Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages, 28168-28197 [06-4387]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28168-28197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4387]



[[Page 28167]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 555, 567, 568, and 571



Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 2006 / Rules and 
Regulations

[[Page 28168]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 555, 567, 568, and 571

Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24664
RIN 2127-AJ91


Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for reconsideration of 
the February 14, 2005 final rule under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 and its 
implementing regulations pertaining to vehicles built in two or more 
stages and, to a lesser degree, to altered vehicles. This document 
clarifies the recognition in that rule that under NHTSA's regulations, 
multistage vehicles may be treated as a separate type of vehicle, 
including, as appropriate, vehicles built on chassis-cab incomplete 
vehicles. This document also amends a provision of the temporary 
exemption procedures to allow, as appropriate, for exemption of 
multistage vehicles from standards based on dynamic testing. This 
document denies the remainder of the petition for reconsideration, 
which involved certification of multistage vehicles and responsibility 
for recalls of multistage vehicles.

DATES: The amendments made in this final rule are effective on 
September 1, 2006. This final rule amends the final rule published on 
February 14, 2005 (70 FR 7414), which is also effective on September 1, 
2006.
    Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by June 
26, 2006 and should refer to this docket and be submitted to: 
Administrator, Room 5220, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. The 
agency will not entertain petitions for reconsideration on 49 CFR Parts 
567 Certification, 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages--All 
Incomplete, Intermediate and Final Stage Manufacturers of Vehicles 
Manufactured in Two or More Stages, or 573 Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports. Issues under these regulations have been 
addressed in rulemaking, including negotiated rulemaking, and in this 
document. Any further consideration of these provisions would be 
repetitive.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For nonlegal issues: Harry Thompson, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Compliance, NHTSA (telephone 202-366-5289).
    For legal issues: For issues related to multistage vehicles as a 
type of vehicle and temporary exemptions, George Feygin, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, NHTSA (telephone 202-366-2992); For other legal issues, 
Katherine Gehringer, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (telephone 202-
366-5263).
    You can reach the above at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Description of issues unique to multistage vehicles
    1. Multistage vehicles
    2. Multistage vehicle manufacturers
    3. Pass-through certification
    4. Assumption of certification and recall responsibility
    5. Incomplete vehicle document
    6. Altered vehicles
    B. The underlying rulemaking
II. NTEA's Petition for Reconsideration and the Agency's Response
    A. Multistage vehicles built on chassis-cabs are treated the 
same as those built on other types of incomplete vehicles
    B. The new temporary exemption in Part 555 provision is 
sufficient.
    1. Clarification of what information petitioners must provide to 
show good faith efforts to comply with applicable regulations
    C. The current multistage vehicle certification scheme is 
workable
    1. Overview of the certification of multistage vehicles
    2. Practical aspects of the multistage vehicle process
    3. NTEA's position
    4. The availability of multistage vehicles belies NTEA's 
position
    5. NTEA's argument is too broad and ignores gradations in types 
of multistage vehicles
    6. The existing IVDs are workable
    a. FMVSS 105 Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems and FMVSS 135 
Light Vehicle Brake Systems.
    b. FMVSS 204 Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering 
Control System.
    c. FMVSS 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.
    d. FMVSS 212 Windshield Mounting.
    e. FMVSS 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion.
    f. FMVSS 214 Side Impact Protection
    g. FMVSS 208 Occupant Crash Protection.
    h. FMVSS 216 Roof Crush Resistance
    i. FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity
    7. Additional resources available to final-stage manufacturers
    D. NHTSA's market forces argument is justified and consistent 
with the multistage vehicle market
    E. NHTSA's decision not to include a reasonableness requirement 
is consistent with other NHTSA regulations
    F. Impracticability should be decided in context of rulemaking 
for each
    FMVSS or on a petition for a temporary exemption
    G. The current certification scheme is not an unlawful 
delegation of agency authority
    H. The agency's decision not to change default recall 
responsibility, which historically has been assigned to final-stage 
manufacturers, was reasonable
    1. Background
    2. Summary of NTEA's position
    3. NTEA has not demonstrated that based on size, default 
responsibility should be shifted from final-stage manufacturers
    4. NTEA has not demonstrated that safety will be enhanced by 
assigning default recall responsibility to incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers
    5. Additional points in support of NHTSA's decision
    6. Conclusion
    I. There is no need for NHTSA to require IVDs for completed 
vehicles that are commonly altered, or to allow alterers to rely on 
pass-through certification opportunities presented in IVDs
    J. Technical amendment
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. National Environmental Policy Act
    D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. Executive Order 13045
    I. Privacy Act
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

I. Background

A. Description of Issues Unique to Multistage and Altered Vehicles

    The petition at issue requests NHTSA to reconsider certain 
amendments adopted as part of a final rule published on February 14, 
2005 (at 70 FR 7414) to address certification issues related to 
vehicles built in two or more stages, and to a lesser degree, to 
altered vehicles. Concepts and terminology relating to the 
certification of these vehicles are described below.
1. Multistage Vehicles
    In the typical situation, a vehicle built in two or more stages is 
one in which an incomplete vehicle, such as a chassis-cab or cut-away 
chassis built by one manufacturer, is completed by another manufacturer 
who adds work-performing or cargo-carrying components to the vehicle. 
For example, the incomplete vehicle may have a cab, but nothing built 
on the frame behind the cab. As completed, it may be a dry freight van 
(box truck), dump truck, tow truck, or plumber's truck. Like all

[[Page 28169]]

vehicles that are manufactured for sale in the United States, a 
multistage vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) before the vehicle is 
introduced into interstate commerce.\1\ Certification is provided in 
the form of a label permanently affixed to the vehicle in a prescribed 
location, which, among other things, identifies the vehicle's 
manufacturer and date of manufacture, and states that the vehicle 
conforms to all applicable FMVSS in effect on that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 30115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Multistage Vehicle Manufacturers
    Manufacturers involved in the production of multistage vehicles can 
include, in addition to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, one or 
more intermediate manufacturers, who perform manufacturing operations 
on the incomplete vehicle after it has left the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's hands, and a final-stage manufacturer who completes the 
vehicle so that it is capable of performing its intended function.
3. Pass-Through Certification
    In some circumstances, a manufacturer at an earlier stage in the 
chain of production for a multistage vehicle can certify that the 
vehicle will comply with one or more FMVSS when completed, provided 
specified conditions are met. This allows what is commonly referred to 
as ``pass-through certification.'' As long as a subsequent manufacturer 
meets the conditions of the prior certification, that manufacturer may 
rely on this certification and pass it through when certifying the 
completed vehicle.
4. Assumption of Certification and Recall Responsibility
    Although the final-stage manufacturer normally certifies the 
completed vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS, this 
responsibility can be assumed by any other manufacturer in the 
production chain. To take on this responsibility, the other 
manufacturer must ensure that it is identified as the vehicle 
manufacturer on the certification label that is permanently affixed to 
the vehicle. The identified manufacturer also has legal responsibility 
to provide NHTSA and vehicle owners with notification of any defect 
related to motor vehicle safety or noncompliance with an FMVSS that is 
found to exist in the vehicle, and to remedy any such defect or 
noncompliance without charge to the vehicle's owner.
5. Incomplete Vehicle Document
    The agency's regulations governing vehicles manufactured in two or 
more stages at 49 CFR part 568 require incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
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 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, which is referred to as a 
``Type 1 statement,'' is most often made with respect to chassis-cabs, 
since a significant portion of the occupant compartment in incomplete 
vehicles of that type is already complete.
    Second, the IVD may provide a statement of specific conditions of 
final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform to a 
particular standard or set of standards. This statement, which is 
referred to as a ``Type 2 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 completed vehicle's weight or center of 
gravity height were significantly altered from those specified in the 
IVD.
    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. This is referred to as a ``Type 3 statement.'' A statement of 
this kind could be made, for example, by a manufacturer of a stripped 
chassis who may be unable to make any representations about conformity 
to any crashworthiness standards if the incomplete vehicle does not 
contain an occupant compartment. When it issued 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 
FMVSS.
6. Altered Vehicles
    An altered vehicle is one that is completed and certified in 
accordance with the agency's regulations and then altered, other than 
by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable 
components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or by minor 
finishing operations such as painting, before the first retail sale of 
the vehicle, in such a manner as may affect the vehicle's compliance 
with one or more FMVSS or the validity of the vehicle's stated weight 
ratings or vehicle type classification. The person who performs such 
operations on a completed vehicle is referred to as a vehicle 
``alterer.'' An alterer must certify that the vehicle remains in 
compliance with all applicable FMVSS affected by the alteration.

B. The Underlying Rulemaking

    Issues involving vehicles built in two or more stages have long 
been matters of contention within the affected industry and before the 
agency and the courts. Historically, NHTSA's regulations for 
certification of multistage vehicles contained provisions for 
certification statements by chassis-cab manufacturers.\2\ In 1990, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in National 
Truck and Equipment Ass'n v. NHTSA, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th Cir. 1990), that 
the requirements of a particular FMVSS were impracticable for final-
stage manufacturers using vehicles other than chassis-cabs for which 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer was not required to provide ``pass-
through'' certification. Thereafter, the agency published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed extending certification 
requirements for chassis-cab manufacturers to manufacturers of all 
incomplete vehicles.\3\ This would have permitted pass-through 
certification for all types of multistage vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 CFR 567.5 (1977 and 1978).
    \3\ 56 FR 61392 (December 3, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal was highly controversial. On December 12, 1995, the 
agency held a public meeting to solicit information from affected 
manufacturers and members of the public on the certification of 
vehicles built in two or more stages and

[[Page 28170]]

suggestions for the revision of agency regulations governing those 
activities. On May 20, 1999, NHTSA published a notice of intent to 
convene a negotiated rulemaking committee on the subject.\4\ In late 
1999 and early 2000, NHTSA held public meetings. A chartered committee 
that included representatives from incomplete vehicle manufacturers, 
component manufacturers, final-stage manufacturers and alterers, 
vehicle end-users, and NHTSA held several meetings between March 2000 
and February 2002 at which issues involving the certification and 
recall of vehicles built in two or more stages were discussed. The 
committee failed to reach a consensus on several key issues involving 
certification and recall responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 64 FR 27499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 28, 2004, the agency published a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) addressing five different parts of the 
agency's regulations related to vehicles built in two or more stages 
and, to a lesser degree, to altered vehicles.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 69 FR 36038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SNPRM, the agency addressed the issue of whether it 
possesses the legal authority to exclude multi-stage vehicles as a 
group from a standard.\6\ The agency tentatively concluded that it 
could do so in regulations establishing FMVSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 69 FR at.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments included adding a new subpart to 49 CFR 
part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper 
Standards that would allow final-stage manufacturers and alterers to 
obtain temporary exemptions from those portions of safety standards for 
which the agency verifies compliance through dynamic crash testing. The 
agency also proposed to streamline the temporary exemption process by 
allowing an association or other party representing the interests of 
multiple manufacturers to bundle petitions for a single vehicle design, 
precluding the need for individual manufacturers to explain the 
potential safety impacts of the requested exemption and their good 
faith attempts to comply with the standard that is the subject of the 
exemption request. The agency also proposed amendments that would 
commit it to processing these temporary exemption requests in an 
expedited fashion.
    The agency also proposed in the SNPRM to amend 49 CFR part 567, 
Certification, to extend to all incomplete vehicles, not just to 
chassis-cabs, requirements for the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to 
provide pass-through certification and to furnish information labels or 
incomplete vehicle documents (IVDs) with the vehicle. The agency also 
proposed to amend 49 CFR part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More 
Stages, to reflect that an incomplete vehicle manufacturer may 
incorporate by reference body builder or other design and engineering 
guidance into the IVD. The agency also proposed to amend 49 CFR 571.8, 
Effective Date, by providing intermediate and final-stage manufacturers 
and alterers with an additional year or more of lead time to achieve 
conformity with certain amendments to the FMVSS. NHTSA also published, 
without the agency's endorsement, amendments to 49 CFR part 573, Defect 
and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports prepared by some parties 
in the negotiated rulemaking process. These would permit the agency to 
assign recall responsibility to the party it believes is in the best 
position to conduct a notification and remedy campaign in circumstances 
where accountability for the underlying defect or noncompliance is in 
dispute among the various manufacturers in the production chain. The 
agency solicited public comment on the amendments proposed in the 
SNPRM.
    After considering comments on the SNPRM, NHTSA published a final 
rule, as previously noted, on February 14, 2005.\7\ The final rule 
contained considerable relief for final stage manufacturers. First, as 
a legal matter, the agency concluded that it possesses the legal 
authority to exclude multistage vehicles as a group from a standard.\8\ 
This means that NHTSA could promulgate FMVSS that applied to some types 
of vehicles such as trucks but that would not apply to multistage 
vehicles. NHTSA concluded that it is appropriate to consider incomplete 
vehicles, other than chassis-cabs, as a vehicle type subject to 
consideration in the establishment of a regulation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 70 FR 7414.
    \8\ 70 FR at 7420 et seq.
    \9\ 70 FR at 7421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the agency amended its regulations to establish a process 
under which intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers can 
obtain temporary exemptions from dynamic performance requirements of 
certain standards, and accorded those entities an additional year of 
lead time to achieve compliance with new safety requirements, unless 
the agency determines that either a longer or a shorter period is 
appropriate. As stated in the final rule, under the new provisions, 
qualified manufacturers may be granted temporary exemptions from FMVSS 
requirements that are based on dynamic crash testing.
    The final rule revised 49 CFR Parts 567 Certification and 568 
Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages--All Incomplete, 
Intermediate and Final Stage Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in 
Two or More Stages. The final rule adopted much of the SNPRM as it 
pertained to the certification of vehicles manufactured in two or more 
stages. Unlike the earlier regulation, the certification provision for 
manufacturers of multistage vehicles is no longer largely limited to 
chassis-cabs. Under the February 2005 rule, the final-stage 
manufacturer certifies that the vehicle meets applicable FMVSS, but can 
rely on the prior manufacturers' IVD. The incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer and intermediate manufacturers have certification 
responsibilities 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 IVD. The incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer and intermediate manufacturers also have certification 
responsibilities for equipment subject to equipment standards that they 
supply and for other items and associated standards in the contract 
between them and the next stage manufacturer(s). The fact that some 
components were provided by an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, absent 
more, does not shift responsibility for certification to those 
manufacturers with respect to completed vehicle performance standards. 
The agency did not adopt in the final rule the recommendation of 
certain commenters that it require incomplete vehicle manufacturers to 
provide subsequent stage manufacturers with ``reasonable compliance 
envelopes'' in the IVD.
    The final rule did not amend the agency's rules under which the 
final-stage manufacturer has the ultimate responsibility for conducting 
a notification and remedy (recall) campaign when a safety-related 
defect or noncompliance with a safety standard is found to exist in a 
vehicle built in two or more stages. The agency noted that under the 
existing rule, recalls are not delayed on account of disputes between 
manufacturers. We observed that leaving ultimate recall responsibility 
with the final-stage manufacturer avoids delays in removing unsafe 
vehicles from the road. The agency further decided not to assume a role 
of determining whether the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or final 
stage manufacturer should conduct the recall where that issue is in 
dispute.

[[Page 28171]]

In the comments there was considerable opposition to the proposal for 
the agency to assign recall responsibility. The agency also rejected, 
as moot, a companion proposal to make the decision assigning recall 
responsibility nonreviewable.

II. NTEA's Petition for Reconsideration and the Agency's Response

    On March 31, 2005, the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) 
petitioned NHTSA for reconsideration of the final rule. In the 
petition, NTEA noted that it participated as a committee member in the 
negotiated rulemaking that preceded the issuance of the final rule. 
NTEA observed that in the negotiated rulemaking, it argued that dynamic 
test standards (which it identified as including FMVSS Nos. 105 
Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, 121 Air Brake Systems, 201 
Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 203 Impact Protection for the 
Driver from the Steering Control System, 204 Steering Control Rearward 
Displacement, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 208 
Occupant Crash Protection, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212 
Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 219 Windshield Zone 
Intrusion, 223 Rear Impact Guards, 301 Fuel System Integrity, 303 Fuel 
System Integrity of Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles, and 305 Electric-
Powered Vehicles; Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection) 
are impractical for intermediate manufacturers, final-stage 
manufacturers, and alterers who complete multistage vehicles because 
the tests that are incorporated into those standards cannot be 
rationally performed by small businesses that build custom-manufactured 
vehicles in production runs as small as one unit. NTEA contended that 
because small businesses that complete multistage vehicles cannot 
afford to conduct the tests that are the core of the dynamic test 
standards, those standards remain impractical as applied to 
intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers. Citing the 
agency's recognition in the preamble of the final rule that multistage 
vehicles can be treated as a distinct vehicle type for the purpose of 
establishing applicability of the FMVSS, NTEA contended that the agency 
was no longer subject to any legal constraints in exempting such 
vehicles from compliance with the dynamic test standards.
    Aside from these general observations, the NTEA petition focused on 
specific issues concerning the adoption of standards to which 
multistage vehicles are subject, temporary exemptions, and 
certification and recall responsibilities of multistage vehicle 
manufacturers. The positions expressed by NTEA with respect to each of 
those issues, and the agency's response, are set forth below.

A. Multistage Vehicles Built on Chassis-Cabs are Treated the Same as 
Those Built on Other Types of Incomplete Vehicles

    NTEA raised several arguments relating to the treatment of 
multistage vehicles built on chassis-cabs under NHTSA's regulations, 
including the new temporary exemption provisions that were added to 49 
CFR part 555 Temporary Exemptions from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper 
Standards as subpart B Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages and Altered 
Vehicles. NTEA first argues that the procedures in subpart B should be 
available to all manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages, 
and should not exclude manufacturers of vehicles built on chassis-cabs.
    The relevant regulatory text reads as follows:

    ``Sec.  555.11 Application. This subpart applies to alterers and 
manufacturers of motor vehicles built in two or more stages to which 
one or more standards are applicable. * * * Nothing in this subpart 
prohibits an alterer, an intermediate manufacturer, a manufacturer 
of incomplete vehicles other than chassis-cabs, or a final-stage 
manufacturer from applying for a temporary exemption under subpart A 
of this part.''

    ``Sec.  555.12 Petition for exemption. An alterer, intermediate 
or final-stage manufacturer, or industry trade association 
representing a group of alterers, intermediate and/or final-stage 
manufacturers may seek, as to any vehicle configuration built in two 
or more stages, 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 * * *''

    NTEA also took issue with the statement in the final rule that 
NHTSA had reconsidered its previous position with respect to the 
agency's authority to either exclude vehicles manufactured in two or 
more stages from certain FMVSS or to subject them to different 
standards. There we stated that it is appropriate to consider 
multistage vehicles built on incomplete vehicles ``other than those 
incorporating chassis-cabs,'' as a vehicle type subject to 
consideration in the establishment of regulations.\10\ We explained 
that the agency could take multistage vehicles (other than those built 
on chassis-cabs) as a group and exclude them from FMVSS that are 
impracticable as they apply to these vehicles, or could subject these 
vehicles to different requirements. In the final rule, we expressed 
anticipation that final-stage manufacturers using chassis-cabs to 
produce multistage vehicles would be in position to take advantage of 
``pass-through certification,'' and therefore concluded that these 
vehicles did not merit special consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 70 FR 7421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We now note that the regulatory text in sections 555.11 and 555.12, 
as quoted above, does not expressly preclude manufacturers of vehicles 
built on chassis-cabs from petitioning under the new procedures in 
subpart B. However, the last sentence of Sec.  555.11 may be read to 
imply that a manufacturer of a chassis cab cannot petition for a 
temporary exemption under the pre-existing temporary exemption 
procedures in subpart A.
    NTEA position: In its petition, NTEA argued that NHTSA should not 
distinguish between multistage vehicles built on chassis-cabs and other 
types of vehicles built in two or more stages. NTEA was especially 
concerned that the new temporary exemption procedures would not apply 
to multistage vehicles built on chassis-cabs. NTEA argued that the 
certification obstacles could be as significant for vehicles built on 
chassis-cabs as they are for other types of vehicles manufactured in 
two or more stages. NTEA noted that in the preamble to the final rule, 
NHTSA recognized that certain multistage vehicles--those other than 
chassis-cabs--are a vehicle type subject to consideration in the 
establishment of agency regulations (i.e., that, in the future, the 
agency could subject multistage vehicles to different standards). NTEA 
agreed with NHTSA's resolution as far as it goes, but raised issues 
concerning certain language in the preamble that distinguished 
multistage vehicles built on chassis-cabs from those built on 
incomplete vehicles other than chassis-cabs. The specific language that 
is the subject of NTEA's concern is found in the agency's discussion of 
its authority to exclude multistage vehicles from the FMVSS. There the 
agency stated:

    We are also concerned that we had overlooked the existence of 
relevant physical attributes of multistage vehicles. Many of the 
multistage 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 multistage manufacturer[s] to design 
safety performance into their completed vehicles.

(70 FR 7421).

[[Page 28172]]

    According to NTEA, the distinction drawn in this paragraph between 
multistage vehicles built on chassis-cabs, and those built on other 
types of incomplete vehicles is an artificial one. NTEA observed that 
many types of completed vehicles can be built on more than one type of 
chassis. NTEA contended that vehicles built on chassis-cabs face 
certification obstacles that could be as significant as those for 
vehicles built on non-chassis cabs.

Agency Response

    a. Distinction between vehicles built on chassis-cabs and those 
built on other types of incomplete vehicles.
    In discussing our authority relating to multistage vehicles in the 
February 2005 final rule,\11\ the agency drew a distinction between 
vehicles built on chassis-cabs and other vehicles manufactured in two 
or more stages with respect to consideration of future standards or 
revisions to existing FMVSS and exemptions from those standards. We 
stated that we would consider multistage vehicles other than those 
built on chassis-cabs in setting new standards and in revising existing 
ones. On further consideration, we want to make clear that the 
distinction between different types of multistage vehicles is not one 
of legal authority. That is, for the purposes of our authority to 
prescribe regulations affecting vehicles manufactured in two or more 
stages, there is no legal distinction between vehicles built on 
chassis-cabs and other vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. In 
those instances where it is deemed appropriate because of 
practicability concerns, and where it is consistent with our safety 
objectives, the agency can consider any multistage vehicle, including 
those built on a chassis-cab, as a vehicle type in establishing or 
amending our regulations. Accordingly, we grant NTEA's petition to the 
extent it sought this clarification and we are amending one section 
added under the final rule (49 CFR 555.12) to ensure that it is 
consistent with this clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NHTSA also followed this approach in its August 2005 NPRM 
on roof crush resistance. See Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22143-5, August 
23, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding this clarification of our authority, we continue to 
believe, in general, that there will be less need for the agency to 
establish different standards for multistage vehicles built on chassis-
cabs, because their manufacturers should be able to take advantage of 
pass-through certification and are less likely to face the 
practicability concerns more readily associated with other types of 
multistage vehicles. This practical distinction is discussed elsewhere 
in this document.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See section II.C.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Scope of the new temporary exemption provisions:
    After carefully considering NTEA's petition, we wish to clarify the 
scope of the new temporary exemption provisions in subpart B of 49 CFR 
part 555. First, our discussion of our authority in the final rule, and 
the distinction we noted between multistage vehicles built on chassis-
cabs and multistage vehicles built on other types of incomplete 
vehicles, related primarily to consideration of future FMVSS or 
revisions to existing standards. In those instances, the treatment of 
multistage vehicles would be based on the facts. The discussion was not 
intended to apply to subpart B, which, as the regulatory text correctly 
indicates, applies not only to manufacturers of all types of multistage 
vehicles, but also to alterers of completed vehicles. Therefore, the 
new procedures in subpart B do not preclude manufacturers of multistage 
vehicles built on chassis-cabs from petitioning for a temporary 
exemption from one or more standards.
    With respect to the last sentence of section 555.11, we conclude 
that the sentence is unnecessary and confusing. The agency is making a 
technical correction to section 555.11 to remove that sentence. We 
observe that the scope of subpart A is unaffected by the availability 
of the new procedures in subpart B.
    Second, we note that both the subpart A and B temporary exemption 
procedures are available only to manufacturers who assume legal 
responsibility for the vehicle and intend to certify the vehicle in 
accordance with 49 CFR part 567. In most instances, these parties are 
final-stage manufacturers. However, under 49 CFR 568.7, the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer or an intermediate manufacturer can assume legal 
responsibility for the vehicle as finally manufactured. Therefore, 
these entities may petition the agency under either subpart A or B if 
they intend to affix a certification label required by 49 CFR 567.5(f) 
or (g), and if they meet other criteria specified in section 555.11. As 
a practical matter, most incomplete vehicle manufacturers and 
intermediate manufacturers would not qualify for financial hardship 
relief because of the size of their operations. It is clear that the 
new procedures in the final rule were not available to incomplete 
vehicle manufacturers and intermediate manufacturers who do not certify 
the vehicle as finally manufactured under 49 CFR 567.5(f) or (g), and 
instead furnish IVDs and amendments to IVDs to final-stage 
manufacturers in accordance with 49 CFR 568.4 or 568.5. Nevertheless, 
we believe it is important to clarify the issue. Accordingly, the 
agency is making a technical correction to the text of section 555.12.
    For the reasons discussed above, it is clear that the new temporary 
exemption procedures encompass manufacturers of all types of multistage 
vehicles, including vehicles built on chassis-cabs, but are also 
limited to manufacturers who assume legal responsibility for the 
vehicle and intend to certify the vehicle in accordance with 49 CFR 
part 567.

B. The New Temporary Exemption in Part 555 Is Sufficient

    NTEA position: Though it acknowledged that the temporary exemption 
provisions adopted by the agency in the final rule may help a 
particular final-stage manufacturer to temporarily address a 
certification problem, NTEA contended that those provisions do not 
remedy the continuing inability of many final-stage manufacturers to 
certify compliance with dynamic test standards. NTEA took issue with 
language in sections 555.12 and 555.13, as added under the final rule, 
which expressly limits the newly established temporary exemptions for 
which alterers and manufacturers of motor vehicles built in two or more 
stages may apply under subpart B of part 555. Those sections 
characterize the temporary exemptions as being available from ``dynamic 
crash test'' requirements found in the FMVSS. NTEA observed that the 
agency has previously recognized that dynamic tests that do not involve 
crashes may also be beyond the financial capability of final-stage 
manufacturers. Accordingly, NTEA contended that the temporary exemption 
provisions should apply to all dynamic test standards, and not just 
those standards for which dynamic crash test requirements are 
prescribed.

Agency Response

    In the final rule, the agency limited subpart B to FMVSS 
requirements that incorporate dynamic crash tests. As discussed above, 
NTEA argued that subpart B should apply to all standards that are based 
on dynamic testing and not just dynamic crash testing.
    After carefully considering NTEA's petition, we have decided to 
expand the scope of subpart B so that manufacturers of multistage 
vehicles can petition the

[[Page 28173]]

agency for a temporary exemption from requirements that incorporate 
various dynamic tests generally, and not exclusively dynamic crash 
tests. Therefore, we grant this aspect of NTEA's petition, and amend 
the final rule accordingly.
    First, we observe that small volume manufacturers are currently 
able to petition the agency for temporary exemptions from all Federal 
motor vehicle safety and bumper standards under subpart A. Therefore 
our reconsideration of the scope of subpart B relates to the 
availability of the more streamlined procedures in that subpart rather 
than to the possibility of a manufacturer obtaining an exemption, in 
appropriate circumstances, at all.
    Second, we note that under section 555.13(a) and (b) of subpart B, 
in order to petition for an exemption, the petitioner must show why the 
test requirements of a particular standard 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 must explain the inadequacy of IVD 
documents furnished by one or more incomplete vehicle manufacturers or 
by prior intermediate manufacturers pursuant to part 568. The 
petitioner must also show why generic or cooperative testing is 
impracticable. In addition, the petitioner must explain its difficulty 
in procuring goods and services necessary to conduct dynamic tests. We 
also note that in addition to showing hardship, each petitioner is 
required to explain under section 555.13(c) why the requested temporary 
exemption would not unreasonably degrade safety.
    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 beyond the requirements for which the 
agency verifies compliance solely through crash testing. We note that a 
dynamic test is one that requires application of forces or energy to 
the vehicle and the FMVSS include a variety of dynamic tests in 
addition to those involving crash tests. As the negotiated rulemaking 
committee pointed out, and as we noted in the SNPRM,\13\ in some 
circumstances, there may be considerable costs associated with dynamic 
tests other than dynamic crash tests, and there may be significant 
damage to vehicles from such tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 69 FR 36042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we have decided not to restrict the exemption provisions in 
subpart B to requirements incorporating dynamic crash tests, but 
instead to extend those provisions to requirements incorporating any 
kind of dynamic test, we note that the ability of multistage vehicle 
manufacturers to make the requisite showing of hardship will be related 
to the testing costs (or the cost of other means of obtaining an 
appropriate basis for certification) associated with each specific 
standard and requirement for which an exemption is sought, as well as 
the availability of alternatives (such as using a different incomplete 
vehicle) and potential safety consequences. Therefore, in view of the 
range of possible circumstances, we do not believe it is necessary for 
us to attempt, in this document, to specify the dynamic tests that may 
have high costs, as opposed to those for which the costs should be 
relatively low.
    While we have expected the number of instances in which an 
exemption will be needed from requirements incorporating dynamic crash 
tests to be small, we expect the number to be even smaller for 
requirements incorporating other types of dynamic tests. This 
expectation reflects the nature of the tests at issue, the alternatives 
available to final-stage manufacturers, the information contained in 
incomplete vehicle documents, and the other relief that multistage 
manufacturers were provided in the February 2005 final rule.
    In consideration of these issues, the agency is amending the scope 
of subpart B to include requirements that are based on dynamic testing 
generally, rather than those based on dynamic crash tests alone. We 
have revised the text of section 555.12 accordingly.
1. Clarification of What Information Petitioners Must Provide To Show 
Good Faith Efforts To Comply With Applicable Regulations
    As indicated in the previous section, petitioners under subpart B 
are required to provide ``a complete description of each manufacturer's 
good faith efforts to comply with the standards.'' See section 
555.13(b).\14\ The ability of the manufacturers of vehicles built in 
two or more stages to take advantage of ``pass-through'' certification 
may be dependent on selection of an incomplete vehicle that is 
appropriate for the intended application. That is, the availability of 
a sufficient ``pass-through'' to permit certification of compliance 
depends not only on information provided by incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers, but also on the intermediate and final-stage 
manufacturers using the appropriate incomplete vehicle for the intended 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i) authorizes NHTSA to exempt only 
those manufacturers that have tried to comply with the standard in 
good faith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of the final-stage manufacturer's good faith efforts to 
comply with an FMVSS is determining whether an incomplete vehicle is 
available that will enable it to utilize ``pass-through 
certification.'' We note that it is unlikely that the agency would find 
it in the public interest to grant petitions filed by a final-stage 
manufacturer that made no good-faith effort to determine whether an 
appropriate incomplete vehicle, which would allow effective pass-
through certification, was available. The granting of a petition would 
exempt the vehicle from one or more safety standards and, as a general 
matter, we believe this would not be justified if there were an 
alternative that would comply with safety standards.
    While the issue of appropriate selection of the incomplete vehicle 
is relevant to compliance with dynamic crash test standards, we believe 
the issue is likely to be more significant as we extend the scope of 
subpart B to include requirements including dynamic tests more 
generally. For example, in order to take advantage of pass-through 
certification for a braking standard, the final stage manufacturer 
needs to assess whether an incomplete vehicle is available that will 
enable it to stay within the envelopes for weight and center of gravity 
for the intended application. This may involve assessing incomplete 
vehicles of varying size, gross vehicle weight rating or ``GVWR, \15\ 
and number of axles that are available from different manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ GVWR means the value specified by the manufacturer as the 
loaded weight of a single vehicle. 49 CFR 571.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we believe that the current requirement that petitioners 
provide a complete description of each manufacturer's good faith 
efforts to comply with the standards may be read to encompass this in 
relevant situations, we believe it is appropriate to make it clear in 
the regulatory text. This is particularly important since the issue is 
likely to become more significant with the expanded scope of subpart B.
    Accordingly, we are including in section 555.13 a provision 
requiring the petitioners to furnish the agency with information 
regarding the availability of

[[Page 28174]]

alternative incomplete vehicles (including ones of different size, GVWR 
and number of axles), from the same and other incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers, that could allow the petitioner to rely on IVDs when 
certifying the completed vehicle, instead of petitioning under subpart 
B. This information will also help the agency make its decisions in the 
timeframe specified in subpart B.

C. The Current Multistage Vehicle Certification Scheme Is Workable

    NTEA position: NTEA asserted that even though NHTSA recognized in 
the SNPRM that incomplete vehicle manufacturers must provide vehicle 
upfitters (as final-stage manufacturers are sometimes referred to in 
the trade) with reasonable conformity envelopes (referencing 69 FR 
36044), the agency did not adopt as part of the final rule a 
reasonableness standard for conformity statements in an IVD. NTEA 
further observed that the agency relied on a market-based argument in 
concluding that ``incomplete vehicle manufacturers have business 
reasons to provide workable IVDs'' and that ``[t]here is no market for 
incomplete vehicles that cannot be manufactured into completed vehicles 
that will meet the applicable FMVSS'' (citing final rule at 70 FR 
7425). NTEA contends that the market forces theory articulated by the 
agency is simply wrong. According to NTEA, incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers at present provide no meaningful compliance envelope, 
even on chassis-cabs, for numerous dynamic test standards.
    NTEA also contends that NHTSA's market-forces argument is premised 
on the erroneous assumption that the final-stage manufacturer is in a 
position to choose the brand chassis on which it will complete a 
vehicle. NTEA observed that in the vast majority of cases, the customer 
goes to a truck dealer, not a final-stage manufacturer, to purchase a 
multistage vehicle. The dealer then engages the final-stage 
manufacturer to install the body and related equipment per the 
customer's specifications. Given this scenario, NTEA asserts that the 
final-stage manufacturer is not in a position to inform the dealer that 
he would prefer to work on a different chassis. As a consequence, NTEA 
concludes that the market does not exert any pressure on the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer to provide reasonable compliance envelopes.
    NTEA also surmised that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer will 
err on the side of not taking on liability, and does so by making its 
envelope as narrow as possible or nonexistent. Reasoning that 
meaningful pass-through certification would require the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer to expend resources on testing to determine the 
proper parameters of such certification, NTEA concludes that the 
elimination of meaningful pass-through certification therefore saves 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer time and money.
    NTEA also took issue with the agency's observation in the preamble 
of the final rule that because of its subjectivity, the reasonableness 
standard recommended by NTEA for conformity statements in the IVD is 
not susceptible to effective enforcement (referencing 70 FR 7425). NTEA 
asserted that this is inconsistent with the fact that the agency uses a 
good faith standard for determining the application of civil penalties. 
NTEA faults the agency for failing to explain why it cannot fashion a 
reasonableness standard for IVDs, but can in a closely-related context.
    Agency response: For the reasons set forth below, we deny this 
aspect of NTEA's petition.
1. Overview of the Certification of Multistage Vehicles
    The certification process is governed by 49 CFR part 567.\16\ 49 
CFR 567.5 \17\ sets forth the certification requirements for 
manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. With 
limited exceptions,\18\ each manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle and 
each intermediate manufacturer \19\ assumes legal responsibility for 
all certification-related duties under the Vehicle Safety Act \20\ with 
respect to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\See also 49 U.S.C. 30115.
    \17\ In this part of the preamble, except as otherwise stated, 
the references to the regulations are to the regulations published 
on February 14, 2005 that will take effect September 1, 2006. See 70 
FR 7414, 7428 (Feb. 14, 2005).
    \18\ See 70 FR at 7432-33, 49 CFR 567.5 (b) and (c).
    \19\ In the remainder of the preamble, NHTSA will not discuss 
intermediate manufacturers separately.
    \20\ The Vehicle Safety Act is officially 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Components and systems it installs or supplies for installation 
on the incomplete vehicle, unless changed by a subsequent manufacturer;
    (ii) The vehicle as further manufactured or completed by an 
intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, to the extent that the 
vehicle is completed in accordance with the IVD [incomplete vehicle 
document]; and
    (iii) The accuracy of the information contained in the IVD.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 49 CFR 567.5(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final-stage manufacturers have complementary duties. Pursuant to 49 
CFR 567.5(d), final-stage manufacturers assume

legal responsibility for all certification-related duties and 
liabilities under the Vehicle Safety Act, except to the extent that 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or an intermediate manufacturer 
has provided equipment subject to a safety standard or expressly 
assumed responsibility for standards related to systems and 
components it supplied and except to the extent that the final-stage 
manufacturer completed the vehicle in accordance with the prior 
manufacturers' IVD or any addendum furnished pursuant to 49 CFR part 
568, as to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards fully 
addressed therein.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 49 CFR 567.5(d)(1).

Final-stage manufacturers also have the duty to affix a certification 
label to each vehicle in a manner that does not obscure labels affixed 
by previous stage manufacturers and that, among other things, contains 
certification statements.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 49 CFR 567.5(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final-stage manufacturer may make one of the following 
alternative certification statements: (1) The vehicle conforms to all 
applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS); (2) the 
vehicle was completed in accordance with the prior manufacturers' IVD 
where applicable and conforms to all applicable FMVSS; or (3) the 
vehicle was completed in accordance with the prior manufacturers' IVD 
where applicable except for certain listed exceptions by FMVSS and the 
vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 49 CFR 567.5(d)(2)(v)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As reflected above, a number of certification provisions refer to 
incomplete vehicle documents or IVDs. The incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer furnishes an IVD for incomplete vehicles pursuant to 49 
CFR 568.4. In the IVD, among other things, for each applicable FMVSS, 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes one of three affirmative 
statements: (1) A Type 1 statement that the vehicle when completed will 
conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified 
components; (2) a Type 2 statement that sets forth the specific 
conditions of final manufacture under which the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the 
standard (e.g., the vehicle when completed will meet the brake standard 
if it does not exceed gross axle weight ratings, the center of gravity 
at a specific vehicle weight rating is not above a certain height and 
no alterations are made to any brake system component on the incomplete 
vehicle.); or (3) a Type 3 statement that

[[Page 28175]]

conformity to the standard cannot be determined based on the incomplete 
vehicle as supplied, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no 
representation as to conformity with the standard (e.g., when 
components and systems must be added by the final-stage manufacturer 
and compliance cannot be decided at the time the incomplete vehicle 
leaves the incomplete vehicle manufacturer).
    When the IVD makes a Type 1 or Type 2 statement, there is ``pass-
through'' certification unless obviated by a subsequent manufacturer. 
The final-stage manufacturer relies on the IVD to certify the vehicle 
to a particular standard.
2. Practical Aspects of the Multistage Vehicle Process
    An incomplete vehicle, as long defined by NHTSA,\25\ is not a 
vehicle. It is either
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Prior to the 2005 amendments, incomplete vehicle was 
similarly defined in 49 CFR 568.3 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, other than 
the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or 
tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as 
painting, to become a completed vehicle.''

    (1) An assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of chassis 
(including the frame) structure, power train, steering system, 
suspension system, and braking system, in the state that those 
systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, but requires 
further manufacturing operations to become a completed vehicle; or 
(2) An incomplete trailer.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 49 CFR 567.3 (2006).

    In the multistage vehicle process, the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer builds a chassis that has sufficient attributes to meet 
the definition of incomplete vehicle. After the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer completes its work, it ships the chassis. The chassis may 
range from being relatively close to completion (such as a chassis-cab 
\27\) to being relatively far from completion (such as a stripped 
chassis \28\). The chassis may end up at a dealer, in a pool of 
incomplete vehicles that are readily available for completion, or at a 
final-stage manufacturer. Following the addition of a truck body or 
equipment, the chassis could be used for a flatbed truck, dump truck, 
tow truck (wrecker), box truck (dry freight van), service truck, 
utility truck or other specialized application.\29\ Regardless of the 
state of completion of the chassis or where it goes after it leaves the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer's plant, there is a fundamental fact: 
once the incomplete vehicle is out of the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's hands, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer does not have 
control over what is done with or added to the incomplete vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ A chassis cab is an incomplete vehicle with a completed 
occupant compartment that requires only the addition of cargo-
carrying, work-performing, or load-bearing components to perform its 
intended function. See 49 CFR 567.3 (2005). For illustration 
purposes, an example is a pickup truck without a standard pickup 
truck bed. These may be built into various trucks including a 
tradesman's utility service truck, a tow truck, a dump truck, a box 
truck or a specialized work truck.
    \28\ A stripped chassis may be viewed as meeting the definition 
of an incomplete vehicle without more. As shipped by the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer, it would have steering control and braking 
systems (to meet the definition of incomplete vehicle). It 
ordinarily would not have the windshield, roof, A-pillar (the pillar 
to which the windshield attaches), B pillar (the pillar behind the 
front doors) or body components. Ford's E-series incomplete vehicle 
manual refers to this as a basic chassis. These may not be 
particularly evident on the road and may underlie, for illustration 
purposes, school buses or large recreation vehicles.
    \29\ See NTEA Petition at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There can be problems with the vehicle once completed that may not 
be attributed to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer but that may 
fairly be attributed to the final-stage manufacturer. For example, 
assume that an incomplete vehicle manufacturer ships a chassis with 
brakes that under the IVD would meet the applicable brake systems FMVSS 
if the chassis were used for light duty applications but not for heavy 
duty applications. The chassis is then out of the control of the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Assume that the final-stage 
manufacturer adds a dump truck body so that the completed truck has a 
GVWR greater than that specified in the IVD. In a colloquial sense, the 
truck would be overloaded.\30\ Alternatively, assume that the final-
stage manufacturer mounts a top-heavy gasoline tank on the chassis. In 
such cases, the vehicle would not meet the FMVSS for brake systems, and 
ordinarily would be outside the IVD compliance envelope. As another 
example, the final-stage manufacturer may make modifications to the 
interior compartment of a chassis-cab, which could take the incomplete 
vehicle out of compliance with various FMVSS developed to protect 
occupants in crashes. Final-stage manufacturers could also add parts 
and equipment that make the vehicle noncompliant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The term overloaded has a particular meaning in the context 
of some FMVSS, not as an issue here. In this preamble, NHTSA is 
using ``overloaded'' in a colloquial way, meaning too heavy or 
exceeding GVWR specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recognition of the fact that incomplete vehicle manufacturers do 
not control work performed by final-stage manufacturers and can fairly 
anticipate only some things, but not everything, done by final-stage 
manufacturers, the regulatory system of ``pass-through'' certification 
is reasonable. The IVD, prepared by the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer, provides the basis for the final-stage manufacturer's 
certification with enumerated FMVSS, on various conditions, including, 
for example, that the final-stage manufacturer does not exceed the GVWR 
of the chassis or introduce modifications to the incomplete vehicle 
that interfere with compliance. Usually, the IVD is a general document 
that accompanies the incomplete vehicle. IVDs are typically not limited 
to one application (one body or type of equipment), but contain limits 
and conditions in light of the nature and capacity of the chassis and 
potential problems resulting from completion of an incomplete vehicle. 
Final-stage manufacturers are informed, by the IVD, of components and 
systems that should not be altered, and, by following those 
instructions and other information from the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer, they are able to certify.
    The system of pass-through certification has existed for more than 
25 years, and in that time many multistage vehicles have been built and 
certified by final-stage manufacturers. This indicates that the system 
is workable and operates as intended.
3. NTEA's Position
    NTEA takes issue with the IVD and pass-through certification 
process. Assuming that FMVSS apply,\31\ NTEA maintains as a sweeping 
proposition that the IVDs currently provided are unworkable and 
insufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In NTEA's view, some FMVSS should not apply to multistage 
vehicles as a vehicle type, and even if they are applicable under 
the regulations establishing FMVSS (49 CFR part 571), there should 
be exemptions from FMVSS based on petitions from individual final-
stage manufacturers or groups of such manufacturers. 49 CFR part 
555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA does not accept NTEA's position. The certification provisions 
are important. Under them, the final-stage manufacturer historically 
has provided, and under the regulations published in February of 2005 
must provide, its certification that the vehicle complies with 
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For almost 40 years, 
these standards have been one of the most critical foundations for 
motor vehicle safety. Under 49 U.S.C. 30115, the manufacturer may not 
issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, it has reason 
to know the

[[Page 28176]]

certificate is false or misleading in a material respect.
    NTEA's petition is conclusory. Overall, NTEA seeks to remove the 
certification responsibility from final-stage manufacturers and impose 
much of that responsibility on incomplete vehicle manufacturers. NTEA's 
petition ignores the fact that incomplete vehicle manufacturers do not 
control what final-stage manufacturers do with the incomplete vehicles. 
NTEA also complains generally without constructively delineating the 
contents of an alternative IVD that would be fair to incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers and would not require them to be involved in the design 
and testing of completed vehicle. Finally, NTEA fails to demonstrate 
that NHTSA has the authority to unilaterally rewrite the IVDs and 
impose them on incomplete vehicle man