[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41348-41354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15334]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 02-12480]
RIN 2127-AI86


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Impact Protection

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

ACTION: Interim final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This interim final rule amends the schedule for compliance by 
manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages with the upper 
interior head protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior impact.
    This interim final rule delays the date on which manufacturers of 
vehicles built in two or more stages must produce vehicles meeting the 
upper interior head protection performance requirements of Standard No. 
201 from September 1, 2002, until September 1, 2003. The agency is 
issuing this interim final rule to provide the agency time to complete 
a rulemaking action initiated by petitions for rulemaking requesting 
that NHTSA consider modifying the requirements of Standard No. 201 as 
they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. As that 
rulemaking action may result in modification of Standard No. 201 as it 
applies to these multi-stage vehicles, the agency has decided to extend 
the compliance date until the final action is taken on the petitions. 
It expects to take final action before September 1, 2003.

DATES: This interim final rule becomes effective on July 18, 2002. 
Comments on this interim rule are due no later than August 19, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing or electronically. 
Written comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and 
be submitted (preferably in two copies) to: Docket Management, PL-401, 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. (Docket 
hours are Monday-Friday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding holidays.) 
Electronic comments can be submitted through the worldwide web at 
http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Dr. 
William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-4922, 
facsimile (202) 366-4329.
    For legal issues, you may call Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, at 202-366-5263.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions For Rulemaking
    A. RVIA
    B. NTEA
III. Standard 201 and Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages
IV. Interim Final Rule
V. Written Comments
VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    NHTSA issued a final rule on August 18, 1995, amending Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior 
Impact, to require passenger cars, and trucks, buses and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, to provide head protection during a 
crash when an occupant's head strikes the upper interior, i.e., the 
roof pillars, side rails, headers, and the roof itself of the vehicle. 
(60 FR 430341) The final rule responded to the NHTSA Authorization Act 
of 1991 (sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (``ISTEA''), Pub. L. 102-240). ISTEA required NHTSA to 
address several vehicle safety matters through rulemaking. One of these 
matters, set forth in section 2503(5), is improved head impact 
protection from interior components (i.e., roof rails, pillars, and 
front headers) of passenger cars.
    The final rule, which mandated compliance with the new requirements 
beginning on September 1, 1998, significantly expanded the scope of 
Standard 201. Previously, the standard applied to the instrument panel, 
seat backs, interior compartment doors, arm rests and sun visors. To 
determine compliance with the upper interior impact requirements, the 
final rule added procedures for a new in-vehicle component test in 
which a Free Motion Headform (FMH) is fired at certain target locations 
on the upper interior of a vehicle at an impact speed of up to and 
including 24 km/h (15 mph). Data collected from a FMH impact are 
translated into a value known as a Head Injury Criterion (HIC) score. 
The resultant HIC must not exceed 1000.
    The standard, as further amended on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718), 
provides manufacturers with four alternate phase-in schedules for 
complying with the upper interior impact requirements. First, as set 
forth in S6.1.1, manufacturers may comply by having the following 
percentages of their production meet the upper interior impact 
requirements: 10 percent of production on or after September 1, 1998 
and before September 1, 1999; 25 percent of production on or after 
September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2000, 40 percent of 
production on or after September 1, 2000 and before September 1, 2001, 
70 percent of production on or after September 1, 2001 and before 
September 1, 2002, and 100 percent of production after September 1, 
2002.
    Second, an alternative schedule set forth in S6.1.2 provides that 
manufacturers may comply by meeting the following phase-in schedule: 7 
percent of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and 
before September 1, 1999; 31 percent of vehicles manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2000; 40 percent of 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and before 
September 1, 2001; 70 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2001 and before September 1, 2002; and 100 percent of all 
vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2002.
    Third, under the phase-in schedule set forth in S6.1.3, 
manufacturers need not produce any complying vehicles before September 
1, 1999. However, all vehicles produced on or after that date must 
comply. Fourth, S6.1.4 of the April 8, 1997 final rule provided that 
multi-stage vehicles produced after September 1, 2002, were required to 
comply.

II. Petitions for Rulemaking

    The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) filed a petition 
for rulemaking on October 4, 2001 requesting that the agency modify 
Standard No. 201 to exclude conversion vans and motor homes with gross 
vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, from 
the application of the upper interior head

[[Page 41349]]

protection requirements of the Standard. The National Truck Equipment 
Association (NTEA) filed a petition for rulemaking on November 27, 2001 
seeking similar relief. Both petitions requested that NHTSA extend the 
existing phase-in for manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles (i.e., the 
fourth one described above) from September 1, 2002 to March 1, 2004. By 
letters dated March 28 and April 5, 2002, NHTSA indicated it was 
granting the petitions. The agency is currently embarking on a 
rulemaking proceeding to address the issues raised in the petitions.

A. RVIA

    The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) is a trade 
association representing manufacturers of conversion vehicles (CVs) and 
motor homes. RVIA states that its member companies, which produced 
approximately 60,000 vehicles with a GVWR under 4,536 kilograms (10,000 
pounds) in 2001, produce over 90 percent of all CVs and 99 percent of 
all motor homes sold in the United States. RVIA submitted a petition 
for rulemaking on October 4, 2001 requesting the NHTSA consider 
rulemaking to amend Standard No. 201 so that CVs and motor homes would 
not be required to meet the upper interior head protection requirements 
of the Standard. The petition further requested that the compliance 
date for multi-stage vehicles be modified from September 1, 2002 to 
March 1, 2004.
    RVIA's petition contends that the characteristics of the 
manufacturers producing CVs, the unique nature of CVs, and the methods 
used to produce these vehicles indicate that NHTSA should not require 
CVs to meet the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard 
No. 201. The RVIA petition states that producers of CVs and motor homes 
are almost exclusively small businesses with fewer than 500 employees. 
These small businesses produce CVs and motor homes by purchasing 
incomplete vehicles from major manufacturers and installing unique 
interiors, seats and accessories. Many of these manufacturers modify 
the vehicle structure by adding windows and raising or replacing the 
original roof. According to RVIA, each of these manufacturers offers a 
wide variety of interior configurations and designs in order to attract 
customers who might otherwise purchase a conventional vehicle or a CV 
or motor home built by a competitor.
    RVIA's petition emphasizes that the CV and motor home manufacturers 
serve a niche market where buyers are seeking unique designs and 
capabilities. This, according to RVIA, has several effects that make 
compliance with the upper interior head protection requirements 
difficult for its members.
    This demand for unique vehicles, in RVIA's view, precludes the use 
of standardized components across the industry or even within the 
product lines of a single manufacturer. The limited sales volume of CVs 
and small motor homes reduces the opportunity to spread development and 
testing costs over a large number of vehicles. The result, according to 
RVIA, is that compliance with the upper interior head impact protection 
requirements would force individual companies to spend excessive 
amounts on development and testing of wide variety of components while 
being forced to add these development and testing costs to the price of 
a very small number of vehicles. RVIA contends that the resulting 
increases in costs and prices for individual vehicles would be so great 
that consumers would no longer purchase CVs and motor homes. Finally, 
RVIA's petition indicates that the major manufacturers providing 
incomplete vehicles for conversion into CVs and motor homes had not, at 
the time of its petition, begun to provide any vehicles that complied 
with Standard 201's upper interior requirements for those portions of 
the vehicles completed by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. 
Moreover, these manufacturers will not, according to RVIA, be doing so 
until September 1, 2002. RVIA says that this timing would make it 
extremely difficult for RVIA members to use these vehicles as base 
vehicles for their own production until well after the September 1, 
2002 compliance date.
    RVIA's petition also outlines efforts made by the CV and motor home 
industry to comply with the upper interior head protection requirements 
by September 1, 2002. The petition indicates that RVIA members 
attempted to devise common components that could be used to meet the 
Standard. However, according to RVIA, the common component concept was 
unsatisfactory in terms of performance and, due to the need for 
individual manufacturers to use unique components, ill-suited to the 
industry. Similarly, because of the variations between vehicles built 
by different manufacturers, cooperative-testing arrangements that might 
be used for compliance with other standards could not be used to 
determine compliance with the upper interior head protection 
requirements of Standard No. 201. Therefore, RVIA contends that the 
only means for its member companies to meet the upper interior head 
protection requirements is for each manufacturer to develop individual 
components for each of its model lines.
    Finally, RVIA's petition contends that applying the upper interior 
head protection requirements to CVs and motor homes would not be 
economically practicable. RVIA estimated that compliance costs for CVs 
would be at least $2,401 per vehicle. For a motor home, RVIA estimated 
that the per vehicle compliance costs would be not less than $4,748. In 
RVIA's view, these costs are excessive, particularly because it 
believes that the safety benefits gained from compliance would be 
minimal. According to RVIA, the fatality rate for van-based motor homes 
is 0.00039 per 100,000 annual vehicle miles. Based on this rate, RVIA 
estimates that the safety benefit of having van-based motor homes 
comply with the upper interior head protection requirements would be 
negligible--less than one fatality per year. Although RVIA did not 
provide a similar analysis for CVs, it argued that the safety benefits 
in the case of CVs would also be quite low.

B. NTEA

    The NTEA describes itself as the nation's only trade association 
representing distributors and manufacturers of multi-stage produced 
work-related trucks, truck bodies and equipment. NTEA describes its 
average member company as a small business employing less than 300 
people that either manufactures specialized truck bodies and installs 
them on incomplete vehicles or installs truck bodies built by others 
onto incomplete vehicles. According to the NTEA petition, its member 
companies produce fire trucks, ambulances, utility company vehicles, 
aerial bucket trucks, delivery trucks and a variety of other 
specialized vehicles for commercial or vocational use. As is the case 
with manufacturers of CVs and motor homes, these manufacturers use 
incomplete vehicles provided by major manufacturers and either build or 
assemble a completed vehicle for a specified use using the chassis 
provided by another company.
    NTEA's petition indicates that its member companies produce 
approximately 377,000 vehicles annually that are subject to the upper 
interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. The petition 
further states that these vehicles are produced in at least 1,200 
identified configurations. NTEA contends that the variety of these 
different configurations precludes certification to the upper interior 
head protection requirements

[[Page 41350]]

because it is impossible to identify a representative ``generic'' 
vehicle interior configuration for this great variety of vehicles. 
Further, NTEA believes that a ``generic'' configuration is ill-suited 
to Standard No. 201 as minor differences in a vehicle interior can 
affect compliance with the upper interior requirements. Other methods 
that NTEA members use to meet their certification responsibilities, 
such as relying on the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's certification, 
are of little value in regard to the upper interior as the areas 
originally certified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer are either 
insufficient or would be negated by necessary modifications. Therefore, 
according to NTEA, its member companies bear a heavy burden--each final 
stage manufacturer must devote significant resources in an effort to 
develop compliant vehicles.
    In NTEA's view, the burden of complying with the upper interior 
head impact requirements is simply too great. The organization states 
that its members--as small businesses--do not have the required 
technical expertise and resources. Moreover, the NTEA petition 
indicates that compliance testing for a typical vehicle produced by one 
of its member companies would cost between $14,000 and $17,000. As 
these costs are simply compliance test costs, and not development or 
prototype testing, NTEA believes that the actual costs of compliance 
would be much greater. Since its members do not produce large numbers 
of identical vehicles, NTEA contends that it would not be possible for 
its members to absorb the costs of countermeasure development and 
compliance testing without raising the price of each finished vehicle 
to a point higher than the market will bear.
    NTEA's petition indicates that there are a number of practical 
obstacles to compliance with the upper interior head protection 
requirements of Standard No. 201. As a large number of the vehicles 
produced by NTEA members are work trucks, work vans, emergency 
vehicles, or police vehicles, many of them are produced with bulkheads 
or dividers needed to ensure that objects or people that must remain in 
the rear of the vehicle actually do so. Installation of these 
bulkheads, according to NTEA, is likely to require relocation of target 
areas originally certified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, 
adding to the burden of the NTEA member. Further, NTEA submits that, as 
a practical matter, it would be physically impossible for all of its 
member companies to even have the opportunity to perform compliance 
testing. According to the NTEA petition, only two independent test labs 
are available in the United States to perform the required compliance 
tests. At their current capacity, NTEA estimates that these facilities 
could not complete compliance testing for the 2003 model year vehicles 
produced by NTEA members in less than 64 years.

III. Standard 201 and Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages

    The member companies of RVIA and NTEA are manufacturers who produce 
vehicles in two or more stages. These multi-stage manufacturers 
purchase incomplete vehicles from major manufacturers to serve as the 
basis for specialty vehicles to meet certain uses and markets. For 
example, an NTEA member company may purchase incomplete pickup trucks 
from a major manufacturer and add a specialty body in place of the 
standard bed. Rather than purchase a complete truck and discard the 
original bed, the manufacturer of the specialty vehicle, i.e., the 
final stage manufacturer, purchases trucks that are complete except for 
the bed. In more complicated conversions, the final stage manufacturer 
may purchase a ``cutaway,'' a van chassis where the body terminates 
just behind the B-pillar, and add a specialized cargo body or a body 
designed to transport occupants such as an ambulance. The processes 
employed by RVIA members in producing motor homes and conversion vans 
are substantially similar. Incomplete vehicles are purchased from 
larger companies and the original vehicle is completed and/or modified 
for a specialty use or market.
    In many cases, the final stage manufacturer is able to ``pass-
through,'' i.e., rely, on the original manufacturer's certification 
that the incomplete vehicle meets certain standards. For example, a 
final stage manufacturer purchasing a cutaway or pickup truck with a 
complete cab will ordinarily rely on the original manufacturer's 
certification that the cab meets the requirements of Standard No. 101, 
Controls and Displays. The degree to which a final stage manufacturer 
may ``pass through'' the original manufacturer's certification is 
dependent on a number of factors, including whether the original 
manufacturer certified the original vehicle to a particular standard, 
the degree to which the final stage manufacturer's completion of the 
vehicle affects that original certification, and the complexity of the 
particular standard involved.
    In the case of the upper interior head protection requirements of 
Standard No. 201, the agency's August 18, 1995 final rule establishing 
those requirements contained a number of provisions intended to address 
the particular circumstances of multi-stage manufacturers and their 
products. As indicated above, S6.1 of Standard No. 201 contains four 
different schedules under which compliance with the upper interior head 
protection requirements is ``phased-in.'' NHTSA adopted these phase-in 
schedules to afford manufacturers sufficient leadtime to bring their 
vehicles into compliance with the new upper interior head protection 
requirements. In the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more 
stages, S6.1.4 did not require multi-stage vehicles to comply until the 
final year of the phase-in. By doing so, the agency intended to prevent 
the possibility that final stage manufacturers would be dependent on a 
source of incomplete vehicles that had not yet been brought into 
compliance with the upper interior impact requirements (60 FR 43049).
    In addition to creating a separate phase-in schedule for multi-
stage manufacturers, the August 1995 final rule also contained an 
exclusion for all targets in walk-in vans and restricted application of 
the upper interior head protection requirements in ambulances and motor 
homes to those target areas forward of a transverse vertical plane 
located 600 millimeters (24 inches) rearward of the seating reference 
point of the driver's seating position. Acting in response to petitions 
for reconsideration, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718) that further restricted 
application of the upper interior head protection requirements to 
vehicles likely to be built in two or more stages. In response to 
petitions for reconsideration questioning the ability of school bus 
manufacturers to bring smaller school buses into compliance with the 
upper interior head protection requirements, the agency excluded small 
buses with a GVWR above 3,860 kilograms (8,500 pounds) from the upper 
interior requirements. This decision was based on the fact that 
fatality rates for these vehicles were extremely low while the 
compliance costs for meeting the upper interior requirements were 
relatively high (62 FR 16720).
    NHTSA has, however, previously considered the question of exempting 
vehicles built in two or more stages from the upper interior head 
protection requirements of Standard No. 201. Comments submitted prior 
to issuance of the August 1995 final rule by RVIA and NTEA raised many 
of the issues now outlined in their recent petitions for rulemaking. At 
that time, the agency

[[Page 41351]]

determined that there was no compelling reason not to require vehicles 
manufactured by NTEA and RVIA members to meet the new head protection 
requirements. This determination was based on the belief that these 
manufacturers could rely on the certification of the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers for some of the target areas involved. For the remainder 
of the target areas involved, NHTSA believed that multi-stage 
manufacturers could develop cooperative tests to reduce test burdens 
for individual manufacturers and that these individual manufacturers 
could reduce testing costs by testing individual components prior to 
their inclusion in a completed vehicle. Therefore, the agency's Final 
Economic Assessment (FEA) for the August 1995 final rule concluded that 
the compliance test costs would be between $2000 and $4000 per model. 
Because final stage manufacturers could rely on the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's certification and had means available to design and test 
countermeasures for the remaining target areas, the August 1995 final 
rule did not establish any special exemptions for multi-stage 
manufacturers other than to exclude walk-in vans and the rear areas of 
motor homes and ambulances.

IV. Interim Final Rule

    The amendments extending the phase-in for vehicles built in two or 
more stages are being published as an interim final rule. Accordingly, 
the revised compliance date is fully in effect 30 days after the date 
of this document's publication. No further regulatory action by the 
agency is necessary to make these regulations effective.
    These amendments have been published as an interim final rule as 
insufficient time is available to provide for prior notice and 
opportunity for comment. Under the phase-in schedule in effect prior to 
the issuance of this rule, manufacturers of vehicles built in two or 
more stages would have to comply with the upper interior head 
protection requirements on or before September 1, 2002. If the agency 
were to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, the final rule would 
likely be issued within weeks of that date. Both the RVIA and NTEA 
petitions indicate that manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles have, in 
their efforts to bring vehicles into compliance with these 
requirements, discovered that substantial obstacles prevent their 
members from doing so. Moreover, RVIA and NTEA allege that prior agency 
estimates of development and compliance costs were dramatically 
understated while the availability of ``pass through'' certification 
was overstated. Because the agency has granted the petitions submitted 
by NTEA and RVIA and will be studying the issues raised in those 
petitions, the agency believes that the best course is to postpone the 
compliance date until the issues raised by the petitions are resolved. 
Accordingly, this interim final rule delays the date on which vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages must comply with the upper interior 
head protection requirements to September 1, 2003.
    NHTSA is aware that delaying the compliance date could arguably 
result in a decrease in safety if multi-stage manufacturers would 
otherwise have the capability to meet the upper interior head 
protection requirements. Preliminary estimates indicate that the safety 
benefit of requiring one year's production of vehicles manufactured in 
two or more stages to meet the upper interior head protection 
requirements is approximately 18-24 equivalent lives saved each year 
for the front seats and one equivalent life saved each year for the 
rear seats. If multi-stage vehicle manufacturers were able to produce 
vehicles meeting the upper interior head protection requirements, these 
benefits will be lost during the period of the extension. However, it 
also appears that NHTSA may have underestimated the difficulties faced 
by final stage manufacturers in meeting upper interior head protection 
requirements. If, as alleged by NTEA and RVIA, the compliance costs and 
test burdens imposed by the upper interior head protection requirements 
are so great that final stage manufacturers cannot bear them and remain 
in operation, continued maintenance of the September 1, 2002 compliance 
date would not produce any safety benefit and would have serious and 
undesirable economic effects.
    The RVIA and NTEA petitions raise a number of points regarding 
NHTSA's earlier estimates of the costs that the upper interior head 
protection requirements would impose on multi-stage manufacturers. 
NHTSA believes that some of these arguments could have merit. The 
agency's belief that cooperative testing could lower the compliance 
costs of the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard 
No. 201 may have discounted the degree to which competition between 
final stage manufacturers of conversion vans and motorhomes prevented 
sharing of information regarding vehicle interiors. Insofar as 
conversion vans are concerned, each manufacturer strives to provide 
interior designs and features that differentiate their products from 
those of their competitors. As the uniqueness of the interior and the 
features incorporated into that interior are primary concerns of 
conversion van buyers, competitors are not likely to share their 
designs or the materials used in those designs with their competitors.
    NHTSA also believed that final stage manufacturers could control 
compliance costs by testing components individually rather than 
completing a full prototype vehicle and then performing compliance 
tests. Unfortunately, experience in testing to the upper interior head 
protection requirements has revealed that such component testing is not 
entirely practical. As the upper interior head protection requirements 
specify that impacts be made into specific target areas of a vehicle, 
the target areas must be located. While incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers may precisely locate these target areas through computer-
aided design before a vehicle is complete, final stage manufacturers 
must locate the target areas on the vehicle provided to them. Due to 
variations in target location, component testing may not be an adequate 
predictor of compliance. For similar reasons, final stage manufacturer 
modifications, such as raising or replacing the original roof, will, in 
most cases, result in relocation of specified target areas. Once 
relocated, the new target area must meet the requirements of the 
Standard. Given the degree to which final stage manufacturers modify 
their products in order to meet consumer demand or other requirements, 
these manufacturers may not be able to rely on the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's certification for any of the designated target areas 
inside the vehicle. Even in those instances in which an area of the 
vehicle is not modified by an intermediate or final stage manufacturer, 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer certifications appear to be 
encompassing smaller areas of the upper interior of the vehicles than 
was anticipated. Thus the unique characteristics of the upper interior 
head protection requirements of Standard No. 201, where both compliance 
and the test burden of ensuring compliance may be markedly changed by 
any modifications to the shape of the vehicle or its interior, may 
preclude final stage manufacturers from relying on a pass-through 
certification from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to 
evaluate the potential impacts of their proposed and

[[Page 41352]]

final rules. When NHTSA issued the final rule establishing the upper 
interior head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 201 in 
August 1995, the agency determined that the new requirements would 
impose a burden on small manufacturers, but that this burden would not 
result in a significant economic impact.
    The petitions filed by RVIA and NTEA dispute this finding and 
submit information gained from efforts to meet the upper interior 
requirements that suggests that NHTSA's prior estimates may have been 
incorrect. As NHTSA has granted the NTEA and RVIA petitions, the agency 
is now engaged in a rulemaking action. The agency's consideration of 
the issues raised by NTEA and RVIA cannot be concluded in sufficient 
time to maintain the original September 1, 2002 compliance date.
    NHTSA has not yet resolved these issues, so this interim final rule 
extends the compliance date to September 1, 2003 to afford the agency 
time to take further action. Although RVIA and NTEA requested that the 
agency extend the compliance date to March 1, 2004, NHTSA does not 
believe that such an extension is either necessary or desirable. Future 
rulemaking can, if needed, further modify the deadline established by 
this interim final rule.
    As indicated above, the agency believes that there is good cause to 
find that providing notice and comment in connection with this 
rulemaking action is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the 
public interest.
    The agency requests written comments on extending the phase-in for 
vehicles manufactured for two or more stages. All comments submitted in 
response to this document will be considered by the agency. Following 
the close of the comment period, the agency will publish a document in 
the Federal Register responding to the comments and, if appropriate, 
will make further amendments to the extension of the phase-in 
requirements amended by this interim final rule.

V. Written Comments

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this interim final 
rule. It is requested, but not required, that two copies be submitted 
to the Office of Docket Management, Room PL-401, Nassif Building, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    All comments must be limited to 15 pages in length. Necessary 
attachments may be appended to those submissions without regard to the 
15-page limit (49 CFR 553.21). This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    Written comments to the public docket must be received by July 18, 
2002.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date will be considered and will be available for examination 
in the docket at the above address before and after that date. To the 
extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be 
considered. However, the rulemaking action may proceed at any time 
after that date.
    NHTSA will continue to file relevant material in the docket as it 
becomes available after the closing date, and it is recommended that 
interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons who wish to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the docket should enclose, in the envelope with their 
comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
    Copies of all comments will be placed in the Docket for this 
interim final rule in the Office of Docket Management, Room PL-401, 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Economic Impacts

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This rulemaking document 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 burden on manufacturers 
and extends the compliance date for existing regulatory requirements 
for a period of one year. The agency believes that this impact does not 
warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

B. Environmental Impacts

    We have not conducted an evaluation of the impacts of this final 
rule under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rulemaking 
action extends the date by which manufacturers of vehicles built in two 
or more stages must comply with the upper interior head impact 
protection requirements of Standard No. 201. It does not impose any 
change that would have any environmental impacts. Accordingly, no 
environmental assessment is required.

C. Energy Impacts

    This interim final rule, which extends the date by which 
manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages must comply with 
the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201, 
does not have ``a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy,'' as defined by Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. At this point, therefore, this action is not a 
``significant energy action'' under Executive Order 13211 and no 
``Statement of Energy Effects'' is required.

D. Impacts on Small Entities

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the agency has 
considered the impact this rulemaking will have on small entities. As 
this action will provide a short term benefit for small entities by 
delaying the compliance date, it will have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities within the context of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) requires 
each agency to evaluate the potential effects of a rule on small 
businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has set size 
standards for determining if a business within a specific industrial 
classification is a small business. The Standard Industrial 
Classification code used by the SBA for Motor Vehicles and Passenger 
Car Bodies (3711) defines a small manufacturer as one having 1,000 
employees or fewer.
    Most of the intermediate and final stage manufacturers of vehicles 
built in

[[Page 41353]]

two or more stages have 1,000 or fewer employees. This interim final 
rule extends the date by which these manufacturers must produce 
vehicles that meet the upper interior head protection requirements of 
Standard No. 201. Although this action does not modify those 
requirements, it provides these small businesses additional time to 
meet them. In the agency's view, issuance of this interim final rule is 
necessary to prevent adverse effects that may have been underestimated 
in a prior rulemaking establishing the requirements at issue. For this 
reason, this interim final rule regarding the compliance date will have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The agency has performed a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
and placed a copy in the docket.

E. Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to 
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' E.O. 13132 defines the term ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' to include regulations that 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.'' Under 
E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism 
implication, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that 
is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the 
funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State 
and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials 
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This interim final rule will 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 as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

F. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million annually. This action, which extends the compliance 
date by which manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages 
must meet the upper interior head impact protection requirements of 
Standard No. 201, will not result in additional expenditures by state, 
local or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. 
Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant 
to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no information collection requirements in this rule.

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

If you have any responses to these questions, please forward them to 
Otto Matheke, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

J. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined 
under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety 
risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we 
must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned 
rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable 
to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by us.
    This rulemaking does not have a disproportionate effect on 
children. The primary effect of this rulemaking is to extend the 
compliance date by which manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more 
stages must meet the upper interior head protection requirements of 
Standard No. 201. The interim final rule may have an impact on the 
safety of multi-stage vehicles. However, this impact is likely to be 
evenly distributed across the population of users of these vehicles, 
including users of work and transport trucks.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions 
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. 
In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult with voluntary, 
private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of organizations 
generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially 
applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to 
provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not 
using such standards.
    We are not aware of any available and potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards, i.e., ones regarding the performance of 
vehicle interior components in protecting against head impacts. 
Therefore, this rule is not based on any voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as 
follows:

[[Page 41354]]

PART 571.201--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 21411, 21415, 21417, and 21466; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S6.1.4.1 and S6.1.4.2 as 
follows:
* * * * *
S6.1.4.1  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and 
before September 1, 2003 are not required to comply with the 
requirements specified in S7.
S6.1.4.2  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2003 shall 
comply with the requirements specified in S7.
* * * * *

    Issued on: June 13, 2002.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-15334 Filed 6-13-02; 4:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P