NHTSA Proposes Increases in Maximum Civil Penalties
Client Alert | 2 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 | 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
