[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51706-51711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22010]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 02-12480; Notice 2]
[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, 2003, until September 1, 2006. The agency is 
issuing this interim final rule to provide 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. Since 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

[[Page 51707]]

expects to take final action before September 1, 2006.

DATES: This interim final rule becomes effective on September 1, 2003. 
Comments on this interim rule are due no later than September 29, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 
12480] by any of the following methods:
    [sbull] Web site: http://dms.dot.gov Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    [sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    [sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
    [sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 
pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    [sbull] Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. 
Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Analyses and 
Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except 
Federal Holidays.

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 and the June 2002 Interim Final Rule
III. Comments in Response to the June 2002 Interim Final Rule
IV. RVIA and NTEA Petitions For Rulemaking
V. Interim Final Rule
VI. Public Participation
VII. 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), was improved head impact 
protection from interior components of passenger cars.
    The final rule, which mandated compliance with the new requirements 
beginning on September 1, 1998, significantly expanded the scope of 
Standard No. 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), 
provided manufacturers with four alternate phase-in schedules for 
complying with the upper interior impact requirements. First, as set 
forth in S6.1.1, manufacturers could 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 provided that 
manufacturers could 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 a third phase-in schedule set forth in S6.1.3, 
manufacturers did not have to produce any complying vehicles before 
September 1, 1999. However, all vehicles produced on or after that date 
had to 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 and the June 2002 Interim Final Rule

    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 protection requirements of 
the Standard. The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) filed a 
petition for rulemaking on November 27, 2001 seeking similar relief for 
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. 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.
    NHTSA published an interim final rule in the Federal Register (67 
FR 41348, June 18, 2002) extending the date by which vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages must comply with the upper interior 
head protection requirements. As we explained in the

[[Page 51708]]

preamble to the June 18, 2002 interim final rule, the agency found that 
the RVIA and NTEA petitions raised questions regarding NHTSA's earlier 
estimates of the compliance costs that the upper interior head 
protection requirements imposed on multi-stage manufacturers. We 
indicated that some of the points raised by the RVIA and NTEA could 
have merit, including the possibility that NHTSA had overestimated the 
degree by which cooperative and component, rather than full vehicle, 
testing could lower compliance costs. We also observed that incomplete 
vehicle manufacturers who supply unfinished vehicles to intermediate 
and final stage manufacturers appeared to be certifying smaller areas 
of the upper interior of the vehicles than was anticipated when the 
upper interior head protection requirements were promulgated.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to 
evaluate the potential impacts of their proposed and final rules on 
small businesses. 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 October 2001 petition 
filed by RVIA and the November 2001 petition filed by NTEA disputed the 
agency's position that compliance with the upper interior head 
protection requirements of Standard No. 201 would not be unduly 
burdensome. Both petitioners argued that efforts by their member 
companies to meet the upper interior requirement suggest that NHTSA's 
prior estimates may have been incorrect.
    The member companies of RVIA and NTEA are manufacturers who 
purchase incomplete vehicles from major manufacturers to serve as the 
basis for specialty vehicles to meet certain uses and markets. As such, 
they may face a variety of challenges in certifying that their vehicles 
meet applicable safety standards. To afford final stage manufacturers 
sufficient leadtime to comply with the new upper interior head 
protection requirements, the agency's August 18, 1995 final rule stated 
that final stage manufacturers did not have to meet the standard until 
the last year of the phase-in. Nonetheless, our June 2002 interim final 
rule indicated that NHTSA could, when establishing the aforementioned 
deadline, have underestimated the difficulties faced by final stage 
manufacturers in meeting the new requirements.
    In particular, we indicated that cooperative testing--which we had 
considered as one option for reducing costs when we issued the final 
rule in 1995--might not be practicable depending on the uniqueness of 
the vehicle interior and the features incorporated into it. In this 
market, where the uniqueness of the interior and the features 
incorporated into that interior are primary concerns of buyers, 
competitors are not likely to share their designs. We also observed 
that reducing compliance test costs by testing components outside of a 
vehicle rather than testing a complete vehicle may not be as practical 
as we had estimated in the 1995 final rule. Finally, we noted that 
final stage manufacturer modifications, such as raising or replacing 
the original roof, would likely result in relocation of certain 
specified target areas and reduce the ability of these manufacturers to 
rely on the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's certification that the 
vehicle met the standard for the target areas at their original 
location.
    Because NHTSA needed further time to complete rulemaking, we issued 
an interim final rule extending the existing compliance date for final 
stage manufacturers to September 1, 2003. Although RVIA and NTEA 
requested that the agency extend the compliance date to March 1, 2004, 
we indicated our belief that such an extension was not necessary and 
that any future rulemaking could further modify the deadline 
established by this interim final rule.

III. Comments in Response to the June 2002 Interim Final Rule

    The comment period for the June 2002 interim final rule closed on 
August 19, 2002. NHTSA did not receive any comments regarding the June 
2002 interim final rule. However, as noted below in Section V, the 
agency has received a comment opposing additional extensions to the 
compliance date as requested by the January 20, 2003 RVIA and February 
6, 2003 NTEA petitions for rulemaking.

IV. RVIA and NTEA Petitions For Rulemaking

    On January 20, 2003, RVIA submitted a petition for rulemaking 
requesting that NHTSA grant an extension of the September 1, 2003 
compliance date applicable for vehicles built in two or more stages to 
September 1, 2004. The organization stated that conversion vehicle and 
motorhome manufacturers are often small business entities who need 
additional time to develop required safety devices and designs. These 
small businesses also, according to RVIA, would need additional time to 
conduct research and certification testing on their vehicles. RVIA 
noted that since NHTSA was still completing rulemaking that may involve 
changes to the Standard as it applies to multi-stage vehicles, its 
members could not complete all the necessary testing to conform to any 
new requirements. Accordingly, RVIA indicated that an additional 
extension would be appropriate.
    On February 6, 2003, NTEA submitted a petition for rulemaking 
seeking to extend the compliance date for vehicles built in two or more 
stages from September 1, 2003 to a future date that would provide its 
members with sufficient time to comply with any new requirements 
imposed by the pending rulemaking. In support of its request, NTEA 
observed that the preamble to the agency's June 18, 2002 interim final 
rule indicated that extension of the compliance deadline for multi-
stage manufacturers was necessitated by NHTSA's ongoing consideration 
of potential changes to the upper interior head protection requirements 
applicable to these manufacturers. Since NHTSA had not yet completed 
the rulemaking action that led to the original grant of an extension, 
NTEA stated that the agency should further extend the compliance date 
to complete the rulemaking and provide manufacturers of multi-stage 
vehicles with sufficient leadtime to meet any new requirements issued 
as a result of that rulemaking.
    The petition also referred NHTSA to some of the issues raised by 
NTEA in its November 2001 petition. In particular, NTEA reiterated that 
its members are small businesses with limited financial resources. 
Given these limited resources and its estimate that compliance would 
impose costs of more than $160,000,000 on the work truck industry, NTEA 
argued that requiring its members to meet the existing upper interior 
head protection provisions of Standard No. 201 is economically 
impracticable. Moreover, NTEA argued again that the volume of testing 
that would have to be completed by its members--who produce large 
numbers of unique vehicles customized for different applications--also 
made compliance impracticable.
    Since NHTSA had not completed its ongoing rulemaking action and 
would not do so in time for its members to comply with the September 1, 
2003 compliance date, NTEA requested that NHTSA extend the compliance 
deadline for multi-stage manufacturers to an

[[Page 51709]]

appropriate date after NHTSA completes the pending rulemaking.

V. Interim Final Rule

    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 in 
the fall of 2001 disputed this finding and submitted information 
suggesting that NHTSA's prior estimate of the burdens imposed by the 
head impact protection requirements may have been incorrect. NHTSA has 
granted the NTEA and RVIA petitions and is now engaged in a rulemaking 
action. Unfortunately, NHTSA's consideration of the aforementioned 
rulemaking action has not yet been concluded. The compliance date set 
by our June 2002 interim final rule--September 1, 2003--is now only 
weeks away.
    Given the imminence of the September 1, 2003 compliance date and 
the fact that NHTSA has not yet issued any formal proposal responding 
to the original NTEA and RVIA petitions for rulemaking, the agency has 
determined that it is appropriate to again extend the deadline. In 
order to minimize the possibility of an additional extension, this 
interim final rule extends the compliance date for vehicles built in 
two or more stages for an additional three years. Accordingly, vehicles 
built in two or more stages are required to meet the upper interior 
head protection requirements of Standard No. 201 on or after September 
1, 2006. However, as we noted when issuing the June 2002 interim final 
rule, future rulemaking can, if needed, further modify the deadline.
    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. NHTSA 
notes that time constraints prevent the completion of notice and 
comment rulemaking before the current September 1, 2003 compliance 
date. Moreover, this interim final rule does not alter any provisions 
other than the foregoing compliance date. Substantive changes to 
Standard No. 201, if any, will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking.
    Although NHTSA did not receive any comments regarding the extension 
of the compliance date contained in our June 2002 interim final rule, 
the agency has received a letter opposing further extensions. A 
manufacturer of motorhomes and camper vans, Home And Park Motorhomes 
(Home and Park), indicated that it understood that RVIA was requesting 
that NHTSA further extend the September 1, 2003 compliance date. Based 
on its belief that NHTSA had extended the compliance date to be sure 
that final stage manufacturers would have the opportunity to purchase 
incomplete vehicles offering pass-through certification, Home and Park 
indicated that it had brought its vehicles into compliance in 
anticipation of having to comply with the upper interior head 
protection requirements by September 1, 2003. Having expended 
considerable resources to do so, Home and Park stated that further 
extensions of the compliance deadline would penalize conscientious 
manufacturers and delay introduction of safer interiors for 
recreational vehicles.
    NHTSA is aware that delaying the compliance date could arguably 
result in a decrease in safety if multi-stage manufacturers that have 
the capability to meet the upper interior head protection requirements 
do not do so. When we issued our June 2002 interim final rule, we 
estimated 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. Although this estimate may overstate the 
safety risks of extending the compliance date due to the fact that many 
recreational vehicles and conversion vans are not driven as much as 
more conventional vehicles, these benefits could be lost during the 
period of the extension.
    The potential safety loss would only be realized if multi-stage 
manufacturers would be able to meet the upper interior head protection 
requirements while maintaining production. When issuing our June 2002 
interim final rule, we indicated that NHTSA may have underestimated the 
costs and difficulties faced by final stage manufacturers in meeting 
the upper interior head protection requirements. While Home and Park 
indicated that it had brought its vehicles into compliance, it appears 
to have done so based on the expectation that the compliance date was 
extended to increase the availability of pass-through certification. 
However, a limit on the ability to rely on pass-through certification 
was recognized by NHTSA as but one source of the challenges facing 
final stage manufacturers. Our June 2002 interim final rule cited a 
number of reasons why the agency believed that further relief for 
multi-stage manufacturers might be appropriate.
    For reasons more fully discussed in our June 18, 2002 interim final 
rule, NHTSA has granted the NTEA and RVIA petitions and is now engaged 
in a rulemaking action considering whether to adopt further amendments 
to Standard No. 201. NHTSA has not yet resolved these issues, so this 
interim final rule extends the compliance date to September 1, 2006 to 
afford the agency time to take further action.
    We note also that in extending the compliance date for vehicles 
built in two or more stages, NHTSA is also extending the compliance 
date for vehicles modified by alterers. Unlike final stage 
manufacturers, alterers begin with a certified vehicle and modify it to 
meet the needs of a particular market. Giving alterers additional time 
to comply with a standard allows the alterer to take a certified 
vehicle out of compliance, an action that NHTSA is normally reluctant 
to take. However, the challenges involved in meeting Standard No. 201 
that are faced by final stage manufacturers also apply to alterers. If 
a vehicle manufacturer waits until the last possible moment to certify 
vehicles, alterers will not have the opportunity to do any engineering 
analysis to determine if the alterations affect compliance. Alterers 
also have limited engineering resources and testing capabilities. This 
may be telling where the alterer needs to change an original design to 
meet the demands of a particular application.
    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.

VI. Public Participation

    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

[[Page 51710]]

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 September 
29, 2003.
    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.

VII. 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 three years. The agency believes that this impact is so 
minimal as to 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. 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 (Pub. L. 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 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 performed a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for 
the previous one-year extension and placed a copy in the docket. See 
``Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Head Impact Protection, FMVSS 
201,'' June 2002, Docket  02-12480. That analysis is 
applicable to this three-year extension as well.

D. 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.

E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 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

[[Page 51711]]

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.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no information collection requirements in this rule.

G. 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.

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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

0
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as 
follows:

PART 571.201--[AMENDED]

0
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.


0
2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S6.1 introductory text, 
S6.1.4.1, S6.1.4.2 and S6.2 introductory text to read as follows:
* * * * *
    S6.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998. Except as 
provided in S6.3 and S6.1.4, for vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1998 and before September 1, 2002, a percentage of the 
manufacturer's production, as specified in S6.1.1, S6.1.2, or S6.1.3 
shall conform, at the manufacturer's option, to either S6.1(a) or 
S6.1(b). For vehicles manufactured by final stage manufacturers on or 
after September 1, 1998 and before September 1, 2006, a percentage of 
the manufacturer's production as specified in S6.1.4 shall, except as 
provided in S6.3, conform, to either S6.1(a) or S6.1(b). The 
manufacturer shall select the option by the time it certifies the 
vehicle and may not thereafter select a different option for the 
vehicle.
* * * * *
    S6.1.4.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and 
before September 1, 2006 are not required to comply with the 
requirements specified in S7.
    S6.1.4.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2006 shall 
comply with the requirements specified in S7.
* * * * *
    S6.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 and 
vehicles built in two or more stages manufactured after September 1, 
2006. Except as provided in S6.1.4 and S6.3, vehicles manufactured on 
or after September 1, 2002 shall, when tested under the conditions of 
S8, conform, at the manufacturer's option, to either S6.2(a) or 
S6.2(b). Vehicles manufactured by final stage manufacturers on or after 
September 1, 2006 shall, except as provided in S6.3, when tested under 
the conditions of S8, conform, at the manufacturer's option, to either 
S6.2(a) or S6.2(b). The manufacturer shall select the option by the 
time it certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a different 
option for the vehicle.
* * * * *

    Issued on August 22, 2003.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-22010 Filed 8-25-03; 2:09 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P