![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 78)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20932-20940]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ap06-20]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2006-24497]
RIN 2127-AI93
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Response to petitions for rulemaking; notice of proposed
rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Our safety standard on occupant protection in interior impact
requires, in part, that light vehicles provide head protection when an
occupant's head strikes upper interior components, such as pillars,
side rails, headers, and the roof during a crash. For altered vehicles
and vehicles built in two or more stages, these requirements become
effective September 1, 2006. The Recreation Vehicle Industry
Association and the National Truck Equipment Association petitioned the
agency to permanently exclude certain types of altered vehicles and
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages from these requirements.
This document responds to these petitions for rulemaking and proposes
certain amendments to the standard.
Based on a careful consideration of both the safety benefits of the
upper interior protection requirements, and practicability concerns
relating to vehicles built in two or more stages and certain altered
vehicles, we are proposing to limit these requirements to only the
front seating positions of those vehicles. Further, we tentatively
conclude that it is appropriate to exclude a narrow group of multi-
stage vehicles delivered to the final stage manufacturer without an
occupant compartment, because of impracticability concerns.
We are also proposing to delay the effective date of the head
impact protection requirements as they apply to final stage
manufacturers and alterers until September 1, 2008.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management System receives them not later than June 23, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket Number at
the beginning of this document] by any of the following methods:
? Web site: http://dms.dot.gov 
. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
? Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
? Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
? Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
? Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to
Room PL-01 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590:
For technical and policy issues: Lori Summers, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, telephone: (202) 366-4917, facsimile: (202)
366-4329, E-mail: Lori.Summers@dot.gov.
For legal issues: George Feygin, Office of the Chief Counsel,
telephone: (202) 366-2992, facsimile: (202) 366-3820, E-mail
George.Feygin@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. 1995 Final Rule Upgrading FMVSS No. 201
B. Subsequent Amendments to FMVSS No. 201
II. Petitions for Rulemaking
A. Recreation Vehicle Industry Association Petition for Rulemaking
B. National Truck Equipment Association Petition for Rulemaking
III. The Agency's New Approach to Vehicles Built in Two or More
Stages and Altered Vehicles
A. ``Pass-Through'' Certification
B. The Agency's Authority To Exclude Multi-Stage Vehicles From FMVSSs
C. New Temporary Exemption Procedures Available to Final Stage
Manufacturers and Alterers
IV. Response to the RVIA and NTEA Petitions for Rulemaking
A. Proposal To Limit the Occupant Compartment Area Subject to
the FMH Impact Requirements in Ambulances, Motor Homes, and Other
Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, and Altered Vehicles
B. Proposal To Exclude Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More
Stages, Other Than Motor Homes, Chassis Cabs, Cutaway Vans, and
Other Incomplete Vehicles With a Furnished Front Compartment, From
FMH Impact Requirements
C. Question Regarding Multistage Vehicles With Raised Roofs
D. Additional Relief Is Not Warranted
V. Effective Date
VI. Submission of Comments
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
VIII. Proposed Regulatory Text
I. Background
A. 1995 Final Rule Upgrading FMVSS No. 201
On August 18, 1995, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule (August 1995 final rule)
amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201,
``Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,'' to provide enhanced head
impact protection.\1\ The August 1995 final rule required passenger
cars, and trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) with
a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds)
or less, to provide protection when an occupant's head strikes upper
interior components, including pillars, side rails, headers, and the
roof, during a crash. The new head protection requirements were
necessary because even in vehicles equipped with air bags, head impacts
with upper interior components resulted in a significant number of
occupant injuries and fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 60 FR 43031, Aug. 18, 1995; Docket No. NHTSA-1996-1762-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The August 1995 final rule significantly expanded the scope of
FMVSS No. 201. Previously, the
[[Page 20933]]
standard applied to the instrument panel, seat backs, interior
compartment doors, arm rests and sun visors, but not to interior
components such as pillars and headers. The final rule set minimum
performance requirements for these upper interior components by
establishing target areas that must be padded or otherwise have energy
absorbing properties to minimize head injury in the event of a crash.
The final rule added procedures for a new in-vehicle component test in
which a free-motion head form (FMH) is fired at certain target
locations on the upper interior of a vehicle at an impact speed of 24
km/h (15 mph). Targets that are located on or within 50 mm (2 inches)
of dynamically deployable upper interior head protection systems (air
bags systems) can, at the option of the manufacturer, be impacted at
the reduced speed of 19 km/h (12 mph). Data collected from an FMH
impact are translated into a Head Injury Criterion (HIC(d)) score. The
resultant HIC(d) must not exceed 1000.
The FMH impact requirements excluded targets located on convertible
roof frames or roof linkage mechanisms, targets located at least 24
inches rearward of the rearmost designated seating position, and
targets located at least 24 inches rearward of the driver's seating
position in an ambulance or a motor home. Walk-in van-type vehicles
were also excluded from the new requirements because upper interior
components on those vehicles are located much higher compared to other
vehicles, and head impacts against these components are unlikely for
belted occupants.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The current exclusions are specified in S6.3 of 49 CFR 571.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1995 final rule provided manufacturers with three alternate
phase-in schedules for complying with the FMH impact requirements. At
this time, all vehicles except altered vehicles and vehicles
manufactured in two-or-more stages are required to comply with the FMH
impact requirements.\3\ As discussed below, the effective date for
altered vehicles and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages to
comply with these requirements is presently September 1, 2006.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We note that under S6.3(d), walk-in van-type vehicles are
permanently excluded from the FMH impact requirements.
\4\ See S6.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Subsequent Amendments to FMVSS No. 201
On April 8, 1997, the agency responded to petitions for
reconsideration of the 1995 final rule.\5\ Among other things, the
agency delayed the effective date of the FMH impact requirements for
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages until September 1, 2002.
The agency also excluded buses with a GVWR of more than 3,856 kg (8,500
pounds) from the FMH impact requirements because we were concerned that
these requirements were prohibitively costly for that class of
vehicles.\6\ Finally, the agency denied a petition to exclude police
vehicles from the FMH impact requirements because the petitioner did
not present evidence to indicate that police equipment required
different treatment from interior attachments present in other vehicles
subjected to testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 62 FR 16718, April 8, 1997.
\6\ See id at 16720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, in response to petitions (described in detail in the next
section) to permanently exclude altered vehicles and vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages from the FMH impact requirements,
the agency issued an interim final rule, delaying the effective date of
these requirements as they apply to altered vehicles and vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages until September 1, 2003.\7\ On
August 28, 2003, the agency further delayed the effective date of the
FMH impact requirements for altered vehicles and vehicles manufactured
in two or more stages until September 1, 2006.\8\ The issue of
permanent exclusion of these types of vehicles is being addressed in
the subsequent sections of this notice.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 67 FR 41348, June 18, 2002.
\8\ See 68 FR 51706, August 28, 2003.
\9\ We note that there have been other, more recent amendments
to the requirements of FMVSS No. 201. However, their content had no
relevance to this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Petitions for Rulemaking
This document addresses petitions for rulemaking submitted by the
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) and the National Truck
Equipment Association (NTEA). The member companies of RVIA and NTEA are
generally considered final-stage manufacturers and alterers. That is,
they purchase incomplete vehicles from major manufacturers to serve as
the basis for specialty vehicles (manufactured in two or more stages)
for certain uses and markets, or alter completed vehicles prior to
first retail sale. As such, the petitioners' members face a variety of
challenges in certifying that their vehicles meet applicable safety
standards. We note that with respect to vehicles manufactured in two or
more stages, some multi-stage vehicles are built from chassis-cabs with
a completed occupant compartment. Others are built from less complete
vehicles, often necessitating the addition by the final-stage
manufacturer of its own occupant compartment. The final stage
manufacturer is responsible for certification of the completed vehicle,
although, as discussed below, it can often ``pass-through'' by
incomplete vehicle manufacturer.
A. Recreation Vehicle Industry Association Petition for Rulemaking
On October 4, 2001, the RVIA submitted a petition for rulemaking
requesting that ``van conversions, altered vehicles, and motor homes''
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less be excluded from the requirements
of the August 1995 final rule.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ To examine the petition, please go to http://dms.dot.gov/
and enter Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7145-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RVIA is a national trade association representing final stage
manufacturers and alterers. These entities alter vans, pickup trucks,
and sport utility vehicles prior to first retail sale (RVIA refers to
these vehicles collectively as conversion vehicles or ``CVs''), and
also manufacture motor homes. The RVIA petition requested that CVs and
motor homes be excluded from the FMH impact requirements for the
following reasons:
1. RVIA argues that in the statutory enactment directing NHTSA to
improve head impact protection, Congress specifically limited its
mandate to passenger cars. RVIA stated that a proposed Senate amendment
to include multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and light duty trucks
(LDTs) was expressly rejected.\11\ Because the agency chose to proceed
beyond the congressional mandate, RVIA argues that NHTSA has the
discretion to exclude vehicles, other than passenger cars, from the FMH
impact requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 102-404, at 395-396 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. With the exception of a single entity, all RVIA members fall
under the ``small business'' definition for the purposes of Small
Business Administration regulations.\12\ RVIA states that its members
have been operating in a declining market where production of CVs and
motor homes has been declining sharply. For example, in 1999, RVIA
members produced 104,100 CVs and 4,634 motor homes. By contrast, 2001
shipments were projected at 38,000 CVs and 3,629 motor homes. In light
of their member's ``small business'' status and declining sales, RVIA
argues that the member companies do not have the financial
[[Page 20934]]
resources and technical expertise to comply with FMH impact requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. RVIA estimates the cost of compliance (including development and
tooling) to average $2,401 to $4,850 per each CV and $4,748 to $5,747
per each motor home, respectively.\13\ RVIA estimates that the costs
associated with certification testing to be as high as $46,000 for each
vehicle configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ RVIA's detailed certification testing and tooling cost
estimates are on page 7 and in Exhibit D of the petition (Docket No.
NHTSA-2002-7145-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RVIA argues that most CVs and motor homes feature unique interior
designs. Specifically, these vehicles include overhead cabinets, side
valances, raised roof structures, and other unusual interior
components. RVIA members offer an average of 18 different CV
configurations each, all of which would require separate certification
testing. Some offer as many as 38 different CV variations. Motor home
manufacturers offer as many as 14 motor home variations. However, at
least one motor home manufacturer offers at least 73 different ``floor
plans.'' RVIA states that this product variation necessitates
conducting FMH impact testing on each vehicle configuration and may
even require multiple identical vehicles to test each configuration.
Because of the differences in the customized interiors, RVIA argues
that the manufacturers have been unable to arrive at practicable and
cost-effective ``countermeasures;'' i.e., additional padding designed
to bring these vehicles into compliance with FMH impact requirements.
4. RVIA states that cooperative testing, suggested by NHTSA as a
way to lessen compliance costs associated with FMH requirements, is not
practicable because each RVIA member manufactures unique vehicles, each
substantially different from its competitors. Because these vehicles
are different, cooperative testing is impossible unless interiors for
all vehicles manufactured by RVIA members are made uniform.
Accordingly, RVIA argues that cooperative testing would eliminate
interior customization, which would in turn result in a loss of market
for CVs and motor homes.
5. RVIA argues that the safety benefits of FMH impact requirements
as applied to CVs and motor homes are marginal. RVIA conducted a survey
of CV and motor home manufacturers which showed no crashes in which an
occupant injury or death had occurred due to head impacts with upper
interior components covered by FMH impact requirements.
RVIA cites Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data in arguing
that van-based motor homes are safe. Specifically, between 1996 and
1999, there was an average of 14 fatalities per year in all van-based
motor homes regardless of the GVWR, which translates to 0.0039
fatalities per 1,000,000 annual vehicle miles (compared to 0.0143
fatalities per 1,000,000 miles for passenger cars). Based on these
data, RVIA estimates that the safety benefit reduction from excluding
small, van-based motor homes from the FMH impact requirements would be
extremely low. Since FARS does not track crash data for all CVs, RVIA
was not able to make a similar estimate for CVs. However, RVIA argues
that CVs are safer than an average passenger car, and that the safety
benefit reduction in the case of CVs would also be quite low.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Petitioners support this assertion by a letter from RV Alliance
America. The letter is found in Exhibit E (Docket No. NHTSA-2002-7145-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. RVIA members produce vehicles to the consumer's specifications
and many special components and designs are installed in response to
consumer requests. RVIA argues that in granting a previous (unrelated)
temporary exemption from the requirements of FMVSS No. 201, the agency
acknowledged public benefit in affording consumers a wide choice of
motor vehicles.\15\ Petitioners asked that the agency adhere to this
policy by allowing RVIA members to continue manufacturing CVs and motor
homes built to customer specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 64 FR 61379, November 10, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. National Truck Equipment Association Petition for Rulemaking
On November 27, 2001, NTEA submitted a petition for rulemaking
requesting that certain vehicles manufactured in two or more stages be
excluded from FMH impact requirements arguing that the requirements are
impracticable as they apply to these vehicles.\16\ These vehicles
included ambulances, fire fighting, rescue, emergency, and law
enforcement vehicles. Additionally, the NTEA requested exemption from
FMH impact requirements for any target in a truck or multipurpose
passenger vehicle located rearward of a vertical transverse plane
through the foremost design H-point of the rear most forward facing
designated seating position where the vehicle is equipped with a full
or partial bulkhead or other similar device for the purpose of
protecting or isolating the driver and passenger compartment from the
cargo carrying, load bearing, or work performing area of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See NHTSA-2001-8876-10 at http://dms.dot.gov/ . NTEA also
filed subsequent petitions to delay the effective date of the August
1995 final rule as it applied to vehicles manufactured in two or
more stages. These later petitions relied on the same arguments
presented to the agency in the November 27, 2001 document (see
NHTSA-2002-12480-2, NHTSA-2002-12480-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTEA represents 1,500 distributors, final stage and intermediate
manufacturers, and alterers of work-related trucks, truck bodies and
equipment. More specifically, NTEA member companies produce ambulances,
fire fighting, rescue, emergency or law enforcement vehicles, utility
company vehicles, aerial bucket trucks, delivery trucks and a variety
of other specialized vehicles for commercial or vocational use. These
entities generally use incomplete vehicles provided by major
manufacturers and assemble a completed vehicle for a specified purpose
using the chassis provided by another company. As discussed above,
altered vehicles and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages must
comply with FMH impact requirements beginning September 1, 2006. In
2001, NTEA estimated that 377,000 vehicles produced by its members
annually would have to meet the FMH impact requirements.
NTEA asked for an exclusion of such vehicles because it believes
that NTEA member manufacturers will not be able to demonstrate that
these vehicles comply with FMH impact requirements without conducting
individual full-scale dynamic testing on each vehicle model, which NTEA
argues is not economically or technologically possible. Other options
for demonstrating compliance, such as pass through certifications,
engineering analysis, and computer modeling, are, according to NTEA,
not available or economically feasible.
First, NTEA believes that FMH testing for the subject vehicles is
not economically feasible because of the number of vehicle
configurations produced by the multi-stage truck and specialty vehicle
industry. NTEA estimates that in aggregate, compliance testing would
cost its members $160,000,000. Specifically, NTEA states that there are
over 1,200 identifiable vehicle configurations produced by its members.
For each configuration, the cost of actual testing is approximately
$14,000 to $17,000 (NTEA states that this cost estimate does not
account for development costs, costs for re-testing after failures,
transportation of the vehicle to the test facility, or countermeasures
in production vehicles that would be necessary to produce a
[[Page 20935]]
compliant vehicle).\17\ Besides costs, NTEA argues that it is not
feasible to test each vehicle configuration produced by its member
manufacturers because they are aware of only two testing facilities
that provide dynamic testing, and each is only capable of testing 12
vehicles per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Appendix A of the NTEA petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, NTEA stated that alternative options to demonstrate
compliance such as pass-through certifications,\18\ test data from
component vendors, engineering analysis, computer modeling, and
consortium dynamic testing, are not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In a ``pass through'' of chassis manufacturer compliance,
multi-stage manufacturers certify compliance by ``passing through''
the chassis manufacturer's certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, NTEA argued that pass-through is not an available
option because the member manufacturers often complete the vehicle
``outside the parameters'' provided by the chassis manufacturer. For
example, the installation of bulkheads or partitions usually
invalidates the chassis manufacturer's compliance statement. In many
work vans, emergency vehicles, or police vehicles, bulkheads or
dividers are needed to ensure that objects or people that must remain
in the rear of the vehicle actually do so. Installation of these
bulkheads, according to NTEA, is likely to require relocation of target
areas originally certified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer,
adding to the compliance burden of the NTEA member and frustrating the
ability to take advantage of ``pass through'' certification.
Furthermore, NTEA asserts that the chassis manufacturer's completion
guidelines are too restrictive to allow for compliance.
Additionally, NTEA argued that other compliance options are also
unavailable to multi-stage manufacturers. NTEA stated that the chassis
manufacturers do not provide sufficient compliance information to the
multi-stage manufacturers and that the test data is not enough to
certify compliance under FMVSS No. 201 because validation requires in-
system testing. NTEA also argued that engineering analysis and computer
modeling are not possible because they require previous dynamic test
data that do not exist. Finally, NTEA stated that consortium testing is
not an option since the compliance tests developed by NHTSA are so specific
that minor differences produce significantly different test results.
III. The Agency's New Approach to Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages
and Altered Vehicles
On February 14, 2005, the agency issued a final rule (February 2005
final rule) which enables more final stage manufacturers to take
advantage of ``pass-through'' certification by requiring incomplete
vehicle manufacturers to assume certification responsibility for the
vehicle as further manufactured or completed by a final-stage
manufacturer, to the extent that the vehicle is completed in accordance
with the Incomplete Vehicle Document (IVD) described below.\19\
Previously, this requirement only applied to chassis-cab manufacturers.
The February 2005 final rule also created a new process under which
manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages and alterers
could obtain temporary exemptions from certain dynamic performance
requirements. Finally, as a part of that rulemaking, we refined our
analysis of the agency's authority to establish different requirements
for vehicles built in two or more stages. The February 2005 final rule
becomes effective September 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 70 FR 7414, Docket No. 1999-5673-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is in the process of considering a petition for
reconsideration of the February 2005 final rule submitted by NTEA.\20\
We expect to issue our response shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Docket No. NHTSA-1999-5673-55. See also comment
concerning the NTEA petition for reconsideration submitted by
General Motors (Docket No. NHTSA-1999-5673-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. ``Pass-Through'' Certification
Manufacturers of chassis-cabs are currently required to place on
the incomplete vehicle a certification label stating under what
conditions the chassis-cab has been certified. This allows what is
commonly referred to as ``pass-through'' certification. As long as a
subsequent manufacturer meets the conditions of the chassis-cab
certification, that manufacturer may rely on this certification and
pass it through when certifying the completed vehicle. However, the
current certification regulations do not impose corresponding
certification responsibilities on manufacturers of incomplete vehicles
other than chassis-cabs (e.g., incomplete vans, cut-away chassis,
stripped chassis and chassis-cowls).
The February 2005 final rule extended these certification
responsibilities to all types of incomplete vehicles. More
specifically, beginning September 1, 2006, all incomplete vehicle
manufacturers and intermediate manufacturers will have certification
responsibilities for the vehicles as further manufactured or completed
by final-stage manufacturers, to the extent that the vehicle is
completed in accordance with the conditions specified in the IVD.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The IVD details, with varying degrees of specificity, the
types of future manufacturing contemplated by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer and must provide, for each applicable safety standard,
one of three statements that a subsequent manufacturer can rely on
when certifying compliance of the vehicle, as finally manufactured,
to some or all of all applicable FMVSSs. First, the IVD may state,
with respect to a particular safety standard, that the vehicle, when
completed, will conform to the standard if no alterations are made
in identified components of the incomplete vehicle (this
representation is most often made with respect to chassis-cabs,
since a significant portion of the occupant compartment is already
complete). Second, the IVD may provide a statement for a particular
standard or set of standards of specific conditions of final
manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform to the
standard (this statement is applicable in those instances in which
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer has provided all or a portion of
the equipment needed to comply with the standard, but subsequent
manufacturing might be expected to change the vehicle such that it
may not comply with the standard once finally manufactured). Third,
the IVD may identify those standards for which no representation of
conformity is made (for example, a manufacturer of a stripped
chassis may be unable to make any representations about conformity
to any crashworthiness standards if the incomplete vehicle does not
contain an occupant compartment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Agency's Authority to Exclude Multi-Stage Vehicles From FMVSSs
In the February 2005 final rule, the agency reconsidered a previous
position and concluded that it has authority to exclude multi-stage
vehicles as a group from FMVSSs that are impracticable as they applied
to these vehicles, or to subject these vehicles to different
requirements. NHTSA concluded that it is appropriate to consider multi-
stage vehicles as a vehicle type subject to consideration in the
establishment of a regulation. For a detailed discussion of this issue,
see 70 FR 7014 at 7421.
C. New Temporary Exemption Procedures Available to Final Stage
Manufacturers and Alterers
The February 2005 final rule established new procedures available
to manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages and alterers
for obtaining temporary exemptions from FMVSSs for which the agency
specifies certain dynamic test procedures to determine compliance. The
new procedures streamline the temporary exemption process by allowing
an association or another party representing the interests of multiple
manufacturers to bundle exemption petitions for a specific
[[Page 20936]]
vehicle design, thus permitting a single explanation of the potential
safety impact and good faith attempts to comply with the standards. The
new exemption procedures specify that each manufacturer seeking an
exemption is required to demonstrate financial hardship and good faith
efforts to comply with applicable requirements. Exemptions based on
financial hardship are available to companies manufacturing less than
10,000 vehicles per year, and any one exemption cannot apply to more
than 2,500 vehicles per year.
We note that, given the regulatory text specifying the new
temporary exemption procedure, there is an issue whether that procedure
is available for the head impact protection requirements at issue in
the NTEA and RVIA petitions. That regulatory text reads as follows:
* * *An alterer, intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, or
industry trade association representing a group of alterers,
intermediate and/or final-stage manufacturers may seek * * * a
temporary exemption or a renewal of a temporary exemption from any
performance requirement for which a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard specifies the use of a dynamic crash test procedure to
determine compliance. [Emphasis added]
The procedure for the head impact protection requirements does not
incorporate a full scale crash test except as an option for vehicles
equipped with a dynamically deployable upper interior head protection
system, which we do not believe is relevant to vehicles that are
subject of the RVIA and NTEA FMVSS No. 201 petitions. Nevertheless, the
upper interior requirements have a number of similarities to crash
tests. For purposes of this rulemaking, we are proposing to extend the
scope of the new temporary exemption procedures such that multistage
manufacturers would be able to petition NHTSA for an exemption from FMH
impact requirements.
First, we observe that small volume multistage manufacturers are
currently able to petition the agency for temporary exemptions from all
FMVSSs, including FMH impact requirements, under the existing temporary
exemption procedures currently in effect. Therefore, our proposal to
expand the scope of the new temporary exemption procedures to include
consideration of petitions related to FMH impact testing relates to the
availability of the more streamlined procedures rather than to the
possibility of a manufacturer obtaining an exemption, in appropriate
circumstances, at all.
Second, we believe that, in limited circumstances, the difficulty
or impracticability of testing a multitude of unique vehicle
configurations, or otherwise obtaining an appropriate basis for
certification, with the associated financial hardships, may extend to
FMH impact requirements. Specifically, there is a considerable cost
associated with FMH impact tests and vehicles are usually damaged
during testing.
Finally, we expect the number of instances in which an exemption
will be needed to be very small because in order to petition for an
exemption, the petitioner would have to show why FMH impact tests would
cause substantial economic hardship. This showing must include detailed
financial information and a complete description of the petitioner's
good faith efforts to comply with the standards. Specifically, the
petitioner would have to explain the inadequacy of IVD documents
furnished by one or more incomplete vehicle manufacturers or by prior
intermediate manufacturers pursuant to 49 CFR part 568. The petitioner
would also have to show why generic or cooperative testing is
impracticable. In addition, each petitioner is required to explain
under Sec. 555.13(c) why the requested temporary exemption would not
unreasonably degrade safety.
We are not proposing specific regulatory text in this document. We
note that this issue is also before the agency in the context of
petitions for reconsideration of the February 2005 final rule
establishing the new exemption procedures. We also note that depending
on the agency's decision in that proceeding, this issue could become
moot as to this rulemaking.
IV. Response to the RVIA and NTEA Petitions for Rulemaking
As discussed above, RVIA and NTEA petitioned the agency to
permanently exclude certain altered vehicles and vehicles manufactured
in two or more stages from all or a portion of the FMH impact
requirements. We are granting the petition in part, by proposing to
further limit the area that is subject to FMH impact requirements in
ambulances, motor homes, and extending this limitation to other
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, as well as altered
vehicles. We are also proposing to exclude vehicles delivered to a
final stage manufacturer without an occupant compartment from the FMH
impact requirements. We are denying all other parts of the petitions.
A. Proposal To Limit the Occupant Compartment Area Subject to the FMH
Impact Requirements in Ambulances, Motor Homes, and Other Vehicles
Manufactured in Two or More Stages, and Altered Vehicles
In ambulances and motor homes, the current standard excludes the
occupant compartment area located more than 600 mm (24 inches) behind
the seating reference point of the driver's seating position from the
FMH impact requirements. For all other vehicles, the occupant
compartment area located more than 600 mm (24 inches) behind the
seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating position is
similarly excluded from the FMH impact requirements.
For altered vehicles and vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages, including motor homes and ambulances, we are proposing to limit
the area subject to the FMH impact requirements to not more than 300 mm
(12 inches) behind the seating reference point of the driver's seating
position. This would have the effect of limiting the FMH impact
requirements to the front seating positions for these vehicles. We
believe that the distance reduction to 300 mm (12 inches) is more
representative of the distance between the seating reference point and
the upper seat back/head restraint location where the occupant's head
is located. Because of the front head restraint height requirements, we
believe it is unlikely that the head of a seated occupant would come in
contact with bulkheads, partitions, or overhead cabinets and storage
shelves located further than 300 mm (12 inches) behind the seating
reference point of the driver's seating position. However, we are not
granting the NTEA proposal to limit the seat position for this
exclusion to the foremost design H-point (rather than the seating
reference point) since we believe that a large portion of the seated
driver's head would not be provided head protection in the areas of B-
pillars and side rails between the A-pillar and the B-pillar.
In developing this proposal, we have carefully considered both the
safety benefits of the FMH requirements and practicability concerns
relating to multistage vehicles. Based on previous estimates of the
benefits of the FMVSS No. 201 final rule, and estimates from the
National Automotive Sampling System, Crashworthiness Data System of the
percent of injuries occurring to light truck occupants in multi-stage
vehicles, the agency derived the following estimate of safety benefits.
Requiring all multi-stage manufactured vehicles to
[[Page 20937]]
meet FMVSS No. 201 would have annual benefits in the front seat of 16-
22 fewer fatalities and 19-22 fewer AIS 2-5 injuries. However, in the
rear seats, the benefits are estimated to be less than 1 fatality
(which would round down to 0) and 1 AIS 2-5 injury. Thus, based on this
analysis, excluding multi-stage vehicles from target points that could
not be struck by the front row occupants would have a very small impact
on safety.
Given the small safety benefits associated with the FMH impact
requirements for rear seating positions and practicability concerns, we
have tentatively concluded that the FMH impact requirements should be
limited to the front seating positions for these vehicles.
As indicated in its petition, many commercial vehicles manufactured
by NTEA members feature bulkheads or partitions located less than 600
mm (24 inches) behind the rearmost designated seating position.
Bulkheads or partitions are used in a variety of work vehicles that
haul odd-shaped objects that cannot be readily secured in the cargo
area. These structures protect the driver and passenger from loose or
shifting or shifting cargo or work equipment. NTEA argued that the
installation of bulkheads or partitions would likely require relocation
of target areas originally certified by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer, thus significantly adding to the compliance burden.
As discussed above, RVIA argued that most CVs and motor homes
feature unique interior designs. Specifically, these vehicles include
overhead cabinets, side valances, raised roof structures, and other
unusual interior components. Among other things, RVIA stated that
cooperative testing, suggested by NHTSA as a way to lessen compliance
costs associated with FMH requirements, is not practicable because each
RVIA member manufactures unique vehicles, each substantially different
from its competitors. RVIA argued that cooperative testing would
eliminate interior customization, which would in turn result in a loss
of market for CVs and motor homes.
We believe our proposal to effectively limit the FMH impact
requirements to the front seating positions for these vehicles would
provide appropriate relief to the industries represented by NTEA and
RVIA, while continuing to meet the need for safety. As discussed above,
the benefits related to rear seating positions are very small.
We note that NTEA and RVIA members can ordinarily purchase
incomplete vehicles that are already designed to meet the FMH impact
requirements for the front seating positions. Under our proposal, final
stage manufacturers would ordinarily be able to take advantage of pass-
through certification by not changing the upper interior portions of
the front of the vehicle.
We believe the requirements are justified by safety. As indicated
above, we estimate that requiring all multi-stage manufactured vehicles
to meet FMVSS No. 201 would have annual benefits in the front seat of
16-22 fewer fatalities and 19-22 fewer AIS 2-5 injuries. Given the
safety significance of these requirements, we believe, in situations
where final stage manufacturers use incomplete vehicles that have
occupant compartments that either are designed to meet the FMH impact
requirements for the front seating positions or can be purchased in a
configuration that is designed to meet those requirements, it would be
inconsistent with the need for safety to generally exclude the vehicles
from these head impact protection requirements. We also note that while
final stage manufacturers will be able to submit petitions under
subpart B of part 555, it is unlikely in this type of situation that
the agency would find it in the public interest to exclude final stage
manufacturers from the front seat head impact protection requirements
of FMVSS No. 201 to facilitate customization of the upper interior
portions of the front of the vehicle.
Our proposal would, however, facilitate customization of the rear
of vehicles, including conversion vans, where there would be no
significant impact on safety. Moreover, we continue to believe that
final stage manufacturers can use cooperative testing to determine the
types of changes that can be made while enabling vehicles to continue
to comply with the FMH requirements, including ones related to use of
overhead cabinets, raised roof structures, and so forth. Thus, while
customization of the front portion of occupant compartments will be
more difficult and may be more limited, it will by no means be eliminated.
B. Proposal To Exclude Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages,
Other Than Motor Homes, Chassis Cabs, Cutaway Vans, and Other Incomplete
Vehicles With a Furnished Front Compartment, From FMH Impact Requirements
We tentatively conclude that a narrow group of multi-stage vehicles
contains physical attributes that make compliance with the FMH impact
requirements impracticable. These are vehicles built on a ``stripped''
chassis; i.e., an incomplete vehicle without an occupant compartment.
The manufacturers of these vehicles would not be able to rely on pass-
through certification. This is because these vehicles are highly
customized and produced in quantities that would make compliance
prohibitively expensive. Further, these vehicles are often equipped
with partitions and bulkheads that present a further impediment to the
compliance efforts. We note that for vehicles manufactured from
stripped chassis, the cost of meeting the FMH impact requirements could
be substantial because the alternative means of compliance such as
pass-through certification are not available.
In the context of serving niche markets demanding specialized work
vehicles that are not delivered to the final stage manufacturers with
an intact occupant compartment (unlike for example, chassis cabs and
cut-away vans), we believe that the physical limitations of these
vehicles can adversely affect the ability of multi-stage manufacturers
to design safety performance into their completed vehicles.
Accordingly, we believe it appropriate to exclude this narrow group of
vehicles from FMH impact testing.
C. Question Regarding Multistage Vehicles With Raised Roofs
Certain multistage vehicles are manufactured with raised roofs. The
final-stage manufacturer cuts out a portion of the original roof and
attaches a raised roof, typically made of fiberglass that may also have
metal inserts imbedded for strength. The manufacturers of these
vehicles may not be able to take advantage of pass through
certification because raising the roof affects the location of certain
targets subject to FMH impact testing. The raised roof has a different
shape than the van portion of an incomplete vehicle. Therefore, the
reference points located on the exterior, i.e., APR and BPR, will
probably not be the same and the FMH targets inside the vehicle may be
in different locations from those that the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer stated could be certified as pass through. In addition,
the portion of the roof over the front seating area would be affected
when the final-stage manufacturer installs a headliner and/or padding
in a vehicle with a raised roof or a non-raised roof.
We believe that the original targets in raised roof vehicles, e.g.,
those along the pillars and side rails, may be as appropriate for
safety as the targets that would be calculated for the new
[[Page 20938]]
configuration. We are therefore considering permitting manufacturers to
meet requirements for either the target locations as calculated for the
original configuration or changed configuration. This would also make
compliance easier for final stage manufacturers. We are asking for
comment on this approach to targets in vehicles with raised roofs.
D. Additional Relief Is Not Warranted
After carefully considering RVIA's and NTEA's petitions, we have
decided not to propose a broader exclusion from the FMH requirements
for front seat areas of conversion vans, motor homes, ambulances, fire
fighting, rescue, emergency, law enforcement, and altered vehicles. As
explained above, we believe that the head impact protection
requirements provide important safety benefits in front seating
positions of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and our
proposal would provide appropriate relief to the industries represented
by NTEA and RVIA, while continuing to meet the need for safety.
RVIA and NTEA did not provide any convincing reasons why occupants
of its members' vehicles would not benefit from the same level of
protection as required for other vehicles. Conversion vans, light duty
motor homes, and other altered vehicles are typically driven by regular
passenger vehicle drivers who require the same type of occupant
protection as other passenger vehicle drivers. Furthermore, the
petitioners did not explain why the occupants of ambulances, fire
fighting, rescue, emergency, and law enforcement vehicles that may
additionally travel at high rates of speed through unconventional
traffic paths would not benefit from countermeasures designed to reduce
head impacts in the event of a collision.
We note that the petitioners are also able to purchase incomplete
vehicles that are already designed to meet the FMH impact requirements
for the front seating positions. Under our proposal, the rear portions
of multi-stage and altered vehicles, where the majority of vehicle
customization is performed, would be excluded from the FMH
requirements. Furthermore, final stage manufacturers would ordinarily
be able to take advantage of pass-through certification by not changing
the upper interior portions of the front of the vehicle. Accordingly,
compliance costs and test burdens, (i.e., the petitioners' main
concerns), would be substantially reduced when certifying these vehicles.
We further believe that the compliance costs provided by the RVIA
and NTEA in their petition were overstated. For example, the compliance
test cost estimates provided by RVIA were not averaged over the years
of vehicle production. Instead, the costs were reflective of only the
first production year. RVIA did not provide the actual production
cycles for its various vehicles, so its cost estimates were based on a
one-year production cycle. Typically, when vehicle compliance costs are
amortized over the vehicle production years, the costs are a lot
smaller, as evidenced by the rulemaking involving small school buses
where the estimated compliance cost per multi-stage vehicle was less
than $1,000 in 1993 economics.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 62 FR 16718, April 8, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTEA estimated that compliance with the FMH requirements would cost
its industry a minimum of $160 million and 64 years to comply. However,
this was based on the availability of two test laboratories that
conducted FMH testing in 2001 and no pass-through certification was
applied. We believe that laboratory experience has improved greatly
since that time, and the exclusions that we are proposing in this
notice will have a large impact on reducing the actual compliance costs.
RVIA and NTEA did not provide any convincing reasons why it is not
generally practicable for these vehicles to comply. With respect to
conversion vans and motor homes, the agency believes that there are
alternative locations for the installation of hardwood cabinetry, and
audio/video entertainment systems (other than mounted over the heads of
front seat occupants). There are also other more compliant materials
than hardwood that could be utilized by conversion van and motor home
customization specialists.
As to fire fighting and rescue vehicles (with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 4,536 kg or less), these vehicles are basically multi-
stage work vehicles furnished with special equipment and tools designed
exclusively for the purpose of rescuing people in emergency situations.
We are proposing to exclude the rear compartment area of these vehicles
from FMH target requirements, as we are for other multistage. We do not
believe there is any reason to treat the front occupant compartment of
these vehicles differently from other multistage vehicles (such as
utility company trucks, contractor vehicles, snow removal vehicles,
etc). Thus, we believe that no additional relief is necessary.
The agency has also previously considered and denied the exclusion
of police cars from the FMH requirements.\23\ Our position on that
issue has not changed substantially. Previously, the NTEA requested
that police cars be excluded since these cars have special equipment,
including gun racks and spotlight control mounted on the upper roof
interior, and a bulkhead behind the front seats. However, the agency
believes that interior components, such as gun racks and spotlight
controls do not necessarily have to be mounted on the vehicle roof
interior surface in the vicinity of the driver's head, and can
alternatively be accommodated with padding. Furthermore, we are aware
that there are available equipment packages (such as remote-controlled
spotlights and A-pillar mounted spotlights below the AP3 target
location) that would facilitate compliance with the FMH requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Effective Date
We are proposing to delay the effective date of the FMH impact
requirements as they apply to final stage manufacturers and alterers
from September 1, 2006 until September 1, 2008.
VIII. Submission of Comments
A. How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.\24\ NHTSA
established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments
in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional
documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the
attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments to the docket
electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web
site at http://dms.dot.gov . Click on "Help & Information" or
"Help/Info'' to obtain instructions for filing your comments electronically.
Please note, if you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency
to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20939]]
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, the agency will also
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If
Docket Management receives a comment too late for the agency to
consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued),
the agency will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for
future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation http://dms.dot.gov .
2. On that page, click on ``search.''
3. On the next page http://dms.dot.gov/search , type in the
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example:
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.''
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents,
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the
documents are word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
the agency recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new
material.
VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This proposal was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is
not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. If adopted, it would not impose any new burdens on
manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages or vehicles
alterers. Further, if adopted, this proposal would limit certain
existing requirements as they apply to multistage vehicles, and exclude
a narrow group of multi-stage vehicles manufactured from chassis
without occupant compartments from the same requirements. The agency
believes that this impact is so minimal as to not warrant the
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed
rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions. I have considered the possible effects of this
rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and certify that
it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
Under 13 CFR 121.201, the Small Business Administration (SBA)
defines small business (for the purposes of receiving SBA assistance)
as a business with less than 750 employees. Most of the manufacturers
of recreation vehicles, conversion vans, and specialized work trucks
are small businesses that alter completed vehicles or manufacture
vehicles in two or more stages. While the number of these small
businesses potentially affected by this proposal is substantial, the
economic impact upon these entities will not be significant because
this document proposes to limit certain existing requirements as they
apply to multistage vehicles, and exclude a narrow group of multi-stage
vehicles manufactured from chassis without occupant compartments from
the same requirements. For other multistage manufacturers, recent
agency action described above will enable the manufacturers to more
fully utilize pass-through certification.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is
required.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has
determined that it does not have sufficient federal implications to warrant
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a
[[Page 20940]]
federalism summary impact statement. The proposal would not have any
substantial impact on the States, or on the current Federal-State
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local officials.
E. Unfunded Mandates Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
($120.7 million as adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995).
The assessment may be combined with other assessments, as it is here.
This proposal is not likely to result in expenditures by State,
local or tribal governments or automobile manufacturers and/or their
suppliers of more than $120.7 million annually. If adopted, it would
not impose any new burdens on manufacturers of vehicles built in two or
more stages or vehicles alterers. Further, if adopted, this proposal
would limit certain existing requirements as they apply to multistage
vehicles, and exclude a narrow group of multi-stage vehicles manufactured
from chassis without occupant compartments from the same requirements.
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'', \26\
the agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any
retroactive effect. We conclude that it would not have such an effect.
Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard
applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the extent that the State requirement
imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles
procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure
for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file a suit in court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no information collection requirements in this proposal.
H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
I. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
? Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
? Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
? Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
? Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
? Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
? Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
J. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov .
IX. Proposed Regulatory Text
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend chapter
V of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations by amending 49 CFR
571.201 to read as follows:
PART 571--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation of part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 2011, 30115, 30166 and 30117;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.201 would be amended by revising S6.1.4, S6.3(b) and
S6.3(c) to read as set forth below:
Sec. 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior impact.
* * * * *
S6.1.4 Phase-in Schedule #4 A final stage manufacturer or alterer
may, at its option, comply with the requirements set forth in S6.1.4.1
and S6.1.4.2.
S6.1.4.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and
before September 1, 2008 are not required to comply with the
requirements specified in S7.
S6.1.4.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008 shall
comply with the requirements specified in S7.
* * * * *
S6.3 * * *
(b) Any target located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind
the seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating
position. For altered vehicles and vehicles built in two or more
stages, including ambulances and motor homes, any target located
rearward of a vertical plane 300 mm behind the seating reference point
of the driver's designated seating position.
(c) Any target in a walk-in van-type vehicle or a vehicle
manufactured in two or more stages that is delivered to a final stage
manufacturer without an occupant compartment.
Note: Motor homes, ambulances, and other vehicles manufactured
using a chassis cab, a cut-away van, or any other incomplete vehicle
delivered to a final stage manufacturer with a furnished front
compartment are not excluded under this paragraph.
* * * * *
Issued on April 18, 2006.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. E6-6024 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P