Notice2021-18357
Notice of Denial of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2014-2018 Chevrolet Cheyenne Trucks Are Eligible for Importation
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 26, 2021
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Diversified Vehicle Services, Inc. (DVS or Petitioner) has petitioned NHTSA for a decision that model year (MY) 2014-2018 Chevrolet Cheyenne Trucks (TKs), which were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States. In its petition, DVS claims that these vehicles are eligible for import because they are substantially similar to Chevrolet Silverado TKs originally manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and because they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards. This document announces the denial of DVS's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47721-47723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18357]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0107; Notice 2]
Notice of Denial of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
Model Year 2014-2018 Chevrolet Cheyenne Trucks Are Eligible for
Importation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for determination of import eligibility.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Diversified Vehicle Services, Inc. (DVS or Petitioner) has
petitioned NHTSA for a decision that model year (MY) 2014-2018
Chevrolet Cheyenne Trucks (TKs), which were not originally manufactured
to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards
(FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States. In its
petition, DVS claims that these vehicles are eligible for import
because they are substantially similar to Chevrolet Silverado TKs
originally manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by
their manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and because
they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
This document announces the denial of DVS's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mazurowski, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-1012).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to
all applicable FMVSS may be eligible for import into the United States
if NHTSA determines that the motor vehicle is: (1) Substantially
similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into
and certified for sale in the United States, (2) of the same model year
as the model of the motor
[[Page 47722]]
vehicle to which it is being compared, and (3) capable of being readily
altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. See 49 U.S.C.
30141(a)(1)(A).\1\ If NHTSA determines that a nonconforming vehicle is
import eligible, any such nonconforming vehicle imported into the
United States must be modified into conformance and certified as
conforming by a registered importer before it is sold or otherwise
released from the custody of the registered importer. 49 U.S.C.
30146(a)(1); 49 CFR 592.6.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This provision was codified at 15 U.S.C. 1397(c)(3)(A) prior
to the 1994 recodification of the transportation laws.
\2\ A registered importer is an importer that has registered
with NHTSA under 49 CFR part 592 and is therefore authorized to
modify and then certify imported vehicles as compliant with all
applicable FMVSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitions for import eligibility decisions may be submitted by
either manufacturers or registered importers and must comply with the
requirements set forth in 49 CFR 593.6. A petition based on the
existence of a substantially similar conforming vehicle manufactured
for import and certified for sale in the United States must include,
among other things, ``[d]ata, views and arguments demonstrating that
the vehicle [which is the subject of the petition] is substantially
similar to the vehicle identified by the petitioner'' as a comparison
vehicle. Id. Sec. 593.6(a)(4). The petition also must include, with
respect to each of the FMVSS applicable to the comparison vehicle,
``data, views, and arguments demonstrating that the vehicle [which is
the subject of the petition] either was originally manufactured to
conform to such standard, or is capable of being readily modified to
conform to such standard.'' Id. Sec. 593.6(a)(4).
As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice of each
petition that it receives in the Federal Register and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation based on the petition, its review of any
comments received, and the agency's own analysis. NHTSA will grant a
petition for import eligibility if it ``determines that the petition
clearly demonstrates that the vehicle model is eligible for
importation'' and will deny the petition if it ``determines that the
petition does not clearly demonstrate that the vehicle model is
eligible for importation.'' 49 CFR 593.7(e)-(f). NHTSA then publishes
its decision and the reasons for it in the Federal Register. Id.
II. Summary of Petition
DVS, a registered importer located in Indianapolis, Indiana, has
petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming MY 2014-2018 Chevrolet
Cheyenne TKs (the Subject Vehicles) are eligible for importation into
the United States. Petitioner contends the Subject Vehicles are
substantially similar to MY 2014-2018 Chevrolet Silverado TKs (the
Comparison Vehicles) sold in the United States and certified by their
manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS. The Chevrolet
Cheyenne is a pick-up truck manufactured by General Motors (GM) for
sale in Mexico. GM does not sell Cheyenne pick-up trucks in the United
States.
DVS's petition requests an import eligibility decision for five
separate model years (MY 2014-2018) of the Subject Vehicles, but it
does not distinguish between these different model years, does not
state that it included a vehicle from each of these five model years in
its analysis, and does not state that it compared each model year of
the Subject Vehicles to the same model year of the Comparison
vehicles.\3\ The petition includes no representations and states no
factual basis for any representations regarding the similarity of the
different model years of either the Subject Vehicles or the Comparison
Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NHTSA previously granted DVS permission to temporarily
import multiple 2015 Chevrolet Cheyenne vehicles for purposes of
preparing its petition. See 49 CFR 571.5(l). Nothing in DVS's
petition suggests that its analysis involves any model year of the
Subject Vehicles other than these 2015 Chevrolet Cheyenne vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner nonetheless asserts it compared the Subject Vehicles to
the Comparison Vehicles and ``believe[s]'' they are substantially
similar in that the Subject Vehicles comply with ``the great majority
of the standards'' to which the Comparison Vehicles are certified.
Petitioner states that it further ``believe[s]'' that the Subject
Vehicles are capable of being readily modified to conform to all
remaining standards.'' Petitioner states that these beliefs are ``based
on information obtained during a detailed inspection of the [Subject
Vehicles] for which this determination is sought'' and that it
``reviewed all available parts, service, and sales literature in order
to thoroughly compare the two vehicles.'' Petitioner provides no
details regarding its ``detailed inspection'' and does not identify any
of the ``parts, service, and sales literature'' it reviewed.
Specifically, Petitioner claims that, based on this comparison, it
determined that the Subject Vehicles, as originally manufactured,
conform to: FMVSS Nos. 102, Transmission Shift Position Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect; 103, Windshield
Defrosting and Defogging Systems; 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing
Systems; 106, Brake Hoses; FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and
Associated Equipment; FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims; 111,
Rearview Mirrors; 113, Hood Latch System; 114, Theft Protection and
Rollaway Prevention; 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids; 118, Power-
Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel System; 119, New Pneumatic
Tires; 124, Accelerator Control Systems; 126, Electronic Stability
Control Systems; 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; 138, Tire Pressure
Monitoring Systems; 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact; 202,
Head Restraints; 203, Impact Protection for Driver from Steering
Control; 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement; 205, Glazing
Materials; 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 207, Seating
Systems; 208, Occupant Crash Protection; 209, Seat Belt Assemblies;
210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; 212, Windshield Mounting; 213,
Child Restraint Systems; 214, Side Impact Resistance; 216, Roof Crush
Resistance; 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion; 301, Fuel System Integrity;
and 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Petitioner also states the
Subject Vehicles comply with 49 CFR part 541, Anti-Theft/Parts Marking
Requirements; and 49 CFR part 565, VIN Requirements.
Petitioner states that the Subject Vehicles, as built, are
noncompliant with FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, but contends
that they can readily be conformed to this standard with replacing the
faceplate for the instrument cluster with one that includes the word
``BRAKE.'' Petitioner additionally states that a reference and
certification label will be added to the left front door post area to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 567, Certification Requirements.
Petitioner states that the Subject Vehicles have a gross vehicle weight
rating ``GVWR range of 6,800-7,200 lbs.,'' but provides no information
regarding the GVWR of the Comparison Vehicles, as required by the
applicable regulations. See 49 CFR 593.6(a)(1).
III. Public Comments
A Notice of Receipt of DVS's Petition was published in the Federal
Register for public comment for a period of 30 days. 85 FR 81268 (Dec.
15, 2020). One public comment was submitted in response to the Notice
of Receipt. GM,
[[Page 47723]]
the manufacturer of both the Subject Vehicles and the Comparison
Vehicles, commented that;
GM does not recommend that these vehicles be granted eligibility
for importation into the United States. The owners of these vehicles
will find it very difficult or impossible to get safety-critical
repairs in the US.
GM further explained in its comment that its dealers in the US are only
authorized to service US-designated vehicles under the terms of their
existing franchise agreements, and that the Vehicle Identification
Number (VIN) will not be recognized by the GM Multiple Diagnostic
Interface (MDI) tool used at a US GM dealership.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A copy of the comment submitted by GM may be found at docket
ID: NHTSA-2020-0107-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. NHTSA's Analysis
A petition to determine import eligibility must include all
information required under the applicable authorities and must also
include data, views, and arguments demonstrating the conclusions
advanced by the petition. DVS's petition fails to meet these
requirements because it does not include sufficient supporting
information and relies almost exclusively on unsupported conclusory
allegations. The petition fails to distinguish between five different
model years of the Subject Vehicles and Comparison Vehicles or even
confirm that DVS compared vehicles of the same model year. See 49
U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A)(iii). The petition also fails to provide ``the
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of '' the Comparison Vehicles. 49
CFR 593.6(a)(1). The petition does not provide adequate ``[d]ata, views
and arguments demonstrating'' that the Comparison Vehicles are
``substantially similar'' to the Subject Vehicles. Id. Sec.
593.6(a)(4). The petition also fails to provide, ``[w]ith respect to
each Federal motor vehicle safety standard'' applicable to the
Comparison Vehicles, ``data, views, and arguments demonstrating'' that
the Subject Vehicles either were ``originally manufactured to conform
to such standard, or [are] capable of being readily modified to conform
to such standard.'' Id. Sec. 593.6(a)(5).
As the basis for its assertion that the Subject Vehicles are
compliant with the FMVSS identified above, Petitioner simply repeats
the statement that the ``MX-Cheyenne complies with the requirements of
this standard and is identical to the U.S.-vehicle with respect to
those requirements'' following a reference to each of these standards.
Petitioner offers no factual or analytical support for any of these
conclusory assertions. For two of the standards (FMVSS No. 138 (tire
pressure monitoring systems) and FMVSS No. 208 (occupant crash
protection)), Petitioner identifies various components by part number
and states that the Subject Vehicles and the Comparison Vehicles employ
identical components. Petitioner did not submit any parts catalogs or
any other technical resource for any model year of either the Subject
Vehicles or the Comparison Vehicles to verify these assertions and
fails to explain why the usage of identical parts would demonstrate
that the Subject Vehicles, as built, were compliant with these
standards. For FMVSS No. 214 (side impact resistance), Petitioner
states that it ``removed the interior trim on a door of [a Subject
Vehicle] and confirm[ed] that the vehicle is originally equipped with
door beams to comply with the requirements of this standard.'' This
level of examination and analysis does not demonstrate compliance for
the Subject Vehicles because meeting the performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 214 requires far more than the existence of door beams. See
49 CFR 571.214.
As part of its analysis of DVS's petition, NHTSA requested
additional information from GM, the manufacturer of both the Subject
Vehicles and the Comparison Vehicles.\5\ In response to NHTSA's
question regarding the compliance of the Subject Vehicles with FMVSS
requirements, GM explained that the Subject Vehicles, as built, fail to
conform with the speedometer and odometer display requirements in FMVSS
No. 101 (controls and displays), the tire placard requirements in FMVSS
No. 110 (tires and rims), the language visibility requirements of FMVSS
No. 135 (brake systems), and the passenger air bag telltale and visor
warning requirements in FMVSS No. 208 (occupant crash protection). This
information directly contradicts Petitioner's assertion that the
Subject Vehicles, as built, were compliant with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A copy of GM's response may be found at docket ID: NHTSA-
2020-0107-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regard to the Subject Vehicles, GM also explained that tire
pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) are not required in Mexico, and each
imported vehicle would therefore have to be checked to verify that it
had an optional FMVSS No. 138 compliant TPMS installed at the time of
manufacture. This information directly contradicts Petitioner's
assertion that all Subject Vehicles, as built, are equipped with a
FMVSS No. 138 compliant TPMS. Finally, GM explained that there is a
unique engine and manual transmission combination available for the
Subject Vehicles in Mexico, and that GM has no documentation
demonstrating compliance of vehicles so equipped with FMVSS No. 102
(transmission shift position sequence), FMVSS No. 114 (rollaway
prevention), and FMVSS No. 124 (accelerator control). Petitioner
provided no information regarding this particular engine and
transmission combination, no basis for identifying its presence or
absence in the Subject Vehicles, and no information regarding whether
Subject Vehicles with this unique engine and transmission combination
could be modified to conform with the relevant FMVSS.
V. NHTSA's Decision
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Subject Vehicles are
substantially similar to the Comparison Vehicles, failed to demonstrate
that its comparison of the Subject Vehicles to the Comparison Vehicles
involved vehicles of the same model year, and failed to demonstrate
that the Subject Vehicles are either compliant with or capable of being
readily altered to comply with all applicable FMVSS. The petition is
therefore denied. Pursuant to 49 CFR 593.7(e), NHTSA will not consider
a new petition covering the models that are the subject of this
decision until at least three months from the date of this notice of
denial.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Joseph Kolly,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2021-18357 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 26, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.