[Federal Register: March 19, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 53)]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
Department of Transportation
National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 576
Recordkeeping and Record Retention; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 576
[Docket No. NHTSA 02-11592; Notice 1]
Recordkeeping and Record Retention
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
SUMMARY: This is one of three documents that NHTSA is issuing as part
of efforts by the United States to comply with its obligations under
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) regarding the access of
Mexican-domiciled motor carriers to the United States. The first NHTSA
document is a draft policy statement allowing fabricating manufacturers
to retroactively certify vehicles they originally manufactured for sale
in countries other than the United States. The purpose of the proposed
policy statement is to facilitate compliance by Mexico- and Canada-
domiciled motor carriers with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1966, recodified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, which provides
for the issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs),
requires the compliance of motor vehicles (including imported motor
vehicles) with those standards, and requires that a label bearing a
statement certifying that compliance be attached to each vehicle. The
draft policy statement also facilitates compliance with a companion
notice of proposed rulemaking by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA). In its document, FMCSA will be proposing to
promote the effective enforcement of NHTSA's statute by requiring that
all commercial motor vehicles operating in the United States have
labels certifying their compliance with the FMVSSs.
The second NHTSA document proposes an amendment that would define
the term ``import,'' as used in the statute. In 1975, NHTSA issued an
interpretation stating that the importation prohibition applies to the
bringing into the United States of foreign-domiciled commercial
vehicles that transport cargo. We are proposing a definition of the
term ``import'' that would codify this interpretation in the Code of
This third document proposes to require vehicle manufacturers who
retroactively apply compliance certification labels to make and retain
records identifying the vehicles they have so certified.
DATES: Comment closing date: You should submit your comments early
enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than
May 20, 2002.
ADDRESSES: For purposes of identification, please mention the docket
number of this document in your comments. You may submit those comments
in writing to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC, 20590. Alternatively, you may submit your comments by
e-mail at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov.
You may call Docket Management at (202) 366-9324, or you may visit
the Docket from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The
Docket is located at the Plaza level of this building, northeast
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical issues: Mr. George Entwistle, Chief, Equipment and
Imports Division, Certification Branch, Office of Safety Assurance,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-5291; telefax (202) 366-1024.
For legal issues: Ms. Rebecca MacPherson, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992; telefax (202) 366-
Table of Contents
A. NAFTA provision for cross border operation of commercial
B. Steps to provide for the safe implementation of the NAFTA
provision for cross border operation of commercial motor vehicles
II. Request for comments
III. Rulemaking analyses and notices
IV. Submission of comments
A. NAFTA Provisions for Cross Border Operation of Commercial Motor
On December 17, 1992, the United States, Canada and Mexico signed
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Following approval by
Congress, NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994.
Since 1982, a statutory moratorium in the United States on the
issuance of operating authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers had,
with a few exceptions, limited the operations of such carriers to
municipalities and commercial zones along the United States-Mexico
border (``border zone''). Annex I of NAFTA called for liberalization of
access for Mexico-domiciled motor carriers on a phased schedule.
Pursuant to this schedule, Mexico-domiciled charter and tour bus
operations were to have been permitted beyond the border zone on
January 1, 1994. Truck operations were to have been permitted in the
four United States border states in December 1995, and throughout the
United States on January 1, 2000; scheduled bus operations were to have
been permitted throughout the United States on January 1, 1997.
Because of concerns about safety, the United States postponed
implementation of NAFTA with respect to Mexico-domiciled truck and
scheduled bus service and continued its blanket moratorium on
processing applications by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers for
authority to operate in the United States outside the border zone. On
February 6, 2001, a NAFTA dispute-resolution panel ruled that the
blanket moratorium violated the United States' commitments under NAFTA.
B. Steps To Provide for the Safe Implementation of the NAFTA Provision
for Cross Border Operation of Commercial Motor Vehicles
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is now preparing for the
implementation of NAFTA's provisions for cross border operation of
commercial motor vehicles. However, in doing this, the Department must
assure that cross border operation of commercial vehicles will be
conducted in a safe manner. To that end, NHTSA and FMCSA are issuing a
series of notices.
NHTSA is issuing its series of notices under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et
seq. (Vehicle Safety Act). The purpose of the Act is to reduce the
number of motor vehicle crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from
One of NHTSA's primary concerns under the Vehicle Safety Act is to
ensure that the vehicles operated in the United States by Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers were manufactured or modified to comply with
the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) issued under that
Act that were in effect at the time the vehicles were manufactured.
The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that, subject to certain
\1\ For example, our regulations provide that exemptions may be
issued for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that
are necessary for research, investigations, demonstrations,
training, competitive racing events, show, or display; vehicles
being temporarily imported for personal use; and vehicles being
temporarily imported by individuals who are attached to the military
or diplomatic service of another country or to an international
organization. (49 CFR Part 591, Importation of Vehicles and
Equipment Subject to Federal Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention
A person may not manufacture for sale, offer to sell, introduce
or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into
the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety
standard. * * * takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment
complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued
under section 30115 of this title.
(49 U.S.C. 30112; emphasis added.)
Thus, in general, the FMVSSs apply to new motor vehicles that
vehicle manufacturers manufacture for sale in the United States. They
also apply to new or used motor vehicles that anyone presents for
importation into the United States, whether for sale, resale or other
purposes. This includes all motor carriers, regardless of where they
are domiciled. The Vehicle Safety Act also requires manufacturers to
certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable safety
standards.\2\ The vehicles must bear a permanent label that is affixed
by the vehicle manufacturer that certifies that the vehicles, at the
time of manufacture, complied with all applicable safety standards.\3\
49 U.S.C. 30115.
\2\ Under the Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA does not certify that a
vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. That
obligation rests with the manufacturer of the vehicle.
\3\ A vehicle imported into the United States by a registered
importer pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30141, et seq. and 49 CFR Part 591 is
not required to have a certification label affixed to the vehicle
prior to entry into the U.S. However, it must have a certification
label affixed by the registered importer before it can be sold or
released for highway use.
As discussed in the draft policy statement that is a companion to
this document, NHTSA has had a policy of allowing fabricating vehicle
manufacturers to retroactively certify their vehicles in limited
circumstances. The agency believes that extending that policy to
vehicles that are engaged in the transport of goods or passengers in
interstate commerce across the Canadian or Mexican borders is the best
way to ensure the safety of the driving public while also meeting our
treaty obligations. Accordingly, NHTSA is requesting comment on the
policy of allowing fabricating manufacturers of vehicles produced for
sale in Mexico or Canada that do not have a U.S. certification label to
apply such labels retroactively to vehicles if they complied with all
applicable U.S. standards in effect at the time of original
manufacture.\4\ The proposed policy statement would be limited to
commercial motor vehicles manufactured on or before August 31, 2002 and
would require that they be retroactively certified by September 1,
\4\ In some instances, minor modifications may be necessary to
bring the vehicle into compliance with the safety standards in
effect at the time of manufacture. For example, a manufacturer may
need to add an indicator that the odometer readings are in km/h.
We are proposing in this document to require vehicle manufacturers
to make and retain a list identifying all commercial vehicles to which
they retroactively affix a certification label. We believe this is
appropriate because of the risk that unauthorized parties could apply a
certification label in an effort to allow non-compliant vehicles to be
imported into the United States. Only fabricating vehicle manufacturers
and, subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30141 and 49 CFR part
591, registered importers may retroactively certify compliance with the
FMVSS. The proposed list would provide a means to check whether a
particular retroactive certification label has been affixed by a
fabricating vehicle manufacturer.
The manufacturer would be required to maintain a list of its
retroactively certified vehicles, identified by the vehicle
identification number (VIN), or if the vehicle does not have a VIN that
meets the requirements of 49 CFR part 565, with alternative information
that uniquely identifies each vehicle, including the vehicle make,
model, and year. We are also proposing to require the manufacturers to
record the month and year of original manufacture of each vehicle to
which it has retroactively applied a certification label and the month
and year in which the retroactive certification label was affixed.
Manufacturers would be required to maintain these records for five
years after the date on which the retroactive certification label was
This rule would not apply to registered importers. Rather,
registered importers would be required to meet all the applicable
conditions of 49 U.S.C. 30141, et seq. and 49 CFR part 591. NHTSA does
not intend this series of rulemakings to affect how the registered
importer program currently operates.
Only those fabricating manufacturers who decide to retroactively
affix certification labels to one or more vehicles would be subject to
the proposed recordkeeping and retention requirements. Vehicle
manufacturers are not required to retroactively certify compliance and
in many instances will be unable to do so. This is because many
vehicles manufactured for sale in Mexico did not comply with all
applicable FMVSSs at the time of original manufacture and cannot be
readily modified by the manufacturer to comply with those standards. As
a practical matter, only those manufacturers who produced and certified
substantially similar vehicles for sale in the United States at the
same time that the non-certified vehicle was manufactured would likely
be able to certify a vehicle retroactively, since only those
manufacturers would have the information needed to assure that the
vehicle in fact complied.
We are not proposing to require these manufacturers to retain the
factual and analytical information that they rely on to certify
compliance. Currently, we do not require any certifying manufacturer to
do so. However, it is in their best interest to retain that information
in the event that an issue arises as to whether a vehicle complied with
an applicable safety standard. Although manufacturers of vehicles sold
in the United States develop and retain testing and other information
that supports their certification that their vehicles comply, we
recognize that the circumstances surrounding retroactive certification
are somewhat different, since the vehicle manufacturer may be relying
on data that are at least several years old.
II. Requests for Comments
(1) Please comment on whether vehicle manufacturers should document
and retain information in addition to a unique vehicle identifier, and
the dates of original manufacture and retroactive certification. If so,
what additional information should be required, and why?
(2) Please provide information on what types of unique vehicle
identifiers are used to identify vehicles manufactured for sale in
Canada or Mexico.
(3) Please comment on whether the records described in this notice
should be maintained for a period of time other than five years after
the date of retroactive certification.
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' provides
for making determinations whether a regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not considered a
significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of the Executive Order
12866. Consequently, this rulemaking document was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to be
significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
This document would amend 49 CFR part 576 by adding new
recordkeeping requirements for vehicle manufacturers that retroactively
affix U.S. certification labels to vehicles that were originally
manufactured for sale outside of the United States. The cost of
maintaining such records would be minor and the required retention of
such records would not raise any novel legal or policy issues.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 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.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a
regulation with 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, the agency
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and have determined that
this rule does not have sufficient Federal implications to warrant
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a
Federalism summary impact statement. The rule will not have any
substantial impact on the States, or on the current Federal-State
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local officials.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health
or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. It also does not
involve decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect
Executive Order 12778
Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive
effect. This proposed rule, if adopted, would not have any retroactive
effect. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceeding will not be a prerequisite to an action seeking judicial
review of this rule if it is adopted. This proposed rule would not
preempt the states from adopting laws or regulations on the same
subject, except that it would preempt a state regulation that is in
actual conflict with the federal regulation or makes compliance with
the Federal regulation impossible or interferes with the implementation
of the federal statute.
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).
However, 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
I have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and certify that this
proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposal would merely impose minor
recordkeeping obligations on vehicle manufacturers that decide to
retroactively apply a certification label. The application of such a
label is voluntary.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
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. The proposed rule
would require vehicle manufacturers who retroactively apply
certification labels to maintain a list of all vehicles so certified.
NHTSA is currently working on obtaining a valid OMB control number.
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 our 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 NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
No voluntary consensus standards were used in developing the
proposed requirements because no voluntary standards exist that address
the subject of this rulemaking.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
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
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
The proposed rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rulemaking does not meet the
definition of a Federal mandate because it would 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 rulemaking is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
IV. Submission of Comments
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and 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 given above under
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation
On that page, click on ``search.''
On the next page
type in the four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document.
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
On the next page, which contains docket summary
information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments.
You may download the comments.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 576
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 576 as follows:
PART 576--RECORD RETENTION
1. The authority citation for part 576 continues to read as
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30112, 30115, 30117-121, 30166-167;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Designate Secs. 576.1 through 576.8 as Subpart A--``General''.
3. Revise Secs. 576.1 through 576.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 576.1 Scope.
This subpart establishes requirements for the retention by motor
vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records
concerning motor vehicle malfunctions that may be related to motor
Sec. 576.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to preserve records that are needed
for the proper investigation, and adjudication or other disposition, of
possible defects related to motor vehicle safety and instances of
nonconformity to the motor vehicle safety standards and associated
Sec. 576.3 Application.
This subpart applies to all manufacturers of motor vehicles, with
respect to all records generated or acquired after August 15, 1969.
Sec. 576.4 Definitions.
All terms in this subpart that are defined in the Act are used as
4. Revise Sec. 576.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 576.6 Records.
Records to be retained by manufacturers under this subpart 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 performed under, or claims made under, warranties;
service reports or similar documents, including electronic submissions,
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.
5. Revise Sec. 576.8 to read as follows:
Sec. 576.8 Malfunctions covered.
For purposes of this subpart, ``malfunctions that may be related to
motor vehicle safety'' shall include, with respect to a motor vehicle
or item of motor vehicle equipment, any failure or malfunction beyond
normal deterioration in use, or any failure of performance, or any flaw
or unintended deviation from design specifications, that could in any
reasonably foreseeable manner be a causitive factor in, or aggravate,
an accident or an injury to a person.
6. Add subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B--Recordkeeping and Retention by Manufacturers That
Retroactively Certify Compliance With Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
576.26 Form of retention
Subpart B--Recordkeeping and Retention by Manufacturers that
Retroactively Certify Compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
This subpart establishes requirements for the generation and
retention by motor vehicle manufacturers, other than registered
importers, of information related to motor vehicles that are
retroactively certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards, to permit the importation of those vehicles
into the United States.
Sec. 576.22 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to facilitate determining whether a
vehicle manufactured for sale in a country other than the United
States, but being used in the United States, has a valid certification
of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
Sec. 576.23 Application.
This subpart applies to manufacturers that originally manufactured
motor vehicles for sale in a country other than the United States and
that retroactively certify that one or more of those vehicles comply
with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that were applicable to
those vehicles at the time of their original manufacture.
Sec. 576.24 Requirements.
Each manufacturer of motor vehicles described in Sec. 576.23 must
retain all records described in Sec. 576.25, in the manner described in
Sec. 576.26, for a period of five years from the date on which the
certification label was retroactively affixed to the vehicle.
Sec. 576.25 Records.
Each manufacturer required by this subpart to maintain records must
generate and retain records that identify all vehicles that have been
retroactively certified by the vehicle manufacturer. The records
retained must include, at a minimum, the following information for each
(a) The vehicle identification number (VIN) issued in accordance
with Part 565 of this chapter or, if the vehicle does not have such a
VIN, another unique vehicle identifier which provides the means to
identify the vehicle make, model, and model year;
(b) The month and year of original manufacture; and
(c) The month and year the retroactive certification label was
affixed to the vehicle.
Sec. 576.26 Form of retention.
Information may be reproduced or transferred from one storage
medium to another (e.g., from paper files to computer disks) as long as
no information is lost in the reproduction or transfer.
Issued on: March 6, 2002.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
[FR Doc. 02-5895 Filed 3-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P