systems to

comply with the new record retention

requirements. The agency has

concluded that the safety benefit that

would be derived from revising the

record retention period requirements

would be far outweighed by costs and

other burdens on resources that would

be incurred by manufacturers in order to

make the change.

The agency is also making a technical

amendment to 49 CFR § 576.6, which

defines the records that must be

retained by manufacturers under Part

576. Ford pointed out that in the text of

the April 5 amendment, the word

‘‘such’’ does not appear as a modifier to

the term ‘‘malfunctions’’ the second

time that word appears (in the second

sentence of the section). Ford expressed

concern that the removal of the word

‘‘such’’ could be construed to broaden

the scope of the section to cover

additional types of records beyond those

related to motor vehicle safety.

The agency does not agree that the

slight change in the wording of this

phrase would have had a substantive

affect on the record retention

requirements, since the revised language

specified that the requirement only

applied to records of ‘‘malfunctions that

may be related to motor vehicle safety.’’

Nevertheless, to prevent any possible

misunderstanding, NHTSA is making a
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 277

technical amendment to this section to

reinstate the preexisting wording. The

agency wishes to emphasize that the

April 5 amendment to section 576.6 that

clarified that the record retention

requirements apply to records made on

electronic media has not changed, and

remains in effect.

Amendments to Part 577—Defect and

Noncompliance Notification

In its September 1993 notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to

implement the ISTEA requirement that

vehicle lessors furnish their lessees with

copies of notifications of safety-related

defects and noncompliances in leased

vehicles, NHTSA proposed to require

manufacturers to include language in all

recall notification letters to lessors that

would remind them of their statutory

obligations. Several comments

submitted in response to the NPRM

pointed out that it would be very

difficult for manufacturers to identify

which owners were lessors. On the basis

of those comments, the April 5 final rule

added a new section 577.5(h), which

required manufacturers to include

language describing a lessor’s obligation

to notify lessees of safety recalls in all

owner notification letters.

During the reconsideration process,

this requirement was vigorously

challenged. Most commenters stated

that the inclusion of lessor/lessee

language in all owner notification letters

would add clutter to the letter and could

confuse the recipients of the owner

notification letter who are not lessors/

lessees. In addition, commenters

representing various elements of the

leased vehicle industry generally

expressed the view that requiring

manufacturers to notify lessors of their

obligations is unnecessary for several

alternative reasons: (1) Many lessors

have an arrangement with

manufacturers in which the latter mails

recall letters directly to individuals on

a list furnished by the lessor; (2) many

individual lessees receive notification

letters directly from manufacturers

because the name of the lessee appears

on the title as the owner; and (3) many

lessors are already aware of their

obligations and are complying with

them.

These commenters also argued that

the rule as written failed to take into

account several features of the leased

vehicle market: e.g., the fact that in

consumer leasing, the lessee is likely to

be the driver, whereas in commercial

leasing, the vehicles will be driven by

individuals who are not the lessee of

record; and the fact that some lessors

regard their lists of lessees as trade

secrets and do not disclose them to

manufacturers (which are often

perceived as competitors).

On reconsideration, the agency has

concluded that section 577.5(h) should

be rescinded. The likely confusion

resulting from the inclusion of this

information in all owner notification

letters will outweigh any potential

safety benefit associated with reminding

lessors of their obligations, particularly

since there is reason to believe that most

lessors are already aware of those

obligations. However, since it is likely

that not all lessors are aware of the duty

to notify their lessees of recalls, the

agency believes that further steps are

appropriate to maximize the number of

lessors that are informed of their

obligations under the statute and

regulations. To that end, NHTSA plans

to send a notice to vehicle lessors

informing them of their statutory and

regulatory obligations with respect to

recall notification of their lessees. The

agency will also monitor the

performance of such lessors through

periodic compliance reviews. The

agency plans to identify vehicle lessors

from several sources, including

manufacturers, lessor associations, and

commercial publications.

Other Issues

The agency has also considered issues

raised by petitioners and commenters

concerning other aspects of the April 5

final rule. Several entities asserted that

NHTSA should have allowed more time

to comply with the April 5

amendments. The agency recognized

that the original 30-day period may not

have allowed sufficient time for those

affected by the changes to come into

compliance. However, NHTSA remains

convinced that the extension of the

effective date for the provisions not

affected by the petitions for

reconsideration to July 7 (providing a

total of over 90 days) was sufficient.

Most of the concerns about the time

centered on the provisions regarding

manufacturer recordkeeping for leased

car notifications (section 573.7) and the

changes in the duration of the record

retention requirements of section 576.5.

However, those concerns are now moot

due to the substantive changes made to

those sections on reconsideration.

The other issues raised by the

petitions for reconsideration were

essentially restatements of arguments

made during the comment period prior

to issuance of the final rule. The agency

has concluded that no change of those

provisions is warranted.

Advocates objected to the fact that

NHTSA postponed the effective date of

several provisions of the final rule while

it was considering the merits of the

petitions for reconsideration. It noted

that the agency had recently failed to

stay a regulatory action when Advocates

filed a petition for reconsideration.

Under 49 CFR § 553.35(d), a petition

for reconsideration does not stay the

effectiveness of a rule ‘‘unless the

Administrator so provides.’’ Thus, a

decision whether or not to stay the

effective date of a rule pending

consideration of petitions for

reconsideration is within the discretion

of the Administrator.

In the Federal Register notice that

first extended the effective date of all

provisions of the April 5 rule from May

5 to July 7, 1995 (60 FR 26002), the

agency noted, ‘‘The [petitioners] have

presented NHTSA with information that

makes a credible showing that they are

not able to achieve compliance with at

least some provisions of the final rule by

May 5, and that it will be some months

before they are able to do so.’’ In

addition, NHTSA noted that the short

time between the filing of the petitions

for reconsideration and original

effective date precluded it from sorting

through all of the provisions of this

multifaceted rule and the arguments in

the petitions in order to identify

particular provisions whose effective

date should have been extended. Id.

The agency extended the effective

date of four specified provisions of the

final rule beyond July 7, because it had

decided that it needed to gather further

information on those issues. See 60 FR

35458 (July 7, 1995). The agency

believes that this decision was

reasonable under the circumstances,

and was adequately explained at the

time.

The fact that the agency did not stay

a rule for which Advocates sought

reconsideration is not material. Unlike

the manufacturers, Advocates did not

risk noncompliance with Federal law if

the agency had not stayed its action.

Advocates also contended that

NHTSA should not have considered the

merits of the arguments raised in the

petitions for reconsideration because the

manufacturers did not present any new

information that could not have been

presented prior to the issuance of the

final rule. While it may be true that the

information was previously available,

there were relatively significant changes

made to each of the four provisions

between the NPRM and the April 5 final

rule. The manufacturers could not have

known exactly what the agency would

require in those provisions. Thus, it was

appropriate to consider the additional

information and arguments presented in

the reconsideration petitions and in the

subsequent comments.
278 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Rule Making Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal

Regulations) and DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has analyzed the changes

made by this revised final rule and

determined that it is not ‘‘significant’’

within the meaning of the Department

of Transportation regulatory policies

and procedures. OMB has also

determined that it is not significant

within the meaning of Executive Order

12866. These changes will not impose

any costs on the regulated parties and

are likely to reduce such costs.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the

effects of this rulemaking action under

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.). I certify that this proposed

rule will not, if promulgated, have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

In accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the

agency has analyzed the environmental

impacts of this rulemaking action and

determined that implementation of this

action will not have a significant impact

on the quality of the human

environment.

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

The amendments made by this final

rule on reconsideration will not impose

any new recordkeeping burdens and are

likely to reduce such burdens.

5. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

the rule making does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

6. Civil Justice Reform Act

This final rule does not have a

retroactive or preemptive effect. Judicial

review of this rule may be obtained

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 702. That

section does not require that a petition

for reconsideration be filed prior to

seeking judicial review.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 573

Imports; Motor vehicle safety; Motor

vehicles; Reporting and record keeping

requirements; Tires.

49 CFR Part 576

Motor vehicle safety; Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 577

Motor vehicle safety.

In consideration of the foregoing,

Parts 573, 576, and 577 of Title 49 of the

Code of Federal Regulations are

amended as follows:

PART 573—DEFECT AND

NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTS

1. The authority citation for part 573

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102–30103, 30112,

30117–30121, 30166–30167; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50

2. Section 573.5 is amended by

removing paragraphs (c)(8) (ii), (iii), and

(iv), redesignating paragraphs (c)(8) (v)

and (vi) as paragraphs (c)(8) (iii) and (iv)

and revising them, and by adding a new

paragraph (c)(8)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 573.5 Defect and noncompliance

information report.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(8) * * *

(ii) The estimated date on which it

will begin sending notifications to

owners that there is a safety-related

defect or noncompliance and that a

remedy without charge will be

available, and the estimated date on

which it will have completed such

notification. If a manufacturer

subsequently becomes aware that either

the beginning or the completion date

reported to the agency will be delayed

by more than two weeks, it shall

promptly advise the agency of the delay

and the reasons therefor, and furnish a

revised estimate.

(iii) If a manufacturer intends to file

a petition for an exemption from the

recall requirements of the Act on the

basis that a defect or noncompliance is

inconsequential as it relates to motor

vehicle safety, it shall notify NHTSA of

that intention in its report to NHTSA of

the defect or noncompliance under this

section. If such a petition is filed and

subsequently denied, the manufacturer

shall provide the information required

by paragraph (c)(8)(ii) of this section

within five Federal government

business days from the date the petition

denial is published in the Federal

Register.

(iv) If a manufacturer advises NHTSA

that it intends to file such a petition for

exemption from the notification and

remedy requirements on the grounds

that the defect or noncompliance is

inconsequential as it relates to motor

vehicle safety, and does not do so

within the 30-day period established by

49 CFR 556.4(c), the manufacturer must

submit the information required by

paragraph (c)(8)(ii) of this section no

later than the end of that 30-day period.

3. Section 573.7 is amended by

removing paragraph (d), redesignating

paragraph (e) as paragraph (d), and

revising new paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 573.7 Lists of purchasers, owners,

lessors and lessees.

* * * * *

(d) Each lessor of leased motor

vehicles that receives a notification from

the manufacturer of such vehicles that

the vehicle contains a safety-related

defect or fails to comply with a Federal

motor vehicle safety standard shall

maintain, in a form suitable for

inspection, such as computer

information storage devices or card files,

a list of the names and addresses of all

lessees to which the lessor has provided

notification of a defect or

noncompliance pursuant to 49 CFR

577.5(h). The list shall also include the

make, model, model year, and vehicle

identification number of each such

leased vehicle, and the date on which

the lessor mailed notification of the

defect or noncompliance to the lessee.

The information required by this

paragraph must be retained by the lessor

for one calendar year from the date the

vehicle lease expires.

PART 576—RECORD RETENTION

4. The authority citation for part 576

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30112, 30115, 30117–

30121, 30166–30167; delegation of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50.

5. Section 576.5 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 576.5 Basic requirements.

Each manufacturer of motor vehicles

shall retain as specified in § 576.7 all

records described in § 576.6 for a period

of five years from the date on which

they were generated or acquired by the

manufacturer.

6. Section 576.6 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 576.6 Records.

Records to be retained by

manufacturers under this part include

all documentary materials, films, tapes,

and other information-storing media

that contain information concerning

malfunctions that may be related to

motor vehicle safety. Such records

include, but are not limited to,

communications from vehicle users and

memoranda of user complaints; reports

and other documents, including

material generated or communicated by

computer, telefax or other electronic

means, that are related to work
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 279

performed under, or claims made under,

warranties; service reports or similar

documents, including electronic

transmissions, from dealers or

manufacturer’s field personnel; and any

lists, compilations, analyses, or

discussions of such malfunctions

contained in internal or external

correspondence of the manufacturer,

including communications transmitted

electronically.

PART 577—DEFECT AND

NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION

7. The authority citation for part 577

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102–30103, 30112,

30115, 30117–30121, 30166–30167;

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

49 CFR 501.8.

§ 577.5 [Amended]

8. Section 577.5 is amended by

removing paragraph (h) and

redesignating paragraph (i) as paragraph

(h).

Issued on: December 21, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–31583 Filed 12–29–95; 10:49 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 611 and 663

[Docket No. 951227306–5306–01; I.D.

121295C]

Foreign Fishing; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery; Annual

Specifications and Management

Measures

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: 1996 groundfish fishery

specifications and management

measures; 1996 preliminary fishery

specifications for Pacific whiting;

receipt of applications for experimental

fishing permits; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 1996

fishery specifications and management

measures for groundfish taken in the

U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and

state waters off the coasts of

Washington, Oregon, and California as

authorized by the Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

(FMP). The specifications include the

level of the acceptable biological catch

(ABC) and harvest guidelines including

the distribution between domestic and

foreign fishing operations. The harvest

guidelines are allocated between the

limited entry and open access fisheries.

The management measures for 1996 are

designed to keep landings within the

harvest guidelines, for those species for

which there are harvest guidelines, and

to achieve the goals and objectives of

the FMP and its implementing

regulations. The intended effect of these

actions is to establish allowable harvest

levels of Pacific Coast groundfish and to

implement management measures

designed to achieve but not exceed

those harvest levels, while extending

fishing and processing opportunities as

long as possible during the year.

DATES: Effective 0001 hours (local time)

January 1, 1996, until the 1997 annual

specifications and management

measures are effective, unless modified,

superseded, or rescinded. The 1997

annual specifications and management

measures will be published in the

Federal Register. Comments will be

accepted until February 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments on these

specifications should be sent to Mr.

William Stelle, Jr., Director, Northwest

Region, National Marine Fisheries

Service, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., BIN

C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115–

0070; or Ms. Hilda Diaz-Soltero,

Director, Southwest Region, National

Marine Fisheries Service, 501 West

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach,

CA 90802–4213. Information relevant to

these specifications and management

measures, including the stock

assessment and fishery evaluation

(SAFE) report, has been compiled in

aggregate form and is available for

public review during business hours at

the office of the Director, Northwest

Region, NMFS (Regional Director), or

may be obtained from the Pacific

Fishery Management Council (Council),

by writing the Council at 2130 SW Fifth

Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William L. Robinson (Northwest Region,

NMFS) 206–526–6140; or Rodney R.

McInnis (Southwest Region, NMFS)

310–980–4040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP

requires that fishery specifications for

groundfish be evaluated each calendar

year, that harvest guidelines or quotas

be specified for species or species

groups in need of additional protection,

and that management measures

designed to achieve the harvest

guidelines or quotas be published in the

Federal Register and made effective by

January 1, the beginning of the fishing

year. This action announces and makes

effective the final 1996 fishery

specifications and the management

measures designed to achieve them.

These specifications and measures were

considered by the Council at two

meetings and were recommended to

NMFS by the Council at its October

1995 meeting.

I. Final Specifications: ABCs and

Harvest Guidelines; Apportionments to

Foreign and Joint Venture Fisheries;

Open Access and Limited Entry

Allocations

The fishery specifications include

ABCs, the designation of harvest

guidelines or quotas for species that

need individual management, the

apportionment of the harvest guidelines

or quotas between domestic and foreign

fisheries, and allocation between the

open access and limited entry segments

of the domestic fishery.

The final 1996 specifications for

ABCs, harvest guidelines, and limited

entry and open access allocations are

listed in Table 1, followed by a

discussion of each 1996 specification

that differs from 1995. The

apportionment between foreign and

domestic fisheries is explained

separately at the end of this section. As

in the past, the specifications include

fish caught in state ocean waters (0–3

nautical miles (nm) offshore) as well as

fish caught in the EEZ (3–200 nm

offshore).