Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 50900-50906 [07-4324]
Download as PDF
50900
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Standard Report—At a minimum,
the State, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico shall submit an error rate
report to the Department, as required in
§ 98.100, made subsequent to the
baseline submission report as set forth
in § 98.102(a) which includes the
following information on errors and
resulting improper payments occurring
in the administration of CCDF grant
funds, including Federal Discretionary
Funds (which includes any funds
transferred from the TANF Block Grant),
Mandatory and Matching Funds and
State Matching and Maintenance-ofEffort (MOE Funds):
(1) All the information reported in the
baseline submission, as set forth in
§ 98.102(a), updated for the current
cycle;
(2) For each category of data listed in
§ 98.102(a)(1) through (5), States, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
must include data and targets from the
prior cycle in addition to data from the
current cycle and targets for the next
cycle;
(3) Description of whether the State,
the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico
met error rate targets set in the prior
cycle and, if not, an explanation of why
not;
(4) Discussion of the causes of
improper payments identified in the
prior cycle and actions that were taken
to correct those causes, in addition to a
discussion on the causes of improper
payments identified in the current cycle
and actions that will be taken to correct
those causes in order to reduce the error
rates; and
(5) Such other information as
specified by the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07–4308 Filed 8–29–07; 3:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2007–29131]
RIN 2127–AI93
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Our safety standard on
occupant protection in interior impact
requires, in part, that light vehicles
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:25 Sep 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
provide head protection when an
occupant’s head strikes upper interior
components, such as pillars, side rails,
headers, and the roof during a crash.
While these requirements already apply
to most vehicles, the compliance date
for altered vehicles and vehicles built in
two or more stages is September 1, 2007.
In April 2006, we responded to two
petitions for rulemaking by proposing
certain amendments to the head
protection requirements as they apply to
these vehicles. We also proposed to
delay the compliance date of the
requirements for these vehicles. In this
document, after carefully considering
both the safety benefits of the upper
interior protection requirements and
practicability concerns relating to
vehicles built in two or more stages and
certain altered vehicles, we are
amending the standard to limit these
requirements to only the front seating
positions of those vehicles. In addition,
we are excluding from the requirements
a narrow group of multi-stage vehicles
delivered to the final stage manufacturer
without an occupant compartment.
Finally, we have decided to delay the
compliance date of the head impact
protection requirements as they apply to
final stage manufacturers and alterers
until September 1, 2009.
DATES: The amendments made by this
final rule are effective September 1,
2007. The compliance date for the head
impact protection requirements for
altered vehicles and vehicles built in
two or more stages is September 1, 2009.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions
for reconsideration of this final rule
must be received not later than October
22, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration
should refer to the docket number above
and be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th Floor,
Washington, DC 20590.
See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
portion of this document (Section V;
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices) for
DOT’s Privacy Act Statement regarding
documents submitted to the agency’s
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington,
DC 20590:
For technical and policy issues: David
Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, telephone: (202) 366–3273,
facsimile: (202) 366–7002, E-mail:
David.Sutula@dot.gov.
For legal issues: Ari Scott, Office of
the Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 366–
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2992, facsimile: (202) 366–3820, E-mail:
Ari.Scott@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
a. Previous History of Head Protection
Requirements of FMVSS No. 201
b. Petitions for Rulemaking and Agency
Response
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
a. Proposal To Limit the Area Subject to
the FMH Impacts in Certain Vehicles
b. Proposal To Exclude Vehicles Without a
Finished Occupant Compartment From
the FMH Impact Requirements
c. Question Regarding Multistage Vehicles
With Raised Roofs
d. Change of Effective Date
III. Public Comments
IV. The Final Rule and Response to Public
Comments
a. Limitation of the Areas Subject to
FMVSS No. 201
b. Areas Behind the Partition
c. Conversion Vans and Recreational
Vehicles
d. Multi-Stage Vehicles Completed From a
Cutaway Chassis
e. Delay of Compliance Date
f. Miscellaneous Issues
g. Effective Date
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
VI. Regulatory Text
I. Background
a. Previous History of Head Protection
Requirements of FMVSS No. 201
On August 18, 1995, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) issued a final rule (August
1995) amending Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201,
‘‘Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact,’’ to provide enhanced head
impact protection.1 The August 1995
final rule required passenger cars, and
trucks, buses and multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, to
provide protection when an occupant’s
head strikes upper interior components,
including pillars, side rails, headers,
and the roof, during a crash. The final
rule set minimum performance
requirements for upper interior
components by establishing target areas
that must be padded or otherwise have
energy absorbing properties to minimize
head injury in the event of a crash. The
final rule added procedures for a new
in-vehicle component test in which a
free-motion head form (FMH) is fired at
certain target locations on the upper
interior of a vehicle at an impact speed
of 24 km/h (15 mph). Targets that are
1 See 60 FR 43031, Aug. 18, 1995; Docket No.
NHTSA–1996–1762–1.
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
located on or within 50 mm (2 inches)
of dynamically deployable upper
interior head protection systems (air
bags systems) can, at the option of the
manufacturer, be impacted at the
reduced speed of 19 km/h (12 mph).
Data collected from a FMH impact are
translated into a Head Injury Criterion
(HIC(d)) score. The resultant HIC(d)
must not exceed 1000.
The 1995 final rule provided
manufacturers with three alternate
phase-in schedules for complying with
the FMH impact requirements. At this
time, all vehicles except altered vehicles
and vehicles manufactured in two or
more stages are required to comply with
the FMH impact requirements. The
compliance date for altered vehicles and
vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages to comply with these
requirements has been delayed several
times, and is presently September 1,
2007.2
b. Petitions for Rulemaking and Agency
Response
This rulemaking was initiated in
response to petitions for rulemaking
submitted by the Recreation Vehicle
Industry Association (RVIA) and the
National Truck Equipment Association
(NTEA). The member companies of
RVIA and NTEA are generally
considered final stage manufacturers
and alterers. That is, they purchase
incomplete vehicles from major
manufacturers to serve as the basis for
specialty vehicles (manufactured in two
or more stages) for certain uses and
markets, or alter completed vehicles
prior to first retail sale. As such, the
petitioners’ members face a variety of
challenges in certifying that their
vehicles meet applicable safety
standards. We note that with respect to
vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages, some multi-stage vehicles are
built from chassis-cabs with a
completed occupant compartment.
Others are built from less complete
vehicles, sometimes necessitating the
addition by the final stage manufacturer
of its own occupant compartment. The
final stage manufacturer is responsible
for certification of the completed
vehicle, although certification can often
‘‘pass-through’’ from the incomplete
vehicle manufacturer.
RVIA and NTEA petitioned the
agency to permanently exclude certain
types of altered vehicles and vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages
from these requirements. On April 24,
2006, the agency published in the
Federal Register (71 FR 20932) a
response to petitions for rulemaking;
2 See
71 FR 51121, August 29, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:44 Sep 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 3
in response to those petitions. NHTSA
granted the petitions in part and denied
them in part, and proposed certain
amendments to the standard.
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
As indicated above, the agency
published its April 2006 NPRM in
response to the RVIA and NTEA
petitions. The NPRM proposed to limit
the occupant compartment area subject
to the FMH impact requirements in
ambulances, motor homes, and other
vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages, as well as altered vehicles.
Furthermore, the NPRM proposed to
exclude from the requirements a narrow
group of multi-stage vehicles delivered
to the final stage manufacturer without
an occupant compartment. Finally, the
NPRM proposed to delay the effective
date of the requirements to September 1,
2008.
a. Proposal To Limit the Area Subject to
the FMH Impacts in Certain Vehicles
In ambulances and motor homes, the
current standard excludes the occupant
compartment area located more than
600 mm (24 inches) behind the seating
reference point of the driver’s seating
position from the FMH impact
requirements. For all other vehicles, the
occupant compartment area located
more than 600 mm (24 inches) behind
the seating reference point of the
rearmost designated seating position is
similarly excluded from the FMH
impact requirements.
For altered vehicles and vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages,
including motor homes and
ambulances, we proposed to limit the
area subject to the FMH impact
requirements to not more than 300 mm
(12 inches) behind the seating reference
point of the driver’s seating position.
We stated that this would have the
effect of limiting the FMH impact
requirements to the front seating
positions for these vehicles. We stated
our belief that the distance reduction to
300 mm (12 inches) is more
representative of the distance between
the seating reference point and the
upper seat back/head restraint location
where the occupant’s head is located.
We also stated that because of the front
head restraint height requirements, we
believe it is unlikely that the head of a
seated occupant would come in contact
with bulkheads, partitions, or overhead
cabinets and storage shelves located
further than 300 mm (12 inches) behind
3 Docket
PO 00000
No. NHTSA–2006–24497.
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50901
the seating reference point (SgRP) of the
driver’s seating position.
We stated that in developing this
proposal, we had carefully considered
both the safety benefits of the FMH
requirements and practicability
concerns relating to multistage vehicles.
Based on previous estimates of the
benefits of the FMVSS No. 201 final
rule, and estimates from the National
Automotive Sampling System,
Crashworthiness Data System of the
percent of injuries occurring to light
truck occupants in multi-stage vehicles,
the agency derived the following
estimate of safety benefits. Requiring all
multi-stage manufactured vehicles to
meet FMVSS No. 201 would have
annual benefits in the front seat of 16–
22 fewer fatalities and 19–22 fewer AIS
2–5 injuries. However, in the rear seats,
the benefits were estimated to be less
than 1 fatality (which would round
down to 0) and 1 AIS 2–5 injury. Thus,
based on this analysis, excluding multistage vehicles from targets that could
not be struck by the front row occupants
would have a very small impact on
safety.
Given the small safety benefits
associated with the FMH impact
requirements for rear seating positions
and practicability concerns, we
tentatively concluded that the FMH
impact requirements should be limited
to the front seating positions for these
vehicles.
We noted that, as indicated in its
petition, many commercial vehicles
manufactured by NTEA members
feature bulkheads or partitions located
less than 600 mm (24 inches) behind the
rearmost designated seating position.
Bulkheads or partitions are used in a
variety of work vehicles that haul oddshaped objects that cannot be readily
secured in the cargo area. These
structures protect the driver and
passenger from loose or shifting cargo or
work equipment. NTEA had argued that
the installation of bulkheads or
partitions would likely require
relocation of target areas originally
certified by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer, thus significantly adding
to the compliance burden.
We also noted that RVIA had argued
that most conversion vans (CVs) and
motor homes feature unique interior
designs. Specifically, these vehicles
include overhead cabinets, side
valances, raised roof structures, and
other unusual interior components.
Among other things, RVIA stated that
cooperative testing, suggested by
NHTSA as a way to lessen compliance
costs associated with FMH
requirements, is not practicable because
each RVIA member manufactures
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
50902
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
unique vehicles, each substantially
different from its competitors. RVIA
argued that cooperative testing would
eliminate interior customization, which
would in turn result in a loss of market
for CVs and motor homes.
We stated that we believed our
proposal to effectively limit the FMH
impact requirements to the front seating
positions for these vehicles would
provide appropriate relief to the
industries represented by NTEA and
RVIA, while continuing to meet the
need for safety.
We noted that NTEA and RVIA
members can ordinarily purchase
incomplete vehicles that are already
designed to meet the FMH impact
requirements for the front seating
positions. Under our proposal, final
stage manufacturers would ordinarily be
able to take advantage of pass-through
certification by not changing the upper
interior portions of the front of the
vehicle.
We also stated that we believe the
requirements are justified by safety. As
indicated above, we estimate that
requiring all multi-stage manufactured
vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 201 would
have annual benefits in the front seat of
16–22 fewer fatalities and 19–22 fewer
AIS 2–5 injuries. We stated that given
the safety significance of these
requirements, we believed, in situations
where final stage manufacturers use
incomplete vehicles that have occupant
compartments that either are designed
to meet the FMH impact requirements
for the front seating positions or can be
purchased in a configuration that is
designed to meet those requirements, it
would be inconsistent with the need for
safety to generally exclude the vehicles
from these head impact protection
requirements. We also noted that while
final stage manufacturers will be able to
submit petitions under subpart B of part
555, it is unlikely in this type of
situation that the agency would find it
in the public interest to exclude final
stage manufacturers from the front seat
head impact protection requirements of
FMVSS No. 201 to facilitate
customization of the upper interior
portions of the front of the vehicle.
We noted that the proposal would,
however, facilitate customization of the
rear of vehicles, including conversion
vans, where there would be no
significant impact on safety. We also
stated that we continue to believe that
final stage manufacturers can use
cooperative testing to determine the
types of changes that can be made while
enabling vehicles to continue to comply
with the FMH requirements, including
ones related to use of overhead cabinets,
raised roof structures, and so forth. We
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:44 Sep 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
stated that while customization of the
front portion of occupant compartments
will be more difficult and may be more
limited, it will by no means be
eliminated.
b. Proposal To Exclude Vehicles
Without a Finished Occupant
Compartment From the FMH Impact
Requirements
We tentatively concluded that a
narrow group of multi-stage vehicles
contains physical attributes that make
compliance with the FMH impact
requirements impracticable. These are
vehicles built on a ‘‘stripped’’ chassis;
i.e., an incomplete vehicle without an
occupant compartment. The
manufacturers of these vehicles would
not be able to rely on pass-through
certification. This is because these
vehicles are highly customized and
produced in quantities that would make
compliance prohibitively expensive.
Further, these vehicles are often
equipped with partitions and bulkheads
that present a further impediment to the
compliance efforts. We noted that for
vehicles manufactured from stripped
chassis, the cost of meeting the FMH
impact requirements could be
substantial because alternative means of
compliance such as pass-through
certification are not available.
We stated that in the context of
serving niche markets demanding
specialized work vehicles that are not
delivered to the final stage
manufacturers with an intact occupant
compartment (unlike for example,
chassis cabs and cutaway vans), we
believed that the physical limitations of
these vehicles can adversely affect the
ability of multi-stage manufacturers to
design safety performance into their
completed vehicles. Accordingly, we
believed it appropriate to exclude this
narrow group of vehicles from FMH
impact testing.
c. Question Regarding Multi-Stage
Vehicles With Raised Roofs
The NPRM also raised the issue of
offering a manufacturer alternative for
vehicles with raised roofs. This would
allow the final stage manufacturer to
certify that the vehicle meets the FMH
impact requirements in either the
original or altered configuration. The
reasoning behind this was that while
some test points have been altered due
to the raised roof, those points are very
unlikely to be impacted by a seated
occupant.
d. Change of Effective Date
The NPRM proposed to delay the
effective date of the FMH impact
requirements as they apply to final stage
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
manufacturers and alterers until
September 1, 2008.
III. Public Comments
Both NTEA and RVIA submitted
comments generally supportive of the
NPRM. Both entities supported the
proposal to delay the effective date for
compliance with the requirements to
September 1, 2008. In addition, NTEA
suggested that the date be extended
further if the delay is not published by
January 2007. The proposal to limit the
area that is subject to the FMH impact
requirements was also supported by
both commenters. Finally, both parties
were generally supportive of the
proposal to exclude vehicles delivered
to a final stage manufacturer without an
occupant compartment from the FMH
requirements.
While generally supportive of the
NPRM, both entities suggested
expanding the scope of vehicles
excluded from the FMH impact
requirements beyond that which was
proposed by NHTSA. Citing the small
size and economic difficulties of the
recreational vehicle industry, RVIA
stated that NHTSA should consider
excluding CVs and motor homes from
the FMH impact requirements. It argued
that given the numerous interior layouts
for these vehicles, a large number of
tests would need to be performed,
burdening the industry
disproportionately. RVIA also reiterated
its original cost estimates presented in
its petition, stating that interior designs
and layouts can change every year, thus
making the industry unable to amortize
testing costs over a number of years.
NTEA also supported expanding the
scope of the FMH impact requirement
exclusion to additional vehicles. In
addition to vehicles delivered without
an occupant compartment, NTEA
suggested that multi-stage vehicles built
from ‘‘chassis cutaways,’’ i.e.,
incomplete vehicles delivered with an
occupant compartment but without the
rear part of the chassis, should be
excluded as well. NTEA stated that the
occupant compartment in these vehicles
is not delivered ‘‘intact,’’ because there
is no rear wall. NTEA also requested
clarification regarding which vehicles
would be excluded.
Finally, NTEA provided comments
concerning the testing of vehicles with
bulkheads and partitions in relation to
the FMH impact requirements.
Specifically, it expressed concern that
partition, bulkheads, and B-pillars on
the majority of vehicles used
commercially with a GVWR of 10,000
lbs. or less would fall within the
proposed testing area. This, NTEA
stated, would lead to high testing and
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
compliance costs for small
manufacturers. In addition, NTEA asked
for clarification on whether secondary
headform hits would count towards the
overall HIC(d) value, suggesting that
they should not. NTEA also suggested
that areas located less than 300 mm (12
inches) from the forward seating
position, but behind bulkheads or
partitions, should not be tested under
the impact requirements.
IV. The Final Rule and Response to
Public Comments
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
a. Limitation of the Areas Subject to
FMVSS No. 201
The agency is adopting its proposal to
limit, for multi-stage vehicles, the FMH
impact requirements to the front of
vehicles, i.e., we are excluding targets
more than 300 mm (12 inches) behind
the driver’s SgRP. This change will
maintain the vast majority of the safety
benefits for multi-stage vehicles, while
facilitating customization of the rear of
vehicles.
As the cited safety data indicate, the
vast majority of the safety benefits of the
FMH impact accrue mainly in the front
portions of the vehicle. Because of the
front head restraint height requirements,
we believe it is unlikely that the head
of a seated occupant would come in
contact with bulkheads, partitions, or
overhead cabinets and storage shelves
located further than 300 mm (12 inches)
behind the seating reference point of the
driver’s seating position. Therefore, we
believe that this final rule preserves the
vast majority of the safety benefits
provided by the FMH impact
requirements for multistage vehicles.
We note that NTEA and RVIA
members can ordinarily purchase
incomplete vehicles that are already
designed to meet the FMH impact
requirements for the front seating
positions. Thus, under our proposal,
final stage manufacturers would
ordinarily be able to take advantage of
pass-through certification by not
changing the upper interior portions of
the front of the vehicle.
NTEA expressed concern about the
installation of partitions and bulkheads
behind the occupant seating
compartment. It was concerned that the
300 mm (12 inches) distance from the
driver’s SgRP could include the B-pillar
of the majority vehicles used
commercially with a GVWR of 10,000
lbs. or less. It indicated that partitions
and bulkheads could fall within the
detailed area, and themselves become
subject to testing.
NHTSA notes, as a general matter,
that while partitions are not necessarily
targeted by the FMH requirements,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:44 Sep 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
secondary impacts 4 on partitions are
permitted as well as relocation of a
targeted area in accordance with S10(b).
In these cases, any secondary impacts
would be incorporated into the total
HIC(d) value, and any target areas that
are relocated may fall upon a bulkhead
or partition provided that the contact
area is not specifically excluded from
the test.
As indicated above, the purpose of
excluding targets more than 300 mm (12
inches) behind the driver’s SgRP is to
address the special circumstances of
final stage manufacturers, while
maintaining the vast majority of the
benefits from the FMH requirements. To
the extent that bulkheads, partitions or
other items located more than 300 mm
(12 inches) behind the driver’s SgRP
could contribute to the HIC(d) value,
final stage manufacturers could
potentially need to add
countermeasures to comply with
FMVSS No. 201, as well as engage in
testing, engineering analysis, or other
means to have a basis for certifying
compliance.
To ensure that the change we are
making provides the intended
accommodation for final stage
manufacturers, we are providing that
tests for altered vehicles and vehicles
built in two or more stages do not
include, within the time period for
measuring HIC(d), any FMH contact
with components rearward of the plane
300 mm (12 inches) behind the driver’s
SgRP. Of course, if it is possible to strike
an intended target within the range of
permissible approach angles without
FMH contact with components rearward
of that plane, the agency will test the
target in that fashion. We note that the
position we are taking on this specific
issue should not be viewed as an
indication of how we might address the
issue of secondary impacts for other
portions of FMVSS No. 201.
In order to take full advantage of this
accommodation, a final stage
manufacturer or alterer adding a
partition or bulkhead needs to ensure
that it is rearward of the plane 300 mm
(12 inches) behind the driver’s SgRP.
NHTSA notes that it has surveyed
several vehicles with partitions,5 and
the closest partition was approximately
380 mm behind the driver’s SgRP. We
believe that partitions are ordinarily
located more than 300 mm (12 inches)
4 Secondary impacts occur when part of the FMH
(usually the chin) strikes in the vicinity of the
intended target at or near the time that the forehead
impact zone contacts that target, more specifically,
within the HIC(d) calculation time period specified
in S7.
5 We are placing in the docket a memorandum
that discusses that survey.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50903
behind the driver’s SgRP in order to
permit the seat to recline. Therefore, we
believe the change we are adopting
provides appropriate accommodation
for final stage manufacturers and
alterers.
We note, however, that if a final stage
manufacturer or alterer wishes to add a
partition or bulkhead closer than 300
mm (12 inches) behind the driver’s
SgRP, it can add any needed
countermeasures (e.g., padding) to
comply with FMVSS No. 201, and
conduct testing, engineering analysis, or
other means to have a basis for
certifying compliance. It could do this
on its own, in conjunction with the
partition manufacturer, or as part of
cooperative testing.
b. Areas Behind the Partition
In its comments, NTEA asserted that
it is not practical to include targets that
are behind the forward surface of a
partition or bulkhead. NTEA argued that
these targets could not possibly be
contacted by the head of an occupant
seated forward of the partition. The
agency believes, for reasons discussed
earlier, that partitions are ordinarily
located more than 300 mm (12 inches)
behind the driver’s SgRP. Therefore, this
issue would affect few vehicles. In any
event, barring a particularly rare series
of events (which would be unlikely to
be alleviated by the installation of
additional interior padding), the agency
concurs that these areas are unlikely to
be impacted by a person in the front
occupant compartment, and it is
therefore not appropriate to test areas
behind such partitions or bulkheads.
NHTSA is adjusting the rule to exclude
these areas from the FMH impact
requirements as well.
c. Conversion Vans and Recreational
Vehicles
RVIA expressed concern that, given
the small size of the manufacturers of
these products, as well as the declining
size of the market, meeting the FMH
impact requirements is impractical. It
requested that CVs and motor homes be
completely excluded from the FMH
impact requirements. While NHTSA
recognizes that most manufacturers
represented by RVIA meet the Small
Business Administration (SBA)
definition for small businesses, we do
not believe that this should preclude
these manufacturers from being required
to meet the FMH impact requirements
for the front seats.
We believe that the safety benefits of
FMVSS No. 201 can be maintained
without substantial burdens being
imposed on multi-stage manufacturers.
Much like other vehicles, CVs and
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
50904
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
motor homes in this category are
typically manufactured from an Original
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) chassis
product that has a completed front
passenger compartment. Most of these
have Incomplete Vehicle Documents
(IVDs), so that the final stage
manufacturer has the option of
purchasing an OEM incomplete vehicle
that is pre-certified to meet the FMH
impact requirements.6
While the RVIA states that small
motor home and CV manufacturers
expect to have to conduct substantial
compliance testing at high costs, we do
not believe that this is necessarily the
case. Under our rule, as long as the final
stage manufacturers preserve the OEM
specifications in the forward area
subject to the FMH impact
requirements, they can customize the
rear portion of the interior. By not
changing the upper interior portions of
the vehicle, they will be able to take
advantage of pass-through certification.
We continue to believe that these
requirements are justified by the safety
benefits cited above and discussed in
the NPRM.
Moreover, as discussed in the NPRM,
final stage manufacturers can use
cooperative testing to determine the
types of changes that can be made while
enabling vehicles to continue to comply
with the FMH requirements, including
ones related to use of overhead cabinets,
raised roof structures, and so forth.
Thus, while customization of the front
portion of occupant compartments will
be more difficult and may be more
limited, it is by no means eliminated.
not be able to certify a vehicle built from
a chassis cutaway using pass-through
certification because the OEM provides
no guidelines for maintaining ‘‘vital
spatial clearance.’’ This lack of
guidelines, NTEA claims, prohibit the
use of reasonable engineering analysis
for pass-through compliance with
FMVSS No. 201.
NHTSA does not accept NTEA’s
argument in this area for several
reasons. First, provided no changes have
been made to the portion of the
occupant compartment forward of the
rearmost part of the B-pillar (and if
located 300 mm rearward of the driver’s
SgRP), it is reasonable for a
manufacturer to assume that all ‘‘vital
spatial clearances’’ will have been
maintained. Therefore, in these
situations, the final stage manufacturer
can take advantage of the available passthrough certification.
Second, we are aware of the
availability of some cutaway chassis
vehicles that can be used in this manner
by final stage manufacturers. NHTSA is
aware of cutaway vehicles
manufactured by Ford and DaimlerChrysler that are provided with IVDs
certifying that the vehicle will meet the
FMH impact requirements of FMVSS
No. 201 forward of the cut point in the
forward occupant compartment.7 This
includes compliance with all applicable
spatial clearance requirements. Because
these vehicles are available to second
stage manufacturers, we do not believe
that compliance will be overly
burdensome, and cutaway vehicles do
not merit additional compliance relief.
d. Multi-Stage Vehicles Completed From
a Cutaway Chassis
As part of the final rule, we have
decided to adopt our proposal to
exclude from the FMH requirements a
narrow group of multi-stage vehicles
delivered to the final stage manufacturer
without an occupant compartment.
However, we are not extending that
exclusion to vehicles completed from a
‘‘chassis cutaway.’’ A chassis cutaway
consists of part of a chassis, which is
delivered to a final stage manufacturer
without a back wall. In its comments,
NTEA suggested that a chassis cutaway
is not ‘‘intact,’’ and therefore should be
excluded from the FMH impact
requirements. NTEA stated that it would
e. Delay of Compliance Date
Both commenters supported NHTSA’s
proposal to delay the implementation
date of the FMH impact requirements.
NTEA further requested that NHTSA
delay the implementation date until
September 1, 2009 if the final rule is not
published prior to January 2007.
NHTSA agrees with the commenters
that the extension is necessary to
provide manufacturers of altered
vehicles sufficient time to comply with
the FMH impact requirements.
Considering the timing of this final rule,
we are delaying the implementation
until September 1, 2009.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
6 We
also note that the agency has created a
temporary exemption process for multi-stage
vehicles by which intermediate and final stage
manufacturers and alterers can obtain temporary
exemptions from dynamic performance
requirements based on financial hardship. The
agency also allows associations or multiple
manufacturers to ‘‘bundle’’ temporary exemption
petitions for specific vehicle designs. See 70 FR
7414.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:44 Sep 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
f. Miscellaneous Issues
NHTSA makes note of two additional
issues that were addressed in the
NPRM. First, in the NPRM, we
requested comments on an issue related
to multistage vehicles with raised roofs.
We stated that we were considering
7 We are placing in the docket a memorandum
that discusses some of these vehicles.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
permitting manufacturers to meet
requirements for either the target
locations as calculated for the original
configuration or changed configuration.
We did not receive comments on this
issue, and have decided not to adopt
such a provision.
Second, we proposed to extend the
scope of the agency’s new more
streamlined temporary exemption
procedures such that multistage
manufacturers would be able to petition
NHTSA for an exemption from the FMH
impact requirements. See 71 FR at
20936. The new procedures streamline
the temporary exemption process by
allowing an association or another party
representing the interests of multiple
manufacturers to bundle exemption
petitions for a specific vehicle design,
thus permitting a single explanation of
the potential safety impact and good
faith attempts to comply with the
standards. We noted, however, that the
same issue was also before the agency
in another proceeding. In a final rule
published in the Federal Register (71
FR 28179) on May 15, 2006, this
procedure was extended to final stage
manufacturers in relation to the FMH
requirements of FMVSS No. 201.
Therefore, this final rule does not
specifically address that issue. We also
note that the May 2006 final rule
addressed a number of other relevant
issues relating to final stage
manufacturers and alterers.
g. Effective Date
We find good cause for making this
rule effective in less than 30 days, i.e.,
September 1, 2007. As discussed above,
we have concluded that certain
amendments should be made that will
provide relief to final stage
manufacturers and alterers, and also
that the compliance date of the relevant
requirements should be delayed to
September 1, 2009. If the September 1,
2007 compliance date were not
changed, it is likely that some final stage
manufacturers and alterers would need
to immediately stop producing or
altering some of the specialty vehicles
they provide.
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), provides for making
determinations whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines a ‘‘significant
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
This final rule was not reviewed
under Executive Order 12866. It is not
significant within the meaning of the
DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. It does not impose any new
burdens on manufacturers of vehicles
built in two or more stages or vehicle
alterers. Further, this rule limits certain
existing requirements as they apply to
multi-stage vehicles, and excludes a
narrow group of multi-stage vehicles
manufactured from chassis without
occupant compartments from the same
requirements. The agency believes that
this impact is so minimal as to not
warrant the preparation of a full
regulatory evaluation.
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency is required
to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must either
prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions) 8 or
certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. In
order to make such a certification, the
agency must conduct a threshold
analysis. The results of that analysis
must be included in a statement that
accompanies the certification and
provides the factual basis for making it.
I hereby certify that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact
8 The Small Business Administration’s
regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small
business, in part, as a business entity ‘‘which
operates primarily within the United States.’’ (13
CFR 121.105(a)).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:44 Sep 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
on a substantial number of small
entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of
this final rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. While it is true that the
vast majority of intermediate and final
stage manufacturers of vehicles built in
two or more stages and alterers have
1,000 or fewer employees, we believe
the impact of this final rule will not be
detrimental. This final rule permits
these companies to comply with the
FMH impact requirements of FMVSS
No. 201 for the front occupant
compartment only, as opposed to the
requirements that must be met by
original manufacturers. Final stage
manufacturers and alterers can either
rely on the original equipment
manufacturer’s certification (using passthrough certification) or install interior
padding and undertake available
compliance testing. Also, final stage
manufacturers and alterers using a
‘‘stripped chassis’’ vehicle are exempt
from the FMH impact requirements.
Finally, this rule delays the effective
date of the requirements until
September 1, 2009. Accordingly, there
will be no significant economic impact
on small businesses, small
organizations, or small governmental
units by these amendments. For these
reasons the agency has not prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
c. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for
the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency
has determined that implementation of
this action will not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human
environment. Accordingly, no
environmental assessment is required.
d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s final
rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and
concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local
governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking
process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have
federalism implications because a final
rule, if issued, would not have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
Further, no consultation is needed to
discuss the preemptive effect of today’s
rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have
preemptive effect in at least two ways.
First, the National Traffic and Motor
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50905
Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect under
this chapter, a State or a political
subdivision of a State may prescribe or
continue in effect a standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command
that preempts State law, not today’s
rulemaking, so consultation would be
inappropriate.
In addition to the express preemption
noted above, the Supreme Court has
also recognized that State requirements
imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers, including sanctions
imposed by State tort law, can stand as
an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of a NHTSA safety standard.
When such a conflict is discerned, the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
makes their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American
Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.C. 861 (2000).
NHTSA has not outlined such potential
State requirements in today’s
rulemaking, however, in part because
such conflicts can arise in varied
contexts, but it is conceivable that such
a conflict may become clear through
subsequent experience with today’s
standard and test regime. NHTSA may
opine on such conflicts in the future, if
warranted. See id. at 883–86.
e. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This final rule would not have any
retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
30103, whenever a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
State may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect
of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the
extent that the state requirement
imposes a higher level of performance
and applies only to vehicles procured
for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets
forth a procedure for judicial review of
final rules establishing, amending, or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit
in court.
f. Unfunded Mandates Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
50906
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation). The assessment
may be combined with other
assessments, as it is here.
This final rule is not likely to result
in expenditures by State, local or tribal
governments or automobile
manufacturers and/or their suppliers of
more than $100 million annually. If
adopted, it would not impose any new
burdens on manufacturers of vehicles
built in two or more stages or vehicle
alterers. Further, this final rule limits
certain existing requirements as they
apply to multistage vehicles, and
exclude a narrow group of multistage
vehicles manufactured from chassis
without occupant compartments from
the same requirements.
g. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid OMB control
number. This final rule contains no
reporting requirements or requests for
information.
h. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
i. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
VI. Regulatory Text
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
I In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA amends chapter V of title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations by
amending 49 CFR § 571.201 to read as
follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:44 Sep 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
PART 571—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation of Part 571
continues to read as follows:
I
Issued: August 30, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07–4324 Filed 8–30–07; 4:52 pm]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 2011, 30115,
30116 and 30117; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
2. Section 571.201 is amended by
revising S6.1.4 through S6.1.4.2, S6.3(b)
and S6.3(c) to read as set forth below:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
I
§ 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant
protection in interior impact.
*
*
*
*
*
S6.1.4 Phase-in Schedule #4 A final
stage manufacturer or alterer may, at its
option, comply with the requirements
set forth in S6.1.4.1 and S6.1.4.2.
S6.1.4.1 Vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 1998 and before
September 1, 2009 are not required to
comply with the requirements specified
in S7.
S6.1.4.2 Vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2009 shall comply
with the requirements specified in S7.
*
*
*
*
*
S6.3 * * *
(b) Any target located rearward of a
vertical plane 600 mm behind the
seating reference point of the rearmost
designated seating position. For altered
vehicles and vehicles built in two or
more stages, including ambulances and
motor homes, any target located
rearward of a vertical plane 300 mm
behind the seating reference point of the
driver’s designated seating position
(tests for altered vehicles and vehicles
built in two or more stages do not
include, within the time period for
measuring HIC(d), any free motion
headform contact with components
rearward of this plane). If an altered
vehicle or vehicle built in two or more
stages is equipped with a transverse
vertical partition positioned between
the seating reference point of the
driver’s designated seating position and
a vertical plane 300 mm behind the
seating reference point of the driver’s
designated seating position, any target
located rearward of the vertical partition
is excluded.
(c) Any target in a vehicle
manufactured in two or more stages that
is delivered to a final stage
manufacturer without an occupant
compartment. Note: Motor homes,
ambulances, and other vehicles
manufactured using a chassis cab, a cutaway van, or any other incomplete
vehicle delivered to a final stage
manufacturer with a furnished front
compartment are not excluded under
this S6.3(c).
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 070323069–7117–02; I.D.
031907A]
RIN 0648–AV46
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to
establish catch accounting requirements
for persons who receive, buy, or accept
Pacific whiting deliveries of 4,000
pounds (lb) (1.18 mt) or more from
vessels using midwater trawl gear
during the Pacific whiting primary
season for the shore-based sector. This
action is intended to improve NMFS’s
ability to effectively monitor the Pacific
whiting shoreside fishery such that
catch of Pacific whiting and incidentally
caught species, including overfished
groundfish species, do not result in a
species’ optimum yield (OY), harvest
guideline, allocations, or bycatch limits
being exceeded. This action is also
intended to provide for timely reporting
of Chinook salmon take as specified in
the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7 Biological Opinion for
Chinook salmon catch in the Pacific
groundfish fishery. This action is
consistent with the conservation goals
and objectives of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP).
Effective October 5, 2007.
Copies of the
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA),
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA), Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and the
Small Entity Compliance Guide are
available from D. Robert Lohn,
Administrator, Northwest Region,
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,
Seattle, WA 98115–0070, phone: 206–
526–6150.
DATES:
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 5, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50900-50906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4324]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2007-29131]
RIN 2127-AI93
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Our safety standard on occupant protection in interior impact
requires, in part, that light vehicles provide head protection when an
occupant's head strikes upper interior components, such as pillars,
side rails, headers, and the roof during a crash. While these
requirements already apply to most vehicles, the compliance date for
altered vehicles and vehicles built in two or more stages is September
1, 2007. In April 2006, we responded to two petitions for rulemaking by
proposing certain amendments to the head protection requirements as
they apply to these vehicles. We also proposed to delay the compliance
date of the requirements for these vehicles. In this document, after
carefully considering both the safety benefits of the upper interior
protection requirements and practicability concerns relating to
vehicles built in two or more stages and certain altered vehicles, we
are amending the standard to limit these requirements to only the front
seating positions of those vehicles. In addition, we are excluding from
the requirements a narrow group of multi-stage vehicles delivered to
the final stage manufacturer without an occupant compartment. Finally,
we have decided to delay the compliance date of the head impact
protection requirements as they apply to final stage manufacturers and
alterers until September 1, 2009.
DATES: The amendments made by this final rule are effective September
1, 2007. The compliance date for the head impact protection
requirements for altered vehicles and vehicles built in two or more
stages is September 1, 2009.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than October 22, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number above and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590.
See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this document (Section
V; Rulemaking Analyses and Notices) for DOT's Privacy Act Statement
regarding documents submitted to the agency's dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE.,
Washington, DC 20590:
For technical and policy issues: David Sutula, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, telephone: (202) 366-3273, facsimile: (202)
366-7002, E-mail: David.Sutula@dot.gov.
For legal issues: Ari Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel,
telephone: (202) 366-2992, facsimile: (202) 366-3820, E-mail:
Ari.Scott@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
a. Previous History of Head Protection Requirements of FMVSS No.
201
b. Petitions for Rulemaking and Agency Response
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
a. Proposal To Limit the Area Subject to the FMH Impacts in
Certain Vehicles
b. Proposal To Exclude Vehicles Without a Finished Occupant
Compartment From the FMH Impact Requirements
c. Question Regarding Multistage Vehicles With Raised Roofs
d. Change of Effective Date
III. Public Comments
IV. The Final Rule and Response to Public Comments
a. Limitation of the Areas Subject to FMVSS No. 201
b. Areas Behind the Partition
c. Conversion Vans and Recreational Vehicles
d. Multi-Stage Vehicles Completed From a Cutaway Chassis
e. Delay of Compliance Date
f. Miscellaneous Issues
g. Effective Date
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
VI. Regulatory Text
I. Background
a. Previous History of Head Protection Requirements of FMVSS No. 201
On August 18, 1995, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule (August 1995) amending
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, ``Occupant
Protection in Interior Impact,'' to provide enhanced head impact
protection.\1\ The August 1995 final rule required passenger cars, and
trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or
less, to provide protection when an occupant's head strikes upper
interior components, including pillars, side rails, headers, and the
roof, during a crash. The final rule set minimum performance
requirements for upper interior components by establishing target areas
that must be padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to
minimize head injury in the event of a crash. The final rule added
procedures for a new in-vehicle component test in which a free-motion
head form (FMH) is fired at certain target locations on the upper
interior of a vehicle at an impact speed of 24 km/h (15 mph). Targets
that are
[[Page 50901]]
located on or within 50 mm (2 inches) of dynamically deployable upper
interior head protection systems (air bags systems) can, at the option
of the manufacturer, be impacted at the reduced speed of 19 km/h (12
mph). Data collected from a FMH impact are translated into a Head
Injury Criterion (HIC(d)) score. The resultant HIC(d) must not exceed
1000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 60 FR 43031, Aug. 18, 1995; Docket No. NHTSA-1996-1762-
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1995 final rule provided manufacturers with three alternate
phase-in schedules for complying with the FMH impact requirements. At
this time, all vehicles except altered vehicles and vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages are required to comply with the FMH
impact requirements. The compliance date for altered vehicles and
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages to comply with these
requirements has been delayed several times, and is presently September
1, 2007.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 71 FR 51121, August 29, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Petitions for Rulemaking and Agency Response
This rulemaking was initiated in response to petitions for
rulemaking submitted by the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association
(RVIA) and the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA). The member
companies of RVIA and NTEA are generally considered final stage
manufacturers and alterers. That is, they purchase incomplete vehicles
from major manufacturers to serve as the basis for specialty vehicles
(manufactured in two or more stages) for certain uses and markets, or
alter completed vehicles prior to first retail sale. As such, the
petitioners' members face a variety of challenges in certifying that
their vehicles meet applicable safety standards. We note that with
respect to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, some multi-
stage vehicles are built from chassis-cabs with a completed occupant
compartment. Others are built from less complete vehicles, sometimes
necessitating the addition by the final stage manufacturer of its own
occupant compartment. The final stage manufacturer is responsible for
certification of the completed vehicle, although certification can
often ``pass-through'' from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.
RVIA and NTEA petitioned the agency to permanently exclude certain
types of altered vehicles and vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages from these requirements. On April 24, 2006, the agency published
in the Federal Register (71 FR 20932) a response to petitions for
rulemaking; notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) \3\ in response to
those petitions. NHTSA granted the petitions in part and denied them in
part, and proposed certain amendments to the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
As indicated above, the agency published its April 2006 NPRM in
response to the RVIA and NTEA petitions. The NPRM proposed to limit the
occupant compartment area subject to the FMH impact requirements in
ambulances, motor homes, and other vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages, as well as altered vehicles. Furthermore, the NPRM proposed to
exclude from the requirements a narrow group of multi-stage vehicles
delivered to the final stage manufacturer without an occupant
compartment. Finally, the NPRM proposed to delay the effective date of
the requirements to September 1, 2008.
a. Proposal To Limit the Area Subject to the FMH Impacts in Certain
Vehicles
In ambulances and motor homes, the current standard excludes the
occupant compartment area located more than 600 mm (24 inches) behind
the seating reference point of the driver's seating position from the
FMH impact requirements. For all other vehicles, the occupant
compartment area located more than 600 mm (24 inches) behind the
seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating position is
similarly excluded from the FMH impact requirements.
For altered vehicles and vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages, including motor homes and ambulances, we proposed to limit the
area subject to the FMH impact requirements to not more than 300 mm (12
inches) behind the seating reference point of the driver's seating
position. We stated that this would have the effect of limiting the FMH
impact requirements to the front seating positions for these vehicles.
We stated our belief that the distance reduction to 300 mm (12 inches)
is more representative of the distance between the seating reference
point and the upper seat back/head restraint location where the
occupant's head is located. We also stated that because of the front
head restraint height requirements, we believe it is unlikely that the
head of a seated occupant would come in contact with bulkheads,
partitions, or overhead cabinets and storage shelves located further
than 300 mm (12 inches) behind the seating reference point (SgRP) of
the driver's seating position.
We stated that in developing this proposal, we had carefully
considered both the safety benefits of the FMH requirements and
practicability concerns relating to multistage vehicles. Based on
previous estimates of the benefits of the FMVSS No. 201 final rule, and
estimates from the National Automotive Sampling System, Crashworthiness
Data System of the percent of injuries occurring to light truck
occupants in multi-stage vehicles, the agency derived the following
estimate of safety benefits. Requiring all multi-stage manufactured
vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 201 would have annual benefits in the front
seat of 16-22 fewer fatalities and 19-22 fewer AIS 2-5 injuries.
However, in the rear seats, the benefits were estimated to be less than
1 fatality (which would round down to 0) and 1 AIS 2-5 injury. Thus,
based on this analysis, excluding multi-stage vehicles from targets
that could not be struck by the front row occupants would have a very
small impact on safety.
Given the small safety benefits associated with the FMH impact
requirements for rear seating positions and practicability concerns, we
tentatively concluded that the FMH impact requirements should be
limited to the front seating positions for these vehicles.
We noted that, as indicated in its petition, many commercial
vehicles manufactured by NTEA members feature bulkheads or partitions
located less than 600 mm (24 inches) behind the rearmost designated
seating position. Bulkheads or partitions are used in a variety of work
vehicles that haul odd-shaped objects that cannot be readily secured in
the cargo area. These structures protect the driver and passenger from
loose or shifting cargo or work equipment. NTEA had argued that the
installation of bulkheads or partitions would likely require relocation
of target areas originally certified by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer, thus significantly adding to the compliance burden.
We also noted that RVIA had argued that most conversion vans (CVs)
and motor homes feature unique interior designs. Specifically, these
vehicles include overhead cabinets, side valances, raised roof
structures, and other unusual interior components. Among other things,
RVIA stated that cooperative testing, suggested by NHTSA as a way to
lessen compliance costs associated with FMH requirements, is not
practicable because each RVIA member manufactures
[[Page 50902]]
unique vehicles, each substantially different from its competitors.
RVIA argued that cooperative testing would eliminate interior
customization, which would in turn result in a loss of market for CVs
and motor homes.
We stated that we believed our proposal to effectively limit the
FMH impact requirements to the front seating positions for these
vehicles would provide appropriate relief to the industries represented
by NTEA and RVIA, while continuing to meet the need for safety.
We noted that NTEA and RVIA members can ordinarily purchase
incomplete vehicles that are already designed to meet the FMH impact
requirements for the front seating positions. Under our proposal, final
stage manufacturers would ordinarily be able to take advantage of pass-
through certification by not changing the upper interior portions of
the front of the vehicle.
We also stated that we believe the requirements are justified by
safety. As indicated above, we estimate that requiring all multi-stage
manufactured vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 201 would have annual benefits
in the front seat of 16-22 fewer fatalities and 19-22 fewer AIS 2-5
injuries. We stated that given the safety significance of these
requirements, we believed, in situations where final stage
manufacturers use incomplete vehicles that have occupant compartments
that either are designed to meet the FMH impact requirements for the
front seating positions or can be purchased in a configuration that is
designed to meet those requirements, it would be inconsistent with the
need for safety to generally exclude the vehicles from these head
impact protection requirements. We also noted that while final stage
manufacturers will be able to submit petitions under subpart B of part
555, it is unlikely in this type of situation that the agency would
find it in the public interest to exclude final stage manufacturers
from the front seat head impact protection requirements of FMVSS No.
201 to facilitate customization of the upper interior portions of the
front of the vehicle.
We noted that the proposal would, however, facilitate customization
of the rear of vehicles, including conversion vans, where there would
be no significant impact on safety. We also stated that we continue to
believe that final stage manufacturers can use cooperative testing to
determine the types of changes that can be made while enabling vehicles
to continue to comply with the FMH requirements, including ones related
to use of overhead cabinets, raised roof structures, and so forth. We
stated that while customization of the front portion of occupant
compartments will be more difficult and may be more limited, it will by
no means be eliminated.
b. Proposal To Exclude Vehicles Without a Finished Occupant Compartment
From the FMH Impact Requirements
We tentatively concluded that a narrow group of multi-stage
vehicles contains physical attributes that make compliance with the FMH
impact requirements impracticable. These are vehicles built on a
``stripped'' chassis; i.e., an incomplete vehicle without an occupant
compartment. The manufacturers of these vehicles would not be able to
rely on pass-through certification. This is because these vehicles are
highly customized and produced in quantities that would make compliance
prohibitively expensive. Further, these vehicles are often equipped
with partitions and bulkheads that present a further impediment to the
compliance efforts. We noted that for vehicles manufactured from
stripped chassis, the cost of meeting the FMH impact requirements could
be substantial because alternative means of compliance such as pass-
through certification are not available.
We stated that in the context of serving niche markets demanding
specialized work vehicles that are not delivered to the final stage
manufacturers with an intact occupant compartment (unlike for example,
chassis cabs and cutaway vans), we believed that the physical
limitations of these vehicles can adversely affect the ability of
multi-stage manufacturers to design safety performance into their
completed vehicles. Accordingly, we believed it appropriate to exclude
this narrow group of vehicles from FMH impact testing.
c. Question Regarding Multi-Stage Vehicles With Raised Roofs
The NPRM also raised the issue of offering a manufacturer
alternative for vehicles with raised roofs. This would allow the final
stage manufacturer to certify that the vehicle meets the FMH impact
requirements in either the original or altered configuration. The
reasoning behind this was that while some test points have been altered
due to the raised roof, those points are very unlikely to be impacted
by a seated occupant.
d. Change of Effective Date
The NPRM proposed to delay the effective date of the FMH impact
requirements as they apply to final stage manufacturers and alterers
until September 1, 2008.
III. Public Comments
Both NTEA and RVIA submitted comments generally supportive of the
NPRM. Both entities supported the proposal to delay the effective date
for compliance with the requirements to September 1, 2008. In addition,
NTEA suggested that the date be extended further if the delay is not
published by January 2007. The proposal to limit the area that is
subject to the FMH impact requirements was also supported by both
commenters. Finally, both parties were generally supportive of the
proposal to exclude vehicles delivered to a final stage manufacturer
without an occupant compartment from the FMH requirements.
While generally supportive of the NPRM, both entities suggested
expanding the scope of vehicles excluded from the FMH impact
requirements beyond that which was proposed by NHTSA. Citing the small
size and economic difficulties of the recreational vehicle industry,
RVIA stated that NHTSA should consider excluding CVs and motor homes
from the FMH impact requirements. It argued that given the numerous
interior layouts for these vehicles, a large number of tests would need
to be performed, burdening the industry disproportionately. RVIA also
reiterated its original cost estimates presented in its petition,
stating that interior designs and layouts can change every year, thus
making the industry unable to amortize testing costs over a number of
years.
NTEA also supported expanding the scope of the FMH impact
requirement exclusion to additional vehicles. In addition to vehicles
delivered without an occupant compartment, NTEA suggested that multi-
stage vehicles built from ``chassis cutaways,'' i.e., incomplete
vehicles delivered with an occupant compartment but without the rear
part of the chassis, should be excluded as well. NTEA stated that the
occupant compartment in these vehicles is not delivered ``intact,''
because there is no rear wall. NTEA also requested clarification
regarding which vehicles would be excluded.
Finally, NTEA provided comments concerning the testing of vehicles
with bulkheads and partitions in relation to the FMH impact
requirements. Specifically, it expressed concern that partition,
bulkheads, and B-pillars on the majority of vehicles used commercially
with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less would fall within the proposed
testing area. This, NTEA stated, would lead to high testing and
[[Page 50903]]
compliance costs for small manufacturers. In addition, NTEA asked for
clarification on whether secondary headform hits would count towards
the overall HIC(d) value, suggesting that they should not. NTEA also
suggested that areas located less than 300 mm (12 inches) from the
forward seating position, but behind bulkheads or partitions, should
not be tested under the impact requirements.
IV. The Final Rule and Response to Public Comments
a. Limitation of the Areas Subject to FMVSS No. 201
The agency is adopting its proposal to limit, for multi-stage
vehicles, the FMH impact requirements to the front of vehicles, i.e.,
we are excluding targets more than 300 mm (12 inches) behind the
driver's SgRP. This change will maintain the vast majority of the
safety benefits for multi-stage vehicles, while facilitating
customization of the rear of vehicles.
As the cited safety data indicate, the vast majority of the safety
benefits of the FMH impact accrue mainly in the front portions of the
vehicle. Because of the front head restraint height requirements, we
believe it is unlikely that the head of a seated occupant would come in
contact with bulkheads, partitions, or overhead cabinets and storage
shelves located further than 300 mm (12 inches) behind the seating
reference point of the driver's seating position. Therefore, we believe
that this final rule preserves the vast majority of the safety benefits
provided by the FMH impact requirements for multistage vehicles.
We note that NTEA and RVIA members can ordinarily purchase
incomplete vehicles that are already designed to meet the FMH impact
requirements for the front seating positions. Thus, under our proposal,
final stage manufacturers would ordinarily be able to take advantage of
pass-through certification by not changing the upper interior portions
of the front of the vehicle.
NTEA expressed concern about the installation of partitions and
bulkheads behind the occupant seating compartment. It was concerned
that the 300 mm (12 inches) distance from the driver's SgRP could
include the B-pillar of the majority vehicles used commercially with a
GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. It indicated that partitions and bulkheads
could fall within the detailed area, and themselves become subject to
testing.
NHTSA notes, as a general matter, that while partitions are not
necessarily targeted by the FMH requirements, secondary impacts \4\ on
partitions are permitted as well as relocation of a targeted area in
accordance with S10(b). In these cases, any secondary impacts would be
incorporated into the total HIC(d) value, and any target areas that are
relocated may fall upon a bulkhead or partition provided that the
contact area is not specifically excluded from the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Secondary impacts occur when part of the FMH (usually the
chin) strikes in the vicinity of the intended target at or near the
time that the forehead impact zone contacts that target, more
specifically, within the HIC(d) calculation time period specified in
S7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated above, the purpose of excluding targets more than 300
mm (12 inches) behind the driver's SgRP is to address the special
circumstances of final stage manufacturers, while maintaining the vast
majority of the benefits from the FMH requirements. To the extent that
bulkheads, partitions or other items located more than 300 mm (12
inches) behind the driver's SgRP could contribute to the HIC(d) value,
final stage manufacturers could potentially need to add countermeasures
to comply with FMVSS No. 201, as well as engage in testing, engineering
analysis, or other means to have a basis for certifying compliance.
To ensure that the change we are making provides the intended
accommodation for final stage manufacturers, we are providing that
tests for altered vehicles and vehicles built in two or more stages do
not include, within the time period for measuring HIC(d), any FMH
contact with components rearward of the plane 300 mm (12 inches) behind
the driver's SgRP. Of course, if it is possible to strike an intended
target within the range of permissible approach angles without FMH
contact with components rearward of that plane, the agency will test
the target in that fashion. We note that the position we are taking on
this specific issue should not be viewed as an indication of how we
might address the issue of secondary impacts for other portions of
FMVSS No. 201.
In order to take full advantage of this accommodation, a final
stage manufacturer or alterer adding a partition or bulkhead needs to
ensure that it is rearward of the plane 300 mm (12 inches) behind the
driver's SgRP. NHTSA notes that it has surveyed several vehicles with
partitions,\5\ and the closest partition was approximately 380 mm
behind the driver's SgRP. We believe that partitions are ordinarily
located more than 300 mm (12 inches) behind the driver's SgRP in order
to permit the seat to recline. Therefore, we believe the change we are
adopting provides appropriate accommodation for final stage
manufacturers and alterers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We are placing in the docket a memorandum that discusses
that survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note, however, that if a final stage manufacturer or alterer
wishes to add a partition or bulkhead closer than 300 mm (12 inches)
behind the driver's SgRP, it can add any needed countermeasures (e.g.,
padding) to comply with FMVSS No. 201, and conduct testing, engineering
analysis, or other means to have a basis for certifying compliance. It
could do this on its own, in conjunction with the partition
manufacturer, or as part of cooperative testing.
b. Areas Behind the Partition
In its comments, NTEA asserted that it is not practical to include
targets that are behind the forward surface of a partition or bulkhead.
NTEA argued that these targets could not possibly be contacted by the
head of an occupant seated forward of the partition. The agency
believes, for reasons discussed earlier, that partitions are ordinarily
located more than 300 mm (12 inches) behind the driver's SgRP.
Therefore, this issue would affect few vehicles. In any event, barring
a particularly rare series of events (which would be unlikely to be
alleviated by the installation of additional interior padding), the
agency concurs that these areas are unlikely to be impacted by a person
in the front occupant compartment, and it is therefore not appropriate
to test areas behind such partitions or bulkheads. NHTSA is adjusting
the rule to exclude these areas from the FMH impact requirements as
well.
c. Conversion Vans and Recreational Vehicles
RVIA expressed concern that, given the small size of the
manufacturers of these products, as well as the declining size of the
market, meeting the FMH impact requirements is impractical. It
requested that CVs and motor homes be completely excluded from the FMH
impact requirements. While NHTSA recognizes that most manufacturers
represented by RVIA meet the Small Business Administration (SBA)
definition for small businesses, we do not believe that this should
preclude these manufacturers from being required to meet the FMH impact
requirements for the front seats.
We believe that the safety benefits of FMVSS No. 201 can be
maintained without substantial burdens being imposed on multi-stage
manufacturers. Much like other vehicles, CVs and
[[Page 50904]]
motor homes in this category are typically manufactured from an
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) chassis product that has a
completed front passenger compartment. Most of these have Incomplete
Vehicle Documents (IVDs), so that the final stage manufacturer has the
option of purchasing an OEM incomplete vehicle that is pre-certified to
meet the FMH impact requirements.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ We also note that the agency has created a temporary
exemption process for multi-stage vehicles by which intermediate and
final stage manufacturers and alterers can obtain temporary
exemptions from dynamic performance requirements based on financial
hardship. The agency also allows associations or multiple
manufacturers to ``bundle'' temporary exemption petitions for
specific vehicle designs. See 70 FR 7414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the RVIA states that small motor home and CV manufacturers
expect to have to conduct substantial compliance testing at high costs,
we do not believe that this is necessarily the case. Under our rule, as
long as the final stage manufacturers preserve the OEM specifications
in the forward area subject to the FMH impact requirements, they can
customize the rear portion of the interior. By not changing the upper
interior portions of the vehicle, they will be able to take advantage
of pass-through certification. We continue to believe that these
requirements are justified by the safety benefits cited above and
discussed in the NPRM.
Moreover, as discussed in the NPRM, final stage manufacturers can
use cooperative testing to determine the types of changes that can be
made while enabling vehicles to continue to comply with the FMH
requirements, including ones related to use of overhead cabinets,
raised roof structures, and so forth. Thus, while customization of the
front portion of occupant compartments will be more difficult and may
be more limited, it is by no means eliminated.
d. Multi-Stage Vehicles Completed From a Cutaway Chassis
As part of the final rule, we have decided to adopt our proposal to
exclude from the FMH requirements a narrow group of multi-stage
vehicles delivered to the final stage manufacturer without an occupant
compartment. However, we are not extending that exclusion to vehicles
completed from a ``chassis cutaway.'' A chassis cutaway consists of
part of a chassis, which is delivered to a final stage manufacturer
without a back wall. In its comments, NTEA suggested that a chassis
cutaway is not ``intact,'' and therefore should be excluded from the
FMH impact requirements. NTEA stated that it would not be able to
certify a vehicle built from a chassis cutaway using pass-through
certification because the OEM provides no guidelines for maintaining
``vital spatial clearance.'' This lack of guidelines, NTEA claims,
prohibit the use of reasonable engineering analysis for pass-through
compliance with FMVSS No. 201.
NHTSA does not accept NTEA's argument in this area for several
reasons. First, provided no changes have been made to the portion of
the occupant compartment forward of the rearmost part of the B-pillar
(and if located 300 mm rearward of the driver's SgRP), it is reasonable
for a manufacturer to assume that all ``vital spatial clearances'' will
have been maintained. Therefore, in these situations, the final stage
manufacturer can take advantage of the available pass-through
certification.
Second, we are aware of the availability of some cutaway chassis
vehicles that can be used in this manner by final stage manufacturers.
NHTSA is aware of cutaway vehicles manufactured by Ford and Daimler-
Chrysler that are provided with IVDs certifying that the vehicle will
meet the FMH impact requirements of FMVSS No. 201 forward of the cut
point in the forward occupant compartment.\7\ This includes compliance
with all applicable spatial clearance requirements. Because these
vehicles are available to second stage manufacturers, we do not believe
that compliance will be overly burdensome, and cutaway vehicles do not
merit additional compliance relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We are placing in the docket a memorandum that discusses
some of these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Delay of Compliance Date
Both commenters supported NHTSA's proposal to delay the
implementation date of the FMH impact requirements. NTEA further
requested that NHTSA delay the implementation date until September 1,
2009 if the final rule is not published prior to January 2007. NHTSA
agrees with the commenters that the extension is necessary to provide
manufacturers of altered vehicles sufficient time to comply with the
FMH impact requirements. Considering the timing of this final rule, we
are delaying the implementation until September 1, 2009.
f. Miscellaneous Issues
NHTSA makes note of two additional issues that were addressed in
the NPRM. First, in the NPRM, we requested comments on an issue related
to multistage vehicles with raised roofs. We stated that we were
considering permitting manufacturers to meet requirements for either
the target locations as calculated for the original configuration or
changed configuration. We did not receive comments on this issue, and
have decided not to adopt such a provision.
Second, we proposed to extend the scope of the agency's new more
streamlined temporary exemption procedures such that multistage
manufacturers would be able to petition NHTSA for an exemption from the
FMH impact requirements. See 71 FR at 20936. The new procedures
streamline the temporary exemption process by allowing an association
or another party representing the interests of multiple manufacturers
to bundle exemption petitions for a specific vehicle design, thus
permitting a single explanation of the potential safety impact and good
faith attempts to comply with the standards. We noted, however, that
the same issue was also before the agency in another proceeding. In a
final rule published in the Federal Register (71 FR 28179) on May 15,
2006, this procedure was extended to final stage manufacturers in
relation to the FMH requirements of FMVSS No. 201. Therefore, this
final rule does not specifically address that issue. We also note that
the May 2006 final rule addressed a number of other relevant issues
relating to final stage manufacturers and alterers.
g. Effective Date
We find good cause for making this rule effective in less than 30
days, i.e., September 1, 2007. As discussed above, we have concluded
that certain amendments should be made that will provide relief to
final stage manufacturers and alterers, and also that the compliance
date of the relevant requirements should be delayed to September 1,
2009. If the September 1, 2007 compliance date were not changed, it is
likely that some final stage manufacturers and alterers would need to
immediately stop producing or altering some of the specialty vehicles
they provide.
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant
[[Page 50905]]
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This final rule was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is
not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. It does not impose any new burdens on manufacturers of
vehicles built in two or more stages or vehicle alterers. Further, this
rule limits certain existing requirements as they apply to multi-stage
vehicles, and excludes a narrow group of multi-stage vehicles
manufactured from chassis without occupant compartments from the same
requirements. The agency believes that this impact is so minimal as to
not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must either prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions)
\8\ or certify that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In order to make such
a certification, the agency must conduct a threshold analysis. The
results of that analysis must be included in a statement that
accompanies the certification and provides the factual basis for making
it. I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR
part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity
``which operates primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR
121.105(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. While it is true that the vast majority of
intermediate and final stage manufacturers of vehicles built in two or
more stages and alterers have 1,000 or fewer employees, we believe the
impact of this final rule will not be detrimental. This final rule
permits these companies to comply with the FMH impact requirements of
FMVSS No. 201 for the front occupant compartment only, as opposed to
the requirements that must be met by original manufacturers. Final
stage manufacturers and alterers can either rely on the original
equipment manufacturer's certification (using pass-through
certification) or install interior padding and undertake available
compliance testing. Also, final stage manufacturers and alterers using
a ``stripped chassis'' vehicle are exempt from the FMH impact
requirements. Finally, this rule delays the effective date of the
requirements until September 1, 2009. Accordingly, there will be no
significant economic impact on small businesses, small organizations,
or small governmental units by these amendments. For these reasons the
agency has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.
c. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is
required.
d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have federalism implications because a final
rule, if issued, would not have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.''
Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at
least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act contains an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle
safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political
subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard
applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the
standard prescribed under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is
this statutory command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking,
so consultation would be inappropriate.
In addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme
Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law,
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.C. 861
(2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in
today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise
in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may
become clear through subsequent experience with today's standard and
test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if
warranted. See id. at 883-86.
e. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This final rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
f. Unfunded Mandates Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by
[[Page 50906]]
State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation).
The assessment may be combined with other assessments, as it is here.
This final rule is not likely to result in expenditures by State,
local or tribal governments or automobile manufacturers and/or their
suppliers of more than $100 million annually. If adopted, it would not
impose any new burdens on manufacturers of vehicles built in two or
more stages or vehicle alterers. Further, this final rule limits
certain existing requirements as they apply to multistage vehicles, and
exclude a narrow group of multistage vehicles manufactured from chassis
without occupant compartments from the same requirements.
g. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final
rule contains no reporting requirements or requests for information.
h. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
i. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
VI. Regulatory Text
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends chapter V of title 49
of the Code of Federal Regulations by amending 49 CFR Sec. 571.201 to
read as follows:
PART 571--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation of Part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 2011, 30115, 30116 and 30117;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S6.1.4 through S6.1.4.2,
S6.3(b) and S6.3(c) to read as set forth below:
Sec. 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior
impact.
* * * * *
S6.1.4 Phase-in Schedule #4 A final stage manufacturer or alterer
may, at its option, comply with the requirements set forth in S6.1.4.1
and S6.1.4.2.
S6.1.4.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and
before September 1, 2009 are not required to comply with the
requirements specified in S7.
S6.1.4.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 shall
comply with the requirements specified in S7.
* * * * *
S6.3 * * *
(b) Any target located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind
the seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating
position. For altered vehicles and vehicles built in two or more
stages, including ambulances and motor homes, any target located
rearward of a vertical plane 300 mm behind the seating reference point
of the driver's designated seating position (tests for altered vehicles
and vehicles built in two or more stages do not include, within the
time period for measuring HIC(d), any free motion headform contact with
components rearward of this plane). If an altered vehicle or vehicle
built in two or more stages is equipped with a transverse vertical
partition positioned between the seating reference point of the
driver's designated seating position and a vertical plane 300 mm behind
the seating reference point of the driver's designated seating
position, any target located rearward of the vertical partition is
excluded.
(c) Any target in a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages that
is delivered to a final stage manufacturer without an occupant
compartment. Note: Motor homes, ambulances, and other vehicles
manufactured using a chassis cab, a cut-away van, or any other
incomplete vehicle delivered to a final stage manufacturer with a
furnished front compartment are not excluded under this S6.3(c).
* * * * *
Issued: August 30, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-4324 Filed 8-30-07; 4:52 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P