[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 123 (Monday, June 28, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36038-36056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-14564]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 555, 567, 568, 571 and 573

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


Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: Today's document proposes to amend five different parts of 
title 49 to establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme for addressing 
the certification issues related to vehicles built in two or more 
stages and, to a lesser degree, to altered vehicles. The proposal, if 
adopted would create a new temporary exemption process limited to final 
stage manufacturers and alterers, would better allocate legal 
responsibility among incomplete and final stage manufacturers, and 
would provide an automatic one year lead time to new safety 
requirements for final stage manufacturers and alterers unless the 
agency determines that a longer or shorter time period is appropriate.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than August 27, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 
03-15817] by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     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 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call 
Charles Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-0247.
    For legal issues, you may call Rebecca MacPherson, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992.

[[Page 36039]]

    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Negotiated Rulemaking Process
III. Summary of the Proposal
IV. Discussion of Issues
    A. Legal Requirements
    B. Costs Associated With Certification Responsibilities
    C. Prohibition Against Manufacturer-Oriented Exemptions
    D. Need To Assure Safety of Vehicles
    E. Allocation of Certification Responsibility
    F. Issues Faced by Alterers of Completed Vehicles
    G. Issues not Addressed by the Negotiated Rulemaking Process
    H. Specifics of the Proposed Rule
    1. 49 CFR Part 555
    2. 49 CFR Part 567
    3. 49 CFR Part 568
    4. 49 CFR Part 571
    5. 49 CFR Part 573
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    The certification problems related to vehicles built in two or more 
stages have troubled both the automotive industry and the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) almost since the agency's 
creation. An early set of NHTSA regulations on this subject was 
overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals thirty years ago. 
Rex Chainbelt v. Volpe, 486 F.2d. 757 (7th Cir. 1973); appeal after 
remand, Rex Chainbelt v. Brinegar, 511 F.2d 1215 (7th Cir. 1975). The 
court's decision focused on chassis cabs and stated that for such 
vehicles a ``dual certification'' was required: a partial certification 
by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and a complementary partial 
certification by the final stage manufacturer, resulting in a fully 
certified vehicle. In response, the agency amended 49 CFR part 567.5, 
Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more 
stages, and part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to 
define ``chassis cabs'' and establish special certification 
requirements for chassis cab manufacturers, which are usually large 
vehicle manufacturers such as General Motors Corporation (GM) and Ford 
Motor Company (Ford).
    Pursuant to these regulations, manufacturers of chassis cabs are 
required to place on the incomplete vehicle a certification label 
stating under what conditions the chassis cab has been certified. This 
is commonly referred to as ``pass-through certification.'' As long as a 
subsequent manufacturer meets the conditions of the certification 
label, that manufacturer may rely on this certification and pass it 
through when certifying the completed vehicle.
    However, the amended regulations did not impose corresponding 
certification responsibilities on manufacturers of incomplete vehicles 
other than chassis cabs (e.g., incomplete vans, cut-away chassis, 
stripped chassis and chassis cowls).
    49 CFR part 568 requires the manufacturers of all incomplete 
vehicles to provide with each incomplete vehicle an incomplete vehicle 
document (IVD). This document details, with varying degrees of 
specificity, the types of future manufacturing contemplated by the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer and must provide, for each applicable 
safety standard, one of three statements that a subsequent manufacturer 
can rely on when certifying compliance of the vehicle, as finally 
manufactured, to some or all of all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards (FMVSS).
    First, the IVD may state, with respect to a particular safety 
standard, that the vehicle, when completed, will conform to the 
standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the 
incomplete vehicle. This representation is most often made with respect 
to chassis cabs, since a significant portion of the occupant 
compartment is already complete.
    Second, the IVD may provide a statement for a particular standard 
or set of standards of specific conditions of final manufacture under 
which the completed vehicle will conform to the standard. This 
statement is applicable in those instances in which the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer has provided all or a portion of the equipment 
needed to comply with the standard, but subsequent manufacturing might 
be expected to change the vehicle such that it may not comply with the 
standard once finally manufactured. For example, the incomplete vehicle 
could be equipped with a brake system that would, in many instances, 
enable the vehicle to comply with the brake standard once the vehicle 
was complete, but that would not enable it to comply if the vehicle's 
weight or center of gravity were significantly altered.
    Third, the IVD may identify those standards for which no 
representation of conformity is made because conformity with the 
standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete 
vehicle. Thus, a manufacturer of a stripped chassis may be unable to 
make any representations about conformity to any crashworthiness 
standards if the incomplete vehicle does not contain an occupant 
compartment. When issuing the original set of regulations regarding 
certification of vehicles built in two or more stages, NHTSA indicated 
that it believed final stage manufacturers would be able to rely on the 
representations made in the IVDs when certifying the completed 
vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSSs.
    The distinction between chassis cabs and other forms of incomplete 
vehicles created by the 1977 amendment of 49 CFR part 567, 
Certification, was based on NHTSA's belief that incomplete vehicles 
other than chassis cabs may be insufficiently manufactured to justify 
any type of certification statement, given its legal implications, by 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. With respect to these other 
vehicles, NHTSA maintained its position that the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer should be able to provide sufficient information in the 
IVD to inform the final stage manufacturer about the extent to which it 
could rely on manufacturing operations of the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer when determining whether additional engineering resources 
were needed to certify compliance with all applicable standards in good 
faith. See 42 FR 37,814 (July 25, 1977).
    The distinction between certification responsibilities of 
manufacturers of chassis cabs and the responsibilities of manufacturers 
of other types of incomplete vehicles led to a successful challenge to 
a NHTSA regulation in the early 1990s. In 1987, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 
204, Steering column displacement, to expand the applicability of the 
standard from vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 
4,000 lb to vehicles with a GVWR of up to 6,500 lb. 52 FR 44893 
(November 23, 1987); denial of petitions for reconsideration: 54 FR 
24344 (June 7, 1989). This amendment had the effect of making the 
standard applicable to some types of vehicles typically manufactured in 
two or more stages. The National Truck and Equipment Association (NTEA) 
challenged those amendments as they applied to final stage 
manufacturers. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the challenged rule was 
not practicable for final stage manufacturers that cannot ``pass 
through'' the certification of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. 
National Truck and Equipment Association v. NHTSA, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th 
Cir. 1990). The court cited NHTSA's acknowledgement in the

[[Page 36040]]

preamble to the final rule that most final stage manufacturers are not 
capable of performing dynamic testing or in-house engineering analysis, 
as well as the fact that ``pass through'' certification was not 
available under the existing regulations unless the incomplete vehicle 
were a chassis cab. While the court's decision was technically limited 
to FMVSS No. 204, NHTSA recognized that the court's decision would 
likely be deemed equally applicable to other safety standards for which 
the cost of certification was high.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The distinction between certification responsibilities of 
manufacturers of chassis cabs and the responsibilities of manufacturers 
of other types of incomplete vehicles led to a successful challenge to 
a NHTSA regulation in the early 1990s.

II. Negotiated Rulemaking Process

    In December 1995, NHTSA convened a public meeting on the subject of 
certification of multistage vehicles. In the Federal Register notice 
announcing the meeting, the agency sought the participants' views on 
the feasibility of negotiated rulemaking on the subject (60 FR 57694; 
November 17, 1995). At the meeting, each identified group of 
participants indicated willingness to participate in a negotiated 
rulemaking to resolve the outstanding issues regarding certification. 
In 1998, NHTSA initiated a process to determine whether the various 
parties were still interested in participating in a negotiated process.
    As part of that process, NHTSA hired the Mediation Consortium as 
independent, neutral conveners. The Mediation Consortium interviewed 
various interested parties and advised NHTSA on the feasibility of 
conducting a negotiated rulemaking. Based upon these interviews, the 
Mediation Consortium tentatively determined that the issues, while both 
complex and contentious, were appropriate for possible resolution 
through negotiated rulemaking. Based upon the recommendation of the 
Mediation Consortium, and a desire to address the issues raised by the 
NTEA decision regarding the existing regulation, NHTSA published a 
notice of intent to convene a negotiated rulemaking committee, and 
sought the names of interested participants (64 FR 27499; May 20, 
1999).
    The chartered Committee originally consisted of 23 individuals, 
many, but not all of whom remained active in the negotiations 
throughout the negotiated rulemaking process, as well as two 
facilitators. The Committee was comprised of representatives from:
    (1) The incomplete vehicle manufacturer industry (GM, Ford, Motor 
Coach Industries (MCI), DaimlerChrysler, International Truck and Engine 
Corp. (International), Freightliner, and Workhorse Custom Chassis 
(Workhorse)),
    (2) The component industry (Atwood Mobile Products (Atwood) and 
Bornemann Products (Bornemann)),
    (3) The final stage manufacturer and alterer industry (NTEA, 
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA), Mark III 
Industries (Mark III), Environmental Industries Associations (EIA), 
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), Blue Bird Body Co. 
(Blue Bird), National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), and an 
individual representing the Ambulance Manufacturers Division and 
Manufactures Council of Small School Buses, Mid-Size Bus Manufacturers 
Association (AMD)),
    (4) The end users of the vehicle (American Automobile Association 
(AAA), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), National Association of 
Fleet Administrators (NAFA), and Center for Auto Safety (CFAS)),
    (5) Vehicle testing facilities (TRC Corp.), and
    (6) NHTSA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    In December 1999, NHTSA held a public meeting during which it 
broadly discussed the substantive issues that would be the subject of, 
and the ground rules that would apply to, the negotiated rulemaking 
process. Subsequent public meetings were held in February and March 
2000, and the meeting of the chartered committee commenced in May 2000. 
In the earlier meetings, the Committee members covered the ground rules 
associated with a negotiated rulemaking, discussed the history leading 
up to the formation of the Committee and stated their position vis-
[agrave]-vis the desired outcome. The subsequent meetings addressed 
several issues, including the likelihood of vehicles built in two or 
more stages being involved in motor vehicle crashes, the potential for 
legal liability when subsequent manufacturers complete manufacturing 
operations outside of the IVD or pass-through certification, and the 
perceived and actual needs of end consumers to have certain features on 
their vehicles.
    Another meeting was held in October 2000, during which all issues 
save two were largely resolved.\4\ First, International and 
Freightliner, who were not at the October 2000 meeting,\5\ expressed 
concerns in writing about incomplete vehicle manufacturers' taking 
legal responsibility for incomplete vehicles through representations 
made in the IVD. Since they offered no solution addressing their 
concerns, instead positing that there was no need to change the 
existing regulatory scheme, the issue was tabled until the next 
meeting. The other remaining issue, which addressed the possibility of 
excluding final stage

[[Page 36041]]

manufacturers from the coverage of certain safety standards in cases in 
which the manufacturer's production of the vehicle in question is 
limited, had been the most contentious issue at each of the previous 
meetings and largely impacted four members of the committee, NHTSA, 
NTEA, AMD, and RVIA. Given the limited impact on the Committee as a 
whole, as well as the potential for the issue to prevent any consensus 
on changes to parts 567 and 568, the Committee agreed to hold no more 
meetings unless the four interested parties were able to come to an 
agreement on how to address potential exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    NHTSA agreed to draft the Committee report for circulation among 
those Committee members still involved in the process. The Committee 
agreed that no decisions reached at the meeting were final. All 
Committee members have had an opportunity to review and comment on the 
Committee report.
    Committee members were given approximately ten weeks to review the 
draft report. Atwood, Bornemann, Blue Bird and Workhorse concurred with 
the report without further comment. NADA, GM, NTEA, AMD and RVIA 
offered extensive revisions, but generally concurred with the report's 
content, while TRC, NAFA, CFAS, EIA, and MCI did not comment on the 
draft report. NMEDA's comments were limited to concerns about the 
exclusion of vehicle modifiers from the proposed generic leadtime, the 
potential for allocation of recall responsibility to vehicle equipment 
manufacturers, and the applicability of new temporary exemption 
procedures to dynamic test conditions. Ford, Freightliner, 
International and DaimlerChrysler objected to the provision that NHTSA 
could allocate initial recall responsibility when the various involved 
manufacturers could not agree which was the responsible party. 
International disagreed with the provisions that would allocate legal 
responsibility among each manufacturer in the manufacturing process, 
stating it could not be responsible for further manufacturing 
operations outside of its control. It suggested a revision to the draft 
regulation that would prevent subsequent stage manufacturers from 
relying on any incomplete vehicle manufacturer representation if the 
subsequent stage manufacturer modified or added originally supplied 
components or systems in such a manner as to affect certification or 
the validity of stated weight ratings.
    Given the lack of consensus among the Committee members, NHTSA has 
decided to move forward with the publication of a SNPRM on which all 
Committee members are free to offer unrestricted comments. NHTSA 
recognizes that various Committee members compromised their initial 
positions as part of the negotiation process. Given the lack of 
consensus on all aspects of the draft regulation developed by the 
Committee, NHTSA believes it would be unfair to restrict comment on any 
portions of the proposal. Nevertheless, NHTSA believes that the draft 
regulation represents a significant improvement over the existing 
regulations governing the certification of vehicles built in two or 
more stages. Additionally, the agency recognizes that the negotiated 
rulemaking process afforded all participants a unique opportunity to 
fully evaluate proposed changes to the existing regulations, as well as 
possible alternative approaches. We believe the negotiated rulemaking 
process has been valuable in drafting amendments that balance the 
practical needs of all parties represented by the Committee. 
Accordingly, it has decided to propose amending the applicable 
regulations as drafted by the Committee.

III. Summary of the Proposal

    Today's document proposes to amend five different parts of title 49 
of the Code of Federal Regulations to establish a comprehensive 
regulatory scheme for addressing the certification issues related to 
vehicles built in two or more stages and, to a lesser degree, to 
altered vehicles.
    First, the agency proposes establishing a new subpart in 49 CFR 
part 555, Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper 
Standards, that would be limited to final stage manufacturers and 
alterers. The new subpart would streamline the temporary exemption 
process by allowing a group of manufacturers to bundle their exemption 
petitions for a specific vehicle design, permitting a single 
explanation of the potential safety impact and attempts to comply. Each 
manufacturer seeking an exemption would be required to demonstrate 
financial hardship and certify that it has been unable to manufacturer 
a compliant vehicle.
    49 CFR part 567, Certification, would be generally updated for all 
vehicles. However, 49 CFR 567.5, the section dealing with certification 
of vehicles built in two or more stages, would be significantly revised 
to allocate legal responsibility among all manufacturers of these 
vehicles. This approach represents a significant change because the 
current regulation only allocates compliance responsibility among 
manufacturers of chassis cabs and final stage manufacturers.
    The proposed changes to 49 CFR part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in 
Two or More Stages, would allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to 
incorporate design documents such as body builder guides into the IVD. 
These more detailed documents would not only provide greater guidance 
to subsequent manufacturers, but also provide more detailed design 
constraints than an IVD, reducing the likelihood that a subsequent 
stage manufacturer could successfully claim that it was unaware that a 
particular modification would invalidate the previous manufacturer's 
compliance statement.
    The proposal contemplates an automatic additional year of 
compliance effective dates for final stage manufacturers and alterers. 
This additional leadtime, which would become part of 49 CFR 571.8, 
Effective Date, would apply unless NHTSA decides that such leadtime is 
inappropriate as part of a rulemaking amending or establishing a safety 
standard. In some instances, NHTSA may determine that an additional 
year is

[[Page 36042]]

insufficient and may provide an even longer leadtime.
    Finally, 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Non-compliance Responsibility 
and Reports, would be amended to address those situations in which all 
parties agree that there is a noncompliance or defect, but cannot 
determine which manufacturing operation led to the noncompliance or 
defect. In such an instance, NHTSA would be able to assure that the 
affected vehicles are recalled while the various manufacturers sorted 
out legal responsibility.

IV. Discussion of Issues

A. Legal Requirements

    Pursuant to the Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA issues FMVSSs that apply 
to new motor vehicles that are manufactured for sale in the United 
States. The FMVSSs also apply, subject to certain exemptions, to new or 
used motor vehicles imported into the United States. The Vehicle Safety 
Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles, at the time 
of manufacture, comply with all applicable safety standards. 49 U.S.C. 
30112. Each manufacturer must give evidence of this certification by 
affixing to its vehicles a permanent label stating that the vehicles 
comply with all applicable safety standards. 49 U.S.C. 30115.
    NHTSA verifies compliance with the safety standards by running 
compliance tests that are set forth within many of those safety 
standards. NHTSA does not verify compliance of every vehicle make and 
model. Rather, it selects specific vehicles to test based on various 
criteria including the relative popularity of the vehicle, vehicle 
cost, and the presence of particular safety equipment or technology. 
Legally, vehicle manufacturers are not required to run NHTSA's 
compliance tests in order to certify compliance with a safety standard. 
Rather, they must take whatever engineering, design and testing steps 
they deem necessary in order to make a good faith determination of 
compliance. A determination by NHTSA that a manufacturer failed to make 
a good faith certification in the event of a vehicle noncompliance 
could result in the imposition of sizeable civil penalties. However, 
any vehicle noncompliance that is not deemed inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety must be remedied free of charge by the manufacturer, 
regardless of the steps taken to make a good faith certification of 
compliance. Thus, in terms of avoiding penalties based on a lack of 
good faith certification, a manufacturer is best protected by 
conducting the NHTSA compliance test as its certification test, even 
though such testing will not relieve it of its recall responsibilities 
in the event of a noncompliance.
    Conducting NHTSA compliance tests for certification purposes serves 
another, more important, function than simply avoiding the imposition 
of civil penalties. Given the limited number of compliance tests run by 
NHTSA each year, the majority of noncompliances are discovered by 
vehicle manufacturers rather than by NHTSA. Accordingly, the industry 
practice of using the NHTSA procedure for certification testing has 
proven to be a valuable method of detecting noncompliances both during 
the design stage of the vehicle and after the vehicle has been 
introduced in the open market, improving the overall safety of the 
motor vehicle fleet.

B. Costs Associated With Certification Responsibilities

    Based on the discussions throughout the negotiated rulemaking 
process, NHTSA acknowledges that the cost of dynamic vehicle testing is 
a legitimate concern when relatively small numbers of similarly 
configured vehicles are produced by a small manufacturer, and that 
alternative means of compliance such as computer modeling are not 
appreciably more affordable for small volume manufacturing since such 
modeling requires validation through dynamic crash testing. Thus, in 
the instance of dynamic test requirements, most final stage 
manufacturers must rely on representations within the IVD in order to 
make a good faith certification that the vehicle complies with the 
standards. The Committee discussed the likelihood that multi-stage 
manufacturers face more extensive certification requirements than 
chassis manufacturers because a multi-stage manufacturer may produce 
dozens of differently configured vehicles on each chassis make in a 
particular year, while an incomplete vehicle manufacturer generally 
would have a limited number of chassis models subject to the standards 
that are based on vehicle performance in a dynamic test.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ According to RVIA, on average, conversion vehicle 
manufacturers carry three different chassis makes and market six 
different van conversion packages for each chassis make with some 
manufacturers reporting they market as many as 38 different packages 
on a particular chassis. Motorhome manufacturers typically carry 
from two to five chassis makes and market motorhomes with multiple 
lengths and floorplans for each chassis make. Moreover, many 
motorhome manufacturers allow the consumer to custom design their 
floorplan. The NTEA cites as an example FMVSS No. 201U for which 
there are over 1,200 vehicle configurations in the marketplace today 
that would be subject to its dynamic testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee also noted that concerns over test costs are not 
necessarily limited to dynamic crash tests. For example, the cost of 
full-scale brake tests may not be practicable for most final stage 
manufacturers because a brake tested vehicle may not be able to be sold 
as a new vehicle due to the wear and tear on the vehicle. In those 
instances in which a small multi-stage manufacturer sells one or two 
vehicles that are significantly different from other configurations 
manufactured by the same manufacturer, it could be faced with building 
one vehicle to test and another to sell. Thus, it is important that 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers provide sufficient information in the 
IVD to allow the final stage manufacturer to complete manufacturing 
operations in a manner that allows it to rely on the certification 
representations provided by the previous stage manufacturers.
    However, for some commonly configured vehicles, there is a 
possibility for consortium testing among various manufacturers that may 
allow for dynamic tests that can be relied upon as a basis of 
compliance by manufacturers who complete their manufacturing operations 
consistent with such testing. While it is unclear how much consortium 
testing will be undertaken, that approach appears to be a viable 
alternative to manufacturer-specific compliance testing for some 
standards among final-stage manufacturers producing similar vehicles, 
particularly where amenity features are not involved. Business and 
legal considerations such as concerns about competitive advantage, 
possible compromise of proprietary information and allocation of test 
costs may serve as inhibiting factors in pursuing this approach.

C. Prohibition Against Manufacturer-Oriented Exemptions

    The issue of exemptions is not addressed by part 567 or 568, since 
that issue does not involve the allocation of certification 
responsibilities. The issue is, however, of critical importance to 
final stage manufacturers, since they will inevitably bear some 
certification responsibility that is likely to be costly.
    The possibility of excluding final stage manufacturers from the 
coverage of certain safety standards in cases in which the 
manufacturer's production of the vehicle in question is limited was one 
of the two most contentious issues addressed in the negotiated 
rulemaking process and largely impacted four members of the Committee, 
NHTSA, NTEA, AMD, and RVIA. The Committee directed the aforementioned 
trade

[[Page 36043]]

associations, along with GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler, to develop a 
proposal that might be acceptable to all parties.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The NTEA had previously urged that, for vehicles produced in 
two or more stages, the focus of regulation be shifted from 
certification by intermediate- and final-stage manufacturers to an 
approach based on consortium testing, dissemination of engineering 
information and the conducting of a detailed safety study of multi-
stage vehicles, and that a determination be made as to whether there 
was a need to apply certain safety standards to vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages. NTEA suggested that final stage 
manufacturers be relieved of certification responsibility until that 
time. The Committee did not embrace this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This group suggested an approach under which the standards based 
upon the performance of a vehicle in a dynamic test would not apply to 
certain vehicles produced in two or more stages if the model vehicle in 
question is produced in runs of less than 2,500 units per year. NHTSA 
could not accept the proposal due to the limitations set forth in 49 
U.S.C. 30113 (section 30113), which permits NHTSA to provide temporary 
exemptions from the need to comply with safety standards under certain, 
statutorily prescribed circumstances. Although proponents of this 
approach argued that ``safe harbors'' could be incorporated into the 
applicability sections of the standards in question, rather than as an 
exemption from the coverage of those standards, the Committee could not 
reach agreement on this proposal. In particular, NHTSA stated it 
believed that any ``safe harbor'' would essentially be an impermissible 
exemption because of the court's ruling in Nader v. Volpe, that NHTSA 
was not permitted to provide manufacturer-specific exemptions beyond 
the constraints set forth in 15 U.S.C 1415, the predecessor to section 
30113.320 F. Supp. 266 (DDC, December 11, 1970), aff'd 475 F.2d 916, DC 
Cir., January 12, 1973).
    NHTSA noted, however, that it believed most, if not all, final 
stage manufacturers could meet the criteria specified for granting a 
temporary exemption from specific safety standards based on financial 
hardship. To that end, the agency suggested that it was willing to 
explore the possibility of amending 49 CFR part 555 (part 555), the 
regulation establishing the circumstances under which it can consider 
granting a temporary exemption pursuant to section 30113, so as to ease 
the burden on final stage manufacturers in a legally permissible 
manner. While part 555 closely mirrors the requirements set forth in 
section 30113, NHTSA was able to identify certain sections in part 555 
that could be amended or relaxed in order to address only those 
vehicles manufactured by final stage manufacturers. A thorough 
discussion of those potential changes is provided below in section H.

D. Need To Assure Safety of Vehicles

    While NHTSA understands the difficulty faced by final-stage 
manufacturers, it must take those measures necessary to protect the 
safety of the American motoring public. Everyday, the general public 
shares the roads with vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. 
Accordingly, for example, the telephone repair truck being driven 
through residential neighborhoods should have a braking system that 
meets FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and electric brake systems, or FMVSS No. 
121, Air brake systems. In addition to being designed to protect the 
safety of people in other vehicles, vehicles manufactured in two or 
more stages should be designed to protect their own occupants. Thus, 
the motorhome or conversion van being used to transport a family on its 
summer vacation should provide an adequate level of safety.
    An analysis of vehicle crash data conducted by NHTSA at the 
Committee's request indicates that among the light truck fleet (e.g., 
light trucks, vans and pick-up trucks), vehicles manufactured in two or 
more stages produce a risk to safety. Specifically, NHTSA looked at the 
Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data for all light trucks 
manufactured from model year 1994 to 1999 involved in a fatal crash 
during calendar years 1994 to 1998. It determined that vehicles built 
in two or more stages comprised approximately 2.5% of the light truck 
market. It also determined that during that period, vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages were represented in 5.99% of the 
total number of fatal crashes involving light trucks. While these data 
indicate that vehicles built in two or more stages make up only a small 
portion of the overall vehicle fleet, they appear to be more than twice 
as likely as their counterparts within the light truck fleet to be 
involved in a fatal crash. The crash data indicates that light trucks 
built in two or more stages that are involved in fatal crashes appear 
to present and encounter the same risk of injury or fatality presented 
and encountered by other light trucks. Generally speaking, they appear 
to be neither more nor less safe than their single stage counterparts. 
In those instances in which NHTSA has determined that a certain vehicle 
type cannot be designed in such a way as to reasonably meet a specific 
safety standard, NHTSA can exclude that vehicle type from a particular 
safety standard. For example, convertibles are currently excluded from 
FMVSS No. 216, Roof crush, because a vehicle requires more upper 
vehicle structure than a header and A-pillar to address injuries and 
fatalities related to roof crush. Applying FMVSS No. 216 to these 
vehicles would have the effect of eliminating convertibles from the 
marketplace. Likewise, NHTSA can exclude vehicle types whose 
characteristics are such that there is not a sufficiently demonstrated 
safety need to regulate that type of vehicle in a particular instance. 
The application of most of the FMVSSs related to crashworthiness, i.e., 
the ability to protect an occupant in the event of a crash, is 
restricted by vehicle weight because occupants in heavier vehicles are 
less likely to die or be seriously injured in the event of a crash.
    Various final-stage manufacturers over the years have taken the 
position that drivers of certain types of vehicles typically 
manufactured in two or more stages have commercial driver's licenses 
and special training and thus are more likely to operate a vehicle in a 
manner that justifies the adoption of lesser standards. Assuming 
arguendo that individuals who possess a commercial driver's license and 
operate a vehicle as part of their employment may be better able to 
control a vehicle than individuals who do not, many vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages are driven by individuals with no 
specialized training. This is particularly true of those vehicles 
covered by safety requirements for which NHTSA tests compliance via 
destructive vehicle testing. This type of testing is generally limited 
to requirements applicable to vehicles with a GVWR of less than 8,500 
lb, although in some instances the requirements apply to vehicles with 
a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less. Very heavy trucks and buses are likely to 
be operated by professional drivers. However, because of the weight 
characteristics of these vehicles, they are already excluded from 
requirements verified through destructive compliance testing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The sole arguable exception is the applicability of FMVSS 
No. 121; however, the data analysis used to support FMVSS No. 121 
implicitly took driver skill into account since it was based on the 
likelihood of these heavier vehicles being involved in a crash 
because of inadequate brakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Allocation of Certification Responsibility

    Rulemaking cannot resolve every issue and concern faced by each 
industry and interest represented in the

[[Page 36044]]

negotiated rulemaking. Of necessity, some vehicles will always be so 
unique that a final stage manufacturer will only be able to place 
minimal reliance on the IVD when certifying compliance of the completed 
vehicle. By the same token, manufacturer representations for some 
portions of the IVD may be necessarily narrow because of the types of 
vehicle systems involved. For example, it is unlikely that an 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer can make any representations vis-
[agrave]-vis compliance with FMVSS No. 301 if a subsequent vehicle 
manufacturer reroutes, or otherwise changes the fuel system. Finally, 
depending on the language incorporated by chassis manufacturers in 
their IVDs, it may not be possible for a vehicle to be completed from a 
chassis without the intermediate-stage or final-stage manufacturer 
invalidating the certification of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
to one or more safety standards based upon the performance of a vehicle 
in a dynamic test.
    Nevertheless, NHTSA believes the proposed rule that was developed 
through the negotiated rulemaking process goes a long way toward 
improving the clarity of the existing requirements, and in allocating 
responsibility among various manufacturers, thus furthering the 
interests of motor vehicle safety. While the current requirements of 
part 568 require incomplete vehicle manufacturers to provide IVDs, the 
legal responsibilities of the incomplete vehicle manufacturers within 
the IVD are not clearly allocated and provides little protection for 
subsequent stage manufacturers. The revised regulation proposes to 
establish legal responsibility among all vehicle manufacturers, 
providing subsequent-stage manufacturers with a level of protection 
vis-[agrave]-vis the manufacturing operations of previous-stage 
manufacturers now provided only by manufacturers of chassis cabs.
    While not specifically addressed by the regulatory text, the 
proposed rule should also improve the lines of communication among the 
various stage manufacturers, particularly if, as anticipated by the 
Committee, incomplete vehicle manufacturers provide more detailed 
information in the IVD or decide to incorporate body builder or other 
design and engineering guidance (reference materials) into the IVD by 
reference to assist the intermediate- and final-stage manufacturer with 
compliance. This information will allow the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer to communicate more thoroughly those types of future 
engineering and manufacturing activities that it can reasonably foresee 
as affecting compliance of the systems and components incorporated into 
the incomplete vehicle, while limiting its liability for those 
subsequent, unanticipated activities not addressed by these reference 
materials.
    The IVD cannot address or foresee every conceivable condition. To 
that extent, the concerns of incomplete vehicle manufacturers that they 
have little control over the actions of subsequent stage manufacturers 
are valid and are not fully resolved by this rulemaking. However, in 
many instances, limitations of an incomplete vehicle manufacturer's 
component and system compliance certification can be addressed through 
statements in the IVD or incorporated reference materials, which may 
assist subsequent manufacturers in making their own design engineering 
and manufacturing decisions. NHTSA expects subsequent vehicle 
manufacturers to rely on and act in accordance with this type of 
documentation in order for the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to 
accept legal responsibility for work completed in accordance with the 
instructions in the IVD. This should reduce the exposure of the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers and assist intermediate and final 
stage manufacturers' ability to avoid the types of subsequent 
engineering and manufacturing actions that potentially lead to non-
compliance and safety defect situations. However, it is also important 
that incomplete vehicle manufacturers provide vehicle upfitters with 
reasonable conformity envelopes that permit the completion of common 
and foreseeable vehicle configurations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Nothing in today's proposal prohibits incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers from developing conformity envelopes that are so 
narrow as to preclude the allocation of legal responsibility in the 
event of a noncompliance or defect. However, such a posture would 
likely be detrimental to the manufacturer's commercial enterprise, 
since its competitors may rely on body builder guides to provide a 
more customer-friendly product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each stage manufacturer, from incomplete vehicle manufacturer to 
final stage manufacturer, should accept responsibility for 
manufacturing operations directly within its control. Accordingly, 
under the contemplated regulation, allocation of recall responsibility 
will be borne by the party with legal responsibility under the various 
paragraphs of Sec.  567.5. Specific allocations of responsibility 
should both help to identify problems and to increase the recognition 
among manufacturers of how their design, engineering and manufacturing 
operations will affect their responsibilities.

F. Issues Faced by Alterers of Completed Vehicles

    The issues faced by vehicle alterers, i.e., businesses modifying 
certified vehicles prior to the first sale other than for resale, are 
similar to those faced by final stage manufacturers with some 
significant differences. First, a vehicle alterer does not bear the 
same certification responsibilities as a final stage manufacturer. 
Rather than assuming certification responsibility for the entire 
vehicle, an alterer need only ascertain whether its vehicle alterations 
are likely to have compromised a vehicle's compliance with all 
applicable safety standards and then certify compliance only with those 
standards that are likely to have been so compromised. However, unlike 
final stage manufacturers, alterers do not have an IVD or any other 
vehicle manufacturer representations or assistance to rely on in making 
this limited certification statement. The practical effect of this lack 
of documentation is that vehicle alterers must often rely on the 
representations of equipment manufacturers when modifying vehicles.
    In the case of vehicle equipment standards, the equipment will 
already be certified and in most instances an alterer need only install 
it as directed to certify compliance. However, many changes made in the 
alteration process do not affect features or components subject to 
equipment standards. For example, when replacing a vehicle's seats with 
new captain's chairs, the alterer may need to recertify the vehicle's 
compliance with FMVSS Nos. 202, Head restraints, 207, Seating systems, 
208, Occupant crash protection, 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, and 
225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Often the equipment 
manufacturer will conduct certification testing for its products, even 
though not required to do so by law. Based on this testing, the 
equipment manufacturer may provide specific installation instructions 
that assist the alterer in making the vehicle modifications in a way 
that does not take the vehicle out of compliance. In recertifying the 
altered vehicle, the alterer can, in many instances, rely on this 
certification testing. However, even if an alterer relies on the 
equipment manufacturer's testing data, that equipment manufacturer will 
not be held

[[Page 36045]]

responsible for a recall in the event of a vehicle noncompliance.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NHTSA does have the authority to require the equipment 
manufacturer to conduct a recall based on a safety-related defect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee contemplated drafting a requirement that would 
require equipment manufacturers to provide certification data for 
equipment that it manufactured. However, NHTSA stated that it could not 
impose such a requirement under the existing statutory scheme unless an 
equipment standard covered the piece of equipment.
    The Committee then looked at the current requirements applicable to 
a vehicle alteration to determine whether it could craft a definition 
of the types of modifications creating certification obligations that 
more effectively alerted alterers to their certification 
responsibilities. Of particular concern were the types of vehicle 
modifications that potentially impose a certification responsibility. 
The regulation at 49 CFR 567.7 states that an alteration consists of 
any modification other than ``the addition, substitution, or removal of 
readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim 
assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting'' or any 
modification that changes the vehicle's stated weight rating. Of 
particular concern was the meaning of a ``readily attachable 
component.'' NADA took the lead in drafting an alternative definition 
that contemplated the use of special tools. However, the Committee was 
unable to agree on what type of tool would be considered sufficiently 
unique to trigger the application of a certification requirement. In 
the end, it was agreed that the existing definition, incomplete as it 
is, was as clear as any alternatives.
    Nevertheless, the Committee was able to agree that some portions of 
the proposed regulation should be applicable to both final stage 
manufacturers and alterers because of the similarity of their 
circumstances. Thus, the proposed generic leadtime would apply to both 
types of manufacturers, as would the new part 555 provisions.

G. Issues Not Addressed in the Negotiated Rulemaking Process

    During the negotiated rulemaking process, Congress enacted new 
legislation, now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30115(b), which states:

    In the case of the certification label affixed by an 
intermediate or final stage manufacturer of a motor vehicle built in 
more than 1 stage, each intermediate or final stage manufacturer 
shall certify with respect to each applicable Federal motor vehicle 
safety standard--
    (1) That it has complied with the specifications set forth in 
the compliance documentation provided by the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
Secretary; or
    (2) That it has elected to assume responsibility for compliance 
with that standard. If the intermediate or final stage manufacturer 
elects to assume responsibility for compliance with the standard 
covered by the documentation provided by an incomplete motor vehicle 
manufacturer, the intermediate or final stage manufacturer shall 
notify the incomplete motor vehicle manufacturer in writing within a 
reasonable time of affixing the certification label. A violation of 
this subsection shall not be subject to a civil penalty under 
section 30165.

    Although the legislation does not require NHTSA to issue 
regulations, the agency initially considered issuing regulations so 
that the required information is submitted in a timely and consistent 
manner, and so that NHTSA could monitor how certification 
responsibilities are being allocated if it were to receive a copy of 
any paperwork submitted to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. NHTSA 
is unaware of any notifications by final stage manufacturers that they 
have decided to go beyond the terms of compliance envelopes. Given 
NHTSA's lack of authority to penalize final stage manufacturers who 
fail to provide previous stage manufacturers with such notifications, 
it is unlikely that the agency would ever receive sufficient numbers of 
notifications to justify the burden on final stage manufacturers who do 
comply with the law and the expenditure of agency resources. 
Accordingly, it has decided against pursuing rulemaking in this area.
    Presently, 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1) requires that the corporate or 
individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle be listed on the 
certification label as the vehicle manufacturer. After comments to the 
draft committee report were received, NHTSA was asked to consider 
amending that provision either to specify that the business entity 
accepting legal responsibility in the event of a defect or 
noncompliance be listed as the vehicle manufacturer or to require the 
names of both the vehicle assembler and the business entity accepting 
such legal responsibility be listed as the vehicle manufacturer on the 
certification label. While no changes to this effect have been made in 
the proposed regulatory language, NHTSA seeks comment on whether such a 
change would be appropriate.

H. Specifics of the Proposed Rule

1. 49 CFR Part 555
    Under the negotiated proposal, 49 CFR part 555 would be amended to 
create a new subpart applicable to alterers and final stage 
manufacturers who need a temporary exemption from a portion of a safety 
standard (or set of safety standards) for which the agency verifies 
solely through dynamic testing.
    NHTSA's ability to grant even temporary exemptions to individual 
companies is dictated by statute. 49 U.S.C. 30113. Part 555 largely 
mirrors those statutory requirements. Thus, some aspects of the 
regulation must apply to each manufacturer seeking a temporary 
exemption. While the statute permits exemptions under four separate 
circumstances, only one of them, an exemption based on financial 
hardship, is applicable to the issues addressed in this rulemaking. 
Exemptions based on financial hardship cannot be granted to companies 
manufacturing more than 10,000 vehicles per year, and any exemption 
cannot apply to more than 2,500 vehicles per year. Additionally, each 
manufacturer seeking an exemption must provide a complete financial 
statement, and a complete description of its good faith efforts to 
comply with the standards for which it is seeking an exemption. A 
petition may not be granted for a period of more than three years, 
although subsequent petitions are permitted as long as all the original 
requirements are met. These general requirements already exist in part 
555, which currently provides an exemption process for final stage 
manufacturers, but not for alterers.
    In order to allow for more expeditious filing of petitions by final 
stage manufacturers and to extend the exemption to alterers, the 
Committee drafted a subpart B to part 555, which NHTSA is proposing to 
adopt. The subpart is limited to those entities that cannot certify 
compliance due to economic hardship. This hardship is based not only on 
the cost of the vehicle modifications required to certify compliance, 
but also on the actual cost of conducting the testing necessary to make 
a good faith determination of compliance.
    This subpart provides some additional relief not contained in the 
current version of part 555. First, subpart B would allow petitions to 
be filed by an association (or other party) representing the interests 
of multiple manufacturers. Although the statutory requirements mandate 
that each petition would have to specify each manufacturer covered by 
the petition and provide information on each

[[Page 36046]]

manufacturer's size and good faith efforts to comply with the standard, 
as well as separate financial statements, the association could provide 
the underlying rationale for the petition. Thus, the association could 
explain why the requested temporary exemption would not unreasonably 
degrade safety. It could also discuss any factors (e.g., demand for the 
vehicle configuration, loss of market, difficulty in procuring goods 
and services necessary to conduct dynamic tests) that NHTSA should 
consider in deciding whether to grant the application and explain why 
the dynamic crash test requirements of the standard(s) in question 
would cause substantial economic hardship to each of the manufacturers 
on whose behalf the application is filed. Indicia of a good faith 
attempt to comply with the standards would include the extent to which 
the previous stage manufacturers have made either no, or only a 
limited, certification representation with respect to such standard is 
available in the incomplete vehicle document from the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer or from a prior intermediate-stage manufacturer or 
why it cannot be followed, and the existence or lack thereof of generic 
or cooperative testing that would provide a basis for demonstrating 
compliance with the standard(s). Unlike petitions currently submitted 
pursuant to part 555, manufacturers would not have to commit to 
attempting to achieve full compliance by the expiration of the 
exemption. Additionally, under subpart B, the agency would commit to 
informing an applicant within 30 days whether the application is 
complete. It would attempt to grant or deny the petition within 120 
days of its acknowledgement that the application is complete.
    NHTSA seeks comment on the proposed changes to 49 CFR part 555.
2. 49 CFR Part 567
    The proposed changes to part 567 are largely limited to Sec.  
567.5, the section specifically addressing certification of vehicles 
built in two or more stages. However, Sec.  567.3 would also be amended 
to include many of the definitions currently in part 568 and to add 
terms that are currently undefined. Likewise, the examples of 
information listed on information labels have been updated to reflect 
current requirements.
    The proposed changes to Sec.  567.5 are extensive. First, the 
distinction between chassis cabs and other incomplete vehicles would be 
eliminated. Under the draft regulation, manufacturers of incomplete 
vehicles would place an information label on the vehicle (or ship a 
label with the IVD if it cannot be placed on the vehicle) that 
identifies the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, month and year of 
manufacture, and GVWR/GAWR limitations of the incomplete vehicle and 
provides the vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle. 
Likewise, intermediate stage manufacturers would be required to place 
an information label on the incomplete vehicle that identifies the 
intermediate stage manufacturer, month and year their last work was 
performed on the vehicle, and GVWR/GAWR limitations, if different from 
that provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The final stage 
manufacturer would place a certification label on the vehicle that 
either specifies whether it has stayed within the confines of the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or simply makes a 
statement of conformity. In addition, this section of the draft 
regulation assigns legal responsibility for each stage of vehicle 
manufacture with respect to systems and components applied on the 
vehicle, work performed, and accuracy of the information contained in 
the IVD and addendums to the IVD.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ International had suggested adding a subsection that would 
allocate responsibility to later-stage manufacturers for post-
incomplete vehicle manufacturer modifications or additions that 
adversely affected compliance certified by the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer in its IVD. NTEA objected to the suggestion, and it was 
not included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA seeks comment on the proposed changes to 49 CFR part 567.
3. 49 CFR Part 568
    Part 568 would be modified to acknowledge that an incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer may incorporate by reference body builder or other 
design and engineering guidance into the IVD. These guides may be 
substantially more comprehensive than an IVD and can provide the final 
stage manufacturer with greater information regarding what type of work 
can be performed without exceeding the certification envelopes. NHTSA 
anticipates that design and engineering guides, if included, would 
generally provide instructions on certain aspects of further 
manufacturing which will assist the multi-stage manufacturers to pass-
through the conformity statements from the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers. The incorporation of these guides by reference into the 
IVD should not have the effect of unreasonably limiting the 
circumstances in which it will be possible to pass-through the 
conformity statements of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.
    NHTSA seeks comment on the proposed changes to 49 CFR part 568.
4. 49 CFR Part 571
    Unless otherwise specified in a final rule adopting or amending a 
safety standard, final stage manufacturers and alterers would 
automatically be granted an additional year to meet the new 
requirements of the standard. The result of current manufacturing 
practices is that final stage manufacturers often are not provided with 
information on chassis from incomplete vehicle manufacturers necessary 
to certify their vehicles until shortly before and in some cases even 
after the effective date of the standard in question. This same problem 
arises when the chassis is substantively changed as the result of a 
model year changeover. The situation with alterers is slightly 
different. In that instance, the alterer already has a certified 
vehicle. Giving alterers an additional year allows the alterer to take 
a certified vehicle out of compliance, an action typically viewed with 
disfavor by NHTSA. However, the problems faced by final stage 
manufacturers are also applicable to alterers. If a vehicle 
manufacturer waits until the last possible moment to certify vehicles, 
alterers will not have the ability to do any engineering analysis to 
determine if the alterations affect compliance.
    In the instance of phased-in requirements, the additional year 
would be applied at the end of the phase-in. This leadtime is 
appropriate because incomplete vehicle manufacturers often complete 
their certification testing just before start of production for a new 
model year. In the case of new requirements that are phased-in, the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer may wait until the end of the phase-in 
to conduct certification testing or analysis for incomplete vehicles. 
This is because, for many manufacturers, the incomplete vehicle fleet 
is only a small proportion of its overall production.
    In some instances, NHTSA may determine that more than an additional 
year's leadtime is needed, given the complexity or other demands of the 
new or amended standard. In other cases, NHTSA may decide that 
additional leadtime is not needed because the new or amended safety 
standard merely adopts requirements that are already standard industry 
practice. The agency could also determine that the safety problem is so 
significant that additional leadtime would result in an unacceptable 
rate of injury or death. Finally, Congress may direct NHTSA to require 
compliance with new requirements by a specified date. In those 
instances in which Congress

[[Page 36047]]

limits the agency's discretion to provide an additional leadtime, all 
manufacturers and alterers would be required to meet the compliance 
date set forth in the standard.
    NHTSA recognizes NMEDA's concern that vehicle modifiers, i.e., 
businesses that modify vehicles after first sale other than for resale, 
face the same problems as vehicle alterers. However, it is not 
proposing to provide modifiers with an additional year to make 
modifications without violating the make inoperative provisions of 49 
U.S.C. 30122. Such a change would not be made in the context of 
amending part 571, because vehicle modifiers bear no certification 
responsibility. In general, NHTSA looks with disfavor on vehicle 
modifications made after first sale of a vehicle for purposes other 
than retail. We believe that those businesses engaging in operations 
that may invalidate compliance certification should be held responsible 
for recertifying the vehicle. The agency is aware of instances in which 
vehicle alterers have attempted to avoid certification responsibility 
by waiting until a customer has taken possession of a vehicle to make 
changes that would take the vehicle out of compliance with one or more 
safety standards. While a vehicle modifier that knowingly makes a piece 
of mandatory safety equipment inoperative may be subject to fines, it 
cannot be compelled to conduct a recall campaign for its work. 
Additionally, only new vehicles will have the new mandatory safety 
equipment. With the exception of vehicles modified for persons with 
disabilities, there is no reason to make changes to a vehicle after its 
first sale for purposes other than resale that are so substantial as to 
take the vehicle out of compliance with an applicable safety standard. 
Under the proposed regulation, the incentive to circumvent 
certification responsibilities is lessened.
    For vehicles that are modified for persons with disabilities, NHTSA 
has already adopted a statutory scheme that accommodates the needs of 
modifiers addressing the disability community. If needed, 49 CFR part 
595, subpart C, Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate People With 
Disabilities, can be modified to reflect the making of a substantive 
change to a safety standard if the agency determines that such relief 
is appropriate. NHTSA continues to urge NMEDA and its members to 
participate actively in NHTSA rulemakings so that it can identify 
whether changes to part 595 may be needed.
    NHTSA seeks comment on the proposed changes to 49 CFR part 568.
5. 49 CFR Part 573
    Under Sec.  567.5, each manufacturer would be required to provide a 
previous stage manufacturer with any customer information needed for 
the previous stage manufacturer to conduct a recall campaign. Section 
573.5 addresses those instances in which there is a determination by 
either the manufacturers or NHTSA that the vehicle, or its original 
equipment has a safety-related defect or noncompliance and the parties 
dispute their accountability for the recall. This may occur because the 
parties disagree whether the representations made by the various-stage 
manufacturers pursuant to Sec.  567.5 are legitimate based on the work 
performed on the vehicle and the nature of the defect or non-compliance 
or where the parties and NHTSA cannot determine the root cause of the 
defect or noncompliance. In such an instance, NHTSA would be able to 
allocate recall responsibility to the party it believes is best able to 
conduct the recall. Although there should be very few instances in 
which there is a dispute as to which manufacturer should conduct a 
recall campaign, NHTSA believes it is critical that any campaign not be 
delayed while the various manufacturers attempt to assess liability. 
NHTSA's determination would be limited to recall responsibilities and 
would not serve to impose fault or ultimate responsibility for the 
economic burden on the party ordered to conduct the recall.
    This proposal was the subject of vociferous objection by many of 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturers on the Committee. The primary 
concern was that NHTSA's determination as to who was in the best 
position to conduct the recall would be nonreviewable. These 
manufacturers noted that recall determinations with which a 
manufacturer disagrees are fully reviewable. NHTSA agrees with this 
assessment. As explained in the draft committee report, the 
determination that there was a noncompliance or safety related defect 
would be subject to the exact same restrictions and circumstances as 
they are presently. Likewise, any determination that a specific party 
was responsible for a noncompliance or defect would be fully 
reviewable. Manufacturers appear to be concerned that the proposed 
language would make NHTSA the ``referee'' in commercial disputes among 
multiple stage manufacturers, and would create numerous substantive and 
procedural difficulties that were not needed.
    DaimlerChrysler offered alternative language that it believes 
addresses the concerns of the Committee. It suggested that the specific 
allocation of legal responsibility in Sec.  567.5 be repeated in Sec.  
573.5. Thus, Sec.  573.5(c) would read as follows:

    (1) For vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall be responsible for any 
noncompliance or safety-related defect in (i) components and systems 
it supplies on the incomplete vehicle or (ii) components and systems 
incorporated into the completed vehicle by an intermediate or final-
stage manufacturer, if the vehicle is completed in accordance with 
the instructions contained in the IVD package required by Part 
568.4, except for manufacturing or design defects in components and 
systems incorporated by the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer 
into the completed vehicle, and except for noncompliances or defects 
introduced as a result of the workmanship of the intermediate or 
final-stage manufacturer.
    (2) For vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, any 
intermediate manufacturer shall be responsible for any noncompliance 
or safety-related defect resulting from manufacturing or design 
defects in components or systems incorporated into the completed 
vehicle by that intermediate manufacturer, or any noncompliance or 
safety-related defect introduced by workmanship of that intermediate 
manufacturer.
    (3) For vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, the final-
stage manufacturer shall be responsible for any noncompliance or 
safety-related defect resulting from manufacturing or design defects 
in components or systems incorporated into the completed vehicle by 
that final-stage manufacturer, or any noncompliance or safety-
related defect introduced by the workmanship of that final-stage 
manufacturer.

    As noted by DaimlerChrysler, this language does not provide a 
dispute resolution mechanism. Nor does it assure that in the event of a 
dispute that is not easily resolvable, a recall campaign is conducted 
in a timely manner. Historically, NHTSA has maintained that while any 
stage manufacturer may assume responsibility for a recall campaign, the 
final stage manufacturer is responsible for any campaign that a 
previous stage manufacturer has not agreed to conduct. The 
nonreviewablity provision was suggested in response to concerns by 
final stage manufacturers that they would bear the brunt of recall 
allocation when they may be in the worst position to shoulder the costs 
associated with a recall for which they may not, ultimately, be 
responsible.
    This is a difficult issue for the agency. On the one hand, we agree 
that final stage manufacturers often may not have the resources to 
conduct a recall for which it is not responsible. Even though they may 
be successful in a future

[[Page 36048]]

action to obtain reimbursement for their expenses should there be a 
determination that a previous stage manufacturer was responsible for 
the workmanship, design or components resulting in a noncompliance or 
safety-related defect, it may be too late for a small company if the 
cost of the recall places the company in a financially difficult 
position. On the other hand, allocating recall responsibility to a 
specific party in the event of a dispute as to legal responsibility 
allows NHTSA to achieve the result it believes is essential to its 
mission: getting noncompliant and defective equipment or systems 
repaired as soon as possible so as to reduce the likelihood of motor 
vehicle-related death or injury.
    NHTSA has concerns that a provision on nonreviewability may 
ultimately be determined impermissible. In general, courts favor review 
of final agency actions, even when a statute states an action is not 
reviewable. Thus, NHTSA believes this provision would only withstand 
judicial review if a court determined that NHTSA's decision as to who 
must conduct the recall is not a final agency action under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, and therefore not ripe for review.
    We have decided to propose revisions to 573.5 as drafted in the 
draft committee report because we committed to proposing a regulation 
that mirrored that report in the absence of committee consensus. 
However, given our concerns about the likelihood that the 
nonreviewability provision could withstand judicial scrutiny, we ask 
commenters to provide arguments and analysis as to which manufacturer 
should be deemed responsible for a recall campaign in the event that 
NHTSA and the various-stage vehicle manufacturers could not determine 
in a timely manner which party should bear responsibility for the 
recall.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant. 
Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this 
rulemaking document under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.'' The rulemaking action has also been determined to be 
nonsignificant under the Department's regulatory policies and 
procedures. This rule should not impose any additional costs on 
regulated parties or on the American public since it merely clarifies 
legal responsibilities related to the certification of vehicles built 
in two or more stages. To the extent incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
accept legal responsibility for their vehicles, they may incur some 
additional certification costs. Likewise, they would incur additional 
costs in the event of a recall resulting from their statements on the 
information label or in the IVD. As a practical matter, most incomplete 
vehicle manufacturers have been willing to pay for recalls associated 
with work performed by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or within 
the scope of their representations in the IVD even though there has 
been no express legal requirement that they do so.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses even though a significant number of final stage 
manufacturers and alterers are small businesses. This rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on these entities because it merely 
clarifies their legal responsibilities related to the certification of 
vehicle built in two or more stages.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have 
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule, if issued, 
would have no substantial effects on the States, or on the current 
Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials. The final rule, if 
issued, is not intended to preempt State tort civil actions.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform 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 State, local or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually 
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). The final rule, if 
issued, would not require the expenditure of resources above and beyond 
$100 million annually.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    The proposed 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.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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 proposal 
contains a collection of information because it expands the number of 
information labels required beyond manufacturers of chassis cabs. There 
is no burden to the general public.
    This document includes the following ``collections of 
information,'' as that term is defined in 5 CFR part 1320, Controlling 
Paperwork Burdens on the Public:
    Today's document includes a proposal for information labels similar 
to a certification label for incomplete vehicles that are not chassis 
cabs. At present, OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of labeling 
requirements under OMB clearance no. 2127-0512, Consolidated Labeling 
Requirements for Motor Vehicles (Except the Vehicle Identification 
Number). This clearance will expire on 11/30/2004, and is cleared for 
72,959 burden hours on the public.
    For the following reasons, NHTSA estimates that the new information 
labels would have a minimal net increase in the information collection 
burden on the public. There are approximately 40 incomplete motor

[[Page 36049]]

vehicle manufacturers that will be affected this label proposal, and 
the labels will be placed on approximately 556,000 vehicles per year. 
The label will be placed on each vehicle once. Since, in this SNPRM, 
NHTSA specifies the exact content of the labels, the manufacturers will 
spend 0 hours developing the labels. NHTSA estimates the technical 
burden time (time required for affixing labels) to be .0002 hours per 
label. NHTSA estimates that the total annual burden imposed on the 
public as a result of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer labels will 
be 112 hours (556,600 vehicles multiplied by .0002 hours per label). 
Canada already requires labels of the type contemplated in today's 
notice on incomplete vehicles manufactured for the Canadian market, and 
the larger incomplete vehicle manufacturers manufacturers already 
install this label on a voluntary basis for vehicles sold in the United 
States.
    Organizations and individuals that wish to submit comments on the 
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention Desk Officer for 
NHTSA.

H. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 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 is not economically significant.

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 \13\ 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, with an explanation of the 
reasons for not using such standards. This rulemaking only addresses 
the allocation of legal responsibilities among regulated parties. As 
such, the issues involved here are not amenable to the development of 
voluntary standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based 
or design-specific technical specifications and related management 
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such 
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or 
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21.) 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given under ADDRESSES.
    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 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov to 
review the statement.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read comments on 
the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``simple search.''
    3. On the next page, type in the docket number shown at the 
beginning of this document. There is no need to type in the name of the 
agency or the year that the docket was opened. For example, if the 
docket number is ``NHTSA-03-123545,'' you would type in ``12345''. 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired

[[Page 36050]]

comments. You may download the comments.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

K. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Today's proposal has been written with that directive 
in mind. We note that some of the requirements proposed today are 
technical in nature. As such, they may require some understanding of 
technical terminology. We expect those parties directly affected by 
today's rule, i.e., vehicle manufacturers, to be familiar with such 
terminology.

L. 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 555, 567, 568, 571, and 573

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
chapter V as follows:

PART 555--TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY AND BUMPER 
STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 555 of title 49 would continue 
to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113, 32502, Pub. L. 105-277; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Part 555 would be amended by designating Sec. Sec.  555.1 
through 555.10 as subpart A and by adding a heading to read as follows:

Subpart A--General

    3. Subpart B would be added to read as follows:
Subpart B--Altered Vehicles and Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages
Sec.
555.11 Application.
555.12 Petition for exemption.
555.13 Basis for petition.
555.14 Processing of petitions.
555.15 Time period for exemptions.
555.16 Renewal of exemptions.
555.17 Termination of temporary exemptions.
555.18 Temporary exemption labels.

Subpart B--Altered Vehicles and Vehicles Built in Two or More 
Stages


Sec.  555.11  Application.

    This subpart applies to alterers and manufacturers of motor 
vehicles built in two or more stages to which one or more standards are 
applicable. No manufacturer or alterer that produces or alters more 
than 10,000 motor vehicles annually shall be eligible for a temporary 
exemption under this subpart. Any exemption granted under this subpart 
shall be limited, per manufacturer, to 2,500 vehicles to be sold in the 
United States in any 12 consecutive month period. Nothing in this 
subpart prohibits an alterer, intermediate, or final stage manufacturer 
from applying for a temporary exemption under subpart A of this part.


Sec.  555.12  Petition for exemption.

    An alterer, intermediate or final stage manufacturer, or industry 
trade association representing a group of alterers, intermediate and/or 
final-stage manufacturers may seek, as to any vehicle configuration 
built in two or more stages, a temporary exemption or a renewal of a 
temporary exemption from the provisions of any portion of a Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard. Each petition for an exemption under 
this section must be submitted to NHTSA and must:
    (a) Be written in the English language;
    (b) Be submitted in three copies to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20590;
    (c) State the full name and address of the applicant, the nature of 
its organization (e.g., individual, partnership, corporation, or trade 
association), the name of the State or country under the laws of which 
it is organized, and the name of each alterer, or intermediate and/or 
final stage manufacturer for which the exemption is sought;
    (d) State the number, title, paragraph designation, and the text or 
substance of the portion(s) of the standard(s) from which the exemption 
is sought;
    (e) Describe by type and use each vehicle configuration (or range 
of vehicle configurations) for which the exemption is sought;
    (f) State the estimated number of units of each vehicle 
configuration to be produced annually by each of the manufacturer(s) 
for whom the exemption is sought;
    (g) Specify any part of the information and data submitted which 
the petitioner requests be withheld from public disclosure in 
accordance with part 512 of this chapter.


Sec.  555.13  Basis for petition.

    The petition shall:
    (a) Discuss any factors (e.g., demand for the vehicle 
configuration, loss of market, difficulty in procuring goods and 
services necessary to conduct dynamic tests) that the applicant desires 
NHTSA to consider in deciding whether to grant the application.
    (b) Explain the grounds on which the applicant asserts that the 
application of the dynamic crash test requirements of the standard(s) 
in question to the vehicles covered by the application would cause 
substantial economic hardship to each of the manufacturers on whose 
behalf the application is filed, providing a complete financial 
statement for each manufacturer and a complete description of each 
manufacturer's good faith efforts to comply with the standards, 
including a discussion of:
    (1) The extent that no Type (1) or Type (2) statement with respect 
to such standard is available in the incomplete vehicle document from 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or from a prior intermediate-stage 
manufacturer or why, if one is available, it cannot be followed, and
    (2) The existence, or lack thereof, of generic or cooperative 
testing that would provide a basis for demonstrating compliance with 
the standard(s);
    (c) Explain why the requested temporary exemption would not 
unreasonably degrade safety.


Sec.  555.14  Processing of petitions.

    The Administrator shall notify the petitioner whether the petition 
is complete within 30 days of receipt. The Administrator shall attempt 
to approve or deny any complete petition submitted under this subpart 
within 120 days after the agency acknowledges that the application is 
complete. Upon good cause shown, the Administrator may review a 
petition on an expedited basis.


Sec.  555.15  Time period for exemptions.

    Subject to Sec.  555.16 of this subpart, each temporary exemption 
granted by the Administrator under this subpart shall be in effect for 
a period of three

[[Page 36051]]

years from the effective date. The Administrator shall identify each 
exemption by a unique number.


Sec.  555.16  Renewal of exemptions.

    An alterer, intermediate or final-stage manufacturer or a trade 
association representing a group of alterers or, intermediate and/or 
final-stage manufacturers may apply for a renewal of a temporary 
exemption. Any such renewal petition shall be filed at least 60 days 
prior to the termination date of the existing exemption and shall 
include all the information required in an initial petition. If a 
petition for renewal of a temporary exemption that meets the 
requirements of this subpart has been filed not later than 60 days 
before the termination date of an exemption, the exemption does not 
terminate until the Administrator grants or denies the petition for 
renewal.


Sec.  555.17  Termination of temporary exemptions.

    The Administrator may terminate or modify a temporary exemption if 
he determines that:
    (a) The temporary exemption was granted on the basis of false, 
fraudulent, or misleading representations or information; or
    (b) The temporary exemption is no longer consistent with the public 
interest and the objectives of the Act.


Sec.  555.18  Temporary exemption labels.

    An alterer or final-stage manufacturer of a vehicle that is covered 
by one or more exemptions issued under this subpart shall affix a label 
that meets meet all the requirements of 49 CFR 555.9.
* * * * *

PART 567--CERTIFICATION

    4. Part 567 would be revised to read as follows:

PART 567--CERTIFICATION

Sec.
567.1 Purpose.
567.2 Application.
567.3 Definitions.
567.4 Requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.
567.5 Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two 
or more stages.
567.6 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, 32502, 
32504, 33101-33104, 33108, and 33109; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50.


Sec.  567.1  Purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to specify the content and location of, 
and other requirements for, the certification label or tag to be 
affixed to motor vehicles as required by section 30115 of the Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30115) (the Vehicle Safety Act) and by 
sections 105(c)(1) and 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 
Savings Act (49 U.S.C. 32504 and 33109) (the Cost Savings Act), and to 
provide the consumer with information to assist him or her in 
determining which of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (part 
571 of this chapter) and Federal Theft Prevention Standards (part 541 
of this chapter) are applicable to the vehicle.


Sec.  567.2  Application.

    (a) This part applies to manufacturers and alterers of motor 
vehicles to which one or more standards are applicable.
    (b) In the case of imported motor vehicles that do not have the 
label or tag required by 49 CFR 567.4, Registered Importers of vehicles 
admitted into the United States under 49 U.S.C. 31041-30147 and 49 
U.S.C. 591 must affix a label or tag as required by 49 CFR 567.4 after 
the vehicle has been brought into conformity with the applicable 
Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards.


Sec.  567.3  Definitions.

    All terms that are defined in the Act and the rules and standards 
issued under its authority are used as defined therein. The term 
``bumper'' has the meaning assigned to it in title I of the Cost 
Savings Act and the rules and standards issued under its authority.
    Addendum means the document described in Sec.  568.5 (a) of this 
chapter.
    Altered vehicle means a completed vehicle previously certified in 
accordance with Sec.  567.4 or Sec.  567.5 that has been modified other 
than by the use of readily attachable components, or by minor finishing 
operations such as painting, before the first purchase of the vehicle 
other than for resale, in such a manner as may affect the conformity of 
the vehicle with one or more Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard(s) 
or the validity of the vehicle's stated weight ratings.
    Completed vehicle means a vehicle that requires no further 
manufacturing operations to perform its intended function.
    Final-stage manufacturer means a person who performs such 
manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a 
completed vehicle.
    Incomplete trailer means a vehicle that is capable of being drawn 
and that consists, at a minimum, of a chassis structure and suspension 
system but needs further manufacturing operations performed on it to 
become a completed vehicle.
    Incomplete vehicle means
    (1) An assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis 
structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking 
system, in the state that those systems are to be part of the completed 
vehicle, but requires further manufacturing operations to become a 
completed vehicle, or
    (2) An incomplete trailer.
    Incomplete Vehicle Document or IVD means the document described in 
49 CFR 568.4(a).
    Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufacturers an 
incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken 
separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle.
    Intermediate manufacturer means a person, other than the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer or the final-stage manufacturer, who performs 
manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle.
    Readily Attachable Component means non-original equipment 
components and/or assemblies that can be installed without special 
tools or expertise and are substantially similar in design, method of 
attachment and safety performance to similar motor vehicle equipment 
offered and/or validated by the motor vehicle manufacturer for the 
specific model or vehicle platform on which it is being installed in 
conformance with the equipment manufacturer's instructions.
    Vehicle Alterer means a person who modifies a completed vehicle so 
that it becomes an altered vehicle.


Sec.  567.4  Requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.

    (a) Each manufacturer of motor vehicles (except vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages) shall affix to each vehicle a 
label, of the type and in the manner described below, containing the 
statements specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (b) The label shall be riveted or permanently affixed in such a 
manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.
    (c) Except for trailers and motorcycles, the label shall be affixed 
to either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that 
meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position, or if 
none of these locations is practicable, to the left side of the 
instrument panel. If that location is also not practicable, the label 
shall be affixed to the inward-facing surface of the door

[[Page 36052]]

next to the driver's seating position. If none of the preceding 
locations is practicable, notification of that fact, together with 
drawings or photographs showing a suggested alternate location in the 
same general area, shall be submitted for approval to the 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
Washington, DC 20590. The location of the label shall be such that it 
is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except an 
outer door.
    (d) The label for trailers shall be affixed to a location on the 
forward half of the left side, such that it is easily readable from 
outside the vehicle without moving any part of the vehicle.
    (e) The label for motorcycles shall be affixed to a permanent 
member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of 
the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is 
easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the 
steering system.
    (f) The lettering on the label shall be of a color that contrasts 
with the background of the label.
    (g) The label shall contain the following statements, in the 
English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 
three thirty-seconds of an inch high, in the order shown:
    (1) Name of manufacturer: Except as provided in paragraphs 
(g)(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of this section, the full corporate or 
individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle shall be spelled 
out, except that such abbreviations as ``Co.'' or ``Inc.'' and their 
foreign equivalents, and the first and middle initials of individuals, 
may be used. The name of the manufacturer shall be preceded by the 
words ``Manufactured By'' or ``Mfd By''. In the case of imported 
vehicles to which the label required by this section is affixed by the 
Registered Importer, the name of the Registered Importer shall also be 
placed on the label in the manner described in this paragraph, directly 
below the name of the final assembler.
    (i) If a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled 
by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with 
the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used.
    (ii) If a vehicle is fabricated and delivered in complete but 
unassembled form, such that it is designed to be assembled without 
special machinery or tools, the fabricator of the vehicle may affix the 
label and name itself as the manufacturer for the purposes of this 
section.
    (iii) If a trailer is sold by a person who is not its manufacturer, 
but who is engaged in the manufacture of trailers and assumes legal 
responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the Act with 
respect to that trailer, the name of that person may appear on the 
label as the manufacturer. In such a case the name shall be preceded by 
the words ``Responsible Manufacturer'' or ``Resp Mfr.''
    (2) Month and year of manufacture: This shall be the time during 
which work was completed at the place of main assembly of the vehicle. 
It may be spelled out, as ``June 2000'', or expressed in numerals, as 
``6/00''.
    (3) ``Gross Vehicle Weight Rating'' or ``GVWR'' followed by the 
appropriate value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of 
the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the 
number of the vehicle's designated seating positions. However, for 
school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds 
per passenger and 150 pounds for the driver.
    (4) ``Gross Axle Weight Rating'' or ``GAWR,'' followed by the 
appropriate value in pounds, for each axle, identified in order from 
front to rear (e.g., front, first intermediate, second intermediate, 
rear). The ratings for any consecutive axles having identical gross 
axle weight ratings when equipped with tires having the same tire size 
designation may, at the option of the manufacturer, be stated as a 
single value, with the label indicating to which axles the ratings 
apply.
    Examples of combined ratings:

    GAWR:
    (a) All axles--4080 with LT265/75R-16D tires.
    (b) Front--12,000 with LT245/75R-20G tires.
    First intermediate to rear--15,000 with LT215/85R-20H tires.

    (i) For passenger cars, the statement: ``This vehicle conforms to 
all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft 
prevention standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown 
above.'' The expression ``U.S.'' or ``U.S.A.'' may be inserted before 
the word ``Federal''.
    (ii) In the case of multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVS) and 
trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, the statement: ``This 
vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and 
theft prevention standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown 
above.'' The expression ``U.S.'' or ``U.S.A.'' may be inserted before 
the word ``Federal''.
    (iii) In the case of multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and 
trucks with a GVWR of over 6,000 pounds, the statement: ``This vehicle 
conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in 
effect on the date of manufacture shown above.'' The expression 
``U.S.'' or ``U.S.A.'' may be inserted before the word ``Federal''.
    (5) Vehicle identification number.
    (6) The type classification of the vehicle as defined in Sec.  
571.3 of this chapter (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer).
    (h) Multiple GVWR-GAWR ratings.
    (1) (For passenger cars only) In cases in which different tire 
sizes are offered as a customer option, a manufacturer may at its 
option list more than one set of values for GVWR and GAWR, in response 
to the requirements of paragraphs (g) (3) and (4) of this section. If 
the label shows more than one set of weight rating values, each value 
shall be followed by the phrase ``with--tires,'' inserting the proper 
tire size designations. A manufacturer may, at its option, list one or 
more tire sizes where only one set of weight ratings is provided.
    Example: Passenger Car.

    GVWR: 4400 LB with P195/65R-15 Tires, 4800 LB with P205/75R-15 
Tires.
    GAWR: Front-2000 LB with P195/65R-15 Tires at 24 psi, 2200 LB 
with P205/75R-15 Tires at 24 psi. Rear-2400 LB with P195/65R-15 
Tires at 28 psi, 2600 LB with P205/75R-15 Tires at 28 psi.

    (2) (For multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, 
and motorcycles) The manufacturer may, at its option, list more than 
one GVWR-GAWR-tire-rim combination on the label, as long as the listing 
contains the tire-rim combination installed as original equipment on 
the vehicle by the manufacturer and conforms in content and format to 
the requirements for tire-rim-inflation information set forth in 
Standard Nos. 110, 121, 129 and 139 of this chapter (Sec. Sec.  
571.110, 571.121, 571.129 and 571.139).
    (3) At the option of the manufacturer, additional GVWR-GAWR ratings 
for operation of the vehicle at reduced speeds may be listed at the 
bottom of the certification label following any information that is 
required to be listed.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (j) A manufacturer may, at its option, provide information 
concerning which tables in the document that accompanies the vehicle 
pursuant to Sec.  575.6(a) of this chapter apply to the vehicle. This 
information may not precede or interrupt the information required by 
paragraph (g) of this section.
    (k) In the case of passenger cars imported into the United States 
under 49 CFR 591.5(f) to which the label required by this section has 
not been affixed by the original producer or

[[Page 36053]]

assembler of the passenger car, a label meeting the requirements of 
this paragraph shall be affixed by the Registered Importer before the 
vehicle is imported into the United States, if the car is from a line 
listed in Appendix A of 49 CFR part 541. This label shall be in 
addition to, and not in place of, the label required by paragraphs (a) 
through (j), inclusive, of this section.
    (1) The label shall be riveted or permanently affixed in such a 
manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.
    (2) The label shall be affixed to either the hinge pillar, door-
latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to 
the driver's seating position, or, if none of these locations is 
practicable, to the left side of the instrument panel. If that location 
is also not practicable, the label shall be affixed to the inward-
facing surface of the door next to the driver's seating position. The 
location of the label shall be such that it is easily readable without 
moving any part of the vehicle except an outer door.
    (3) The lettering on the label shall be of a color that contrasts 
with the background of the label.
    (4) The label shall contain the following statements, in the 
English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 
three thirty-seconds of an inch high, in the order shown:
    (i) Model year (if applicable) or year of manufacture and line of 
the vehicle, as reported by the manufacturer that produced or assembled 
the vehicle. ``Model year'' is used as defined in Sec.  565.3(h) of 
this chapter. ``Line'' is used as defined in Sec.  541.4 of this 
chapter.
    (ii) Name of the importer. The full corporate or individual name of 
the importer of the vehicle shall be spelled out, except that such 
abbreviations as ``Co.'' or ``Inc.'' and their foreign equivalents and 
the middle initial of individuals, may be used. The name of the 
importer shall be preceded by the words ``Imported By''.
    (iii) The statement: ``This vehicle conforms to the applicable 
Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard in effect on the date 
of manufacture.''
    (l)(1) In the case of a passenger car imported into the United 
States under 49 CFR 591.5(f) which does not have an identification 
number that complies with 49 CFR 565.4 (b), (c), and (g) at the time of 
importation, the Registered Importer shall permanently affix a label to 
the vehicle in such a manner that, unless the label is riveted, it 
cannot be removed without being destroyed or defaced. The label shall 
be in addition to the label required by paragraph (a) of this section, 
and shall be affixed to the vehicle in a location specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) The label shall contain the following statement, in the English 
language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than three 
thirty-seconds of an inch high, with the location on the vehicle of the 
original manufacturer's identification number provided in the blank: 
ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER'S IDENTIFICATION NUMBER SUBSTITUTING FOR U.S. VIN 
IS LOCATED ------------.
    (m)(1) In the case of a passenger car imported into the United 
States under 49 CFR 591.5(f) which does not have an identification 
number that complies with 49 CFR 565.4 (b), (c), and (g) at the time of 
importation, the Registered Importer shall permanently affix a label to 
the vehicle in such a manner that, unless the label is riveted, it 
cannot be removed without being destroyed or defaced. The label shall 
be in addition to the label required by paragraph (a) of this section, 
and shall be affixed to the vehicle in a location specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) The label shall contain the following statement, in the English 
language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 4 mm 
high, with the location on the vehicle of the original manufacturer's 
identification number provided in the blank: ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER'S 
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER SUBSTITUTING FOR U.S. VIN IS LOCATED ----------
--.


Sec.  567.5  Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in 
two or more stages.

    (a) Location of information labels for incomplete vehicles. Each 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer or intermediate vehicle manufacturer 
shall permanently affix a label to each incomplete vehicle, in the 
location and form specified in Sec.  567.4, and in a manner that does 
not obscure other labels. If the locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4(c) 
are not practicable, the label may be provided as part of the IVD 
package so that it can be permanently affixed in the acceptable 
locations provided for in that subsection when the vehicle is 
sufficiently manufactured to allow placement in accordance therewith.
    (b) Incomplete vehicle manufacturers.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section and 
notwithstanding the certification of a final-stage manufacturer under 
49 CFR 567.5(d)(2)(v), each manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle 
assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by 
the Act with respect to:
    (i) Components and systems it supplies on the incomplete vehicle;
    (ii) To the extent that the vehicle is completed in accordance with 
the instructions contained in the IVD, for all components and systems 
incorporated into the completed vehicle by an intermediate or final-
stage manufacturer, except for defects in those components or systems 
or defects in workmanship by the intermediate or final stage 
manufacturer; and
    (iii) For the accuracy of the information contained in the IVD.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, each 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall affix an information label to 
each incomplete vehicle that contains the following statements:
    (i) Name of incomplete vehicle manufacturer preceded by the words 
``incomplete vehicle MANUFACTURED BY'' or ``incomplete vehicle MFD 
BY''.
    (ii) Month and year of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle. This 
may be spelled out, as in ``JUNE 2000'', or expressed in numerals, as 
in ``6/00''. No preface is required.
    (iii) ``Gross Vehicle Weight Rating'' or ``GVWR'' followed by the 
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds), which shall not be less 
than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 
pounds times the number of the vehicle's designated seating positions. 
However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall 
be 120 pounds per passenger and 150 pounds for the driver.
    (iv) ``Gross Axle Weight Rating'' or ``GAWR'', followed by the 
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds) for each axle, identified 
in order from front to rear (e.g., front, first intermediate, second 
intermediate, rear). The ratings for any consecutive axles having 
identical gross axle weight ratings when equipped with tires having the 
same tire size designation may be stated as a single value, with the 
label indicating to which axles the ratings apply.
    (v) Vehicle Identification Number.
    (c) Intermediate vehicle manufacturers.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section 
and notwithstanding the certification of a final-stage manufacturer 
under Sec.  567.5(d)(2)(v), each intermediate manufacturer of a vehicle 
manufactured in two or more stages assumes legal responsibility for all 
duties and liabilities imposed by the Act:
    (i) With respect to defects in components, systems or workmanship 
supplied by the intermediate vehicle manufacturer on the incomplete 
vehicle (other than defects that arise as a result of the intermediate 
manufacturer's

[[Page 36054]]

reliance on any misstatements or inaccuracies in the IVD, or any prior 
intermediate manufacturer's Addendum, or that results from defects in 
components, systems, or workmanship provided by the final-stage 
manufacturer);
    (ii) For any work done by the intermediate manufacturer on the 
incomplete vehicle that was not performed in accordance with the 
incomplete vehicle document or an Addendum of a prior intermediate 
manufacturer; and
    (iii) For the accuracy of the information in the addendum to the 
incomplete vehicle document furnished by the intermediate vehicle 
manufacturer.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, 
each intermediate manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle shall affix an 
information label, in a manner that does not obscure the labels applied 
by previous stage manufacturers, to each incomplete vehicle, which 
contains the following statements:
    (i) Name of intermediate manufacturer, preceded by the words 
``INTERMEDIATE MANUFACTURE BY'' or ``INTERMEDIATE MFR BY''.
    (ii) Month and year in which the intermediate manufacturer 
performed its last manufacturing operation on the incomplete vehicle. 
This may be spelled out, as ``JUNE 2000'', or expressed as numerals, as 
``6/00''. No preface is required.
    (iii) ``Gross Vehicle Weight Rating'' or ``GVWR'', followed by the 
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds), if different from that 
identified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.
    (iv) ``Gross Axle Weight Rating'' or ``GAWR'' followed by the 
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds), if different from that 
identified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.
    (d) Final-stage manufacturers.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, 
each final-stage manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured in two or more 
stages assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities 
imposed by the Act:
    (i) With respect to defects in components, systems or workmanship 
supplied by the final-stage manufacturer on the incomplete vehicle 
(other than defects that arise as a result of the final stage 
manufacturer's reliance on any misstatements or inaccuracies in the 
IVD, or any intermediate manufacturer's Addendum); and
    (ii) For any work done by the final-stage manufacturer to complete 
the vehicle that was not performed in accordance with instructions 
contained in the incomplete vehicle document or any Addendum furnished 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 568.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, 
each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a certification label to each 
vehicle, in a manner that does not obscure the labels applied by 
previous stage manufacturers, and that contains the following 
statements:
    (i) Name of final-stage manufacturer, preceded by the words 
``MANUFACTURED BY'' or ``MFD BY''.
    (ii) Month and year in which final-stage manufacture is completed. 
This may be spelled out, as in ``JUNE 2000'', or expressed in numerals, 
as in ``6/00''. No preface is required.
    (iii) ``Gross Vehicle Weight Rating'' or ``GVWR'' followed by the 
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds), which shall not be less 
than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 
pounds times the number of the vehicle's designated seating positions. 
However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall 
be 120 pounds per passenger and 150 pounds for the driver.
    (iv) ``GROSS AXLE WEIGHT RATING'' or ``GAWR'', followed by the 
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds) for each axle, identified 
in order from front to rear (e.g., front, first intermediate, second 
intermediate, rear). The ratings for any consecutive axles having 
identical gross axle weight ratings when equipped with tires having the 
same tire size designation may be stated as a single value, with the 
label indicating to which axles the ratings apply.

    Examples of combined ratings:

    (a) All axles-4080 with LT265/75R-16D tires;
    (b) Front-12,000 with LT245/75R-20G tires. First intermediate to 
rear-15,000 with LT215/85R-20H tires.

    (v)(A) One of the following alternative certification statements:
    (1) ``This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards, [and Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, if 
applicable] in effect in (month, year).''
    (2) ``This vehicle has been completed in accordance with the prior 
manufacturers' instructions, where applicable. This vehicle conforms to 
all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, [and Bumper and 
Theft Prevention Standards, if applicable] in effect in (month, 
year).''
    (3) ``This vehicle has been completed in accordance with the prior 
manufacturers' instructions, where applicable, except for [insert 
FMVSS(s)]. This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards, [and Bumper and Theft Standards if 
applicable] in effect in (month, year).''
    (B) The date shown in the statement required in paragraph 
(d)(2)(v)(A) of this section shall not be earlier than the 
manufacturing date provided by the incomplete or intermediate stage 
manufacturer and not later than the date of completion of the final 
stage manufacture.
    (C) Notwithstanding the certification statements in paragraph 
(d)(2)(v)(A) of this section, the legal responsibilities and 
liabilities imposed by the Act shall be allocated among the vehicle 
manufacturers as provided in Sec.  567.5(b)(1), (c)(1), and (d)(1), and 
49 CFR 568.4(a)(9).
    (vi) Vehicle identification number.
    (vii) The type classification of the vehicle as defined in 49 CFR 
571.3 (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer).
    (e) More than one set of figures for GVWR and GAWR, and one or more 
tire sizes, may be listed in satisfaction of the requirements of 
paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section, as provided in Sec.  
567.4(h).
    (f) If an incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes legal 
responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the Act, with 
respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured, the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer shall ensure that a label is affixed to the final vehicle 
in conformity with paragraph (d) of this section, except that the name 
of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall appear instead of the name 
of the final-stage manufacturer after the words ``MANUFACTURED BY'' or 
``MFD BY'' required by paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
    (g) If an intermediate manufacturer of a vehicle assumes legal 
responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers 
by the Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured, the 
intermediate manufacturer shall ensure that a label is affixed to the 
final vehicle in conformity with paragraph (d) of this section, except 
that the name of the intermediate manufacturer shall appear instead of 
the name of the final-stage manufacturer after the words ``MANUFACTURED 
BY'' or ``MFD BY'' required by paragraph (f) of this section.
    (h) Upon request of NHTSA or the previous-stage manufacturer, an 
intermediate or final-stage manufacturer shall provide the previous-
stage manufacturer with all customer information necessary for the 
previous-stage manufacturer to fulfill its legal

[[Page 36055]]

responsibilities under 49 CFR parts 573 and 577.


Sec.  567.6  Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

    (a) With respect to the vehicle alterations it performs, a vehicle 
alterer:
    (1) Has a duty to determine continued conformity of the altered 
vehicle with applicable Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, 
and
    (2) Assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities 
imposed by the Act.
    (b) The vehicle manufacturer's certification label and any 
information labels shall remain affixed to the vehicle and the alterer 
shall affix to the vehicle an additional label in the manner and 
location specified in Sec.  567.4, in a manner that does not obscure 
any previously applied labels, and containing the following 
information:
    (1) The statement: ``This vehicle was altered by (individual or 
corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) 
and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards affected by the 
alteration and in effect in (month, year).'' The second date shall be 
no earlier than the final manufacturing date of the certified vehicle, 
and no later than the date alterations were completed.
    (2) If the gross vehicle weight rating or any of the gross axle 
weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown 
on the original certification label, the modified values shall be 
provided in the form specified in Sec.  567.4(g)(3) and (4).
    (3) If the vehicle as altered has a different type classification 
from that shown on the original certification label, the type as 
modified shall be provided.
    5-6. Part 568 would be revised to read as follows:

PART 568--VEHICLES MANUFACTURED IN TWO OR MORE STAGES--ALL 
INCOMPLETE, INTERMEDIATE AND FINAL STAGE MANUFACTURERS OF VEHICLES 
MANUFACTURED IN TWO OR MORE STAGES

Sec.
568.1 Purpose and scope.
568.2 Application.
568.3 Definitions.
568.4 Requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers.
568.5 Requirements for intermediate manufacturers.
568.6 Requirements for final-stage manufacturers.
568.7 Requirements for manufacturers who assume legal responsibility 
for a vehicle.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec.  568.1  Purpose and scope.

    The purpose of this part is to prescribe the method by which 
manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages shall 
ensure conformity of those vehicles with the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards (``standards'') and other regulations issued under the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. (49 U.S.C. 30115)


Sec.  568.2  Application.

    This part applies to incomplete vehicle manufacturers, intermediate 
manufacturers, and final-stage manufacturers of vehicles manufactured 
in two or more stages.


Sec.  568.3  Definitions.

    All terms that are defined in the Act and the rules and standards 
issued under its authority are used as defined therein. The term 
``bumper'' has the meaning assigned to it in title I of the Cost 
Savings Act and the rules and standards issued under its authority. The 
definitions contained in 49 CFR part 567 apply to this part.


Sec.  568.4  Requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers.

    (a) The incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall furnish for each 
incomplete vehicle, at or before the time of delivery, an incomplete 
vehicle document or IVD that contains the following statements, in the 
order shown, and all other information required by this part to be 
included therein:
    (1) Name and mailing address of the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer.
    (2) Month and year during which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
performed its last manufacturing operation on the incomplete vehicle.
    (3) Identification of the incomplete vehicle(s) to which the 
document applies. The identification shall be by vehicle identification 
number (VIN) or groups of VINs to ascertain positively that a document 
applies to a particular incomplete vehicle after the document has been 
removed from the vehicle.
    (4) Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the completed vehicle for 
which the incomplete vehicle is intended.
    (5) Gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle of the completed 
vehicle, listed and identified in order from front to rear (e.g., 
front, first intermediate, second intermediate, rear). The ratings for 
any consecutive axles having identical gross axle weight ratings when 
equipped with tires having the same tire size designation may, at the 
option of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, be stated as a single 
value, with the label indicating to which axles the ratings apply.
    Examples of combined ratings:

    (a) All axles-4080 with LT265/75R-16D tires;
    (b) Front-12,000 with LT245/75R-20G tires.
    First intermediate to rear-15,000 with LT215/85R-20H tires.

    (6) Listing of the vehicle types as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 (e.g., 
truck, MPV, bus, trailer) into which the incomplete vehicle may 
appropriately be manufactured.
    (7) Listing, by number, of each standard, in effect at the time of 
manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, that applies to any of the 
vehicle types listed in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, followed in 
each case by one of the following three types of statement, as 
applicable:
    (i) Type 1--A statement that the vehicle when completed will 
conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified 
components of the incomplete vehicle.
    Example: 104--This vehicle when completed will conform to FMVSS No. 
104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, if no alterations are made 
in the windshield wiper components.
    (ii) Type 2--A statement of specific conditions of final 
manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed 
vehicle will conform to the standard.
    Example: 121--This vehicle when completed will conform to FMVSS No. 
121, Air Brake Systems, if it does not exceed any of the gross axle 
weight ratings, if the center of gravity at GVWR is not higher than 
nine feet above the ground, and if no alterations are made in any brake 
system component.
    (iii) Type 3--A statement that conformity with the standard cannot 
be determined based upon the components supplied on the incomplete 
vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no 
representation as to conformity with the standard.
    (8) Each document shall contain a table of contents or chart 
summarizing all the standards applicable to the vehicle pursuant to 49 
CFR 568.4(a)(7).
    (9) A certification that the statements contained in the incomplete 
vehicle document are accurate as of the date of manufacture of the 
incomplete vehicle and can be used and relied on by any intermediate 
and/or final-stage manufacturer as a basis for certification.
    (b) To the extent the IVD expressly incorporates by reference body 
builder

[[Page 36056]]

or other design and engineering guidance (Reference Material), the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall make such Reference Material 
readily available to subsequent manufacturers. Reference Materials 
incorporated by reference in the IVD shall be deemed to be part of the 
IVD.
    (c) The IVD shall be attached to the incomplete vehicle in such a 
manner that it will not be inadvertently detached, or alternatively, it 
may be sent directly to a final-stage manufacturer, intermediate 
manufacturer or purchaser for purposes other than resale to whom the 
incomplete vehicle is delivered. The Reference Material in paragraph 
(b) of this section need not be attached to each vehicle.


Sec.  568.5  Requirements for intermediate manufacturers.

    Each intermediate manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle shall 
furnish to the final stage manufacturer the document required by 49 CFR 
568.4 in the manner specified in that section. If any of the changes in 
the vehicle made by the intermediate manufacturer affect the validity 
of the statements in the IVD, it shall furnish an addendum to the IVD 
that contains its name and mailing address and an indication of all 
changes that should be made in the IVD to reflect changes that it made 
to the vehicle. The addendum shall contain a certification by the 
intermediate manufacturer that the statements contained in the addendum 
are accurate as of the date of manufacture by the intermediate 
manufacturer and can be used and relied on by any subsequent 
intermediate manufacturer(s) and the final-stage manufacturer as a 
basis for certification.


Sec.  568.6  Requirements for final-stage manufacturers.

    Each final-stage manufacturer shall complete the vehicle in such a 
manner that it conforms to the applicable standards in effect on the 
date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final 
completion, or a date between those two dates. This requirement shall, 
however, be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that 
applies by its terms to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.


Sec.  568.7  Requirements for manufacturers who assume legal 
responsibility for a vehicle.

    (a) If an incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes legal 
responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers 
by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. chapter 
301) (hereafter referred to as the Act), with respect to a vehicle as 
finally manufactured, the requirements of Sec. Sec.  568.4, 568.5 and 
568.6(b) do not apply to that vehicle. In such a case, the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer shall ensure that a label is affixed to the final 
vehicle in conformity with 49 CFR 567.5(f).
    (b) If an intermediate manufacturer of a vehicle assumes legal 
responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers 
by the Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured, 
Sec. Sec.  568.5 and 568.6(b) do not apply to that vehicle. In such a 
case, the manufacturer assuming responsibility shall ensure that a 
label is affixed to the final vehicle in conformity with 49 CFR 
567.5(g). The assumption of responsibility by an intermediate 
manufacturer does not, however, change the requirements for incomplete 
vehicle manufacturers in Sec.  568.4.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    7. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 would continue 
to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    8. Section 571.8 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec.  571.8  Effective date.

    (a) Firefighting vehicles. Notwithstanding the effective date 
provisions of the motor vehicle safety standards in this part, the 
effective date of any standard or amendment of a standard issued after 
September 1, 1971, to which firefighting vehicles must conform shall 
be, with respect to such vehicles, either 2 years after the date on 
which such standard or amendment is published in the rules and 
regulations section of the Federal Register, or the effective date 
specified in the notice, whichever is later, except as such standard or 
amendment may otherwise specifically provide with respect to 
firefighting vehicles.
    (b) Vehicles built in two or more stages and altered vehicles. 
Unless Congress directs or the agency expressly determines that 
provisions of this paragraph shall not apply, the date for manufacturer 
certification of compliance with any standard or amendment to a 
standard that is published in the rules and regulations section of the 
Federal Register on or after [date to be determined in final rule] 
shall be, insofar as its application to intermediate and final-stage 
manufacturers and alterers, one year after the last applicable date for 
manufacturer certification of compliance provided in the standard. 
Nothing in this provision shall be construed as prohibiting earlier 
compliance with the standard or precluding NHTSA from allowing or 
extending a compliance effective date for intermediate and final-stage 
manufacturers and alterers by more than one year.

PART 573--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTS

    9. The authority citation for part 573 of title 49 would continue 
to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112, 30117-121, 30166-167; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    10. Section 573.5 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec.  573.5  Defect and noncompliance responsibility.

    (a) Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle shall be responsible for 
any safety-related defect or any noncompliance determined to exist in 
the vehicle or in any item of original equipment.
    (b) Each manufacturer of an item of replacement equipment shall be 
responsible for any safety-related defect or any noncompliance 
determined to exist in the equipment.
    (c) In the event of a safety-related defect or noncompliance in a 
motor vehicle or item of original equipment in a motor vehicle 
manufactured in two or more stages, should the manufacturers or NHTSA 
be unable to determine or agree which manufacturer is responsible for 
the safety-related defect or noncompliance, NHTSA shall determine which 
manufacturer is in the best position to conduct a notification and 
remedy campaign, pursuant to 49 CFR part 577. Such determination shall 
be nonreviewable.
    Nothing in this section shall otherwise waive or alter any rights 
of a manufacturer to challenge the existence of a safety-related defect 
or noncompliance. Nor shall NHTSA's determination constitute a 
determination of actual fault by the party conducting the notification 
and remedy campaign.

    Issued: June 16, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-14564 Filed 6-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P