Consumer Information Regulations; Utility Vehicle Label

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-3381, Notice 1]

RIN 2127-AG53

Consumer Information Regulations; Utility Vehicle Label

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to modify the existing warning label

required in multipurpose passenger vehicles (other than those which are

passenger car derivatives) with a wheelbase of 110 inches or less

advising drivers that the handling and maneuvering characteristics of

these vehicles require special driving practices. The proposed

replacement label uses bright colors, graphics, and short bulleted text

messages, rather than the current text-only format. NHTSA believes

these amendments make the information more understandable to consumers

and increase the chance that the labels can affect driver behavior to

reduce rollovers. The notice also requests comment on changes to the

location requirements for the label and the corresponding owner's

manual requirement.

DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by June 12, 1998.

Proposed Effective Date: If adopted, the proposed amendments would

become effective 180 days following publication of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of

this notice and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 10

a.m.-5 p.m., Monday through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590:

For labeling issues: Mary Versailles, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NPS-31, telephone (202) 366-2057, facsimile (202)

366-4329.

For general rollover issues: Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash

Avoidance Standards, NPS-20, telephone (202) 366-5559, facsimile (202)

366-4329.

For legal issues: Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20,

telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Rollover Crash Problem 1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ A complete summary of the statistics used in this section

can be found in the document titled ``Status Report for Rollover

Prevention and Injury Mitigation, May 1996,'' in Docket 91-68-N05.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rollover crashes are a serious motor vehicle safety problem,

accounting for 29 percent of all light duty vehicle

fatalities.2 From 1991 through 1994, an average of 8,857

occupants of light duty vehicles died in rollover crashes

annually.3 These fatal rollover crashes occurred with all

types of vehicles; the greatest number occurred in small passenger

cars, followed by small pickup trucks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Light duty vehicles are passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans,

and sport utility vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of

10,000 pounds or less. Vans and sport utility vehicles are both

considered multipurpose passenger vehicles for purposes of NHTSA

regulations.

\3\ 1991-1994 average from Fatality Analysis Reporting System

(FARS).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The focus of public attention, however, has been on sport utility

vehicles because this type of vehicle is involved in rollover-related

occupant deaths more often (on a per-vehicle basis) than other vehicle

types. Sport utility vehicles experience 98 rollover fatalities for

every million vehicles registered,4 more than twice the rate

of all vehicle types combined--47 deaths per million registered

vehicles (although small pickup trucks have a similar fatal rollover

rate--93 deaths per million registered vehicles).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Fatality rates given are averages of 1991-1994 rates, using

fatality data from FARS and vehicle registration data from R.L. Polk

and Company, which was limited to the 14 most recent model years at

the time of the Status Report.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not mean, however, that sport utility vehicles are

unsafe. The overall fatality rate (considering front, rear, side and

rollover crashes) for sport utility vehicles is 163 fatalities per

million registered vehicles, compared to 169 for all light duty

vehicles combined. Small pickup trucks have the highest overall

fatality rate, at 217 fatalities per million registered vehicles,

followed by small cars, at 200.

II. Existing Utility Vehicle Rollover Warning Label

NHTSA currently requires multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs)

(other than those which are passenger car derivatives) with a wheelbase

of 110 inches or less (utility vehicles) to have a label advising

drivers that the handling and maneuvering characteristics of these

vehicles require special driving practices (49 CFR 575.105). The label

must be permanently affixed in a location in the vehicle which is

``prominent and visible

[[Page 17975]]

to the driver.'' A common location used by manufacturers is the sun

visor. No minimum size requirements are specified. The label must be

``printed in a typeface and color which are clear and conspicuous.''

The label must include the following or similar language:

This is a multipurpose passenger vehicle which will handle and

maneuver differently from an ordinary passenger car, in driving

conditions which may occur on streets and highways and off road. As

with other vehicles of this type, if you make sharp turns or abrupt

maneuvers, the vehicle may roll over or may go out of control and

crash. You should read driving guidelines and instructions in the

Owner's Manual, and WEAR YOUR SEAT BELTS AT ALL TIMES.

Utility vehicles are also required to have information in the

owner's manual accompanying the vehicle.

III. Related Rulemakings/Actions

A. Proposed Rollover Comparative Information Label

On June 28, 1994, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) to require vehicle manufacturers to provide consumers with

information on the vehicle's resistance to rollover, in the form of a

label that would be affixed to new vehicles and information in the

owner's manual (59 FR 33254). The label would be required on all

passenger cars, trucks and MPVs with a gross vehicle weight rating of

10,000 pounds or less. The comment period closed August 29, 1994.

The NPRM noted that the agency was considering two vehicle

measurements; tilt table angle and critical sliding velocity. Tilt

table angle is the angle at which the last uphill tire of the vehicle

lifts off a platform as the platform is increasingly tilted. Critical

sliding velocity is a measure of the minimum lateral (sideways) vehicle

velocity required to initiate rollover when the vehicle is tripped by

something in the roadway environment, e.g., a curb. The NPRM stated

that the agency might select one of the two measurements to appear on

the label, or might require the label to contain a nonquantitative

statement concerning the vehicle's resistance to rollover based on one

or both of the measurements. An example of the later proposal would be

the star rating system used in NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program.

During the comment period, Congress enacted the Department of

Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (Pub. L.

103-331; September 30, 1994). In that Act, Congress gave NHTSA funds

``for a study to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

of motor vehicle safety consumer information needs and the most cost

effective methods of communicating this information.'' The Act directed

NAS to complete its study by March 31, 1996. The Act also included the

following language: ``In order to ensure that the results of the study

are considered in the rulemaking process, the conferees agree that

NHTSA shall not issue a final regulation concerning motor vehicle

safety labeling requirements until after the NAS study is completed.''

As a result of this language, NHTSA deferred action on the proposed

expanded vehicle rollover stability labeling until the NAS study was

done. The NAS Study was completed and released to the public on March

26, 1996. It is titled Shopping for Safety--Providing Consumer

Automotive Safety Information, TRB Special Report 248. (This report is

discussed further in section III-C below.)

On June 5, 1996, NHTSA reopened the comment period on the 1994 NPRM

to allow interested parties to comment on the NAS study and how that

study should be reflected in NHTSA's decisions on the rollover

comparative information proposal. (61 FR 28560). The agency also asked

for comments on the possibility of a new rulemaking action to improve

the existing utility vehicle rollover warning label.

Few comments to the June 5, 1996 notice reopening the comment

period on the 1994 NPRM directly address the issue of upgrading the

current utility vehicle rollover warning label.

One manufacturer, Volkswagen (VW) stated that extending the

requirement to other vehicles was not justified. The National

Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) stated that appropriate revisions

to the utility vehicle label may be justified, but extension to other

vehicles was not. The Center for Auto Safety, an organization that

believes only a minimum performance standard could address the rollover

problem, does not believe that improving the existing label would help

reduce rollover fatalities and injuries.

NHTSA wishes to note that this proposal to improve the existing

utility vehicle rollover warning label is an additional activity and

does not affect the status of either the 1994 proposal for a

comparative information label or an August, 1996 petition for

rulemaking from the Consumers Union to establish a standard to reduce

the risk of steering-induced or maneuver-induced rollovers.

B. Air Bag Labels

On November 27, 1996, NHTSA published a final rule amending the

requirements for air bag warning labels in vehicles and on child seats

(61 FR 60206).5 As part of the process leading to this

amendment, the agency conducted focus groups to test public reaction to

possible changes to the labels. NHTSA believes that the use of focus

groups in this rulemaking helped to ensure that the information on the

labels was understandable to consumers and increased the chance that

the labels would affect consumer behavior. Based on its experience in

upgrading the air bag warning labels, the agency decided to explore the

possibility of upgrading the utility vehicle label using focus groups

also.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Corrected December 4, 1996 (61 FR 64297), December 11, 1996

(61 FR 65187), and January 2, 1997 (62 FR 31).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Shopping for Safety

On May 20, 1997, NHTSA published a request for comments on its

response to the National Academy of Sciences' study Shopping for Safety

(62 FR 27648). The notice also requests comments on programs NHTSA has

begun or is considering to address the recommendations of the study.

The NAS study focused primarily on providing comparative information

regarding vehicles, and makes only small reference to warning labels.

However, the NAS study does generally address the issue of rollover and

the need to improve existing consumer information. The comment closing

date for the NAS notice was August 18, 1997. To the extent that

proposals in this notice respond to recommendations of the NAS study,

it will be noted.

D. Suzuki Petition

On May 15, 1997, American Suzuki Motor Corporation (Suzuki)

petitioned NHTSA to modify the existing utility vehicle label to

include the following language:

If, for any reason, your vehicle slides sideways or spins out of

control at highway speeds, the risk of rollover is greatly

increased. This condition can be created when two or more wheels

drop off onto the shoulder and the driver steers sharply in an

attempt to reenter the roadway. To reduce the risk of rollover in

these circumstances, if conditions permit, hold the steering wheel

firmly and slow down before pulling back into the travel lanes with

controlled steering movements.

Suzuki also asked the agency to amend the requirement to require

the label in all light trucks, not just utility vehicles. NHTSA

considers the Suzuki petition moot, as the requested actions are

already under consideration by NHTSA in several open rulemakings,

including this rulemaking, regarding consumer information on rollover

[[Page 17976]]

prevention, and in other agency consumer information activities. The

Suzuki petition was placed in Docket 91-68 Notice 6, and its requests

pertinent to this rulemaking action will be addressed in this notice.

IV. Focus Groups

In June 1996, NHTSA conducted a series of six focus groups to

examine ways of improving the utility vehicle label. The Final Report,

dated August 1996, has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

Two focus groups were conducted in the Washington, DC area; two in

Amarillo, Texas; and two in Denver, Colorado. Three focus groups were

composed of persons 17 to 25 years old (two all male and one all

female), and three were a mix of ages and gender. Three of the groups

were composed of persons who owned, or drove at least once a week, a

utility vehicle or pickup truck. One group was composed of persons

interested in purchasing or leasing a utility vehicle. Two groups were

composed of a mixture of persons who owned a utility vehicle or a

pickup truck and persons who were interested in purchasing or leasing

such vehicles.

The two groups in the DC area were shown Labels 1 through 4 in the

Focus Group Report. Based on comments and suggestions from those

groups, the Amarillo and Denver groups were also shown Labels 5 through

7 in the Focus Group Report. Conclusions were:

Generally, graphics and bright colors were preferred over

text. Any text should be short and to the point.

Placement of the label would depend on whether the label

was temporary or permanent. Bright colors were less preferred for

permanent labels. Some said a temporary label would be removed

immediately.

A number of additional ways of disseminating information

were recommended.

With regard to the actual content of the label, virtually all

participants felt it must be attention getting. The following

recommendations were made:

Use two visuals rather than three

use (1) seat belt and (2) vehicle rolling over with arrow

make vehicle look more like a truck or SUV

no consensus on including a person

Use minimal wording

``Danger'' instead of ``Warning''

``Higher risk''

``Always wear your seat belt''

Use bright, eye-catching colors

yellow letters on black background

white ``Danger'' on red background

Based on these recommendations, the contractor developed three

recommended labels, Labels 8 through 10 in the Focus Group Report.

V. Proposed Utility Vehicle Label

Based on its experience in the rulemaking to improve the air bag

warning labels and the results of the focus groups, NHTSA is proposing

changes to the existing utility vehicle label. Proposed Labels 1

through 3 in this document were developed by NHTSA using the three

labels recommended in the Focus Group Report. As explained below, NHTSA

modified those labels to replace the word ``danger'' with the word

``warning'' on all proposed labels, to change the color of proposed

Label 1 to reflect an ANSI standard, and to change the color of

proposed Label 2 to reflect the colors used for the new air bag warning

labels. The colors used in proposed Label 3 reflect the colors used in

all of the recommended labels in the Focus Group Report. Color copies

of the three proposed labels can be obtained by contacting Ms.

Versailles as indicated in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Except for the signal word as discussed below, the new label may be

based on an adaptation of the three proposed labels in this notice.

NHTSA asks for comments on preferences in graphics and wording shown on

these labels. NHTSA may choose to combine elements of these labels in a

new label, rather than choosing one as currently illustrated. All of

the recommendations in the focus group report are being considered.

The results of the rollover focus groups and other focus groups the

agency has conducted consistently have found that labels like the

existing utility vehicle label and the label suggested by Suzuki (long

text, no graphics) are less likely to be read than labels with minimal

wording and graphics. Accordingly, the three labels proposed for

consideration in this notice all have graphics and short text.

NHTSA notes that the signal word and colors used for the

recommended labels in the Focus Group Report are based on the reactions

and comments of the focus group participants to the sample labels they

were shown. Neither the signal word ``danger'' nor the colors harmonize

with the ANSI standard for product safety signs and labels (ANSI

Z535.4).

The ANSI standard specifies the use of different signal words,

i.e., ``danger,'' ``warning,'' and ``caution,'' to communicate

information about different levels of hazard. ``Danger'' is for the

highest level of hazard; ``caution'' for the lowest level of hazard.

The word ``danger'' is used to indicate an imminently hazardous

situation which will result in death or serious injury if not avoided.

The word ``warning'' is used to indicate a potentially hazardous

situation which could result in death or serious injury. The word

``caution'' is used to indicate a potentially hazardous situation which

could result in minor or moderate injury. Given that the air bag

warning label uses the word ``warning,'' the agency would prefer to use

that word for this label also, despite the focus group preference. For

this reason, the sample labels have been changed to use the word

``warning.''

The ANSI standard also color codes messages for the different

levels of hazard. For the header, it specifies a red background with

white text for ``danger,'' an orange background with black text for

``warning,'' and a yellow background with black text for ``caution.''

Pictograms should be black on white, with occasional uses of color for

emphasis. Message text should be black on white. If the agency were to

follow the ANSI standard, it would propose the color appropriate for

``a potentially hazardous situation which could result in death or

serious injury.'' In other words, it would propose the color orange

instead of the color yellow for the header.

The discrepancy between the preferences of the focus groups

regarding utility vehicle labeling and the ANSI standard raises the

more general issue of the circumstances in which it is appropriate in

its rulemaking not to follow standards established by voluntary

consensus standards organizations. Under the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Federal agencies must

consider and adopt the use of ``voluntary consensus standards'' to

implement their ``policy objectives or activities,'' unless doing so

would be ``inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.''

A ``voluntary consensus standard'' is defined as a technical standard

developed or adopted by a legitimate standards-developing organization

(``voluntary consensus standards body''). According to NTTAA's

legislative history, a ``technical standard'' pertains to ``products

and processes, such as the size, strength, or technical performance of

a product, process or material''. Further, a voluntary consensus

standards organization under the NTTAA is one that produces standards

by consensus and observes the principles of due process, openness, and

balance of interests.

[[Page 17977]]

Consistent with the NTTAA, NHTSA requests comments on the extent

that any final choice regarding colors and signal words should be

guided by the focus group preferences rather than the ANSI standard.

NHTSA requests comments also on the broader issue of the circumstances

in which it would be appropriate for agency rulemaking decisions to be

guided by focus group results or other information when such

information is contrary to a voluntary consensus standard such as the

ANSI standard. NHTSA notes that, for the air bag warning labels, NHTSA

followed the ANSI standard, except with respect to the use of the color

orange for the background of the heading when the word ``warning'' was

used. This was because of an overwhelming focus group preference for

the color yellow as opposed to the color orange. The choice by that

focus group was not an isolated event. In a number of recent

rulemakings, participants in focus groups have chosen a word or color

based on how eye-catching it is without regard to the degree of danger

or risk being addressed.

To assist the reader in commenting on the use of color, two of the

labels recommended in the focus group report have been modified; the

first to use the colors specified by the ANSI standard for ``warning,''

and the second to use the colors used by the agency for air bag warning

labels. The third label illustrates the color combination used in all

the focus group labels.

NHTSA has received a petition for reconsideration of the final rule

requiring new air bag warning labels from the American Automobile

Manufacturer's Association (AAMA). The petition asks the agency to

allow both the air bag warning label and the utility vehicle label to

be on the front of the driver's sun visor. The petition argues that the

existing utility vehicle label does not include requirements for color

and graphics, and therefore, is unlikely to attract attention from the

air bag warning label. If this proposal to upgrade the utility vehicle

label is adopted, this will no longer be the case. NHTSA is requesting

comment on possible changes to the location of either the air bag label

or the utility vehicle label. In particular, NHTSA requests comment on

whether placement of the labels on the same side of the visor would

enhance or diminish the impact of either message.

Currently, NHTSA specifies that the utility vehicle label be

``permanently affixed to the instrument panel, windshield frame,

driver's side sun visor, or in some other location in each vehicle

prominent and visible to the driver.'' (49 CFR 575.105(c)(1)) One

option NHTSA is considering is retaining this requirement, with the

existing prohibition against the utility vehicle label and the air bag

warning label being on the same side of the sun visor. If a

manufacturer chose to continue placing the utility vehicle label on the

sun visor, the manufacturer would have to place the air bag warning

label on the back of the sun visor, and place the air bag alert label

on the front of the sun visor with the utility vehicle label. Another

option would be to keep the existing utility vehicle location

requirements, and to remove the prohibition against placing the utility

vehicle label on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning

label.

The final option NHTSA is considering is amending the utility

vehicle location requirement to prohibit the utility vehicle label from

being on the sun visor. In its petition regarding the air bag warning

label, AAMA said that other locations on the interior of the vehicle

did not have sufficient space for the utility vehicle label. NHTSA asks

for comments on whether locations would be available if NHTSA amends

the current location requirement only to prohibit the label from being

affixed to a sun visor. NHTSA also asks for comments on whether the

utility vehicle label would attract attention from the air bag warning

label at any location in the vehicle interior, including a location on

the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label. If a

commenter believes that any location currently specified would be

distracting, NHTSA asks for comments on other locations which would be

easily seen by the driver. One location raised by comments on the air

bag label rulemaking and being considered by NHTSA is the lower, rear

corner of the driver's side door window, legible from the vehicle

exterior. This location would be unobtrusive once the driver was in the

vehicle, but would be easily and regularly seen when entering the

vehicle.

NHTSA also asks for comments on whether a size should be specified

for the label. In its petition on the air bag warning label final rule,

AAMA stated that utility vehicle labels are 117 x 50 mm. Since the

regulation does not specify a size for the label, NHTSA assumes that

this is typical of the size label used by AAMA's member companies.

NHTSA asks for comment on whether this size is typical of the industry

as a whole.

Next, NHTSA asks for comments on possible changes to the owner's

manual information requirement. The current requirement specifies the

following or similar language:

Utility vehicles have higher ground clearance and a narrower

track to make them capable of performing in a wide variety of off-

road applications. Specific design characteristics give them a

higher center of gravity than ordinary cars. An advantage of the

higher ground clearance is a better view of the road allowing you to

anticipate problems. They are not designed for cornering at the same

speeds as conventional 2-wheel drive vehicles any more than low-

slung sports cars are designed to perform satisfactorily under off-

road conditions. If at all possible, avoid sharp turns or abrupt

maneuvers. As with other vehicles of this type, failure to operate

this vehicle correctly may result in loss of control or vehicle

rollover.

Shopping for Safety recommends that communication of vehicle safety

measures be accomplished through a hierarchically organized approach.

Using the NAS recommended crashworthiness rating as an example, this

would involve a vehicle label with highly summarized information, an

accompanying brochure with more detailed explanation of the summary

measure and how it was arrived at, and a handbook with complete

comparisons. This recommendation is based on the fact that consumers

differ in the amount of information they want and can manage. Based on

this recommendation, NHTSA believes consideration should be given to

including additional information in the owner's manual on rollover to

supplement the label.

Such information could include: statistical information comparing

the rollover risk of utility vehicles with other light passenger

vehicles, statistical information demonstrating the lower risk of

fatality or injury if seat belts are worn, information on the types of

situations that can result in a rollover, and information on how to

properly recover from a driving scenario that could result in rollover.

Alternatively, NHTSA believes that manufacturers may voluntarily

want to supplement the strong language on the proposed labels with

explanatory material in the owner's manual. Given that, NHTSA is

concerned that any requirement specifying the information that must be

included, including the current requirement, may be unnecessarily

restrictive. In part, this is because NHTSA is concerned that vehicle

differences may make some advice inappropriate for all vehicles.

NHTSA requests comments on three possible approaches to an owner's

manual information requirement: (1) Retain the current owner's manual

information requirement, (2) specify that information on design

features

[[Page 17978]]

which may make a vehicle more likely to rollover (e.g., higher center

of gravity) and driving practices which can reduce the risk that a

rollover will occur (e.g., avoiding sharp turns) or which can reduce

the likelihood of death or serious injury if a rollover occurs (e.g.,

wearing seat belts) be included in the owner's manual without

specifying the exact content of such information, or (3) specify the

inclusion of information beyond what is now specified. If a commenter

believes this requirement should be more specific, NHTSA requests that

the comment include a list of the specific information that should be

required.

Finally, NHTSA asks for comments on the issue of extending the

utility vehicle label requirement to all light trucks (trucks, buses,

and MPVs) or to any subset of this category (for example, all utility

vehicles). While VW and NADA believe an extension to other vehicles is

not justified, Suzuki believes the requirement should be extended to

all light trucks. NHTSA recognizes that pickup trucks also have a

higher rollover fatality rate than passenger cars, however, vans

(classified as either MPVs or buses under NHTSA regulations) have a

lower rollover fatality rate than small passenger cars. In addition,

given that there is an outstanding rulemaking on a comparative

information label for rollover, should NHTSA consider extending the

requirement to other vehicles before that rulemaking is concluded?

NHTSA believes that this proposal would result in minimal cost for

manufacturers and consumers. A label and owner's manual information is

already required for utility vehicles. Therefore, the cost of printing

the label, the owner's manual pages, and installation of the label

should be the same, even if the information is changed. The only cost

would be a one-time cost to change production to the new label or new

owner's manual pages. NHTSA also believes that 180 days leadtime would

be sufficient for these changes. NHTSA required a shorter leadtime for

the changes to the air bag warning labels and manufacturers were able

to install new labels by the deadline.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under

E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies

and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.

12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been

determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of

Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. As explained

above, NHTSA believes that this proposal would result in minimal cost

for manufacturers and consumers. As this is a proposal to change an

existing requirement, the only cost would be a one-time cost to change

production to the new label or new owner's manual pages.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule

would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities. As explained above, NHTSA believes this proposal would

have minimal economic impact.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-

511), there are no requirements for information collection associated

with this proposed rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National

Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a

significant impact on the human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles

and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this

proposed rule would not have significant federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable

to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal

standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a

higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for

the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial

review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

Submission of Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.

It is requested but not required that 2 copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim

of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to

the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven

copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been

deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for

confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth

the information specified in the agency's confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the docket at the above address

both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed

after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too

late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered

as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal

will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue

to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket

after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons

continue to examine the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their

comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped

postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the

comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575

Consumer protection, Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part

575 be amended as follows:

[[Page 17979]]

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 575 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, and 30123; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Sec. 575.105 [Amended]

2. Section 575.105 would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 575.105 Vehicle rollover.

(a) Purpose and scope. This section requires manufacturers of

utility vehicles to alert drivers that such vehicles have a higher

possibility of rollover than other vehicle types and that driving

practices can be used to reduce the possibility of rollover and/or to

reduce the likelihood of injury in a rollover.

(b) Application. This section applies to multipurpose passenger

vehicles (other than those which are passenger car derivatives) which

have a wheelbase of 110 inches or less and special features for

occasional off-road operation (``utility vehicles'').

(c) Required Information. (1) Vehicle Label. Each manufacturer

shall permanently affix a vehicle label in a location specified in

paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. The label shall conform in

size, content, color, and format to the label shown in Figure 1.

[For the convenience of the reader, this notice includes Figures

1-3, which duplicate Figures 8-10 from the focus group report except

as noted in the preamble. If this proposal is adopted, the final

rule will contain a single Figure 1. In addition, as discussed in

the preamble, the agency's preference for a signal word is

``warning,'' rather than ``danger'' as illustrated.]

(i) The instrument panel, windshield frame, driver's side sun

visor, or in some other location in each vehicle prominent and visible

to the driver; or,

(ii) The lower rear corner of the forwardmost window on the driver

side of the vehicle, legible from the vehicle exterior.

(2) Owner's Manual. The vehicle owner's manual shall include:

(i) Information identifying those design features which may cause

utility vehicles to roll over or go out of control in certain driving

conditions and explaining why those features may have that effect; and,

(ii) Driving guidelines which can help prevent vehicle roll over or

loss of control and which can help reduce the likelihood of death or

serious injury if the vehicle rolls over or goes out of control.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP98.002

[[Page 17980]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP98.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP98.004

Issued on April 7, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98-9574 Filed 4-9-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C