NHTSA Maximum Civil Penalties on the Rise
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.27.12
Recent regulatory and Congressional action will increase the maximum civil penalties allowable for violations of certain statutes administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). Before the end of 2012, the maximum civil penalty for a series of related violations will rise to $17,350,000. That maximum allowable penalty will more than double to $35,000,000 on October 1, 2013.
Today's Federal Register published NHTSA's final rule to increase the current maximum civil penalties allowable for violations of certain statutes administered by NHTSA. The final rule, which will take effect on December 27, 2012, adjusts the maximum civil penalties for inflation as required by the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act. The rule specifically provides for the following penalty maximum increases:
Rules |
Current Maximum Penalty |
Proposed Maximum Penalty |
|
Motor Vehicle Safety Rules 49 U.S.C. §§ 30112, 30115, 30117-30122, 30123(a), 30125(c), 30127, 30141-30147 |
|
|
|
School Buses 49 U.S.C. §§ 30112(a)(1), (a)(2) |
|
|
|
Inspections, Investigations and Records 49 U.S.C. § 30166 |
|
|
|
Bumper Standards 49 U.S.C. § 32506(a) |
|
|
|
Consumer Information 49 U.S.C. § 32308 |
|
|
|
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency 49 C.F.R. § 535 |
|
|
The final rule amends the current regulations, published at 49 C.F.R. § 578.
The increased maximum penalty of $17,350,000 will, however, be short-lived. On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act ("MAP-21"), which increases the statutory maximum civil penalty to $35,000,000 for violations of the motor vehicle safety rules, and the inspections, investigations and records provisions. MAP-21 also establishes factors the Secretary of Transportation must consider in determining the appropriate penalty to impose. Though the Secretary may consider "other appropriate factors," MAP-21 identifies the following considerations:
- "the nature of the defect or noncompliance";
- "knowledge of the person charged of its obligations";
- "severity of the risk of injury";
- "the occurrence or absence of injury";
- "the number of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment distributed with the defect or noncompliance";
- "actions taken by the person charged to identify, investigate, or mitigate the condition";
- "the appropriateness of such penalty in relation to the size of the business of the person charged, including the potential for undue adverse economic impacts"; and
- "whether the person has been assessed civil penalties under this section during the most recent 5 years."
While the existing statute does require the Secretary of Transportation to consider the appropriateness of the penalty to the size of the business charged and the gravity of the violation, the new list of considerations is far more specific, and may allow for more tailored penalties. Further, MAP-21 requires NHTSA to publish a rule interpreting the penalty factors and related issues by October 1, 2013, which may provide additional guidance on appropriate civil penalties.
The penalty provisions of MAP-21 will revise 49 U.S.C. § 30165, and will become effective on October 1, 2013.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25



