Safe Harbor Final Rule

38380

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

14511–14513; 14521–14522; and 14701–
14702) dealing with the measurement of
vessels, including conventions in
measurement, regulatory measurement
(general, formal, and simplified), as well
as applicable penalties, respectively.
With respect to Title III delegations
affecting maritime liability, established
in § 1.46(vv), the Secretary delegates all
his authority found in Subtitle III
(Chapters 301 and 313, codified at 46
U.S.C. 30101 and 31301–31343) with
the exception of the two narrow
instances, which are noted. In
subparagraph (1), the Secretary retains
exclusive authority with respect to his
statutory authority under 46 U.S.C.
31308 to foreclose a lien as a mortgagee
where the mortgage is covered by Title
XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936,
codified at 46 U.S.C. 1271–1280a. In
subparagraph (2), the Secretary retains
exclusive authority with respect to his
statutory authority under 46 U.S.C.
31329(c) and (d) pertaining to actions
with respect to mortgagees and other
purchasers of vessels by court order.
Finally, the current authority citation
for Part 1 of Title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations includes a typographical
error referring to ‘‘49 U.S.C. 2104(a),’’
which should have read ‘‘49 U.S.C.
322.’’ This rule corrects that error.
This rule will enhance the public’s
understanding of the authorities
delegated to the Commandant. It does
not substantially change the
organization or authorities of the
Department of Transportation or the
Coast Guard.
We publish this rule as a final rule,
effective on the date of publication.
Because these amendments relate to
departmental management,
organization, procedure, and practice,
notice and comment are unnecessary
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Further, because
this rule does not substantially change
the authorities or functions of the
Department or the Coast Guard, the
Secretary finds good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the final rule to be
effective on the date of publication in
the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1
Authority delegations (Government
agencies), Organization and functions
(Government agencies).
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Office of the Secretary
amends 49 CFR part 1 as follows:
PART 1—ORGANIZATION AND
DELEGATION OF POWERS AND
DUTIES
1. Revise the authority citation for
part 1 to read as follows:

VerDate 112000

17:55 Jul 23, 2001

Jkt 194001

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; Public Law 101–
552, 104 Stat. 2744; 28 U.S.C. 2672; 31 U.S.C.
3711(a)(2); 46 U.S.C. 2104(a).

2. In § 1.46, remove and reserve
paragraphs (n)(1), (n)(6), (ss), (zz), (ccc),
(ddd), (eee), (fff), (ggg), and (mmm) and
revise paragraphs (uu) and (vv) to read
as follows:
§ 1.46 Delegations to Commandant of the
Coast Guard.

*

*
*
*
*
(uu) Carry out the functions and
exercise the authorities vested in the
Secretary by subtitle II of Title 46,
United States Code, ‘‘Vessels and
Seaman’’ as amended through Public
Law 105–394, 112 Stat. 3627, as follows:
(1) Part A, General Provisions, Section
2101 to end, without exception;
(2) Part B, Inspection and Regulations,
Section 3101 to end, except the
authority under Section 3316(a) to
appoint Government representatives to
the executive committee of the
American Bureau of Shipping; which is
retained by the Secretary; and the
authority under Section 4508 to
establish, and appoint members to, the
Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel
Advisory Committee. Note that the
authority under Section 3101 to
suspend provisions of this part is vested
in the President and is not redelegated;
(3) Part C, Load Lines of Vessels,
Section 5101 to end, without exception;
(4) Part D, Marine Casualties, Section
6101 to end, without exception;
(5) Part E, Merchant Seaman Licenses,
Certificates, and Documents, Part 7101
to end, without exception;
(6) Part F, Manning of Vessels,
Section 8101 to end, except the
authority to require federal pilots on the
Saint Lawrence Seaway, which under
Section 8503(c) may only be delegated
to the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, and the
authority under Section 9307 to
establish, and appoint members to, a
Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory
Committee, which is retained by the
Secretary;
(7) Part G, Merchant Seaman
Protection and Relief, Section 10101 to
end, without exception;
(8) Part H, Identification of Vessels,
Section 12101 to end, except that
administration of Section 12102(c) with
respect to fishing vessels 100 feet or
greater in registered length has been
delegated to the Maritime Administrator
in accordance with the American
Fisheries Act, Public Law 105–277, 112
Stat. 268, Section 203(c);
(9) Part I, State Boating Safety
Programs, Section 13101 to end, except
the authority under 46 U.S.C. 13110 to

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

appoint members to the National
Boating Safety Advisory Council, which
is retained by the Secretary; and
(10) Part J, Measurement of Vessels,
Section 14101 to end, without
exception.
(vv) Carry out the functions and
exercise the authorities vested in the
Secretary by 46 United States Code
Subtitle III, ‘‘Maritime Liability’’ as
amended through Public Law 105–394,
except the following authorities:
(1) Section 31308, which authorizes
the Secretary to foreclose on certain
liens when the Secretary of Commerce
or Transportation is a mortgagee; and
(2) Sections 31329(c) and (d), which
authorize the Secretary to take certain
actions with respect to mortgagees and
other purchasers of vessels by court
order.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, this 12th day of
July, 2001.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 01–18304 Filed 7–23–01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 578
[Docket No. NHTSA–2001–9779]
RIN 2127–AI24

Motor Vehicle Safety: Criminal Penalty
Safe Harbor Provision
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule implements
Section 5(b) of the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act. Section
5(b) added a new section, which
provides for criminal liability in
circumstances where a person violates
reporting requirements with the
intention of misleading the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) with respect
to safety-related defects in motor
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment
that have caused death or serious bodily
injury. To encourage the correction of
incorrect or incomplete information that
was reported or should have been
reported to the Secretary, Section 5

E:\FR\FM\24JYR1.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 24JYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
includes a ‘‘safe harbor’’ provision that
offers protection from criminal
prosecution to persons who meet certain
criteria. To qualify for this protection,
the person must have lacked knowledge
at the time of the violation that the
violation would result in an accident
causing death or serious bodily injury,
and must correct any improper reports
or failures to report to the Secretary
within a reasonable time. This rule
establishes what constitutes a
‘‘reasonable time’’ and a sufficient
manner of ‘‘correction,’’ for such
improper reports and failures to report
information to the Secretary.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective August 23, 2001. Petitions:
Petitions for reconsideration must be
received on or before September 7,
2001.
ADDRESSES: You may submit petitions
for reconsideration in writing to: Docket
Management, Room PL–401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
20590. You may also submit your
petitions for reconsideration
electronically by logging onto the
Dockets Management System website at
http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help &
Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to obtain
instructions for filing the document
electronically. Regardless of how you
submit your petition for
reconsideration, include the docket
number of this document on it. You may
call Docket Management at 202–366–
9324. You may visit the Docket from
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Cohen, Office of Chief Counsel,
NCC–10, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590,
Telephone (202) 366–5263, Fax: 202–
366–3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 1, 2000, the TREAD
Act, Public Law 106–414, was enacted
in response, in part, to congressional
concerns related to manufacturers’
inadequate reporting to NHTSA of
information regarding possible defects
in motor vehicles and motor vehicle
equipment, including tires. The TREAD
Act expands 49 U.S.C. 30166,
Inspections, investigations, and records,
and provides for the Secretary to issue
various rules thereunder. The authority
to carry out Chapter 301 of Title 49
United States Code, under which the
rules directed by the TREAD Act are to
be issued, has been delegated to
NHTSA’s Administrator pursuant to 49
CFR 1.50.

VerDate 112000

16:55 Jul 23, 2001

Jkt 194001

Section 5(b) of the TREAD Act, adds
a new section, 49 U.S.C. 30170, to
Chapter 301. Section 30170(a)(1)
establishes criminal liability for a
‘‘person who violates section 1001 of
title 18 with respect to the reporting
requirements of [49 U.S.C.] section
30166, with the specific intention of
misleading the Secretary with respect to
motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment safety related defects that
have caused death or serious bodily
injury to an individual * * * .’’ Section
1001 of title 18 provides that whoever
‘‘* * * knowingly and willfully—(1)
falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any
trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious,
or fraudulent statement or
representation; or (3) makes or uses any
false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
entry’’ in a matter within the
jurisdiction of the federal government is
subject to a fine and imprisonment.
Section 30170(a)(2)(A) contains a
‘‘safe harbor’’ provision, which states
that a
person described in paragraph (1) [of 49
U.S.C. 30170(a)] shall not be subject to
criminal penalties * * * if (1) at the time of
the violation, such person does not know that
the violation would result in an accident
causing death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) the person corrects any improper reports
or failure to report within a reasonable time.

This safe harbor applies only to criminal
liability related to 49 U.S.C. 30170(a)(1).
Section 30170(a)(2)(B) requires the
Secretary to ‘‘establish by regulation
what constitutes a reasonable time for
the purposes of [49 U.S.C.
30170(a)(2)(A)] and what manner of
correction is sufficient for the purposes
of [49 U.S.C. 30170(a)(2)(A)].’’
On December 26, 2000 NHTSA
promulgated an interim final rule on the
reasonable time and manner of
correction provision (65 FR 81414). The
interim final rule provides violators of
49 U.S.C. 30170 who are seeking to
qualify for the statute’s safe harbor
protection with a ‘‘reasonable time’’
period of 21 days, starting on the date
of the report or the date that the report
was due to be sent to or received by
NHTSA. It also provides that the
‘‘correction’’ of an improper report or
failure to report will be sufficient under
the statute’s safe harbor provision if it
satisfies two requirements. First, the
violator must submit to NHTSA’s Chief
Counsel a signed and dated document
identifying (1) each previous improper
report, (2) each failure to report for
which protection is sought, and (3) the
specific predicates under which the
improper or omitted report should have

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

38381

been provided. Second, the violator
must submit to NHTSA the complete
and correct information or, if the person
cannot do so, provide a detailed
description of that information and/or
the content of those documents and the
reason why the violator cannot provide
them to NHTSA.
Comments were received from the
Tire Association of North America
(TANA); Lawrence F. Henneberger, on
behalf of the Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association (MEMA) and
the Original Equipment Suppliers
Association (OESA); and Michael J.
McKale, of Delphi Automotive Systems
(Delphi), a MEMA and OESA member
supporting the comment submitted by
MEMA and OESA. None of the
comments strongly oppose the interim
final rule. However, various comments
suggested that NHTSA define the term
‘‘violation,’’ that the ‘‘reasonable time’’
period should begin to toll upon
discovery of the improper or misleading
report, not the date of the report to
NHTSA or the day it was due to be
submitted to NHTSA, and that
correction submitters be allowed more
time, at least 30 days, under NHTSA’s
‘‘reasonable time’’ interpretation. The
agency has reviewed these comments
and addresses them below.
II. Discussion
A. Defining the Term ‘‘Violation’’
The comment from MEMA/OESA,
which is supported by Delphi, urges
NHTSA to define the term ‘‘violation,’’
as used in 49 CFR 578.7(a)(1), in the
rule itself. MEMA/OESA’s rationale for
this change is that the TREAD Act’s
criminal provision, 49 U.S.C. 30170,
includes by reference the crime of
knowingly and willfully making false
statements to a Federal authority, as laid
out at 18 U.S.C. 1001. It asserts that the
current format requires motor vehicle
industry operatives, some of whom have
limited levels of legal support, to parse
two statutes to determine if a criminal
‘‘violation’’ may have occurred and, if
so, whether the ‘‘safe harbor’’ provision
in TREAD is applicable. MEMA/OESA
attempts to advance its position by
noting that there is no guidance in the
rule for ‘‘a manufacturer that, through
inadvertence or mistake, and without
the intention to do so, has omitted
relevant information from a required
report to NHTSA which the
manufacturer subsequently discovers.’’
MEMA/OESA recognizes that ‘‘[t]his
situation does not create criminal
exposure,’’ but fears that ‘‘the interim
safe harbor provision, with its
references to ‘any improper (i.e.
incorrect, incomplete, or misleading)

E:\FR\FM\24JYR1.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 24JYR1

38382

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

report,’ could be read to imply that
inadvertently ‘improper’ reports also
raise criminal issues.’’
NHTSA declines to engage in
rulemaking with respect to the
definition of ‘‘violation.’’ The elements
of such a violation are defined by the
courts, rather than NHTSA. Consistent
with statutory direction, the purpose of
this rule is limited to establishing by
regulation what constitutes a
‘‘reasonable time’’ and a sufficient
manner of ‘‘correction’’ under 49 U.S.C.
30170(a)(2). The fact that a statute or
regulation references another statute or
regulation does not dictate rulemaking
or create an excessive burden on those
who would otherwise submit a false
report. Therefore, no definition of
‘‘violation’’ will be added to 49 CFR
578.4.
B. When To Start the ‘‘Reasonable
Time’’ Clock
TANA commented that the
‘‘reasonable time’’ period to correct any
improper reports or failures to report to
NHTSA should run ‘‘from the date of
discovery of the improper report, not
the date the report was due’’ because
‘‘[i]t could be weeks or months before an
individual discovers a mistake or
omission in a report.’’ TANA also notes
that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)’s Audit Policy, which
NHTSA cited in the interim final rule
for the criminal penalty safe harbor
provision, uses ‘‘discovery’’ to start the
clock it uses when deciding whether a
violator qualifies for the EPA’s limited
safe harbor protections. TANA argues
that ‘‘if NHTSA is truly basing this
interim final rule on the framework
adopted by EPA’s regulations, the same
terminology and time frame should be
utilized.’’
NHTSA did not base the interim final
rule on the framework adopted by EPA’s
audit policy, published at 65 FR 19618
(April 11, 2000), although NHTSA did
utilize EPA’s time frame. EPA’s audit
policy and NHTSA’s Criminal Penalty
Safe Harbor rule generally deal with
different kinds of underlying violations.
EPA’s policy focuses on civil penalties.
In general, EPA may seek or impose
civil penalties for environmental
violations on a ‘‘strict liability’’ basis.
The violator need not have any
knowledge of the violations. Since the
violator may not have known of the
violation, EPA’s policy provides an
open window for reporting by allowing
disclosure within a stated time period
after the entity discovered that a
violation occurred. In a criminal
prosecution context, EPA’s policy may
be applied in making a ‘‘no
recommendation for criminal

VerDate 112000

16:55 Jul 23, 2001

Jkt 194001

prosecution.’’ However, EPA’s incentive
has limited applicability in this context
and ‘‘will not be available, for example,
where corporate officials are
consciously involved in or willfully
blind to violations, or conceal or
condone noncompliance’’ or where the
violation(s) cause serious harm to
human health or the environment. 65
FR at 19620, 19623, 19625. Finally,
EPA’s policy was developed, in part, to
promote self auditing, which would
detect violations.
In contrast to the EPA’s policy, the
TREAD Act’s safe harbor provision was
written to apply to criminal activities,
including willful concealment. The
violator will have known about the
violation, because the TREAD Act
criminal provision includes the
predicate violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001,
which has a ‘‘knowingly and willfully’’
standard. Thus, there is no need or basis
for a discovery element. Accordingly,
the time period will run from date of the
improper report to NHTSA or the date
of the failure to report to NHTSA.
C. Changing the Time Period From 21
Days to 30 or More Days
MEMA/OESA, supported by Delphi,
also proposes increasing the ‘‘reasonable
time’’ period from 21 days to ‘‘at least
30 calendar days,’’ especially since the
interim final rule requires that NHTSA
be in receipt of the correction
submission by the end of the 21 days.
MEMA/OESA’s rationale for this change
is that there are ‘‘wide disparities in
size, sophistication and legal support
among motor vehicle and vehicle parts
manufacturers,’’ and it may take extra
time for a smaller industry participant
to consult with corporate or individual
counsel about the implications of
submitting the corrected information
and admitting a felony violation.
MEMA/OESA recognizes that 21 days
may be reasonable time to make a
correction where there is only limited
civil penalty exposure (e.g., the EPA’s
Audit Policy is used only to determine
civil penalties based on the gravity of
the violation, not penalties based on the
violator’s economic benefit and/or any
criminal penalties), but it argues that at
least 30 calendar days are required in
situations involving criminal liability
exposure, as here. MEMA/OESA urges
that 49 CFR 578.7(b) be amended
accordingly.
In adopting the 21-day time period in
the interim final rule, NHTSA
considered its own rules and
experiences with the current motor
vehicle and motor vehicle equipment
defects program, as well as comparable
safe harbor policies used by other
federal agencies, to delineate what

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

constitutes a ‘‘reasonable time’’ in a safe
harbor rule that requires a person to
correct any improper reports or failure
to report. NHTSA attempted to reach a
balance that still satisfied the agency’s
motor vehicle safety mission under
Chapter 301 by minimizing the time that
NHTSA is performing its safety
responsibilities using an incorrect or
incomplete factual record. We sought a
time period that would be short enough
to address public safety concerns and to
generate an urgency in the violator
designed to compel potential correctors
to come forward before the time period
expires, and yet not be so short as to
discourage corrective actions that
otherwise would have been taken or be
unusable in real world situations.
Even though we do not agree with all
of MEMA/OESA’s reasoning, NHTSA
has decided to adopt MEMA/OESA’s
request to increase the 21-day period to
30 days. Based on our experiences and
the EPA’s reported experiences under
its Audit Policy, we believe that 21 days
ordinarily would be a sufficient time for
violators to correct their improper
actions. Nonetheless, we are willing to
make reasonable accommodations in
light of concerns of small businesses,
and the requested nine additional days
would not significantly undercut the
agency’s ability to perform its public
safety mission. Therefore, the
‘‘reasonable time’’ period for corrections
of improper reports or failures to report
will be not more than thirty (30)
calendar days after the date of the report
to the agency or the failure to report, as
the case may be.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA considered the impact of this
rulemaking action under Executive
Order 12866 and the Department of
Transportation’s regulatory policies and
procedures. This rulemaking was not
reviewed under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’
This rulemaking is not considered
‘‘significant’’ under the Department of
Transportation’s regulatory policies and
procedures. The impacts of this rule are
expected to be so minimal as not to
warrant preparation of a full regulatory
evaluation because this provision only
involves a safe harbor for criminal
sanctions associated with a criminal
provision that NHTSA does not expect
to be invoked often.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have also considered the impact
of this notice under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule

E:\FR\FM\24JYR1.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 24JYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
will have no significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As stated above, this provision
only involves a safe harbor for criminal
penalties which NHTSA does not expect
to be invoked often.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this proposal for
the National Environmental Policy Act
and determined that it would not have
any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
NHTSA has determined that this
imposes new collection of information
burdens within meaning of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA). NHTSA began the process of
requesting a 3-year clearance for this
collection when we published the
interim final rule in the Federal
Register (65 FR 81414), and provided a
60-day public comment period for the
issues listed in OMB regulations 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(i)–(iv). Concurrently,
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13, Emergency
Processing, NHTSA asked the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for a
temporary emergency clearance for this
collection. This emergency PRA
approval was granted on January 25,
2001 and is effective through June 30,
2001. Because no PRA-related
comments were received by NHTSA or
OMB, NHTSA has submitted a request
for a 3-year clearance for this collection
to OMB.
5. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 on
‘‘Federalism’’ requires us 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.’’ The Executive
Order defines this phrase 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.’’ This
rule, which defines terms in a safe
harbor provision for criminal penalties
for a person who acts with the specific
intention of misleading the Secretary
regarding safety defects in motor
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment,
will not have substantial direct effect 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
Executive Order 13132. This rule
making does not have those

VerDate 112000

16:55 Jul 23, 2001

Jkt 194001

implications because it applies to those
persons who are required by 49 U.S.C.
30166 to provide information to
NHTSA.
6. Civil Justice Reform
This rule does not have a retroactive
or preemptive effect. Judicial review of
the rule 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.
7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) 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 tribunal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of more than $100
million annually. Because this rule will
not have a $100 million annual effect,
no Unfunded Mandates assessment is
necessary and one will not be prepared.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the
President’s memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all
rules in plain language. Application of
the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following
questions:
—Have we organized the material to suit
the public’s needs?
—Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
—Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that is not clear?
—Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
—Would more (but shorter) sections be
better?
—What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please include them in your
comments.
Submission of Petitions
How Can I Influence NHTSA’s Thinking
on This Rule?
In developing this rule, we tried to
address the public comments and
anticipated concerns of all our
stakeholders. We welcome your views
on all aspects of this rule. If you believe
that NHTSA should reconsider any
aspect of this rule, please follow the
suggestions below:
Explain your views and reasoning as
clearly as possible.

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

38383

• Provide solid information to
support your views.
• If you estimate potential numbers of
reports or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate.
• Tell us which parts of the rule you
support, as well as those with which
you disagree.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns.
• Offer specific alternatives.
• Refer your comments to specific
sections of the rule, such as the units or
page numbers of the preamble, or the
regulatory sections.
• Be sure to include the name, date,
and docket number with your petition.
How Do I Prepare and Submit a
Petition?
Your petition must be written and in
English. To ensure that it is correctly
filed in the Docket, please include the
docket number of this document in your
petition.
Your petition 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 ADDRESSES.
Petition may also be submitted to the
docket electronically by logging onto the
Dockets Management System website at
http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help &
Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to obtain
instructions for filing the document
electronically.
How Can I Be Sure That My Petition
Was Received?
If you wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your
petition, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your petition. Upon
receiving your petition, 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 copies of your complete
submission, including the information
you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel (NCC–
30), 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

E:\FR\FM\24JYR1.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 24JYR1

38384

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 Petitions?
We will consider all petitions that
Docket Management receives before the
close of business on the closing date
indicated above under DATES. To the
extent possible, we will also consider
petitions that Docket Management
receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a petition late, we
will consider that petition as an
informal suggestion for future
rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Petitions Submitted
by Other People and Other Materials
Relevant to This Rulemaking?
You may view the materials in the
docket for this rulemaking on the
Internet. These materials include the
written comments submitted by other
interested persons and the preliminary
regulatory evaluation prepared by this
agency. You may read them 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 and
materials on the Internet. To read them
on the Internet, take the following steps:

VerDate 112000

16:55 Jul 23, 2001

Jkt 194001

(1) Go to the Docket Management
System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://
dms.dot.gov/).
(2) On that page, click on ‘‘search.’’
(3) On the next page (http://
dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the fourdigit docket number shown at the
beginning of this document. Example:
If the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–
2000–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’
After typing the docket number, click
on ‘‘search.’’
(4) On the next page, which contains
docket summary information for the
materials in 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 578
Motor vehicle safety, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, the interim final rule
amending 49 CFR Part 578, which was
published at 65 FR 81414 on December
26, 2000, is adopted as a final rule with
the following changes:
PART 578—CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
PENALTIES
1. The authority citation for part 578
continues to read as:

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Authority: Pub. L. 101–410, Pub. L. 104–
134, Pub. L. 106–414, 49 U.S.C. 30165, 49
U.S.C. 30170, 30505, 32308, 32309, 32507,
32709, 32710, 32912, and 33115; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Amend § 578.7 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 578.7

Criminal safe harbor provision.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Reasonable time. A correction is
considered to have been performed
within a reasonable time if the person
seeking protection from criminal
liability makes the correction to any
improper (i.e., incorrect, incomplete, or
misleading) report not more than thirty
(30) calendar days after the date of the
report to the agency and corrects any
failure to report not more than thirty
(30) calendar days after the report was
due to be sent to or received by the
agency, as the case may be, pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 30166, including a regulation,
requirement, request or order issued
thereunder. In order to meet these
reasonable time requirements, all
submissions required by this section
must be received by NHTSA within the
time period specified in this paragraph,
and not merely mailed or otherwise sent
within that time period.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued on: July 17, 2001.
L. Robert Shelton,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 01–18248 Filed 7–23–01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

E:\FR\FM\24JYR1.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 24JYR1