Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/12/05/2013-28877/registered-importers-of-vehicles-not-originally-manufactured-to-conform-to-the-federal-motor-vehicle
Timestamp: 2017-08-23 17:07:40
Document Index: 442691180

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 567', 'art 541', 'art 541', 'art 121', 'art 541', 'art 592', 'art 512', 'art 512', 'art 512', 'art 592', '§\u2009592']

Federal Register :: Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured To Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
A Proposed Rule by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on 12/05/2013
You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than January 6, 2014.
78 FR 73169
73169-73173 (5 pages)
Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0041
2127-AL43
NHTSA-2013-0041
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-28877 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-28877
This document proposes to clarify NHTSA regulations on registered importers (“RIs”) of motor vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The proposal would require RIs to certify to NHTSA, as appropriate, that an imported vehicle either is not required to comply with the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard or that the vehicle complies with those requirements as manufactured, or as modified prior to importation. The proposal would replace text that was inadvertently omitted when the regulations were last revised.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, Start Printed Page 73170see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets or visit the Docket Management Facility at the street address listed above.
Clint Lindsay, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202) 366-5288. For legal issues, you may call Nicholas Englund, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (202) 366-5263. You may call Docket Management at (202) 366-9324. You may visit the Docket in person from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
NHTSA published a final rule on August 25, 2011 (76 FR 53072) amending parts 567, 591, 592, and 593 of title 49 to address issues related to the RI program. In amending the regulations, the agency inadvertently deleted from 49 CFR 592.6(d)(1) text under paragraphs (i) and (ii) that requires the RI to certify to NHTSA, as appropriate, that an imported vehicle either is not required to comply with the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) or that the vehicle complies with those requirements as manufactured, or as modified prior to importation.
The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-562, “the 1988 Act”), which became effective on January 31, 1990, limited the importation of vehicles that did not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to those capable of being modified to comply. To enhance oversight, the 1988 Act required that necessary modifications be performed by RIs. RIs are business entities that have demonstrated to NHTSA that they are technically and financially capable of importing nonconforming motor vehicles and of performing the necessary modifications on those vehicles so that they conform to all applicable FMVSS. See generally, 49 U.S.C. 30141-30147. As discussed in the January 14, 2011 proposed rulemaking that preceded the final rule (76 FR 2631), NHTSA proposed certain amendments to the RI regulations to protect the integrity of the RI program and to clarify RI requirements. In the final rule that was published on August 25, 2011 (76 FR 53072), CFR 592.6(d)(1) was amended by adding language requiring that RIs certify to NHTSA that they destroyed or exported nonconforming motor vehicle equipment that was removed from imported vehicles during conformance modifications. The remaining text of the paragraph remained unchanged and read: “The Registered Importer shall also certify, as appropriate, that either:
(i) The vehicle is not required to comply with the parts marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (part 541 of this chapter); or
(ii) The vehicle complies with those parts marking requirements as manufactured, or as modified prior to importation.”
In the regulatory text of the final rule, NHTSA inadvertently failed to properly mark subparagraphs (i) and (ii), resulting in the deletion of those paragraphs. In this rulemaking, the agency is proposing to restore the language that was originally in subparagraphs (i) and (ii).
The proposed amendment would not change the meaning or application of the regulations, as explained in the preamble of the final rule at 76 FR 53072.
The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This action was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. This rulemaking is not significant. Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is not significant under Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Based on the level of the fees and the volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA currently anticipates that if made final, the costs of the proposed rule would be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial public interest or controversy. If made final, the rule would have no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There would be no substantial impact upon a major transportation safety program. A regulatory evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the final rule establishing the registered importer program, adopted on September 29, 1989, was prepared, and is available for review in the docket.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is Start Printed Page 73171required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The proposed amendments would primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles and that are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that these companies would be unable to certify as proposed by this action that either: (i) The vehicle is not required to comply with the parts marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (part 541 of this chapter); or (ii) The vehicle complies with those parts marking requirements as manufactured, or as modified prior to importation.”
NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The action would not have a significant effect upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual volume of motor vehicles imported through registered importers would not vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the rule as proposed.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 “Civil Justice Reform,” the agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that this proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of any rule adopted from this proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. NHTSA requests public comment on whether (a) “regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments” concerning the subject matter of this rulemaking and (b) the above policy statement has any implications for this rulemaking.
Executive Order 13211 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. If the regulatory action meets either criterion, we must evaluate the adverse energy effects of the proposed rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by NHTSA. As noted above, this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866. NHTSA also believes that this proposed rule would not have any effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all Start Printed Page 73172rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Part 592 includes collections of information for which NHTSA has obtained OMB Clearance No. 2127-0001, a consolidated collection of information for “Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards,” approved through January 31, 2014. This proposed rule, if made final, would not affect the burden hours associated with Clearance No. 2127-0001 because we are proposing only to reinstate regulatory text that was inadvertently omitted when the regulations were last amended. This proposed regulation will not impose new collection of information requirements or otherwise affect the scope of the program.
This proposed rule would reinstate regulatory text that was inadvertently omitted when the regulations at issue were last amended. We are proposing no substantive changes to the vehicle import program or any action that would require the use of voluntary consensus standards. For these reasons, Section 12(d) of the NTTAA would not apply.
Your comments must be written and be in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. 49 CFR 553.21. We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address identified at the beginning of this document, under ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments electronically to the docket following the steps outlined under ADDRESSES.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the following to the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (NCC-110), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590: (1) A complete copy of the submission; (2) a redacted copy of the submission with the confidential information removed; and (3) either a second complete copy or those portions of the submission containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and any additional information that you deem important to the Chief Counsel's consideration of your confidentiality claim. A request for confidential treatment that complies with 49 CFR Part 512 must accompany the complete submission provided to the Chief Counsel. For further information, submitters who plan to request confidential treatment for any portion of their submissions are advised to review 49 CFR Part 512, particularly those sections relating to document submission requirements. Failure to adhere to the requirements of Part 512 may result in the release of confidential information to the public docket. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address identified at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date identified at the beginning of this document under DATES. In accordance with our policies, to the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after the specified comment closing date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing the proposed rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times identified at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://Start Printed Page 73173www.regulations.gov and follow the on-line instructions provided.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 592 as follows:
2. Amend § 592.6 to add subparagraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii):
Issued on November 27, 2013.
[FR Doc. 2013-28877 Filed 12-4-13; 8:45 am]