[Federal Register: April 23, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19693-19698]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ap02-26]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 573
[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12111]
RIN 2127-AI30
Motor Vehicle Safety; Prohibitions on Sale or Lease of Defective
and Noncompliant Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document implements section 8 of the Transportation
Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act (TREAD Act)
and section 2504 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA)
[[Page 19694]]
by adding regulations that limit the sale or lease of noncompliant and
defective motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. These
sections contain complementary provisions that amend federal motor
vehicle safety laws by limiting the sale or lease of defective and
noncompliant motor vehicles and equipment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will take effect on May 23, 2002.
Petitions for reconsideration: Any petition for reconsideration of
this rule must be received by NHTSA no later than June 7, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration may be submitted in writing
to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Petitions for reconsideration may also be
submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System
website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or
``Help/info'' to obtain instructions for filing your petition
electronically.
Regardless of how a petition is submitted, the docket number of
this document should be referenced in that petition.
You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the
Docket from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Enid Rubenstein, Office of Chief
Counsel, NCC-10, NHTSA. Telephone 202-366-5263.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act in 1966, now codified, as amended, as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
(Safety Act), Federal law has prohibited the sale of new motor vehicles
and motor vehicle equipment that fail to comply with an applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). See section 108(a) of
Public Law 89-563, 80 Stat. 722, codified as 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).
However, until 1991, the Safety Act did not contain specific provisions
limiting the sale or lease of defective vehicles and equipment. To
correct this deficiency, section 2504 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (``ISTEA''), Public Law 102-240, 105
Stat. 2081 et seq., amended the Safety Act by adding a new provision,
which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30120(i).
Section 30120(i) states that a dealer who has been provided
notification from the manufacturer about a safety-related defect or
noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in a new
motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment in the dealer's
possession at the time of the notification may not sell or lease the
vehicle or item of equipment unless the defect or noncompliance is
remedied as required by section 30120 before delivery under the sale or
lease, or notification is required by an order under section 30118(b)
but enforcement of the order is restrained or the order is set aside in
a civil action to which section 30121(d) applies. Thus, if a court sets
the order aside, the prohibition will not apply and the sale is
permissible.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 30118(c) requires manufacturers of motor vehicles or
equipment to provide notification of safety-related defects or
noncompliances with motor vehicle safety standards to NHTSA, as well
as to the owners, purchasers and dealers of the vehicle or
equipment.
Section 30118(b) authorizes the Secretary to make a final
decision that motor vehicles or equipment contain a safety-related
defect and/or do not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety
standard and, in that event, order the manufacturer to give
notification of the defect or noncompliance to owners, purchasers,
and dealers of the vehicles or equipment, and order the manufacturer
to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge.
Section 30121 authorizes the Secretary to require a manufacturer
to issue a provisional notification about an order issued under
section 30118(b) if the manufacturer contests that order. Section
30121 also authorizes a court to enjoin enforcement of the
Secretary's order under section 30118(b) if the court decides that
failure to notify is reasonable and that the manufacturer has
demonstrated the likelihood of prevailing on the merits. (A
manufacturer that fails to issue a provisional notification is
subject to civil penalties unless a court enjoins enforcement of the
order under section 30118(b)). See generally Ford Motor Co. v.
Coleman, (402 F. Supp. 475 (D.D.C. 1975) (3-judge court), aff'd mem.
425 U.S. 927 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 30120(i) does not prohibit a dealer from offering the
vehicle or equipment for sale or lease. Thus, the dealer can offer the
vehicle in the showroom but cannot sell or lease it. In the 1990s,
NHTSA did not engage in rulemaking with regard to this statutory
prohibition.
On November 1, 2000, the TREAD Act, Public Law 106-414, 114 Stat.
1800, was enacted. The statute was, in part, a response to
congressional concerns regarding the manner in which various entities
dealt with defective motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment,
including tires. During congressional consideration of the bill that
eventually was adopted as the TREAD Act, there had been media reports
that some persons were selling defective Firestone ATX or Wilderness AT
tires that had been returned to dealers for replacement under an
ongoing safety recall. The Safety Act did not expressly prohibit such
actions, since section 30120(i) does not apply to the sale or lease of
used vehicles or equipment.
Section 8 of the TREAD Act added a new subsection (j),
``Prohibition on sales of replaced equipment,'' to 49 U.S.C. 30120,
effective November 1, 2000. This subsection provides that no person may
sell or lease any motor vehicle equipment (including a tire) that is
the subject of a decision under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) or a notice required
under 49 U.S.C. 30118(c), for installation on a motor vehicle, in a
condition that it may be reasonably used for its original purpose.
Under section 30120(j)(1) and (2), the foregoing prohibition does not
apply if the defect or noncompliance is remedied as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, including implementing regulations, before delivery under
the sale or lease; or if notification of the defect or noncompliance is
required under section 30118(b) but enforcement of the order is set
aside in a civil action to which 49 U.S.C. 30121(d) applies.
Sections 30120(i) and (j) are complementary provisions. Section
30120(i), the ISTEA provision, applies only to dealers in new motor
vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30120(j),
the TREAD Act provision, applies to all persons who sell or lease motor
vehicle equipment for installation on a motor vehicle, in a condition
that the equipment may reasonably be used for its intended purpose, and
to both new and used equipment. To implement both statutory
subsections, we proposed to revise 49 CFR part 573 by adding two
separate regulatory sections, one (Sec. 573.11) applicable to the sale
or lease of defective or noncompliant new motor vehicles and new items
of motor vehicle equipment by dealers (including retailers of new motor
vehicle equipment) and the other (Sec. 573.12) applicable to the sale
or lease of defective or noncompliant new and used motor vehicle
equipment by any person. While sections 30120(i) and (j) do not require
rulemaking for their effectuation, NHTSA believes that there will be
two benefits to rulemaking. First, rules will largely reduce, if not
eliminate, questions relating to the meaning of the prohibitions.
Second, there are benefits to codifying the prohibitions, which
complement other rules, in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The New Regulatory Provisions
In view of the ISTEA and the TREAD Act, we are revising 49 CFR
573.3(a) by specifying those to whom new Secs. 573.11 and 573.12 apply
and we are amending 49 CFR part 573 to include, at Secs. 573.11 and
573.12, the prohibitions established by 49 U.S.C. 30120(i) and (j),
respectively. These amendments are
[[Page 19695]]
identical to those proposed in the NPRM (66 FR 38247 et seq. (July 23,
2001), except that we have added a clarification to proposed
Sec. 573.3(h) to reflect the provision in 49 U.S.C. 30121 that the term
``dealer'' includes a retailer of motor vehicle equipment and clarified
the scope of proposed Sec. 573.11.
Section 573.11 Prohibition on Sale or Lease of New Defective or
Noncompliant Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment \2\
Section 573.11, which implements 49 U.S.C. 30120(i), applies to
dealers, including retailers of motor vehicle equipment, and covers the
sale and lease of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It
provides that a dealer may not sell or lease defective or noncompliant
new motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. By its terms,
49 U.S.C. 30120(i) applies to new motor vehicles and new items of motor
vehicle equipment.\3\ Thus, the requirements of 49 CFR 573.11 do not
apply to used motor vehicles and used equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The title of section 30120(i) refers to a ``limitation'' on
the sale or lease of vehicles or equipment, whereas the title of
section 30120(j) refers to a ``prohibition'' on the sale of replaced
equipment. In the NPRM, we proposed to use the term ``limitations''
to cover both statutory sections. However, throughout the preamble
to the NPRM, we discussed various ``prohibitions,'' as we have done
again in the preamble to this rule. Also, in the revised title to 49
CFR part 573 that we proposed in the NPRM, we used the term
``prohibitions.'' Therefore, for consistency, we have decided to use
the term ``prohibitions'' rather than ``limitations'' in both
sections of the final rule, as well as in the revised title to 49
CFR part 573.
\3\ The terms ``dealer,'' ``motor vehicle'' and ``motor vehicle
equipment'' are defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(1), (6) and (7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several prerequisites must occur in order for the prohibition on
the sale or lease of new motor vehicles or equipment under section
30120(i) to apply. First, notification of a defect or noncompliance
must have been required by an order under section 30118(b) or under
section 30118(c). Second, a dealer must have been notified of the
defect or noncompliance. Finally, the dealer must be in possession of
the vehicle or equipment.
The regulatory text at Sec. 573.11 reflects two statutory
exceptions that permit the dealer to sell or lease new motor vehicles
or equipment items that have been determined to be defective or
noncompliant. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(i). First, the dealer may sell or
lease the motor vehicle or item of equipment if the defect or
noncompliance is remedied as required by section 30120 before delivery
under the sale or lease. Second, the sale or lease is permissible when
notification is required by an order under section 30118(b) but
enforcement of the order is restrained or the order is set aside in a
civil action to which section 30121(d) applies. Thus, if a court sets
the order aside, as stated above, the prohibition will not apply and
the sale is permissible. Finally, section 30120(i) states that it does
not prohibit a dealer from simply offering the vehicle or equipment for
sale or lease, without actually selling it.
Section 573.12 Prohibition on Sale or Lease of New or Used Defective
and Noncompliant Motor Vehicle Equipment
Section 573.12 of the rule implements 49 U.S.C. 30120(j), which
provides that ``no person may sell or lease any motor vehicle equipment
(including a tire), for installation on a motor vehicle, that is the
subject of a decision under section 30118(b) or a notice required under
section 30118(c) in a condition that it may be reasonably used for its
original purpose'' (emphasis added). In this statutory section,
Congress chose to use the general term ``no person'' as opposed to the
more restricted categories of ``manufacturer'' and ``dealer'' used in
section 30120(i) and elsewhere in Chapter 301. In view of the breadth
of the term ``no person,'' Sec. 573.12 is not limited to persons in
particular classes or categories. Rather, the rule's prohibition
applies to the actions of all persons, including individuals and
business entities such as corporations. The rule clearly applies to
retailers of equipment, including tires.
The activities that are covered by 49 CFR 573.12, based on 49
U.S.C. 30120(j), are selling or leasing, ``for installation on a motor
vehicle,'' any motor vehicle equipment (including a tire), that is the
subject of a decision under section 30118(b) or a notice required under
section 30118(c). Accordingly, the rule will apply to businesses and
individuals that sell new or used automobile parts, including tires.
While Sec. 573.12 prohibits the sale or lease of equipment including
tires for installation on a motor vehicle, it does not prohibit a
person from selling or leasing a new or used vehicle that is equipped
with defective or noncompliant equipment or tires.\4\ For example, a
motor vehicle dealer is not subject to the prohibition of this rule
except with respect to equipment and tires that the dealer sells or
leases separately from a vehicle. Similarly, motor vehicle lessors and
motor vehicle rental companies are not subject to this rule because
these groups are selling and leasing vehicles, not equipment or tires
for use on motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As discussed above, the sale or lease of a new vehicle with
defective or noncompliant equipment or tires is already prohibited
by 49 U.S.C. 30120(i) and will be prohibited by 49 CFR 573.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR 573.12 prohibits the selling or leasing of any motor vehicle
equipment (including a tire), for installation on a motor vehicle, that
is the subject of a decision under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) or a notice
required under 49 U.S.C. 30118(c). In section 30120(j), Congress chose
to restrict the sale or lease of motor vehicle equipment, without
limitation. Thus, the prohibition includes all equipment, including
used equipment as well as new equipment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We recognize that the title of section 30120(j) refers to
``replaced equipment.'' The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that
the title of a statutory provision cannot overcome the plain and
unambiguous meaning of the words used in the text of the statute.
See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900). Thus, since the language
of section 30120(j) is not limited, its reach extends to all motor
vehicle equipment that has been found to be defective or
noncompliant, regardless of whether it is original equipment or
replacement equipment, despite the fact that the title of the
subsection refers only to ``replaced equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49 U.S.C. 30120(j) prohibits the sale of equipment in a condition
that it may be reasonably used for its original purpose. Accordingly,
Sec. 573.12 prohibits only the sale of equipment and tires that are
still in a condition in which they can be used for the purpose for
which they were originally intended. Thus, the rule does not apply to
equipment and tires that have been permanently altered in a way that
they can no longer be reasonably used for their original purpose. For
example, a tire that has been drilled with holes for eyebolts may be
sold for use as part of a playground swing.
Section 30120(j)(1) provides that the prohibition on the sale of
equipment applies unless ``the defect or noncompliance is remedied as
required by this section before delivery under the sale or lease.''
Therefore, the equipment may be sold if it has been repaired so that it
is no longer defective or noncompliant.
The sale of the equipment will also be allowed if ``notification of
the defect or noncompliance is required under section 30118(b) but
enforcement of the order is set aside in a civil action to which
section 30121(d) applies.'' Under section 30118(b), if it is determined
that a motor vehicle or replacement equipment contains a defect related
to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable motor
vehicle safety standard, the manufacturer is ordered to give
notification of the defect or noncompliance under section 30119 to
owners, purchasers and dealers of the
[[Page 19696]]
vehicle or equipment.\6\ However, if enforcement of the order is
restrained or the order is set aside by a court, the prohibition in
section 30120(j) does not apply, and, therefore, the sale of the
equipment in its unremedied condition is permissible during the period
when the order is not effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 30119 sets out the notification procedures the
manufacturer must follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Comments
We received three comments on the NPRM, including one from a trade
association (the National Automobile Dealers Association (``NADA''))
and two from consumer groups (Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(``Advocates'') and Public Citizen). We did not receive any comments
from manufacturers.
The comments were generally supportive of the proposed regulations.
They are summarized below.
(1) Advocates fully supported the NPRM and urged its adoption,
without any suggested revisions.
(2) NADA supported the issuance of the rule but suggested a number
of substantive and editorial changes. The principal substantive change
suggested was, in essence, to make both new Sec. 573.11 and Sec. 573.12
duplicate each other, by providing in both that there is no limitation
on the sale or lease of defective or noncompliant motor vehicles or
motor vehicle equipment unless the dealer has received actual notice of
the defect or noncompliance from the manufacturer. Although NADA
acknowledged that statutory subsections (i) and (j) differ from each
other in that subsection (i) requires such notice whereas (j) does not,
the association nevertheless requested that NHTSA use its discretion to
extend subsection (i)'s notice condition to subsection (j), on grounds
that this would create ``fairness'' to dealers.
We have decided against making NADA's proposed change. Under the
ordinary rules of statutory construction, Congress is presumed to have
intended the effects of linguistic differences between statutory
provisions. See 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction (6th Ed. Singer,
2000) at Sec. 46.06: ``In like manner, where the legislature has
carefully employed a term in one place and excluded it in another, it
should not be implied where excluded.'' This is particularly true
where, as here, the statutory provision that contains the notice
requirement (in this case, subsection (i)), was enacted several years
before the statutory provision that does not contain the notice
requirement (in this case, subsection (j)). Congress clearly knew how
to draft a notice requirement when it wanted to include one: it did so
in 1991 in enacting subsection (i), but it did not do so nine years
later when it enacted subsection (j).
In addition, under the ordinary rules of statutory construction,
statutes are to be read to effectuate all of their provisions: ``It is
an elementary rule of construction that effect must be given, if
possible, to every word, clause and sentence of a statute.'' 2A
Sutherland, supra, at Sec. 46.06, citing United States v. Menasche, 348
U.S. 528 (1955); Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995).
If we followed NADA's suggestion and ignored the differences between
subsections (i) and (j) with respect to notice, the regulation would
not be consistent with this rule of construction and would fail to
effectuate subsection (j), which by its terms does not require notice
from the manufacturer.
NADA also disputed ``any suggestion'' (in the preamble to the NPRM)
that the section 30120(i) restriction applies to new motor vehicles or
equipment not in the dealer's possession at the time of notification.
NADA claimed that (1) vehicles that have already been delivered and are
no longer in a dealer's possession; (2) vehicles that have been sold
but not yet left the dealer's possession prior to the dealer's receipt
of notification; and (3) vehicles that the dealer has not yet received
when it receives notification from the manufacturer are not subject to
section 30120(i).
We agree with some of NADA's comments, but not others. With respect
to the first, the vehicles or equipment that have already been
delivered to purchasers are beyond the coverage of this statutory
section, which applies only to items ``in the dealer's possession,''
and in any event will be covered by a notification from the
manufacturer to the owner. In the second situation posited by NADA, the
delivery to the purchaser has not occurred. The dealer, who has
possession of the vehicle or equipment, must bring it into compliance
or remedy the defect before it is delivered to the purchaser. Requiring
the dealer to carry out the remedy before delivering the vehicle to the
purchaser will both implement the statutory text and effectuate the
underlying statutory purpose. In these circumstances, there is no valid
reason to excuse the dealer from remedying the defect or noncompliance
in such vehicles and thereby permit the dealer to deliver unsafe
vehicles to purchasers.
NADA's third category is more problematic. Section 30120((i) states
that it applies when the manufacturer ``has provided * * * notification
about a new * * * vehicle or * * * item of * * * equipment in the
dealer's possession at the time of notification * * * .'' NADA pointed
out that the preamble and proposed regulatory text in the NPRM raised
issues about the meaning of this phrase. The statutory text requires
possession, which in our view includes both actual and constructive
possession. Although we would expect that dealers would remedy vehicles
and equipment that are the subject of notice but not yet in the
dealer's actual or constructive possession at the time of notification,
the statutory language of section 30120(i) does not impose such a
requirement. Accordingly, we have modified the proposed text of
Sec. 573.11(a) to state explicitly that the prohibition applies to
vehicles or equipment in the dealer's actual or constructive possession
at the time of the manufacturer's notification. However, we note that
manufacturers normally include ``stop sale'' or ``stop delivery''
instructions in their notifications to dealers of defects and
noncompliances, and, as noted earlier, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) contains an
independent prohibition against the sale of noncompliant vehicles or
equipment. Moreover, state consumer protection and tort laws may impose
additional duties on dealers.
NADA also requested that proposed Sec. 573.12 be modified to add a
new subsection specifying that the prohibition does not apply if ``(a)
person * * * did not possess the motor vehicle equipment at the time of
such notice.'' We have not made NADA's suggested modification because,
as explained earlier in this preamble, we have concluded that the
requirement for manufacturer notification does not apply to
Sec. 573.12.
In addition, NADA proposed to add a new section to Sec. 573.12,
stating that the prohibition does not apply to any item of equipment
that has been installed in a new or used motor vehicle. As indicated
above, we do not believe that this subsection is necessary. As we
stated in the preamble to the NPRM, it is clear from the text of
Sec. 573.12(a) of the proposed rule, which specifically prohibits
selling or leasing ``any new or used item of motor vehicle equipment *
* * for installation on a motor vehicle,'' that the section does not
apply to equipment that already has been installed. NADA made a similar
suggestion with regard to our rule regarding reporting the sale or
lease of defective or noncompliant tires, 49 CFR 573.10. As in that
rule (see 66 FR 38161,
[[Page 19697]]
July 23, 2001), we do not believe that such a clarification is
necessary.
(3) Public Citizen did not oppose the proposed regulation, but
argued that its text revealed ``gaps'' in the scope of the underlying
statute and urged the agency to seek further legislative amendments
during the forthcoming reauthorization process. Public Citizen's
suggested amendments would (1) extend 49 U.S.C. 30120(i) to used motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and (2) extend 49 U.S.C. 30120(j)
to those who lease or rent motor vehicles. Public Citizen did not argue
that we should extend the regulation in the face of admittedly absent
statutory authority. Because a comment on an NPRM is not an appropriate
mechanism for submitting a legislative proposal, we are not responding
here to the substance of Public Citizen's suggestion.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
1. E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule has not been reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' After considering the impacts of
this rulemaking action, we have determined that the action is not
``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures. There are statutory prohibitions in
place and these rules, which essentially incorporate the statutory
prohibitions, will not increase the burdens on those covered by those
prohibitions. The impact of this rule will be so minimal as not to
warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation because these
provisions only involve prohibitions on sales of defective and
noncompliant vehicles and equipment, which are rare even absent the
rule. In light of the statutory provisions, this action does not
involve a substantial public interest or controversy. The rulemaking
action will not have a substantial impact on any transportation safety
program or on state and local governments.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have also considered the effects of this action in relation to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I certify that
this rule will have no significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The impact of this rule is expected to be so
minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory flexibility
analysis because this provision only involves prohibitions on sales or
leases of vehicles or equipment that have been determined to be
defective or noncompliant. The incidence of covered sales and leases
would be small even absent this rule. Moreover, although many dealers
are small entities, another provision of the Safety Act requires
manufacturers (or distributors) to reimburse dealers both for the value
of the dealer's labor in installing replacement parts and for a
prorated portion of the manufacturer's or distributor's selling price,
for remedying defective or noncompliant vehicles or equipment prior to
sale. See 49 U.S.C. 30116.
Governmental jurisdictions will not be affected by this rule.
3. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
E.O. 13132 defines the term ``policies that have federalism
implications'' to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under E.O.
13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal Government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by
State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local
officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
The rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the E.O. do not apply to this rule.
4. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this action for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321. The action will not have a
significant effect upon the environment.
5. Civil Justice Reform
This rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect.
Judicial review of a rule based on 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.
6. Paperwork Reduction Act
NHTSA has determined that this notice will not impose a new
collection of information burden within the meaning of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3502.
7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat.
48) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by state, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
that $100 million annually. Because a final rule based on this proposal
will not have an effect of $100 million, no Unfunded Mandates
assessment has been prepared.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 573
Defects, Motor vehicle safety, Noncompliance, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part
573 as set forth below.
PART 573--REQUIREMENTS AND PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE TO SAFETY DEFECT
AND NONCOMPLIANCE RECALLS
1. The authority citation for part 573 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112, 30117-121, 30166-167;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50
2. Revise the heading of part 573 to read as set forth above.
3. In Sec. 573.3, revise paragraph (a) and add paragraphs (h) and
(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 573.3 Application.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this
section, this part applies to manufacturers of complete motor vehicles,
incomplete motor vehicles, and motor vehicle original and replacement
equipment, with respect to all vehicles and equipment that have been
transported beyond the direct control of the manufacturer.
* * * * *
(h) The provisions of Sec. 573.11 apply to dealers, including
retailers of motor vehicle equipment.
(i) The provisions of Sec. 573.12 apply to all persons.
4. Add Sec. 573.11 to read as follows:
[[Page 19698]]
Sec. 573.11 Prohibition on sale or lease of new defective and
noncompliant motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment.
(a) If notification is required by an order under 49 U.S.C.
30118(b) or is required under 49 U.S.C. 30118(c) and the manufacturer
has provided to a dealer (including retailers of motor vehicle
equipment) notification about a new motor vehicle or new item of
replacement equipment in the dealer's possession, including actual and
constructive possession, at the time of notification that contains a
defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an
applicable motor vehicle safety standard issued under 49 CFR part 571,
the dealer may sell or lease the motor vehicle or item of replacement
equipment only if:
(1) The defect or noncompliance is remedied as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120 before delivery under the sale or lease; or
(2) When the notification is required by an order under 49 U.S.C.
30118(b), enforcement of the order is restrained or the order is set
aside in a civil action to which 49 U.S.C. 30121(d) applies.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not prohibit a dealer from
offering the vehicle or equipment for sale or lease, provided that the
dealer does not sell or lease it.
5. Add Sec. 573.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 573.12 Prohibition on sale or lease of new and used defective and
noncompliant motor vehicle equipment.
(a) Subject to Sec. 573.12(b), no person may sell or lease any new
or used item of motor vehicle equipment (including a tire) as defined
by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7), for installation on a motor vehicle, that is
the subject of a decision under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) or a notice required
under 49 U.S.C. 30118(c), in a condition that it may be reasonably used
for its original purpose.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section is not applicable where:
(1) The defect or noncompliance is remedied as required under 49
U.S.C. 30120 before delivery under the sale or lease;
(2) Notification of the defect or noncompliance is required by an
order under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), but enforcement of the order is
restrained or the order is set aside in a civil action to which 49
U.S.C. 30121(d) applies.
Issued on: April 16, 2002.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-9773 Filed 4-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P