Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages, 7414-7436 [05-2751]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 29 (Monday, February 14, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7414-7436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2751]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 555, 567, 568, and 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5673]
RIN 2127-AE27


Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The final rule amends four different parts of title 49 to 
address the certification issues related to vehicles built in two or 
more stages and, to a lesser degree, to altered vehicles. The 
amendments allow the use of pass-through certification so that it can 
be used not only for multi-stage vehicles based on chassis-cabs, but 
also for those based on other types of incomplete vehicles. The 
amendments also create a new process under which intermediate and 
final-stage manufacturers and alterers can obtain temporary exemptions 
from dynamic performance requirements, and provide an automatic one 
year of additional lead time for new safety requirements for 
intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers, unless the 
agency determines with respect to a particular requirement that a 
longer or shorter time period is appropriate. This final rule also 
refines the agency's interpretation of ``vehicle type'' to more 
appropriately reflect the congressional and judicial considerations. 
Because vehicles built in two or more stages are more properly 
considered a ``vehicle type,'' the agency will be able more properly to 
consider the benefits and burdens of various compliance options when 
developing Federal motor vehicle standards.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this final rule are 
effective September 1, 2006.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document 
and submit your petition to: Administrator, Room 5220, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Harry Thompson, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (telephone 202-366-5289).
    For legal issues: Steve Wood, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA 
(telephone (202) 366-2992).
    You can reach both of these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended and 
recodified, mandates the issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards and requires the manufacturers of motor vehicles to certify 
that their vehicles comply with all applicable standards. While some 
vehicles are manufactured in a single stage by a single manufacturer, 
others are manufactured in multiple stages by a series of 
manufacturers.
    Certification problems related to vehicles built in two or more 
stages have troubled both the automotive industry and the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) almost since the agency's 
creation. An early set of NHTSA regulations on this subject was 
overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals thirty years ago. 
Rex Chainbelt v. Volpe, 486 F.2d 757 (7th Cir. 1973); appeal after 
remand, Rex Chainbelt v. Brinegar, 511 F.2d 1215 (7th Cir. 1975). The 
court's decision focused on chassis-cabs and stated that for such 
vehicles a ``dual certification'' was required: a partial certification 
by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and a complementary partial 
certification by the final-stage manufacturer, resulting in a fully 
certified vehicle. In response, the agency amended 49 CFR 567.5, 
Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more 
stages, and part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to 
define ``chassis-cabs'' and establish special certification 
requirements for chassis-cab manufacturers, which are

[[Page 7415]]

usually large vehicle manufacturers such as General Motors Corporation 
(GM) and Ford Motor Company (Ford).
    Pursuant to these regulations, manufacturers of chassis-cabs are 
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 amended regulations did 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).
    49 CFR part 568 requires the manufacturers of all incomplete 
vehicles to provide with each incomplete vehicle an incomplete vehicle 
document (IVD). This document 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 Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards (FMVSS).
    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. For example, the incomplete vehicle 
could be equipped with a brake system that would, in many instances, 
enable the vehicle to comply with the applicable brake standard once 
the vehicle was complete, but that would not enable it to comply if the 
vehicle's weight or center of gravity were significantly altered.
    Third, the IVD may identify those standards for which no 
representation of conformity is made because conformity with the 
standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete 
vehicle. Thus, 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. NHTSA said in the SNPRM that when issuing the original set 
of regulations regarding certification of vehicles built in two or more 
stages, the agency indicated that it believed final-stage manufacturers 
would be able to rely on the representations made in the IVDs when 
certifying the completed vehicle's compliance with all applicable 
FMVSSs.
    The distinction between chassis-cabs and other forms of incomplete 
vehicles created by the 1977 amendment of 49 CFR part 567, 
Certification, was based on NHTSA's belief that incomplete vehicles 
other than chassis-cabs may be insufficiently manufactured to justify 
any type of certification statement, given its legal implications, by 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. With respect to these other 
vehicles, NHTSA maintained its position that the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer should be able to provide sufficient information in the 
IVD to inform the final-stage manufacturer about the extent to which it 
could rely on manufacturing operations of the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer when determining whether additional engineering resources 
were needed to certify compliance with all applicable standards in good 
faith. See 42 FR 37814 (July 25, 1977).
    The distinction between certification responsibilities of 
manufacturers of chassis-cabs and the responsibilities of manufacturers 
of other types of incomplete vehicles led to a successful challenge to 
a NHTSA regulation in the early 1990s. In 1987, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 
204, Steering column displacement, to expand the applicability of the 
standard from vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 
4,000 lb to vehicles with a GVWR of up to 6,500 lb. 52 FR 44893 
(November 23, 1987); denial of petitions for reconsideration: 54 FR 
24344 (June 7, 1989). This amendment had the effect of making the 
standard applicable to some types of vehicles typically manufactured in 
two or more stages. The National Truck and Equipment Association (NTEA) 
challenged those amendments as they applied to final-stage 
manufacturers. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the challenged rule was 
not practicable for final-stage manufacturers that cannot ``pass-
through'' the certification of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. 
National Truck and Equipment Ass'n v. NHTSA, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th Cir. 
1990). The court cited NHTSA's acknowledgement in the preamble to the 
final rule that most final-stage manufacturers are not capable of 
performing dynamic crash testing or in-house engineering analysis, as 
well as the fact that ``pass-through'' certification was not available 
under the existing regulations unless the incomplete vehicle were a 
chassis-cab. While the court's decision was technically limited to 
FMVSS No. 204, NHTSA recognized that the court's decision would likely 
be deemed equally applicable to other safety standards for which the 
cost of certification was high.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Of particular concern to final-stage vehicle manufacturers 
is the cost of certifying to the dynamic crash test requirements of 
some of the safety standards. Under these standards, NHTSA conducts 
compliance testing by crashing a vehicle. While NHTSA has always 
maintained that a manufacturer need not actually crash the vehicle 
in order to certify compliance, it generally has not specified 
alternative certification methods in the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In response to the NTEA decision, on December 3, 1991, NHTSA 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (56 FR 61392) to 
extend the certification requirements that currently apply only to 
manufacturers of chassis-cabs to all incomplete vehicle manufacturers, 
and to permit all final-stage manufacturers to ``pass through'' the 
certification of the incomplete vehicle under certain circumstances. 
That NPRM engendered considerable controversy and virtually no support. 
In the comments, there was a clear division in positions among the 
various segments of the multi-stage vehicle industry.
    On November 17, 1995, NHTSA published a Notice announcing that it 
would hold a public meeting to seek information from final-stage and 
intermediate manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages, 
manufacturers of incomplete vehicles, and the public on certification 
of vehicles that are manufactured in stages and suggestions for action 
with respect to NHTSA's regulations and FMVSSs that govern the 
manufacture of vehicles in stages (60 FR 57694). In the notice, the 
agency stated its belief that multi-stage vehicle certification is an 
area in which negotiated rulemaking may be

[[Page 7416]]

beneficial, and invited comments on the advisability of conducting 
negotiated rulemaking in this area.
    The public meeting was held on December 12, 1995. Companies, trade 
associations, and individuals made presentations at the meeting and/or 
submitted written comments for the record. Many of the comments 
endorsed using regulatory negotiation for this rulemaking; none opposed 
the process. Based on this response, NHTSA determined that establishing 
an ad hoc advisory committee on this subject is in the public interest.

III. Negotiated Rulemaking Process

    In May 1999, NHTSA published a notice of intent to convene a 
negotiated rulemaking committee, and sought the names of interested 
participants (64 FR 27499; May 20, 1999). The chartered Committee 
originally consisted of two facilitators and 23 individuals, many, but 
not all of whom remained active in the negotiations throughout the 
negotiated rulemaking process. The Committee was comprised of 
representatives from:

    (1) Incomplete vehicle manufacturers (General Motors (GM), Ford, 
Motor Coach Industries (MCI), DaimlerChrysler, International Truck 
and Engine Corp. (International), Freightliner, and Workhorse Custom 
Chassis (Workhorse));
    (2) Component manufacturers (Atwood Mobile Products (Atwood) and 
Bornemann Products (Bornemann));
    (3) Final-stage manufacturers and alterers (National Truck 
Equipment Association (NTEA), National Mobility Equipment Dealers 
Association (NMEDA), Mark III Industries (Mark III), Environmental 
Industries Associations (EIA), Recreation Vehicle Industry 
Association (RVIA), Blue Bird Body Co. (Blue Bird), National 
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), and an individual 
representing the Ambulance Manufacturers Division and Manufacturers 
Council of Small School Buses, Mid-Size Bus Manufacturers 
Association (AMD));
    (4) End users of the vehicle (American Automobile Association 
(AAA), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), National Association of 
Fleet Administrators (NAFA), and the Center for Auto Safety (CFAS));
    (5) Vehicle testing facilities (TRC Corp.), and
    (6) NHTSA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While not a member of the Committee, Transport Canada 
attended several of the Committee meetings and provided valuable 
input. This informal participation by Transport Canada has helped 
both Canada and the United States develop regulations that will be 
closely harmonized should the proposed language be adopted by NHTSA. 
Indeed, the Canadian regulation is already in effect, although the 
proposed rule developed by the committee contains additional detail.

    Several other parties representing these groups were also 
contacted, particularly those who could represent the end user of the 
vehicle. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and 
Consumers Union declined to participate. Public Citizen initially 
expressed an interest in participating, but decided against doing so 
when it discovered that CFAS would be involved. The Teamsters Union, 
which represents many of the drivers of the commercial motor vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages, also declined the agency's 
invitation to participate. While listed as a Committee member, AAA did 
not attend any meetings. The PVA attended only the December 1999 public 
meeting, and Mark III stopped participating when the company went out 
of business.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA has the authority to decide whether the participation 
of these three parties was critical to balance or representation of 
all affected interests on the Committee. The interests represented 
by AAA and PVA were also represented by the CFAS and NAFA. Likewise, 
the interests of final-stage manufacturers were represented by 
several parties other than Mark III, including associations (NMEDA, 
RVIA, and NTEA) and an individual company (Blue Bird Body Company). 
Finally, while Mark III was actively involved in the negotiations 
prior to ceasing business operations, AAA and PVA played no active 
role in the process with PVA attending only the first, introductory 
meeting, and AAA attending none of the meetings. Accordingly, NHTSA 
has determined that the participation of these three parties was not 
critical to the negotiated rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 1999, NHTSA held a public meeting during which it 
broadly discussed the substantive issues that would be the subject of, 
and the ground rules that would apply to, the negotiated rulemaking 
process. Subsequent public meetings were held in February and March 
2000, and the meeting of the chartered Committee commenced in May 2000. 
In the earlier meetings, the Committee members covered the ground rules 
associated with a negotiated rulemaking, discussed the history leading 
up to the formation of the Committee and stated their position vis-
[agrave]-vis the desired outcome. The subsequent meetings addressed 
several issues, including the likelihood of vehicles built in two or 
more stages being involved in motor vehicle crashes, the potential for 
legal liability when subsequent manufacturers complete manufacturing 
operations outside of the IVD or pass-through certification, and the 
perceived and actual needs of end consumers to have certain features on 
their vehicles.
    Another meeting was held in October 2000, during which all issues 
save two were largely resolved.\4\ First, International and 
Freightliner, who were not at the October 2000 meeting,\5\ expressed 
concerns in writing about incomplete vehicle manufacturers' taking 
legal responsibility for incomplete vehicles through representations 
made in the IVD. Since these companies offered no solution addressing 
their concerns, instead positing that there was no need to change the 
existing regulatory scheme, the issue was tabled until the next 
meeting. The other remaining issue, concerning the possible exclusion 
of final-stage manufacturers from the need to comply with certain 
safety standards in cases in which the manufacturer's production of the 
vehicle in question is limited, had been the most contentious issue at 
each of the previous meetings. This issue largely impacted four members 
of the committee, NHTSA, NTEA, AMD, and RVIA. Given the limited impact 
on the Committee as a whole, as well as the potential for the issue to 
prevent any consensus on changes to parts 567 and 568, the Committee 
agreed to hold no more meetings unless the four interested parties were 
able to come to an agreement on how to address potential exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The minutes of these meetings are in the docket.
    \5\ While the October 2000 meeting had been scheduled for some 
time prior to it taking place, final confirmation of the meeting by 
the mediator occurred only a few days prior. Accordingly, some 
Committee members, including International and Freightliner, were 
unable to attend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After meetings between the NTEA, AMD and NHTSA, at which the NTEA 
represented RVIA's interests, a final Committee meeting was held in 
February 2002. The Committee representative for GM facilitated this 
final meeting. Not all members of the Committee were able to attend the 
final meeting, although a broad-based representation was available.
    At the beginning of the meeting, two outstanding issues remained: 
(1) The scope of certification representations made by incomplete 
vehicle manufacturers, and (2) a mechanism for assuring a timely recall 
in the event that the various manufacturers could not agree which one 
was responsible for a given noncompliance or safety defect.\6\ At the 
conclusion of the meeting, there remained objections from several of 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturers over the possible acceptance of 
legal responsibility for unanticipated manufacturing operations by 
subsequent manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The mechanism to ensure a timely recall was discussed and 
generally agreed upon by the Committee on the second day of the 
meeting. Some Committee members left the meeting early because of 
travel arrangements. These individuals, as well as those Committee 
members who did not attend the meeting, did not have an opportunity 
to discuss this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA agreed to draft the Committee report for circulation among 
those

[[Page 7417]]

Committee members still involved in the process. All Committee members 
had an opportunity to review and comment on the Committee report. 
Atwood, Bornemann, Blue Bird, and Workhorse concurred with the report 
without further comment. NADA, GM, NTEA, AMD and RVIA offered extensive 
revisions, but generally concurred with the report's content, while 
TRC, NAFA, CFAS, EIA, and MCI did not comment on the draft report. 
NMEDA's comments were limited to concerns about the exclusion of 
vehicle modifiers from the proposed generic leadtime, the potential for 
allocation of recall responsibility to vehicle equipment manufacturers, 
and the applicability of new temporary exemption procedures to dynamic 
crash test conditions. Ford, Freightliner, International, and 
DaimlerChrysler objected to the provision that NHTSA could allocate 
initial recall responsibility when the various involved manufacturers 
could not agree which was the responsible party. International 
disagreed with the provisions that would allocate legal responsibility 
among each manufacturer in the manufacturing process, stating it could 
not be responsible for further manufacturing operations outside of its 
control. It suggested a revision to the draft regulation that would 
prevent subsequent stage manufacturers from relying on any incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer's representation if the subsequent stage 
manufacturer modified or added originally supplied components or 
systems in such a manner as to affect certification or the validity of 
stated weight ratings.
    Given the lack of consensus among the Committee members, NHTSA 
decided to move forward with the publication of a Supplemental Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on which all Committee members were free 
to offer unrestricted comments. In the SNPRM, NHTSA recognized that 
various Committee members compromised their initial positions as part 
of the negotiation process. Given the lack of consensus on all aspects 
of the draft regulation developed by the Committee, NHTSA believed it 
would have been unfair to restrict comment on any portions of the 
proposal. Nevertheless, NHTSA believed that the draft regulation 
represented a significant improvement over the existing regulations 
governing the certification of vehicles built in two or more stages. 
Additionally, the agency recognized that the negotiated rulemaking 
process afforded all participants a unique opportunity to fully 
evaluate proposed changes to the existing regulations, as well as 
possible alternative approaches. NHTSA believes the negotiated 
rulemaking process has been valuable in drafting amendments that 
balance the practical needs of all parties represented by the 
Committee. Accordingly, NHTSA decided to propose amending the 
applicable regulations as drafted by the Committee.

IV. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On June 28, 2004, NHTSA published a SNPRM (69 FR 36038) proposing 
to amend five different parts of title 49 to establish a comprehensive 
regulatory scheme for addressing certification issues related to 
vehicles built in two or more stages and, to a lesser degree, to 
altered vehicles. In the SNPRM, NHTSA provided background on 
certification issues, discussed the negotiated rulemaking process and 
summarized the primary issues involved in the rulemaking, noting a lack 
of consensus among members of the negotiated rulemaking Committee. 
NHTSA proposed amendments to the applicable regulations as drafted by 
the Committee but invited comments from Committee members and the 
public regarding the proposed changes.

A. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 555

    In the SNPRM, NHTSA proposed establishing a new subpart in 49 CFR 
part 555, Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper 
Standards, that would be limited to final-stage manufacturers and 
alterers. The proposed new subpart would apply to final-stage 
manufacturers and alterers who need a temporary exemption from a 
portion of a safety standard (or set of safety standards) for which the 
agency verifies compliance solely through dynamic crash testing. The 
new subpart would streamline the temporary exemption process by 
allowing an association or other party representing the interests of 
multiple manufacturers to bundle exemption petitions for a specific 
vehicle design, thus permitting a single explanation of the potential 
safety impact and good faith attempts to comply with the standards.
    Under the proposed subpart, each manufacturer seeking an exemption 
would be required to demonstrate financial hardship and certify that it 
has been unable to manufacture a compliant vehicle. Exemptions based on 
financial hardship under the proposed rule could not be granted to 
companies manufacturing more than 10,000 vehicles per year, and any 
exemption could not apply to more than 2,500 vehicles per year.\7\ 
Additionally, under the proposed subpart, NHTSA would commit to 
informing an applicant within 30 days whether the application is 
complete and would attempt to grant or deny the petition within 120 
days of its acknowledgement that the application is complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the SNPRM, although NHTSA considered a negotiated 
rulemaking subcommittee suggestion to exclude certain intermediate and 
final-stage manufacturers completely from standards based on dynamic 
crash tests, NHTSA stated that it believed that limitations set forth 
in 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the court's ruling in Nader v. Volpe, 320 
F.Supp. 266 (D.D.C. 1970), aff'd, 475 F.2d 216 (D.C. Cir. 1973), 
preclude the agency from doing so. Accordingly, NHTSA instead proposed 
changes to 49 CFR Part 555 to permit temporary exemptions in an effort 
to ease the financial burdens on final-stage manufacturers for 
standards based on the performance of a vehicle in a dynamic crash 
test.

B. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 567

    NHTSA proposed expanding 49 CFR part 567, Certification, for all 
vehicles. The proposal would revise significantly the section dealing 
with certification of vehicles built in two or more stages, 49 CFR 
567.5. It was intended to extend pass-through certification beyond 
chassis-cabs now in Sec.  567.5(a) to all incomplete vehicles. The 
proposal also stated that incomplete vehicle manufacturers assume legal 
responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the Act with 
respect to components and systems they install on the incomplete 
vehicle and, to the extent that the vehicle is completed in accordance 
with the IVD, for all components and systems added by the final-stage 
manufacturer, except for defects in those components and systems or 
defects in workmanship by the final-stage manufacturer.
    Under the proposed regulation, manufacturers of incomplete vehicles 
would be required to place an information label on the vehicle (or ship 
a label with the IVD if it cannot be placed on the vehicle) that 
identifies the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, month and year of 
manufacture, and GVWR/GAWR limitations of the incomplete vehicle and 
provides the vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle. 
Likewise, an intermediate stage manufacturer would be required to place 
an information label on the incomplete vehicle that identifies the

[[Page 7418]]

intermediate stage manufacturer, month and year the intermediate 
manufacturer last performed work on the vehicle, and GVWR/GAWR 
limitations, if different from those provided by the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer. The final-stage manufacturer would be required to place a 
certification label on the vehicle that specifies that the vehicle 
conforms to all applicable standards, and may also specify that it has 
or has not, for FMVSSs listed, stayed within the confines of the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or simply makes a 
statement of conformity. In addition, notwithstanding the 
certification, this section of the proposed regulation would assign 
legal responsibility for each stage of vehicle manufacture with respect 
to systems and components supplied on the vehicle, work performed on 
the vehicle, and the accuracy of the information contained in the IVD 
and addenda to the IVD. The SNPRM inadvertently deleted from part 567 
the definition of chassis-cab, found in existing Sec.  567.3, and 
requirements for persons who do not alter certified vehicles or do so 
with readily attachable components, found in existing Sec.  567.6.

C. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 568

    In the SNPRM, NHTSA proposed revising 49 CFR part 568, Vehicles 
Manufactured in Two or More Stages, to note expressly that an 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer may incorporate by reference body 
builder or other design and engineering guidance into the IVD. The 
agency noted its expectation that design and engineering guides, if 
included, would generally provide instructions on certain aspects of 
further manufacturing, which would assist multi-stage manufacturers to 
pass through the compliance statements from incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers. NHTSA indicated that the incorporation of design and 
engineering guides should not unreasonably limit the circumstances in 
which it will be possible to pass through these compliance statements. 
Further, the agency stated that these guides would provide more 
detailed design constraints than an IVD, reducing the likelihood that a 
subsequent stage manufacturer could successfully claim that it was 
unaware that a particular modification would invalidate the previous 
manufacturer's compliance statement.

D. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 571

    NHTSA also requested comments on its proposed revisions to 49 CFR 
571.8, Effective Date, providing intermediate and final-stage 
manufacturers and alterers an automatic additional year for compliance 
with certain amendments to the FMVSSs. Under the proposal, the 
additional leadtime would apply unless NHTSA decides that such leadtime 
is inappropriate as part of a rulemaking amending or establishing a 
safety standard. The proposed change also would allow NHTSA to provide 
even more additional leadtime upon a determination that one-year is 
insufficient. The agency additionally could determine that the safety 
problem is so significant that providing additional leadtime would 
result in an unacceptable risk of injury or death. Further, Congress 
could direct NHTSA to require compliance with a new standard by a 
specified date. In those instances in which Congress limits the 
agency's discretion to provide additional leadtime, all manufacturers 
and alterers would be required to meet the compliance date set forth in 
the standard.
    NHTSA noted in the SNPRM that incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
often do not provide final-stage manufacturers with information 
necessary to certify their vehicles until shortly before, and in some 
cases even after, the effective date of the standard in question. The 
same problem arises when an incomplete vehicle is substantively changed 
as the result of a model year changeover. The agency stated that giving 
alterers an additional year allows alterers to take certified vehicles 
out of compliance, an action typically viewed with disfavor by NHTSA. 
However, the problems faced by final-stage manufacturers also are 
applicable to alterers. If a vehicle manufacturer waits until the last 
possible moment to certify vehicles, alterers will not have the ability 
to conduct any engineering analysis to determine if the alterations 
affect compliance.
    Under the proposed changes, for phased-in requirements, the 
additional year would be applied at the end of the phase-in. NHTSA 
stated that this leadtime is appropriate because incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers often complete their certification testing just before 
start of production for a new model year. In the case of new 
requirements that are phased-in, the incomplete manufacturer may wait 
until the end of the phase-in to conduct certification testing or 
analysis for incomplete vehicles. This is because, for many 
manufacturers, the incomplete vehicle fleet is only a small proportion 
of its overall production.
    With respect to vehicle modifiers, NHTSA recognized in the SNPRM 
the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association's concern that 
vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify vehicles after first 
sale other than for resale, face the same problems as vehicle alterers. 
However, NHTSA noted that because vehicle modifiers bear no 
certification responsibility, a change to provide modifiers with an 
additional year to make modifications would not be made in the context 
of amending part 571. Further, NHTSA said that it believed that the 
businesses engaging in operations that may invalidate compliance 
certification should be held responsible for their actions. The agency 
acknowledged its awareness of instances in which vehicle alterers have 
attempted to avoid certification responsibility by waiting until a 
customer has taken possession of a vehicle to make changes that would 
take the vehicle out of compliance with one or more safety standards. 
The SNPRM noted that while a vehicle modifier that knowingly makes an 
item of mandatory safety equipment inoperative may be subject to fines, 
it could not be compelled to conduct a recall campaign to remedy any 
safety-related defects or noncompliances resulting from its work.

E. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 573

    NHTSA also proposed revisions to 49 CFR part 573. Under existing 
regulations, the manufacturer of a motor vehicle is responsible for any 
safety-related defect or noncompliance determined to exist in the 
vehicle or in any item of original equipment. 49 CFR 573.5; 49 CFR 579 
(prior to 2002); see 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(F) and (G). In the case of 
multi-stage vehicles, ultimate responsibility has rested with the 
final-stage manufacturer because, in part, incomplete vehicles are 
classified as original equipment items. 58 FR 40402, 40403 (July 28, 
1993). Nonetheless, NHTSA's regulations provide that in the case of a 
defect in vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, compliance with 
specified recall requirements by either the manufacturer of the 
incomplete vehicle or any subsequent manufacturer shall be considered 
compliance by all manufacturers. 49 CFR 573.3(c).
    In the course of this rulemaking, final-stage manufacturers have 
sought to shift ultimate responsibility under the rule for some recalls 
to incomplete vehicle manufacturers. In cases where the final-stage 
manufacturer and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer agree on recall 
responsibility, the matter is essentially straightforward. In cases 
where the final-stage manufacturer and the

[[Page 7419]]

incomplete vehicle manufacturer do not agree on recall responsibility, 
this raises the question of how this responsibility is to be assigned. 
As noted in the SNPRM, an associated issue was the mechanism for 
assuring a timely recall in the event the various manufacturers could 
not agree who was responsible. 69 FR 36041. From a safety perspective, 
timeliness and finality were very important in light of the obvious 
problem of the existence of a safety-related defect or noncompliance 
not addressed by a recall because manufacturers were squabbling over 
responsibility.
    In the SNPRM, NHTSA presented its proposed changes to section 
573.5, addressing those instances in which either the manufacturers or 
NHTSA determine that the vehicle or its original equipment has a 
safety-related defect or noncompliance but the parties dispute their 
accountability for the recall. In such an instance, under the proposed 
rule, NHTSA would assign recall responsibility to the party it believes 
is in the best position to conduct and notification and remedy 
campaign. Proposed Sec.  573.5(c), 69 FR 36056. Although the agency 
expected that there should be very few instances in which a dispute 
arises regarding which manufacturer should conduct a recall campaign, 
NHTSA indicated it is critical that any campaign not be delayed while 
the various manufacturers attempt to assess liability. NHTSA's 
determination would be limited to recall responsibilities and would not 
serve to impose fault or ultimate responsibility for the economic 
burden on the party ordered to conduct the recall.
    As discussed above, currently, the final-stage manufacturer has the 
ultimate responsibility. Thus, there is not any need for the agency to 
assign responsibility. This approach avoids delays in removing unsafe 
vehicles from the road. Within this structure, the manufacturers work 
out issues of responsibility.
    In the SNPRM, NHTSA further proposed that its determination would 
not be reviewable. Sec.  573.5(c). NHTSA acknowledged its concerns 
whether the nonreviewability provision could withstand judicial 
scrutiny. NHTSA noted that courts favor review of final agency actions. 
In the SNPRM, NHTSA indicated its belief that the nonreviewability 
provision would only withstand judicial review if a court determined 
that NHTSA's decision as to who must conduct the recall is not a final 
agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 
Accordingly, given its concerns about the likelihood that the 
nonreviewability provision could withstand judicial scrutiny, NHTSA 
invited commenters to provide arguments and analyses regarding which 
manufacturer should be deemed responsible for a recall campaign in the 
event that NHTSA and the various-stage vehicle manufacturers could not 
determine in a timely manner which party should bear responsibility for 
the recall.
    In addition, NHTSA reprinted in the preamble to the SNPRM the 
alternative language offered in the negotiated rulemaking by 
DaimlerChrysler, which would repeat the specific allocation of legal 
responsibility among incomplete vehicle, intermediate, and final-stage 
manufacturers found in proposed section 567.5. However, NHTSA noted 
that DaimlerChrysler's language would not provide a dispute resolution 
mechanism and would not ensure that a recall campaign is conducted in a 
timely manner in the event of a dispute.

V. Summary of Public Comments to the SNPRM

    NHTSA received nine comments in response to the SNPRM. Five 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers (GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, 
International, Freightliner), one association representing incomplete 
truck manufacturers (Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA)), and three 
associations representing the final-stage manufacturer or alterer 
industry (RVIA, NTEA, NADA) submitted comments. Although International, 
Ford and RVIA submitted comments after the deadline for comments 
passed, NHTSA considered the late comments in writing this Final Rule.
    The commenters responding to the proposal in part 555 for financial 
hardship temporary exemptions for alterers and final-stage 
manufacturers generally favored the adoption of the exemptions. 
However, the associations representing the final-stage manufacturer or 
alterer industry portrayed temporary exemptions as only a partial 
solution to the problems such manufacturers face with respect to 
certification through dynamic crash testing and requested that NHTSA 
provide safe harbors for low-production vehicles.
    In general, commenters supported changes to part 567 to eliminate 
the current distinction between chassis-cabs and other incomplete 
vehicles and conveyed overall support for the proposal allocating legal 
responsibility for each stage of vehicle manufacture. Some commenters 
representing incomplete vehicle manufacturers suggested modifications 
to the language proposed in section 567.5(b) to clarify the intent or 
to ensure that incomplete vehicle manufacturers are not assigned legal 
responsibility for things over which they have no control.
    With respect to the proposed revisions to part 568 to permit 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers to incorporate by reference body 
builder or other design and engineering guidance into the IVD, those 
who commented either generally supported or did not oppose the 
proposal. Two of the final-stage manufacturer representatives expressed 
concerns that the incorporation of additional documents could create 
further burdens for final-stage manufacturers.
    In general, commenters favored the automatic one-year extension 
proposed for part 571. However, some of the commenters representing 
final-stage manufacturers suggested that the rule include an additional 
year of leadtime for final-stage manufacturers under certain 
circumstances associated with the introduction of new model year 
vehicles.
    Finally, among the most contentious proposals for which NHTSA 
received comments were the proposed revisions to part 573 to allow 
NHTSA to determine which manufacturer is in the best position to 
conduct a recall when the parties dispute their accountability for a 
safety-related defect or noncompliance and whether such a determination 
could be nonreviewable. The incomplete vehicle manufacturers expressed 
disapproval of the proposed revisions to part 573, while the commenters 
representing final-stage manufacturers articulated support for the 
proposal.

VI. Agency Response to Comments

    The comments received regarding the changes proposed in the SNPRM 
to the five different parts of title 49 are summarized in more detail 
below. The agency's responses to these comments also are discussed 
below.

A. 49 CFR Part 555

1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 555
    The five commenters who submitted comments on the proposed changes 
to part 555 (GM, Ford, NADA, RVIA, NTEA) expressed general support for 
the financial hardship temporary exemption for alterers, intermediate, 
and final-stage manufacturers.
    GM commented that the proposed revisions would provide a better 
means for temporary exemptions than the mechanism found in the current 
regulatory text. Ford pointed to an

[[Page 7420]]

inconsistency between the statement in the preamble of the proposed 
rule that the exemption would only apply to safety requirements with 
which NHTSA verifies compliance through dynamic crash testing, while 
the proposed text of section 555.12 permits ``a temporary exemption 
from the provisions of any portion of a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard.'' (Emphasis added.) Ford stated that NHTSA should limit the 
temporary exemptions to requirements that are based on dynamic crash 
testing. Additionally, Ford indicated its disapproval of NHTSA's 
proposal that manufacturers would not have to commit to achieving full 
compliance by the expiration of the exemption, commenting that the rule 
should excuse compliance in instances of ``legitimate hardship'' but 
should not completely excuse compliance. Ford added that where 
compliance is impractical because of the design of a special purpose 
vehicle, the text of the promulgated rule should handle the exclusion 
specifically.
    Although NADA expressed support for the temporary exemptions as 
proposed, it noted ``the proposed exemption process is by no means a 
panacea and may prove unwieldy in certain circumstances.''
    RVIA generally supported the amendments to part 555, but requested 
clarification regarding the limitations in Sec.  555.11 that the 
temporary exemption apply only to entities that produce or alter no 
more than 10,000 vehicles per year and cannot apply to more than 2,500 
vehicles sold in the United States in any twelve-month period. In 
particular, RVIA suggested clarifying language to specify that, when 
determining eligibility for a temporary exemption, only vehicles built 
in two or more stages should be counted in the aggregate limit of 
10,000 vehicles per year. RVIA wanted to ensure that an RV 
manufacturer's non-applicable single stage towable vehicles would not 
be counted in the aggregate limit of 10,000 vehicles per year when 
determining eligibility for a temporary exclusion. Despite generally 
supporting the proposed amendments to part 555, RVIA additionally 
commented that the amendments provide an ``imperfect system of 
temporary exemptions.'' Accordingly, RVIA encouraged NHTSA to consider 
regulatory and legislative alternatives to expand its exemption and 
exemption renewal authority, including the authority to grant safe 
harbor exemptions for low-production vehicles.
    NTEA provided comments regarding the proposal for a financial 
hardship temporary exemption for alterers and final-stage 
manufacturers. As evidenced in its comments responding to the SNPRM, 
NTEA prefers either consortium testing as an alternate means of 
demonstrating compliance with dynamic standards or a ``safe harbor'' 
for intermediate and final-stage manufacturers under certain 
circumstances. NTEA noted that the negotiated rulemaking committee did 
not embrace NTEA's suggestion for consortium testing. A negotiated 
rulemaking subcommittee suggested a safe harbor, but NHTSA rejected the 
suggestion in the SNPRM, on the basis that it would be an impermissible 
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the ruling in Nader. NTEA argued in 
its comments, however, that neither section 30113 nor the Nader 
decision prevents NHTSA from requiring dynamic crash testing only for 
vehicles for which demonstrating compliance is practicable. NTEA 
recommended that if NHTSA believes it does not have statutory authority 
to implement the subcommittee's suggestion, NHTSA should seek the 
necessary statutory authority in order to adequately address final-
stage manufacturers' compliance problems.
    Nonetheless, NTEA expressed support for the proposed temporary 
exemption provision, but commented that the temporary exemption would 
be only a partial solution to the problem of verification through 
dynamic crash testing because relief would be limited. NTEA asserted 
that under the temporary exemption provisions of part 555, petitions 
would be required for each model produced, each final-stage 
manufacturer would need to submit individual filings for each petition, 
and new petitions would be required when customers ask final-stage 
manufacturers to produce slight variations of the vehicle combinations. 
Accordingly, NTEA commented that NHTSA would not be able to respond 
promptly to this vast number of petitions. NTEA additionally commented 
that inconsistent with the court's ruling in NTEA, ``[a]n uncertain, 
awkward and time consuming petition process, with an uncertain outcome 
on the merits, is not an adequate substitute to a legitimate compliance 
alternative.'' NTEA recommended that NHTSA seek statutory authority to 
expand temporary exemptions to a wider class of manufacturers.
2. Agency Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 555
a. Authority To Exclude Multi-Stage Vehicles From FMVSSs
    In response to the public comments arguing that we possess 
authority to exclude multi-stage vehicles as a group from a standard, 
we decided to re-examine our position on that issue. The discussion in 
the SNPRM of our authority appears to have conflated our authority to 
exclude types of vehicles permanently from the application of a 
standard with our authority to exempt individual manufacturers 
temporarily from a standard.
    Multi-stage vehicles are aimed at a variety of niche markets, most 
of which are too small to be serviced economically by single stage 
manufacturers. Some multi-stage vehicles are built from chassis-cabs 
completed with an intact occupant compartment. Others are built from 
less complete vehicles and designed to service particular needs--often 
necessitating the addition by the final-stage manufacturer of its own 
occupant compartment. The agency must balance accommodating this 
segment of the motor vehicle market with the requirements of the 
Vehicle Safety Act.
    The courts have set forth a number of principles the agency must 
take into account when considering these issues. First, the mandate in 
the Vehicle Safety Act that the agency consider whether a proposed 
standard is appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle for 
which it is prescribed is intended to ensure that consumers are 
provided an array of purchasing choices and to preclude some standards 
that will effectively eliminate certain types of vehicles from the 
market. See Chrysler Corp. v. Dept. of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 
679 (6th Cir. 1972) (agency may not establish a standard that 
effectively eliminates convertibles and sports cars from the market). 
Second, the agency may not provide exemptions for single manufacturers 
beyond those specified by statute. See Nader v. Volpe, 320 F. Supp. 266 
(D.D.C. 1970), motion to vacate affirmance denied, 475 F.2d 916 (DC 
Cir. 1973). Finally, the agency must provide adequate compliance 
provisions for final-stage manufacturers. Failing to provide these 
manufacturers with a means of establishing compliance would render a 
standard impracticable as to them. See National Truck Equipment Ass'n 
v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th 
Cir. 1990) (''NTEA'').
    One of the traditional ways in which the agency has handled the 
difficulties of these multi-stage vehicles has been

[[Page 7421]]

simply to exclude all vehicles, single-stage as well as multi-stage, 
within the upper GVWR range of light vehicles, typically 8,500 lb. 
GVWR-10,000 lb. GVWR. Many of the multi-stage vehicles manufactured for 
commercial use cluster in that GVWR range.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As the Court noted in NTEA (at 1158): ``The Administration 
could meet the needs of final-stage manufacturers in many ways. It 
could exempt from the steering column displacement standard all 
commercial vehicles or all vehicles finished by final-stage 
manufacturers. It could exempt those vehicles for which a final-
stage manufacturer cannot pass through the certification from the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers. It could change the pass-through 
regulations. It could reexamine the issue and prove that final-stage 
manufacturers can conduct engineering studies, and then provide in 
the regulation that such studies exceed the capacities of final-
stage manufacturers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency traditionally took this approach because the agency 
historically was of the view that it could not subject vehicles built 
in multiple stages to any different requirements than those built in a 
single stage. That was because the agency had construed section 
30111(b)(3) of the Safety Act, which instructs the agency to ``consider 
whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate 
for the particular type of motor vehicle * * * for which it is 
prescribed,'' as precluding such an approach.
    In reaching that conclusion, the agency had focused on a comment in 
the Senate Report:

In determining whether any proposed standard is ``appropriate'' for 
the particular type of motor-vehicle * * * for which it is 
prescribed, the committee intends that the Secretary will consider 
the desirability of affording consumers continued wide range of 
choices in the selection of motor vehicles. Thus it is not intended 
that standards will be set which will eliminate or necessarily be 
the same for small cars or such widely accepted models as 
convertibles and sports cars, so long as all motor vehicles meet 
basic minimum standards. Such differences, of course, would be based 
on the type of vehicle rather than its place of origin or any 
special circumstances of its manufacturer.

    Focusing on the last sentence of that passage, the agency construed 
multi-stage vehicles with regard to the ``special circumstances of 
[their] manufacturer,'' See 60 FR 38749, 38758, July 28, 1995, rather 
than considering whether multi-stage vehicles constitute a ``type of 
vehicle.'' See NTEA (at 1151) (Noting the agency's regulation defining 
``incomplete vehicle'' as ``an assemblage consisting as a minimum, of 
frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension 
system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be 
part of the completed vehicle that requires further manufacturing 
operations * * * to become a completed vehicle.'' 49 CFR 568.3 (1989)).
    We have considered our historical view of the legislative history 
in light of relevant case law and our experience with the compliance 
difficulties imposed on final-stage manufacturers. We note that the 
language we had previously considered to be a limitation does not 
appear in the statutory text. Nothing in the statutory text implies 
that Congress intended that incomplete vehicles not be deemed a vehicle 
type subject to special consideration during the regulatory process. We 
believe the sentence found in the Senate Report was intended to avoid 
regulatory distinctions based on manufacturer-specific criteria (such 
as place of production or manner of importation). This is consistent 
with the Court's conclusion in Nader v. Volpe, supra, that the agency 
cannot give exemptions to particular manufacturers beyond that provided 
by the statute.
    We are also concerned that we had overlooked the existence of 
relevant physical attributes of multi-stage vehicles. Many of the 
multi-stage vehicles in question have distinct physical features 
related to their end use. More important, all of them incorporate 
incomplete vehicles other than chassis-cabs. Especially in the context 
of the difficulties of serving niche markets, the physical limitations 
of the incomplete vehicles other than chassis-cabs can adversely affect 
the ability of multi-stage manufacturer to design safety performance 
into their completed vehicles.
    Further, as previously applied, our interpretation limits our 
ability to secure increases in safety. Excluding all vehicles within a 
given GVWR range from a safety requirement because of the possible 
compliance difficulties of some of those vehicles means not obtaining 
the safety benefits of that requirement for any of those vehicles. 
Likewise, applying a lesser requirement to all of those vehicles 
instead of a higher requirement for some of the vehicles and a lower 
requirement for the balance of the vehicles also entails a loss of 
safety benefits.
    It would be perverse to conclude that the Vehicle Safety Act 
permits us to exclude all vehicles within a certain GVWR range 
primarily because of the compliance difficulties of multi-stage 
vehicles within that range, but not to limit the exclusion to only the 
multi-stage vehicles within that range. This would enable consumers to 
obtain the safety benefits of regulating the other vehicles within that 
weight range.
    Accordingly, we have refined our views to conclude that it is 
appropriate to consider incomplete vehicles, other than those 
incorporating chassis-cabs, as a vehicle type subject to consideration 
in the establishment of regulation. We anticipate that final-stage 
manufacturers using chassis-cabs to produce multi-stage vehicles would 
be in position to take advantage of ``pass-through certification'' of 
chassis-cabs, and therefore are not including such vehicles in the 
category of those for which this optional compliance method is 
available.
b. Suggestion That Exemptions Be Premised on Commitment to Achieving 
Full Compliance
    NHTSA agrees with Ford that vehicle configurations for which 
compliance with a standard is impracticable or unnecessary should be 
excluded from that standard. However, given the myriad configurations 
of vehicles, it may not always be possible to identify and list all of 
those vehicles to be excluded from the standard. Moreover, some FMVSSs 
with dynamic crash test requirements have been amended and multi-stage 
and altered vehicle will be required to comply at a future date. It may 
not be economically practicable for a final-stage manufacturer to test 
very low volume or one-of-a-kind vehicle configurations. In those 
instances in which there is no pass-through certification in the IVD, 
final-stage manufacturers need a process that enables them to produce 
and sell such vehicles without having to commit to meeting the FMVSS at 
the end of the three-year exemption period.
c. Scope of New Exemption Provisions
    Ford is correct that we inadvertently omitted language limiting the 
new exemption provision to FMVSS requirements that are based on dynamic 
crash testing. We have added appropriate limiting language to part 555.
d. Production Volume Limit on Eligibility for Exemption
    The Vehicle Safety Act limits eligibility for financial hardship to 
companies manufacturing more than 10,000 motor vehicles per year.\9\ As 
we interpret this to include all vehicles of any type, we cannot 
exclude single stage towable vehicles from the calculation. Section 
571.3 of title 49 CFR defines ``trailer'' as a type of motor vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Anticipated Volume of Applications for New Exemptions
    We believe that as a result of our conclusion that multi-stage 
vehicles

[[Page 7422]]

constitute a vehicle type and can be excluded, if appropriate, from 
particular FMVSSs, the volume of petitions will be less than 
anticipated at the time of the SNPRM. Moreover, the number of such 
petitions can be reduced if manufacturers and associations submit them 
for ranges of vehicle configurations, as permitted in Sec.  555.12(e).
f. Handling of New Exemption Applications
    We do not agree with NTEA's characterization of how petitions would 
be handled under the new petition process. Further, by potentially 
reducing the volume of petitions, the new interpretation of authority 
to exclude multi-stage vehicles from FMVSSs makes those 
characterizations even less appropriate.

B. 49 CFR Part 567

1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 567
    Commenters generally favored some of the proposed changes to part 
567. In particular, commenters supported the elimination of the 
distinction between chassis-cabs and other incomplete vehicles. Some 
commenters favored the proposal to assign legal responsibility for each 
stage of vehicle manufacture with respect to systems and components 
supplied on the vehicle, work performed, and the accuracy of the 
information contained in the IVD and addendums to the IVD. However, 
several commenters recommended revisions to the language proposed in 
the SNPRM for part 567.
    DaimlerChrysler, which, as discussed above, had proposed revisions 
to part 573, stated that the proposed Sec.  567.5 refers only to 
defects and not to noncompliances, and accordingly recommended that the 
agency revise proposed Sec. Sec.  567.5(c) and (d) to clarify that 
intermediate and final-stage manufacturers are responsible for 
noncompliances in components or systems added by them, or noncompliance 
resulting from work done by them.
    NADA urged NHTSA to provide additional language in the preamble of 
the final rule to clarify the changes to Sec.  567.6 and related 
definitions. NADA specifically indicated that the proposed definition 
of ``readily attachable component'' could create confusion in light of 
the agency's history of interpreting what constitutes vehicle 
alteration.
    With respect to requirements proposed in Sec.  567.5(b) for 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers, TMA offered the following alternative 
language to Sec.  567.5(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) to make the intent of the 
section more clear:

    (ii) Components and systems that are incorporated into the 
completed vehicle by an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer in 
accordance with the instructions contained in the IVD, except for 
defects in those components or systems or defects in workmanship by 
the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer; and
    (iii) The accuracy of the information contained in the IVD.

    International and Freightliner also commented on Sec.  567.5(b), 
requesting that NHTSA delete proposed Sec.  567.5(b)(1)(ii). 
International and Freightliner expressed concerns about incomplete 
manufacturers' certification responsibilities under that proposed 
section. As they noted, the proposal suggests that the incomplete 
manufacturer has legal responsibility for something that it has no 
control over. The comments explained that incomplete manufacturers 
cannot enumerate or prohibit every conceivable contingency that a 
subsequent manufacture may think up. Freightliner also posed the 
question whether such language makes the incomplete manufacturer 
responsible for the design or engineering of a system or component, not 
engineered according to sound engineering principles, because it is not 
specifically prohibited in the IVD. International and Freightliner 
favored a policy under which each manufacturer at each stage of 
manufacture is responsible for components and systems it supplies for a 
vehicle as well as the accuracy of information it supplies in the IVD, 
its addendum, or the certification. With respect to incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers, the language in Sec.  567.5(b)(1)(i) and (iii), 
according to International and Freightliner, already accomplishes this 
objective of ensuring proper allocation of responsibility. 
International and Freightliner further argued that in addition to 
deleting paragraph (b)(1)(ii), NHTSA should conform paragraphs (c) and 
(d) pertaining to intermediate and final-stage manufacturers 
accordingly.
    NHTSA received three comments supporting the proposed labeling 
requirements. GM favored the labeling requirements and noted that the 
revisions to part 567 will harmonize labeling requirements for multi-
stage vehicles with those found in Canada. RVIA expressed support for 
the labeling and label content requirements. NADA commented that the 
labeling revisions are appropriate.
    GM, DaimlerChrysler, and Freightliner responded to NHTSA's request 
for comments regarding whether the agency should amend 567.4(g)(1) 
either to specify that the name of the business entity accepting legal 
responsibility for a defect or noncompliance or that the names of both 
the vehicle assembler and the business entity accepting such legal 
responsibility be listed as the vehicle manufacturer on the 
certification label. GM commented that such a revision to Sec.  
567.4(g)(1) is unnecessary because proposed Sec.  567.5(d)(2)(i), (f), 
and (g), as published, sufficiently address the issue of the 
manufacturer's name appearing on the certification label. 
DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner, however, urged NHTSA to modify Sec.  
567.4(g)(1) to allow or require the entity accepting responsibility for 
the vehicle to be listed as the manufacturer on the certification 
label. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner commented that the current rule 
requiring the ``actual assembler'' to be listed on the certification 
label is confusing, especially when assembly is done under contract by 
an entity who may have no presence in the U.S. and has no public name 
recognition. In addition, the vehicle manufacturer, not the actual 
assembler, typically markets the vehicle, makes TREAD reports, and 
conducts safety recalls for the vehicle. Thus, according to 
DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner, the certification label should 
identify the entity that accepts legal responsibility in the U.S.
    Commenters also suggested typographical changes to the part 567 
language proposed in the SNPRM. First, GM and TMA noted that the 
definition of ``Addendum'' in Sec.  567.3 refers to Sec.  568.5(a), but 
subsection (a) does not exist. GM and TMA recommended that NHTSA change 
the reference to Sec.  568.5. Second, GM and TMA commented that 
proposed Sec.  567.4(g)(4)(ii) refers to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles as ``MPVS'' and suggested that the correct abbreviation is 
``MPVs'' as found in Sec.  567.4(g)(4)(iii). Third, GM and TMA stated 
Sec.  567.4(m)(1) and (m)(2) of the proposed regulation are identical 
to Sec. Sec.  567.4(l)(1) and (l)(2) and recommended that NHTSA delete 
Sec. Sec.  567.4(m)(1) and (m)(2). Finally, RVIA indicated that 
al