NHTSA Proposes Increases in Maximum Civil Penalties
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.10.12
This past Friday the Federal Register published the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) notice of proposed rulemaking to increase the maximum civil penalties allowable for violations of certain statutes it administers. The proposed rule would adjust the maximum civil penalties for inflation, as required by the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act. The proposed rule would provide 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 |
|
|
Comments on the proposed rule are due on October 9, 2012. The proposed rule would take effect thirty days after its final publication in the Federal Register. Though no specific date is identified, the Agency anticipates the revised civil penalties to be in place by December 31, 2012.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
