MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM:		Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
            USEPA/OECA/OC
            ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATE:		14 September 2015

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Notes from Technical Meeting with States (26 February 2015) [DCN 0221]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

      This was the nineteenth meeting between EPA and individual representatives from authorized NPDES programs. These meetings provided greater clarity regarding public comments on the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). Participants are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA's outreach during the rulemaking process (see Table 3). EPA also met with other stakeholders to discuss public comments.

Meeting Notes

     EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in addition to raising questions during these meetings, states can email their questions on the proposed rule (including the data elements) to EPA. Questions on all aspects of the proposed rule can be sent to Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston also reminded everyone that this outreach does not constitute a decision-making body (see "Quick Reminder" section below).

     Mr. Andrew Hudock started the meeting with an overview of the pilot Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Notice of Intent to discharge (NOI) form that EPA is developing with Florida and South Dakota using EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool (NeT). Several state representatives noted that they do not collect information on the MS4 minimum control measures through an NOI.

     Mr. Johnston the continued the technical discussion by reading the name of each MS4 data element along with the corresponding data description and regulatory or policy citation. After reading about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from meeting participants. Below are some questions and comments from the meeting participants.

* A representative from Washington asked for clarification on the "MS4 Public Education Program" data element. In the final rule, EPA provide further clarification such that the description for the data element reads as follows: "The one or more unique codes/descriptions that identifies the educational materials the permittee intends to distribute or equivalent outreach activities the permittee will implement to inform the target audience about the impacts of stormwater discharges and the steps the public can take to reduce stormwater pollutants."

* Several state representatives requested that EPA note that the "MS4 Additional Measures" is optional when there are no MS4 additional measures. EPA has included this note for this data element in the final rule.

* A representative from New Jersey asked if a state agency could be listed in the "MS4 Municipality Enforcement Agency" data element. EPA noted that this report is intended to accurately capture the enforcement agency for MS4 each minimum control measure, which can include a state agency.

* A representative from New Jersey and a number of other state representatives noted that some data elements only apply to Phase 1 MS4s (larger municipalities). They asked EPA to provide greater clarity in each data description regarding the MS4 phase. EPA has done so in the final rule.

* A representative from Colorado noted that stated get more information through narrative forms than standard forms. EPA noted that Appendix A is the minimum set of NPDES program data that must be electronically collected, managed, and shared with EPA. Authorized states can require other data, including narrative forms, on paper or through electronic submissions to fulfill their obligations as the authorized NPDES program.

Quick Reminder
   *    The technical workgroup is not a decision-making body. Members of the workgroup provide clarity on their comments and suggest options for consideration by EPA and state senior management.

   *    There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

   *    There will be no voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, members of the workgroup are providing individual input reflecting their various perspectives.

   *    Summaries of the workgroup's discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the rulemaking record.

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members - 26 February 2015

                                 Main Contact
                             State or Organization
                              Main Contact Email
                         State/Org. Present? (Yes/No)
                                 Sean  Rolland
                                     ACWA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Karen Lechner
                                      AK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Christy Monk
                                      AL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Eric Cleckler

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Glenda Dean

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Teresa Marks
                                      AR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                   Pat Goff

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                   Mo Shafii

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Karen Bassett

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 David Ramsey

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Ellen Carpenter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Wendy LeStarge
                                      AZ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Robin Belley

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  David Lelsz

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                         Darren Polhemus
                                      CA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                       Renee Purdy

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                        Deborah Smith

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                       Vicky Whitney

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Andy Putnam
                                      CO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Elisa Willard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Bob Zimmerman
                                      DE
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                   Tom Tyler
                                     ECOS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                  Chris Klena
                                      FL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                              Jessica Kleinfelter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Edward Smith

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                               Frances Carpenter
                                      GA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Scott Miyashiro
                                      HI
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Tom Easterly
                                      IN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                               Jeremy Chenevert

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Mark Stanifer

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Courtney Cswercko
                                      IA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Ed Dillingham
                                      KS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Steve Caspers

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                             Shelly Shores-Miller

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Shawn Hokanson
                                      KY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                  Grace Scott
                                      MI
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Carla Davidson

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Ruth Wallace
                                      MO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Walter Fett

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                              Christopher Miller

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Tamara Dahl
                                      MN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Paul Scheirer

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  John Murphy
                                    NEIWPCC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                        Deborah Gore
                                      NC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                        Bradley Bennett

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jason Lonardo
                                      NJ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Julio Collazo

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Robert Wither
                                      NY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Joseph DiMura

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                      Alan Tinney
                                  Dave Gaskin
                                      NV
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                    Brian Hall
                                      OH
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                     Erin Sherer

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                             Shellie Chard-McClary
                                      OK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Walker

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 David Pruitt

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jim Billings
                                      OR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Sean Furjanic
                                      PA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                Kent Woodmansey
                                      SD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                   Tim Flor

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Albert Spangler

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Lawrence Bunting
                                      TN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                      No
                                 Yatasha Moore

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                                  Kim Wilson
                                      TX
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                               Rebecca Villalba

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Lynley Doyen

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Kimberly Shepard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jeff Studenka
                                      UT
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jerome Brooks
                                      VA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Deborah Debiasi

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Phani Eturu

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Stephen Bernath
                                      WA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Dave Knight

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Nancy Kmet

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

                                     Name
                                  EPA Office
                                     Email
                               Present? (Yes/No)
                                John Dombrowski
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                  Andy Hudock
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Rochele Kadish
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Carey Johnston
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jackie Clark
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Greg Schaner
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Chaudet
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Aditi Prabhu
                                    OGC/WLO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 David Apanian
                                   Region 4
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Sandra Chew
                                   Region 9
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Glynis Hill
                                 OP/ORPM/PRAD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No

Table 3: State Technical Workgroup Discussions to Discuss Public Comments

                                      DCN
                                     Date
Topic
Data Source
                                   DCN 0219
                                  02/05/2015
Basic Facility and Permit Data
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs
                                   DCN 0220
                                  02/12/2015
Basic Violation and Enforcement Action Data
States & Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs
                                   DCN 0221
                                  02/26/2015
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Information
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & MS4 Program Report
                                   DCN 0222
                                  03/05/2015
Construction and Industrial Stormwater Information
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs
                                   DCN 0223
                                  03/12/2015
CSO & Collection System Information & Sewer Overflow Data
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Sewer Overflow Event Reports
                                   DCN 0224
                                  03/19/2015
Pretreatment Data
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual POTW Pretreatment Program Reports, CIU/SIU Reports When EPA or State is Control Authority
                                   DCN 0225
                                  03/26/2015
Cooling Water and Thermal Variance Data
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs
                                   DCN 0226
                                  04/02/2015
Biosolids Data
States & Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual Biosolids Reports
                                   DCN 0227
                                  04/09/2015
CAFO Data
Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual Biosolids Reports
                                   DCN 0228
                                  05/13/2015
Review of Appendix A
All NPDES program data
                                   DCN 0229
                                  05/27/2015
Review of State Representative Questions to EPA
All NPDES program data


[Federal Register: April 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22532-22539]
[DOCID:fr29ap10-12]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0055]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Cargo Carrying Capacity

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

ACTION: Denial of petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies petitions for reconsideration of a final
rule published December 4, 2007 which amended the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120 on tire selection and rims.
The final rule addressed the problem of light vehicle, motor home and
recreation vehicle trailer overloading by requiring manufacturers of
light vehicles, motor homes, and recreation vehicle trailers to
provide, among other matters, information to consumers about the
vehicle's load carrying capacity.

DATES: The December 4, 2007 final rule became effective June 2, 2008.
Today's document makes no changes to the regulatory text of that final
rule

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
Samuel Daniel, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
His FAX number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the
Chief Counsel at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her FAX number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the December 2007 Final Rule
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
    a. The Information that Should Be Provided to Consumers
    1. Water Weight as Cargo
    2. Dealers Wanting To Require Manufacturers To Weigh Each RV
    3. Providing the UVW to Consumers on the RV Trailer CCC Label
    b. How the Information Should Be Displayed or Conveyed to the
Consumer
    1. Owner's Manual Requirements
    2. Other Means of Informing Consumers
    c. The Weight That Can Be Added to a Vehicle After Final Vehicle
Certification and Before First Retail Sale Without Triggering a
Requirement To Re-Label the Vehicle
    1. Raising the Threshold
    2. 49 CFR Sec.  595.7
    3. Use of a Single Weight Threshold Only, Not Percentage of GVWR
    d. Applying FMVSS No. 110 Re-Labeling Requirements Only to
Alterers
    e. Issues Outside the Scope of Rulemaking
    1. Dealers Changing Tire Placard
    2. Load Distribution
III. Conclusion

I. Summary of the December 2007 Final Rule

    On December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68442) (Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0040),
NHTSA published a final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120 to address the problem of motor home
and recreation vehicle trailer overloading. The final rule took effect
on June 2, 2008. Standard No. 110 was renamed, Tire selection and rims
and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity
information for motor vehicles with a GVWR [Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating] of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Standard No. 120
was renamed, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle
trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a
GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). Among other things,
the December 2007 final rule amended the standards to require all motor
homes and recreation vehicle (RV) trailers to bear a label that informs
the consumer about the vehicle's load carrying capacity.
    Over the years, the agency has received inquiries and complaints
from the public about problems resulting from motor home and travel
trailer overloading. Many overloading problems surface in the form of
complaints about poor handling, reduced braking capabilities, tire
failure and the premature failure of suspension components. NHTSA
issued the final rule to address the problem of overloading, by helping
consumers have a better idea of when the cargo carrying capacities of
their motor homes and travel trailers are being met, and exceeded.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rulemaking commenced in response to a petition for
rulemaking from Ms. Justine May, who asked NHTSA to amend FMVSS No.
120 in such a way that motor vehicles would be equipped with tires
that meet maximum load standards when the vehicle is loaded with a
reasonable amount of luggage and the total number of passengers the
vehicle is designed to carry. Ms. May's reason for her petition was
her family's personal experience with a fifth-wheel travel trailer.
She stated that there was no information provided with her trailer
stating its cargo carrying capacity. Ms. May believed that loading
her vehicle with cargo for a trip placed it in an overloaded
condition, resulting in tire blowouts. A discussion of motor home
and recreational trailer loading problems can be found in the August
31, 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking (70 FR 51707, 51708) (Docket
No. NHTSA-2005-22242).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule addressed motor homes and RV trailers. The agency
believed that many owners of these vehicles are unaware of their
vehicle's cargo carrying capacity until a problem becomes apparent.
State laws do not require motor homes and travel trailers to use
roadside weighing stations as they do for heavy commercial vehicles.
NHTSA believed that consumer information in the form of a required
label will inform consumers of a motor home or travel trailer's cargo
carrying capacity and will result in reduced overloading of the
vehicles.
    For motor homes and RV trailers, the final rule required labels
that display the vehicle identification number (VIN), the weight of a
full load of water, the unit weight of water and a cautionary statement
that the weight of water is part of cargo. The rule required motor home
labels to display the maximum weight of occupants and cargo, and RV
trailer labels to display the maximum weight of cargo. In addition, for
motor homes, the label must show the seating capacity of the vehicle--
based on the number of safety belts in the vehicle--and must indicate
that the tongue weight of a towed trailer counts as part of the motor
home's cargo.
    To promote a consistent conspicuous label location, the final rule
specified that permanent load carrying capacity labels be affixed to
the interior of the forward-most exterior passenger door on the right
side of the vehicle and be visible. As an alternative, to address
aesthetic considerations, the rule permitted manufacturers to place a
temporary label to the interior of the forward-most exterior passenger
door on the right side of the vehicle and to apply a permanent label in
the area of the vehicle specified by FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 for tire
information.
    In addition, the final rule adopted a threshold for correcting load
carrying capacity information on FMVSS No. 110 vehicle placards, motor
home occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC) labels and RV trailer
cargo carrying capacity (CCC) labels of the lesser of 1.5 percent of
GVWR or 100 pounds in FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120. When weight is added
between final vehicle certification and first retail sale, the load
carrying capacity values on the labels

must be corrected using one or a combination of the following methods:
(a) Adding a load carrying capacity modification label within 25 mm of
the existing vehicle (FMVSS No. 110) placard, and/or the motor home
OCCC label, or RV trailer CCC label (FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120); (b)
modifying the original permanent RV load carrying capacity label or
vehicle placard with correct load carrying capacity weight values; or
(c) replacing the original, permanent RV load carrying capacity label
or vehicle placard with the same label or placard containing correct
load carrying capacity weight values.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration from: The Association
of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM); Mr. Dennis
Myhre; the National RV Dealers Association (RVDA), and a ``joint
petition'' submitted by the National Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA) and Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) (hereafter
referred to as ``NADA/SEMA'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Also signing the joint petition were the Automotive Service
Association, the Marine Retailers Association of America, the
National Marine Manufacturers, RVDA, the National Truck Equipment
Association, and the Tire Industry Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issues raised by the petitioners can be categorized as relating
to the following: (a) The information that should be provided to
consumers; (b) how the information should be displayed or conveyed to
the consumer; (c) the weight that can be added to a vehicle after final
vehicle certification and before first retail sale without triggering a
requirement to re-label the vehicle; \3\ and, (d) whether the re-
labeling requirement should only apply to ``alterers.'' There were also
requests for changes that were outside of the scope of the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Several petitioners stated that the relief provided in the
final rule, the lesser of 1.5 percent of vehicle GVWR, or 100 pounds
was too low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed below, NHTSA is denying all of the
petitions for reconsideration.

a. The Information That Should Be Provided to Consumers

1. Water Weight as Cargo
    The final rule specified that the motor home occupant and cargo
carrying capacity label (OCCC) must state the weight value that the
combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed. Among other
information, the label must provide the weight of a full load of water
and the unit weight of water, and must inform consumers that the weight
of water is part of the cargo weight. The final rule specified that for
RV trailers, the cargo carrying capacity label (CCC label) must specify
the weight value that the weight of cargo must never exceed, the weight
of a full load of water, the unit weight of water and a caution that
the weight of water is part of the cargo weight.
    We explained in the final rule that information about on-board
water weight is important because filled water tanks can be a
significant portion of the vehicle's total cargo capacity. We stated
that the level of on-board water can be assessed by the consumer.
Further, campgrounds often provide water hook-ups, making it
unnecessary sometimes for consumers to carry water. In such cases, the
absence of water provides more capacity for cargo.
    In a petition for reconsideration, Mr. Dennis Myhre asks that on-
board water capacity be considered part of the unloaded vehicle weight
(UVW) rather than cargo. He states that most owners fill their tanks
completely before leaving home or a campground. He states: ``Partially
filling the fresh water tank can have negative effects on the ABS
[antilock] braking system and steering control, and encouraging the
consumer to `drain' the fresh tank to compensate for carrying capacity
is unrealistic and wasteful of our precious natural resources.'' The
petitioner believes that manufacturers have told RV consumers for
several years that fresh water is not part of the cargo carrying
capacity of their RV, and consumers will now misunderstand the cargo
carrying information provided by the new CCC label, and will overload
their vehicle.
Agency Response
    This request is denied. Although voluntary industry labels have
used the term ``CCC'' to refer to the residual cargo capacity of an RV
with a full water tank, we believe that the labels specified in the
December 2007 final rule improve the conspicuity and clarity of the
previous labels. The new labels emphasize to the consumer that the
weight of water is part of cargo. The label clearly states: ``The
combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kg or
XXX lb,'' followed by ``Caution: A full load of water equals XXX kg or
XXX lb of cargo.'' These explicit statements should facilitate the
consumer's understanding that they must consider the weight of water as
cargo.
    An important part of the December 2007 final rule for motor homes
and RV trailers is the requirement that either the permanent label or a
temporary label must be displayed inside the front passenger door
before the first retail sale of the vehicle. This requirement ensures
that information about the vehicle capacity weight is noticed by the
consumer. It is also intended to prevent consumers from buying RVs and
later learning that the vehicle capacity weight does not satisfy their
needs.
    With respect to the labels to which consumers were exposed in the
past, it is uncertain that consumers have associated the weight of
water with the unloaded vehicle weight simply because the industry
label had done so. Previous labels were usually in an obscure location;
RV owners who contacted NHTSA usually were unaware of the cargo weight
capacity of their vehicles or whether water weight was considered part
of the UVW or cargo weight. For example, Ms. Justine May, whose
petition commenced the rulemaking resulting in the December 2007 final
rule, attributed repeated tire failures of her RV trailer to the
absence of information on cargo weight limits for her RV.
    We are denying the petition for reconsideration also because the
presentation of water weight as a separate item on the label also
highlights that there is a trade-off in useable cargo capacity between
traveling with a full tank and traveling with a less than full tank.
This information should enhance consumers' understanding that the
amount of water carried in the water tanks affect the total load they
wish to carry in their vehicles. With this information, consumers can
make informed decisions about loading their vehicles for a particular
trip (e.g., whether more or less water will be carried to compensate
for other cargo).
    Accordingly, for the above reasons, we deny Mr. Myhre's petition
requesting that the weight of onboard water be incorporated into the
vehicle's UVW.

2. Dealers Wanting To Require Manufacturers To Weigh Each RV

    The final rule requires manufacturers to report the allowable load
carrying capacity. In the final rule, we require the statement: ``The
combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kg or
XXX lbs'' on motor homes, and the statement: ``The weight of cargo
should never exceed XXX kg or XXX lbs'' on RV trailers. These
statements are required to state weights that will not overload the
vehicle. These requirements allow manufacturers to understate (but not
overstate) the weight value for load carrying capacity. This will
assure that when the consumer loads the vehicle to the stated load
carrying capacity, the vehicle's GVWR

will not be exceeded. When the manufacturer states that the load
carrying capacity must not exceed a certain weight value, it means that
the stated load carrying capacity weight value plus the UVW is less
than or equal to the GVWR. The manufacturer must consider product
variability to ensure that the load carrying capacity plus the UVW does
not exceed the GVWR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The amended standards require manufacturers to report a
vehicle capacity weight value that can be verified by NHTSA during a
compliance test (FMVSS No. 110 paragraphs S9.3.2 and S10.2; FMVSS
No. 120 S10.4.2), but the standards do not specify how the
manufacturer must determine vehicle capacity weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition for reconsideration, RVDA requests that NHTSA
require ``all recreational vehicles, regardless of weight, be weighed
by the final stage manufacturer after all options and equipment are
installed, and that the actual weight of the unit be used to calculate
the cargo carrying capacity disclosed to the consumer.'' The petitioner
(associated RV dealers) reports that manufacturers used an ``exemplar''
method \5\ to report the unloaded vehicle weight of RVs on a voluntary
RV industry label, and that a dealer had been sued because it was
discovered that the actual vehicle weight of some RV trailers was
substantially greater than that reported on the label. RVDA is
concerned that the exemplar method may not take into account unit-
specific options, running changes in construction and materials,
variations in the density of material used in units built to the same
plans, and increases in the weight of wood due to humidity absorption
if the exemplar unit was weighed during a drier time of year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ According to RVDA's petition, the ``exemplar'' method of
determining the unloaded vehicle weight appears to be the practice
of weighing one vehicle and using its weight to represent all
vehicles of that model regardless of differences in equipment,
changes in materials or construction methods, or seasonal effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    We are denying this request. In the past, manufacturers were not
required by the FMVSSs to provide unloaded vehicle weights and the
cargo carrying capacity (GVWR minus UVW, full fresh water and full LP-
gas weight) of RVs over 10,000 pounds GVWR. We believe that the
December 2007 final rule will eliminate the practices that led to
overstating the vehicle carrying capacity for these vehicles. The
preamble to the final rule (at 72 FR 68456) stated:

    * * * we are requiring that the stated load carrying capacity
not overload the vehicle. The GVWR of the vehicle must not be
exceeded when the vehicle is loaded with the stated load carrying
capacity. Manufacturers are permitted to understate the value of
load carrying capacity to compensate for variances in manufacturing
techniques, materials, and weighing techniques, however, under no
circumstances is an overstated value of load carrying capacity
permitted. Any inaccuracies due to scale tolerances and variances in
manufacturing techniques or materials must be compensated for by
appropriately increasing the safety factor between the allotted
weight for occupants and cargo (or just cargo in the case of RV
trailers) and the GVWR. Accordingly, the probability of moisture
absorption by wooden structures before first retail sale should be
considered in assigning the load carrying capacity.

    Manufacturers are free to weigh each unit and apply a factor of
safety for expected moisture absorption to arrive at the vehicle
capacity weight, or they can weigh an exemplar unit and adjust for
differences in option content, construction details and variations in
material density as well as moisture absorption, applying appropriate
factors of safety. Regardless, the amendments to FMVSS No. 120 require
manufacturers to determine the accurate vehicle capacity weight. We do
not believe there is a need to also require manufacturers to weigh each
RV individually and provide the weight of the vehicle to the consumer.
Accordingly, the request is denied.

3. Providing the UVW to Consumers on the RV Trailer CCC Label

    The final rule does not require manufacturers of RV trailers to
provide the unloaded vehicle weight (UVW) of the RV trailer on the new
cargo carrying capacity (CCC) label, even though the UVW has to be
obtained in order to calculate the cargo carrying capacity of the
vehicle. In its petition for reconsideration, RVDA asks that NHTSA
require that the UVW be disclosed on the RV trailer CCC label ``because
this information is critical to consumers as well as dealers during the
sale and/or use of a travel trailer or fifth wheel, (towable).''
According to RVDA:

    * * * during the purchase of a towable, the UVW is subtracted
from the towing capacity of the consumer's truck or tow vehicle
(``tow vehicle'') to determine how much cargo can be added to the RV
without exceeding the towing capacity of the tow vehicle. This
calculation is not addressed by the rule which deals exclusively
with the cargo carrying capacity of the RV itself. (Emphasis in
text.)

    RVDA states that without a UVW label, ``consumers and dealers will
be forced to subtract the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of the RV from
the towing capacity of the tow vehicle to determine the cargo capacity
of the tow vehicle.'' The petitioner states that this situation could
``mislead consumers into believing that their tow vehicles could not
pull trailers or fifth wheels which they, in reality, could safely pull
by utilizing less than the full cargo capacity of the RV.''
Agency Response
    We are declining this request. The December 2007 final rule was in
response to a petition from an RV trailer owner whose trailer
experienced safety-related failures as a result of overloading that the
owner attributed to insufficient information on vehicle capacity
weight. NHTSA believed that the overloading of RVs was problematic and
to alleviate the situation, better information was needed. The August
2005 NPRM (at 70 FR 51707) cited the Recreational Vehicle Safety
Foundation's 2003 Annual Report to Industry, which found that 47
percent of the 442 RV trailers it weighed \6\ in 2003 were overloaded.
In contrast, the RVDA describes in its petition, a sales practice that
results in customers buying trailers that are too heavy for their tow
vehicle if they utilize the full cargo capacity of the trailer. We see
no safety advantage to that situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Not claimed to be a scientific sampling, but an indication
that overloading is very common.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the information sought by the petitioner (the UVW of
the RV trailer) can be easily obtained by the dealer. We anticipate
that RV dealers will now calculate the UVW of trailers by subtracting
the vehicle cargo carrying capacity weight, which is now a labeling
requirement, from the trailer's GVWR. Given that both the GVWR and the
vehicle cargo carrying capacity weight are required to be labeled, and
that the UVW can readily be determined by these factors, we see no
safety reason to require manufacturers to also provide the UVW for RV
trailers. For these reasons, the request is denied.

b. How the Information Should Be Displayed or Conveyed to the Consumer

1. Owner's Manual Requirements
    In its petition, AIAM raises a concern about the relationship
between the December 2007 final rule (which amended FMVSS Nos. 110 and
120) and 49 CFR part 575, Consumer Information. AIAM noted that 49 CFR
575.6(a)(4)(v) requires manufacturers, for vehicles that have a GVWR of
10,000 lb or less, to include information in the owner's manual (or if
there is no owner's manual, in a separate document) \7\

regarding vehicle load limits, including instructions for locating and
understanding the load limit information. Section 575.6(a)(4)(v)(B)
requires the owner's manual to provide information for calculating
total and cargo load capacities with varying seating configurations,
including quantitative examples showing how the vehicle's cargo and
luggage capacity decreases as the combined number of occupants
increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For convenience, in this discussion we refer to both
documents as the ``owner's manual.'' ``Owner's manual'' is defined
in Sec.  575.2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AIAM asks NHTSA to clarify whether the part 575 consumer
information vehicle loading information required in the owner's manual
must be modified when the vehicle placard is adjusted in accordance
with the requirements of the December 2007 final rule.
Agency Response
    Our answer is the Part 575 information is not required to be
modified. It is not the intent of the part 575 owner's manual language
to include load capacity values specific to a particular vehicle. The
Sec.  575.6(a)(4)(v) requirement is for general information to be
placed in the owner's manual, to inform customers about the capacities
of their vehicles, the location of specific load capacity information
(placard) on the vehicle, and how this information is calculated.
Therefore, neither FMVSS No. 110 nor part 575 requires the owner's
manual to have specific information regarding a vehicle's load
capacities.
    Further, because the part 575 information required is general and
not specific to a particular vehicle, the load capacity information in
the owner's manual need not be revised when revisions are made to
vehicle capacity weight values due to weight additions to a vehicle
prior to first sale. The required owner's manual language directs
consumers to the vehicle placard required by FMVSS No. 110 for specific
vehicle load capacity information. When vehicle placards are adjusted
in accordance with requirements of the December 2007 final rule, the
corrected information will be available to the consumer.
2. Other Means of Informing Consumers
    In his petition for reconsideration, Mr. Myhre urges NHTSA ``to
incorporate their final ruling information not only in their products,
but also in sales literature and Web sites, to better inform the RV
Consumer.'' This request by Mr. Myhre raises issues that were not the
subject of the NPRM or the final rule, and so the issues are outside
the scope of rulemaking. However, we note that RV dealers and
manufacturers are not prevented by the final rule from voluntarily
providing information about their vehicles' load capacity values in
sales literature and Web sites.

c. The Weight That Can Be Added to a Vehicle After Final Vehicle
Certification and Before First Retail Sale Without Triggering a
Requirement To Re-Label the Vehicle

    The final rule addressed the obligation of manufacturers and
dealers to re-label a vehicle when the manufacturer or dealer adds
optional equipment and accessories to the vehicle after final vehicle
certification and before first retail sale. The terms dealer,
manufacturer, alterer, and service facility are used in this document
to identify entities that are required to comply with the December 4,
2007 final rule amending FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120. When such equipment
increases the vehicle's weight and decreases the weight allotted for
passengers and cargo, NHTSA's position is that the manufacturer or
dealer making the addition is obligated to revise, as necessary, the
information on the vehicle placard required by FMVSS No. 110 and 120
that informs consumers of the vehicle's load carrying capacities. As to
what is ``necessary,'' the agency believes that small increases in
weight are insignificant, and that it would be unnecessarily burdensome
to require dealers to reprint labels with new information each time a
small amount of weight is added to a vehicle.
    To make clearer the obligation to re-label a vehicle, the December
2007 final rule amended FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 to specify that, if
weight equal to or less than the lesser of 1.5 percent of the vehicle's
GVWR or 45.4 kilograms (kg)(100 lb) is added by the dealer before first
retail sale, no additional action is required. If weight greater than
the lesser of 1.5 percent of the vehicle's GVWR or 45.4 kg (100 lb) is
added by the dealer before first retail sale, the dealer must take
action (specified in the standards) to re-label the vehicle. The dealer
is required to add a label that corrects or modifies the original load
carrying capacity values.
    The final rule raised the threshold to the lesser of 1.5 percent
GVWR or 45.4 kg (100 pounds) from the threshold proposed in the NPRM.
The NPRM had proposed a threshold of weight equal to or less than 0.5
percent of GVWR. That is, if weight greater than 0.5 percent of GVWR is
added by the dealer before first retail sale, the dealer must add a
label that corrects the original values.
    In raising the threshold from that proposed in the NPRM, the agency
stated in the final rule that setting the threshold of weight at the
lesser of 1.5 percent of GVWR or 100 pounds ``relieves passenger
vehicle dealers of the responsibility for label changes in the vast
majority of equipment sales without creating a practical safety
problem.'' 72 FR at 68452. NHTSA stated: ``The most commonly installed
heavy item by dealers before first retail sale is a heavy duty Class IV
trailer hitch for a pickup truck. Such hitches have an advertised
shipping weight of less than 36.3 kg (80 lbs). A relatively small
pickup truck for this hitch application would have a GVWR of 2721.6 kg
(6000 lbs) or greater. This installation would involve equipment
representing 1.33 percent of the vehicle's GVWR or less.'' Id.
    NHTSA acknowledged that a vehicle with the maximum weight of added
equipment of 1.5 percent of GVWR when also loaded to the maximum weight
of passengers and cargo specified in the original label could exceed
the tire load rating by 1.5 percent as a worst case. However, the
agency determined that NHTSA tire research data (see, e.g., Docket
NHTSA 2000-8011 item 22) shows that fully inflated tires are not very
sensitive to small overloads. Even in a high speed test rigorous enough
to fail a third of the tire samples, tires that were slightly
overloaded (taking into consideration the curvature of the test wheel)
performed comparably to a sample of the same tire make/models with 10
percent less load. 72 FR at 68452. Thus, NHTSA determined a threshold
of weight at the lesser of 1.5 percent of GVWR or 100 pounds reasonably
balanced the interest of alleviating burdens on dealers and others to
re-label the vehicle with load safety considerations.

Petitions for Reconsideration

1. Raising the Threshold
    AIAM, RVDA, and joint petitioners NADA/SEMA petitioned for
reconsideration of the threshold of the lesser of 1.5 percent of GVWR
or 100 pounds, seeking a much higher threshold for the amount of weight
a dealer could add to a vehicle without having to correct the vehicle
placard. The petitioners generally seek to increase the threshold level
to the larger of 3 percent of GVWR or 100 kg (220 pounds). AIAM states
that the weight of combinations of added equipment could exceed the
threshold in the final rule so that in many instances the dealers would
have to correct the vehicle placard. AIAM states that NHTSA ``presented
no data to indicate the existence of a safety concern resulting from
the addition of optional equipment for light vehicles generally or at
the 100

kg [(220 lb)] level, and we are aware of none.''
    RVDA highlights what it believes to be a discrepancy in the final
rule's discussion in the preamble and the regulatory text of S10.5 of
FMVSS No. 120. Although throughout the preamble NHTSA consistently
describes the threshold for re-labeling as weight exceeding ``the
lesser of 1.5 percent of the vehicle's GVWR or 100 pounds'' for both
FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120, RVDA points out that the regulatory text of the
latter standard (S10.5.1 of FMVSS No. 120) refers to the threshold only
as ``weight exceeding 45.4 kg (100 pounds).'' \8\ 72 FR at 68464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The threshold of ``the lesser of 1.5 percent of GVWR or 45.4
kg (100 pounds)'' is reflected in the text of FMVSS No. 110 (S10.1
of FMVSS No. 110).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RVDA believes that the threshold should be uniform for both
standards \9\ and that it should be increased to ``the greater of 3
percent GVWR or 100 kg (220 pounds).'' The petitioner states that
setting the threshold at 100 kg (220 lb) would be consistent with 49
CRF 595.7, Requirements for Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People
with Disabilities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We note that FMVSS No. 120's (S10.5) reference to only 45.4
kg (100 kg)--i.e., the absence of ``1.5 percent of the vehicle's
GVWR''--was intentional. FMVSS No. 120 applies to vehicles with a
GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. 1.5 percent of a vehicle with a GVWR of
10,000 lb is 150 lb. Because it would be unnecessary for the
threshold clause to state: ``the lesser of [150 lb or more] or 100
lb,'' there was no need to include ``1.5 percent of the vehicle's
GVWR'' in FMVSS No. 120.
    \10\ Part 595 provides limited exemptions from 49 U.S.C. 30122,
the statutory provision prohibiting manufacturers, distributors,
dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from ``knowingly
mak[ing] inoperative'' any part of a device or element of design
installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an FMVSS.
Subpart C enables the above-listed entities to modify vehicles to
enable persons with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger
in a motor vehicle. Section 595.7(e)(5) states that the modification
label required in Section 595.7(b) must ``[i]ndicate any reduction
in the load carrying capacity of the vehicle of more than 100 kg
(220 lb) after the modifications are completed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NADA/SEMA also petitioned to increase the threshold to ``the
greater of 3 percent GVWR or 100 kg (220 lb).'' The petitioners believe
that the agency was mistaken in stating in the final rule that: ``Most
commenters suggested that the threshold be the lesser of 3 percent GVWR
or 100 kg (220 lb).'' NADA/SEMA state that it had urged NHTSA to adopt
a threshold of ``the greater of 3 percent GVWR or 100 kg (220 lb), not
the lesser.'' (Emphasis in text.) Petitioners state that it had sought
``a single minimum safe harbor: 220 lbs. Dealers and installers working
on heavier vehicles would be free to calculate potentially higher safe
harbors (e.g., 3% of 10,000 pounds or 300 pounds).'' The petitioners
also state that information contained in AIAM's comment to the NPRM did
not support NHTSA's statement in the final rule that trailer hitches
weighing 36.3 kg (80 lb) are ``the most commonly installed heavy item
by dealers prior to first retail sale.''
    NADA/SEMA state that the 100 lb threshold ``provides no meaningful
relief'' and does not relieve dealers of the responsibility to re-label
in the vast majority of equipment sales. The petitioners state that
dealers and installers often accessorize vehicles before first sale by
``bundling groups of accessories in appearance or towing packages.''
``[T]hese combinations frequently exceed 100 pounds, but fall below 220
pounds, demonstrating a clear rationale for a minimum 220 pound
threshold.'' The petitioners state that the 100 pound threshold is
arbitrary and that it is unaware of any overloading-related safety
concerns associated with properly installed accessories. NADA/SEMA
believe that the 100 kg (220 lb) threshold from 49 CFR Sec.  595.7
should be used. Petitioners state: ``Simply put, if a 220 pound trigger
threshold provides a level of safety for persons with disabilities, it
should serve well for the motoring public generally.''
Agency Response
    NHTSA is denying the petitioners' request to amend the weight
thresholds of the final rule. Increasing the weight thresholds as
petitioners request is inconsistent with safety and the purposes of the
rulemaking.
    The purpose of the applicability threshold of the load carrying
capacity modification label is to relieve dealers and service
facilities from having to correct load carrying capacity information
when insignificant amounts of weight are added to light vehicles and
heavy RVs between final vehicle certification and first retail sale. 72
FR at 68452. The threshold is also geared toward ensuring that the load
carrying capacity information remains reasonably accurate. That is,
NHTSA determined that a safety risk would not be unreasonably
heightened if the weight information provided on the original label did
not reflect insignificant amounts of weight added by the dealer after
the vehicle left the factory. As to what constitutes ``insignificant''
weight, the final rule sought to and provided dealers clear knowledge
of what quantity of added weight triggers a requirement to re-label.
    It was not the purpose of the amendment to substantially reduce re-
labeling of vehicles by dealers when adding weight. The petitioners'
complaint that the amendment ``provides no meaningful relief'' from
dealers' responsibility to re-label is immaterial to whether the
threshold should be increased. The governing factor for the agency in
setting the threshold is whether failure to disclose the added weight
on the consumer label withholds important safety information from the
vehicle operator. Whether the final rule required dealers to re-label
in a vast majority of sales or only in a small portion of sales is not
the primary consideration of this rulemaking.
    The agency determined that the threshold for added weight of the
lesser of 1.5 percent of GVWR or 100 pounds relieves dealers of the
responsibility for re-labeling ``without creating a practical safety
problem.'' 72 FR at 68452. NHTSA made this determination after
considering data from the agency's tire research program showing that
fully inflated tires were not very sensitive to ``small overloads.''
Id. Petitioners provided no data or information showing that the
threshold could be increased--more than doubled \11\--without
negatively impacting vehicle handling and tire performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 3 percent is double the 1.5 percent of GVWR specified in
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency cannot agree that the weights suggested by the
petitioners are insignificant. NADA/SEMA discussed the Subaru Outback,
which has a GVWR of 4,545 pounds with accessories. The petitioners
state that a dealer could equip the Subaru with a front license plate
(one pound), receiver hitch (43 pounds), cargo organizer (4 pounds),
all-weather mats (12 pounds), splash guards (one pound), roof rack (24
pounds), roof bike mount (13 pounds), kayak carrier (11 pounds) and
remote starter (3 pounds) for a total of approximately 112 pounds.
Under the December 2007 final rule, since the total weight of these
dealer-installed accessories would exceed the lesser of 1.5 percent of
GVWR or 100 pounds,\12\ the dealer modifying the vehicle would have to
re-label the vehicle with information that lists the total weight of
added equipment. The consumer would use this information to understand
how he or she should adjust the load-carrying capacity of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 1.5 percent of the Outback's GVWR is 68 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the petitioners' view, the threshold should be raised to 220
pounds to relieve the dealer of the burden of re-labeling the
vehicle.\13\ In our judgment, the dealer should be required to re-label
the vehicle. It is noteworthy that the dealer's accessories

highlighted by the petitioners (trailer hitch, roof rack, kayak
carrier) are designed to optimize the vehicle's cargo carrying
capabilities. With these features, the consumer is encouraged to use
the vehicle to carry as much cargo as possible. We believe that it is
important to inform a consumer taking full advantage of these
accessories that the dealer's accessories alone account for 112 pounds,
a substantial amount that will impact the vehicle's overall cargo
carrying capacity. The consumer should be made aware of this weight so
that he or she will be able to account for it and adjust the amount of
cargo or number of passengers eventually carried.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For the Outback, 220 pounds would be more than triple the
68 pound weight triggering the requirement to re-label under the
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The weight threshold suggested by NADA/SEMA appears to unreasonably
increase the risk of overloading for a number of vehicles. NHTSA
evaluated a number of vehicles similar to the Outback to determine the
effect of added weight when the vehicle is loaded to the limit of its
occupant capacity. Taking the example of the Outback (4,545 pounds
GVWR, vehicle capacity weight for passengers and cargo of 900 pounds),
when the Outback is loaded to its 5-occupant capacity (assuming each
passenger weighs 150 pounds), the residual cargo capacity for an
unmodified vehicle is 150 pounds. When a dealer adds weight of 112
pounds, the residual cargo capacity is reduced to 38 pounds (150 pounds
minus 112 pounds). Applying the December 2007 final rule's 1.5 percent
of GVWR limit (or, in the case of the Outback, 68 pounds), the dealer
would have to re-label the vehicle. However, if a 220-pound threshold
were used, the dealer would not have to inform the consumer of the
added weight of the accessories and associated reduced load-carrying
capacity of the vehicle. Further, given the 150-pound residual cargo
capacity for the Outback, if 220 pounds of accessories were added by
the dealer and no re-labeling were required, a vehicle would be
overloaded by 70 pounds when loaded to the full occupant capacity (even
without an additional cargo load). The load carrying capacity
information provided with the original vehicle would be incorrect and
fail to inform the consumer of the overloading.
    Listed below is information on representative model year 2005-2008
passenger vehicles. Note the cargo capacity remains after the vehicle
seats the full number of persons in its seating capacity. It is assumed
each person weighs 150 pounds.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cargo
                                                                      Seating         Vehicle     capacity (with
                     Vehicle                        GVWR  (lb)       capacity        capacity      5 occupants)
                                                                                weight (lb)        (lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Yaris....................................            3300               5             845              95
Chevrolet Aveo..................................            3348               5             858             108
Toyota Corolla..................................            3585               5             850             100
Saturn Ion......................................            3664               5             899             149
Honda Civic.....................................            3671               5             850             100
Ford Fusion.....................................            4240               5             850             100
Hyundai Sonata..................................            4299               5             860             110
Ford FiveHundred................................            4800               5             950             200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A 220 pound threshold would result in the vehicles exceeding their
GVWR when full passenger capacity weight is added even without an
additional cargo load. With a 220 pound threshold, without the consumer
knowing it, a vehicle could be overloaded simply by carrying the
maximum number of occupants for which the vehicle is designed, even if
no cargo were carried. Such an outcome is contrary to safety and
contrary to the purpose of this rulemaking.
2. 49 CFR 595.7
    With regard to petitioners' view that the 220 pound threshold
should be acceptable since it is used in 49 CFR 595.7, we disagree.
    NHTSA established 49 CFR part 595, subpart C, to assist persons
with disabilities to operate or ride as passengers in motor vehicles.
The regulation permits, to a carefully-regulated extent, the making
inoperative of devices or systems installed in compliance with the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In issuing this regulation, the
agency weighed carefully and sought balance between the interests of
increasing the mobility of the disabled with the safety protections
afforded by FMVSSs that could not be maintained by the modifications
needed to accommodate a disabled person. The agency recognized that
some components that are the subjects of specific FMVSSs (such as
steering columns, air bags, and seats) might have to be removed. Unlike
the components new passenger vehicle dealers sometimes add on to new
vehicles, the modifications envisioned by the Sec.  595.7 regulation
are usually substantial and involve a degree of reconstruction of the
vehicle. Because the purpose and nature of the modifications
contemplated by Sec.  595.7 and FMVSS No. 110 and 120 are different,
the weight thresholds are different.
    The type of vehicle that is typically modified and how it is used
after modification are different. Vehicles modified (in accordance with
Sec.  595.7) to accommodate operators or passengers with disabilities
have historically been full-size vans and mini-vans with GVWRs of
between 6,000 pounds and 9,000 pounds and a vehicle capacity weight
between 1,000 pounds and 2,500 pounds. After modifications, these
vehicles are unlikely to be used to haul heavy cargo or large numbers
of passengers because of their special use. Thus, it is less likely
that the vehicle's load-carrying capacity will be overloaded by a
modifier's addition of weight less than 100 kg (220 lb).
    Although there are differences between Sec.  595.7 and FMVSS Nos.
110 and 120 that account for different weight thresholds, we note that
the end result is similar: The modifications of the vehicle typically
result in a re-labeling of the vehicle. Modifications made to
accommodate the needs of handicapped drivers or passengers usually
exceed 100 kg (220 lb). The Sec.  595.7 modifications needed to
accommodate operators and passengers with disabilities include the
addition of platform lifts, door operators, floor, roof, and seat
modifications, and hand controls. Generally, these modifications are
designed to accommodate a particular person's needs. Some extensive
modifications can add up to 700 pounds to the unloaded vehicle weight
of the vehicle. Thus, modifiers have had to label the vehicle with the

modification label required in Sec.  595.7(b) indicating the reduction
in the load carrying capacity of the vehicle of more than 100 kg (220
lb). It is also noted that Part 595 applies to used vehicles as well as
new vehicles.
    For the reasons discussed above, we deny the requests to change the
maximum threshold values to that of 49 CFR 595.7.
3. Use of a Single Weight Threshold Only, Not Percentage of GVWR
    To reduce the threshold weight calculation errors that could result
from the requirement that the threshold value for added weight be
assigned as a percentage of the GVWR (such as that specified in the
December 2007 final rule of 1.5 percent), RVDA and AIAM recommended
that NHTSA require a single value for the threshold weight be used for
all light vehicles.
    We decline to make this change. NHTSA does not agree that a single
value of threshold weight would be appropriate for all FMVSS No. 110
vehicles. While a larger vehicle could accommodate additional weight up
to the fixed value threshold without adjusting its vehicle capacity
weight, for lighter vehicles, adding the same fixed threshold weight
value without adjusting the vehicle capacity weight label, could result
in significant overload. The vehicles \14\ we evaluated did not have
the capacity to accommodate additional weight over the 100 pound
threshold without being overloaded at vehicle capacity weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Toyota Yaris, Chevrolet Aveo, Toyota Corolla, Saturn
Ion, Honda Civic, Ford Fusion, Hyndai Sonata, and Ford Five Hundred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA believes dealers will be able to calculate the weight limits
correctly. As a practical matter, vehicles with a GVWR of 6,600 pounds
or less are guided by the 1.5 percent of GVWR limit\15\ and vehicles
with a GVWR above 6,600 pounds are limited to 100 pounds of additional
weight. Calculating the weight limit of a vehicle (GVWR times 0.015) is
straightforward and uncomplicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 1.5 percent of 6,600 is calculated by multiplying 6,600 by
0.015, which results in 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Applying FMVSS No. 110 Re-Labeling Requirements Only to Alterers

    As discussed above, S10 of FMVSS No. 110, addressing weight added
to a vehicle between final vehicle certification and first retail sale,
specifies that if weight exceeding a threshold amount is added to a
vehicle prior to first retail sale, a vehicle placard (required
generally for all vehicle by S4.3) and cargo carrying capacity labels
must be corrected. FMVSS No. 110, at S4.3.2, specifies for ``altered
vehicles'' that a new vehicle placard be affixed to an altered vehicle,
before first purchase of the vehicle, containing accurate information.
    In 49 CFR 567.3, ``alterer'' is defined as a person who alters by
addition, substitution or removal of components (other than readily
attachable components) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of
the vehicle other than for resale. Additionally, an ``altered vehicle''
is a completed previously-certified vehicle that has been altered other
than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable
components or by minor finishing operations, ``in such a manner as may
affect the conformity of the vehicle with one or more [FMVSSs] or the
validity of the stated weight ratings or vehicle type classification.''
Id.
    In their petition for reconsideration, NADA/SEMA petitioned NHTSA
to amend S10 of FMVSS No. 110 to make it applicable only to vehicle
``alterers''. Petitioners ask that S10.1 be revised to state only that
the placard required by S4.3.2 or S4.3.5 would have to be corrected.
The petitioners believed that only vehicle alterers should be required
to correct vehicle capacity weight information. Under petitioners'
view, vehicle dealers who would not be considered alterers could add
weight in excess of the weight threshold (the lesser of 1.5 percent of
GVWR or 100 pounds) and not be required to correct the labeled vehicle
capacity weight numbers.
Agency Response
    We deny this request. The new requirements in FMVSS No. 110 at S10
and in FMVSS No. 120 at S10.5 are intended to apply to all regulated
entities, including dealers and alterers, who add weight to applicable
vehicles in excess of the specified thresholds (lesser of 100 pounds or
1.5 percent of GVWR) prior to first retail sale. Alterers make changes
to vehicles that affect the vehicle to a greater extent than by adding,
deleting, or changing readily attachable components, and must be held
responsible for correcting vehicle labels as appropriate. At the same
time, other regulated entities and dealers, who increase weight by
adding ``readily attachable components,'' must be responsible for
correcting vehicle capacity weight information if the added weight is
above the stated threshold.
    The petitioners gave no safety rationale for their request to limit
re-labeling requirements to alterers. To amend FMVSS No. 110 in the way
the petitioners request would undercut the entire reason for the
rulemaking that resulted in the December 4, 2007 final rule. For these
reasons, the changes to FMVSS No. 110 asked for by the petitioners will
not be made.

e. Issues Outside the Scope of Rulemaking

    The following issues raised by NADA/SEMA and by Mr. Myhre are
outside the scope of rulemaking of the December 4, 2007 final rule.
1. Dealers Changing Tire Placard
    NADA/SEMA ask NHTSA to ``restore the version of 49 CFR Sec.
571.110 S4.3(d) published in 2002.'' This issue relates to previous
rulemakings, starting with a November 2002 final rule that amended
FMVSS No. 110 to specify that the tire size listed on the vehicle
placard match the tire size installed as original equipment by the
vehicle manufacturer. The November 2002 FMVSS No. 110 final rule, at
S4.3(d), did not address the possibility that tires could be changed
between vehicle certification and first sale to the retail customer. A
June 2004 FMVSS No. 110 final rule requirement addressed the
possibility of tire change by not permitting the tire size to be
changed between manufacturer certification and first sale without
changing the vehicle placard. In the 2004 FMVSS No. 110 final rule, we
explained that dealers are not permitted to sell non-complying vehicles
or take actions which would take a vehicle out of compliance with any
applicable FMVSSs. Therefore, if a dealer substitutes tires in such a
way that the placard is no longer accurate, the dealer must affix a new
vehicle placard.
    In the December 4, 2007 final rule on cargo carrying capacity, we
noted that some commenters to the NPRM had re-raised old issues related
to the previous tire placarding rulemakings. (See 72 FR at 68457.)
Those comments were raising issues outside the scope of the rulemaking.
In its petition for reconsideration, NADA/SEMA again commented on these
issues. Since the issue is outside of the scope of the rulemaking at
issue, we will not address the matter here.
2. Load Distribution
    Mr. Myhre stated that for proper braking and steering control of
any vehicle, consumers should be provided information about the
distribution of the unloaded weight. He suggests requiring that the
vehicle capacity weight at each corner of the motorhome be provided.

Agency Response
    This issue is outside the scope of the rulemaking, as noted in the
final rule.\16\ In the final rule, NHTSA stated that the rulemaking is
intended to inform consumers of the load carrying capacity of the RV
they are about to purchase and to remind them of the RV's load carrying
capacity after purchase and during use. The agency recognized that the
rule did not address requirements for providing information on how a
particular vehicle's loads should be distributed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 72 FR at 68457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency will continue to review consumer complaints and crash
statistics to determine the extent of the RV load distribution problem,
both motor homes and trailers. If appropriate, the agency will initiate
projects to provide consumers with additional vehicle load distribution
information. As NHTSA stated in the final rule, however, manufacturers
are urged to provide consumers with as much guidance as possible in the
vehicle's owner's manual relative to the proper distribution of cargo
loads.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA has denied the petitions for
reconsideration. Today's document makes no changes to the regulatory
text of the December 4, 2007 final rule.

    Issued on April 23, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-9981 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 11604-11605]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2114-116]

Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, WA; Notice of
Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Priest
Rapids Hydroelectric Project

February 28, 2006.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for
the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project No. 2114-116, located on the
mid-Columbia River, near the city of Ellensburg, in portions of Grant,
Yakima, Kittitas, Douglas, Benton, and Chelan Counties, Washington, and
has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
project.
    In the DEIS, Commission staff evaluate the applicant's proposal and
the alternatives for licensing the proposed project. The DEIS documents
the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations,
affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicant, and
Commission staff.
    Comments should be filed with Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. All comments must be filed by May 2, 2006, and should reference
Project No. 2114-116. Comments may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on
the Commission's Web site at ``e-Library'' http://www.ferc.gov under

the link.
    The Commission staff will consider comments made on the DEIS in
preparing a final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS) for the project, which we expect to issue in August of
this year. Before the Commission makes a licensing decision, it will
take into account all concerns relevant to the public interest. The
FEIS will be part of the record from which the Commission will make its
decision.
    Copies of the DEIS are available for review at the Commission's
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket

number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY

(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/ docs-filing/

esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Charles Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3200 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P