[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 160 (Thursday, August 19, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51393-51399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18968]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 586

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18900]
RIN 2127-AJ45


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Fuel System Integrity and 
Electric Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock 
Protection

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

ACTION: Final rule; Response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of the 
December 2003 final rule upgrading the rear and side impact tests in 
the agency's fuel system integrity standard. Under that final rule, 
compliance with the rear impact requirement will be phased-in following 
a three-year lead time beginning September 1, 2006, by the following 
annually increasing percentages of production: 40, 70, and 100%. That 
final rule provided further that compliance with the side impact 
upgrade will be required for all vehicles on and after September 1, 
2004.
    In response to the petitions, the agency is providing additional 
lead time for some vehicles. It is providing manufacturers of motor 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 6,000 lb 
(2,722 kg) an additional year of lead time to comply with the upgraded 
side impact requirements. The agency is also providing multistage 
manufacturers and alterers an additional year of lead time to comply 
with both the upgraded side and rear impact requirements. To provide 
small volume manufacturers with flexibility in complying with the 
upgraded rear impact requirements, the agency is permitting them to 
comply with the following percentages of production: 0%, 0%, and 100%.

DATES: Effective date: The amendments made in this rule are effective 
August 31, 2004.
    Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by 
October 4, 2004, and should refer to this docket and the notice number 
of this document.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration must be sent to: 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMTION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Tewabe Asebe, Office of

[[Page 51394]]

Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-2264, and fax him at (202) 493-
2739.
    For legal issues, you may contact Christopher Calamita, Office of 
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992, and fax them at (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
    A. Side impact test
    B. Rear impact test
    C. Test severity
III. Correction
IV. Effective Date
V. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

I. Background

    Preserving fuel system integrity in a crash is critical to 
preventing occupant exposure to fire. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel system integrity, specifies performance 
requirements for the fuel systems of vehicles with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) or less. The standard 
limits the amount of fuel spillage from fuel systems of vehicles during 
and after frontal, rear, and lateral impact tests.
    To increase safety and provide for more realistic testing of fuel 
systems, NHTSA upgraded both the rear impact and lateral (side) impact 
test requirements in FMVSS No. 301 (68 Federal Register 67068; December 
1, 2003). The December 2003 upgrade established an offset rear impact 
test procedure that specifies striking the rear of the test vehicle at 
50 mph (80  1 km/h) with a 3,015 lb (1,368 kg) deformable 
barrier at a 70 percent overlap with the test vehicle. The deformable 
barrier in the rear impact test is similar to that currently used in 
FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, except that the barrier is 50 
millimeter (2 inches) lower to simulate pre-crash braking. This 
replaced the 30 mph (48 km/h), 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) rigid moving barrier 
crash test previously required under FMVSS No. 301.
    The final rule also replaced the lateral crash test with the side 
impact crash test specified in FMVSS No. 214. The upgraded side impact 
test requires that the test vehicle be impacted at 33  0.6 
mph (53  1 km/h) with a 3,015 pound (1,368 kg) deformable 
barrier. This replaced the 20 mph (32 km/h) crash test with a 4,000 lb 
(1,814 kg) rigid moving barrier previously required under FMVSS No. 
301.
    To provide manufacturers time to address the rear impact test 
upgrade and to accommodate new vehicle models that were designed and 
developed based on the old requirements, the December 2003 final rule 
provided for three years of lead time followed by a phase-in. The 
upgraded rear impact test will be phased-in over a three year period 
beginning September 1, 2006, according to the following percentages of 
production: 40%, 70%, and 100%. As a result of the low failure rate 
among existing vehicle designs with the new lateral impact test, the 
December 2003 final rule established a September 1, 2004 effective date 
for the side impact upgrade, without a phase-in.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the December 2003 
final rule from the Braun Corporation (Braun), an alterer and final 
stage manufacturer; Lotus Cars Ltd. (Lotus); the National Truck 
Equipment Association (NTEA); Ferrari S.p.A. (Ferrari); the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers \1\ (Alliance); American Honda Motor Company, 
Inc. (Honda); General Motors of North America (General Motors); the 
Center for Auto Safety, a public interest group; and the Victim's 
Committee for Recall of Defective Vehicles, Inc., a public interest 
group. The petition from the Victim's Committee for Recall of Defective 
Vehicles, Inc. was in support of the petition submitted by the Center 
for Auto Safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Alliance is a trade association of motor vehicle 
manufacturers including BMW group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor 
Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, 
and Volkswagen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional comments were received from the Automotive Safety 
Research Institute and Mr. Mark W. Athan, a police officer.
    Petitioners' requests broke down into three major areas: compliance 
schedule for the side impact test, compliance schedule for the rear 
impact test, and the issue of more severe testing.

A. Side Impact Test

Compliance Date Based on Vehicle GVWR
    The Alliance requested a one-year extension of the compliance date 
for the side impact upgrade for all vehicles and a phase-in for 
vehicles greater than 6,000 pound (lb) (2,722 kg) GVWR. The Alliance 
requested a phase-in to begin September 1, 2005 according to the 
following percentages of production, 90% in the first year, and 100% in 
the second year. The petitioner explained that vehicles with a GVWR 
greater than 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) were not previously subject to the 
FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, test procedures on which the 
FMVSS No. 301 side impact upgrade is based. Petitioner further 
explained that additional time would be required to perform the testing 
necessary to certify vehicles with a GVWR greater than 6,000 lb (2,722 
kg) even if no modifications were required.
    Agency response: The agency is amending FMVSS No. 301 to provide 
vehicles with a GVWR greater than 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) an additional 
year to comply with the upgraded side impact requirement. Vehicles with 
a GVWR of 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) or less must comply with the upgrade on 
and after September 1, 2004.
    In the December 2003 final rule, the agency stated that less than 
one percent of the vehicles tested failed FMVSS No. 301's fuel leakage 
requirements using the FMVSS No. 214 side impact test. The agency 
expects less than one percent of vehicles to require modification in 
order to comply with the side impact upgrade, including vehicles with a 
GVWR greater than 6,000 lb (2,722 kg). However, vehicles with a GVWR 
greater than 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) have not previously been subject to 
the FMVSS No. 214 side impact test. Therefore, we are providing these 
vehicles with an additional year of lead time to comply with the new 
side impact requirement.
    Conversely, vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) or less 
have previously been subject to the FMVSS No. 214 side impact test. As 
stated in the final rule, the agency does not anticipate difficulty in 
certifying these vehicles to the upgraded requirements and the 
petitioner has not provided any data to demonstrate any such 
difficulty. Therefore, the Alliance's request to extend the effective 
date for vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) or less is denied.
Alterers, Multistage Manufacturers, and Small Volume Manufacturers
    Under the December 2003 final rule, manufacturers will have to 
comply with the upgraded side impact requirements on and after 
September 1, 2004. Several multistage manufacturers, second stage 
manufacturers, and small volume manufacturers requested additional lead 
time for complying with the upgraded side impact requirements.
    Both NTEA and Braun stated that multistage manufacturers and 
alterers would be unable to begin compliance efforts until a chassis 
manufacturer has made a production-ready model. Petitioners explained 
that a multistage

[[Page 51395]]

manufacturer or alterer cannot ascertain vehicle compliance with the 
upgraded standard until they receive a chassis manufactured after the 
September 1, 2004 date. Therefore, they continued, multistage 
manufacturers and alterers are restricted to design and re-
certification analysis on compliant vehicles obtainable only after the 
standard takes effect. Petitioners argued that they cannot reasonably 
produce a vehicle for several months after the upgraded side impact 
requirements take effect. As such, NTEA requested that multistage 
manufacturers and alterers be excluded from the application of the 
upgraded requirements. In the alternative, NTEA and Braun, requested an 
additional year of lead time for multistage manufacturers and alterers 
to follow the September 1, 2004 effective date. The Alliance requested 
a similar delay for second stage manufacturers.
    Ferrari argued that current vehicle designs have not been subjected 
to the FMVSS No. 214 side impact procedure for purposes of fuel system 
integrity and that it would be burdensome to test vehicles that are 
nearing end of production. The petitioner requested that the agency 
provide small volume manufacturers with either a phase-in option, two 
years of additional lead time, or exclusion for carlines that will no 
longer be produced after September 1, 2005.
    Agency response: The agency is granting the petitioners' request to 
provide multistage manufacturers and alterers with an additional year 
of lead time beyond that provided other manufacturers for the side 
impact upgrade.
    The agency agrees with Braun and NTEA in that multistage 
manufacturers and alterers would not be able to ascertain vehicle 
compliance with the upgraded side impact standard until they receive a 
chassis manufactured after the respective compliance date. An 
additional year of lead time will permit multistage manufacturers and 
alterers to rely on the incomplete certification of a vehicle without 
delaying production capabilities. Therefore, multistage manufacturers 
and alterers must certify vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 lb or less as 
complying with the upgraded side impact requirement beginning September 
1, 2005. Multistage manufacturers and alterers must certify all 
vehicles as complying with the upgraded side impact requirement 
beginning September 1, 2006.
    The agency is denying the petitioners' request to provide small 
volume manufacturers with an additional year of lead time. As with 
other manufacturers, the agency does not anticipate that vehicles 
previously subject to the side impact procedure under FMVSS No. 214 
will have any difficulty in certifying compliance with the new 
requirement starting September 1, 2004. Further, the petitioners did 
not demonstrate that any vehicle would be unable to meet the 
requirements.

B. Rear Impact Test

Alterers, Multistage Manufacturers, and Small Volume Manufacturers
    The December 2003 final rule established a phase-in for the 
upgraded rear impact test, beginning on September 1, 2006, according to 
the following percentages of production: 40%, 70% and 100%. Braun and 
NTEA requested that second stage manufacturers and alterers not be 
required to comply with the rear impact upgrade until one year 
following the 100 percent compliance date. Petitioners presented the 
same arguments for requiring one year of additional lead time for the 
rear impact upgrade as with the side impact upgrade.
    Lotus and Ferrari both requested that the small volume 
manufacturers be permitted to comply with the following percentages of 
production: 0%, 0%, and 100%. Both Lotus and Ferrari argued that 
because small volume manufacturers have smaller numbers of carlines, 
they could be required to comply with the upgraded rear impact 
requirements at a higher percentage of production than required.
    Agency response: The agency is granting the petitioners' request to 
provide multistage manufacturers and alterers an additional year of 
lead time following the 100 percent compliance date for the rear impact 
upgrade. The agency is also permitting small volume manufacturers to 
wait until the end of the phase-in to comply with the rear impact 
upgrade.
    The compliance difficulties present for multistage manufacturers 
and alterers in the side impact upgrade are also present in the rear 
impact upgrade. Multistage manufacturers and alterers would not be able 
to ascertain vehicle compliance with the upgraded rear impact standard 
until they receive a chassis manufactured after the 100 percent 
compliance date. Again, an additional year of lead time will permit 
multistage manufacturers and alterers to rely on the incomplete 
certification of a vehicle without delaying production capabilities. 
Therefore, multistage manufacturers and alterers must comply with the 
upgraded rear impact requirement beginning September 1, 2009.
    We have also decided to exclude small volume manufacturers (i.e., 
manufacturers of less than 5,000 vehicles per year produced for the 
U.S. market) from the phase-in because of their small size. We note 
that, unlike the advanced air bag or tire pressure monitor system 
rulemakings, in which the technologies used to comply with the standard 
are relatively new, the technologies for complying with the upgraded 
rear impact requirement are well established. Accordingly, these 
manufacturers are unlikely to face the supply-and-demand problems 
anticipated in the afore-referenced rulemakings. However, based on the 
small size of these manufacturers, we are providing additional 
flexibility to comply with the rear impact upgrade.
Advanced Credits and Phase-in Schedule
    Honda requested that the agency permit use of carry-forward credits 
during the phase-in period for vehicles that comply in advance. Honda 
argued that carry-forward credits would act as an incentive to 
introduce vehicles compliant with the upgraded rear impact requirement 
into the market sooner. In the alternative, Honda petitioned for the 
agency to reduce the required percentage in the first year of the 
phase-in from 40 percent to 30 percent. With regard to calculating 
vehicle production for the phase-in percentages, Honda requested that 
the alternatives of using the three year average annual production, or 
one year annual production, include the phase-in year. Honda stated 
that inclusion of the phase-in year would allow for possible drastic 
changes in vehicle sales within the phase-in year to be factored into 
the production numbers.
    Agency response: The agency is denying Honda's requests for 
advanced credits under the rear impact phase-in schedule, but is 
amending the final rule to include the phase-in year in the production 
calculation.
    NHTSA recognizes that, under some circumstances, allowing carry-
forward credits during a phase-in can enhance safety by encouraging 
manufacturers to build and certify vehicles that comply with the new 
requirements earlier. In fact, we have authorized such credits in the 
past. See, e.g., S14 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Protection, 63 FR 
49958, 49961 (Advanced Air Bag Rule; May 12, 2000). However, in that 
case, it was clear that no existing vehicles complied with the new 
requirements and that manufacturers would have to make major design 
changes to bring their vehicles into compliance with the standard. 
Allowing manufacturers to

[[Page 51396]]

use carry-forward credits for vehicles certified to the standard prior 
to the first year of the phase-in to help satisfy the percentage 
requirements in the later years of the phase-in acted as an incentive 
to encourage manufacturers to make those design changes earlier than 
they would otherwise have done. However, that principle does not apply 
here, since our testing program demonstrates that many existing 
vehicles can already comply with the upgraded rear impact requirements. 
Thus, allowing credits for vehicles produced between now and September 
1, 2006 could reduce the number of vehicles that would have to be 
redesigned for the first two years of the phase-in.
    Further, the agency is denying Honda's request to reduce the 
production percentage required to comply with the first stage of the 
phase-in. The agency has provided a three-year lead time prior to the 
phase-in, which the agency believes to be sufficient for most vehicles 
in need of modification. While Honda requested a reduced percentage for 
the initial phase-in period, it did not provide data demonstrating that 
its vehicles would need modification or, if modifications were 
required, that additional time would be needed.
    We are amending the annual production calculation for the phase-in 
to include the phase-in year. This will allow manufacturers to account 
for an unanticipated and drastic drop in sales of a particular line and 
is consistent with the calculation method used in the advanced air bag 
rule.

C. Test Severity

    The Center for Auto Safety and the Automotive Safety Research 
Institute petitioned the agency to increase the severity of the 
upgraded test requirements. The Center for Auto Safety requested that 
the agency adopt a 60 mph (95 km/h) side impact test and the Automotive 
Safety Research Institute requested a 50 mph (80 km/h) side impact test 
requirement. The Center for Auto Safety also petitioned for the agency 
to adopt an 80 mph (128 km/h) rear impact test requirement, stating 
that in the absence of a fire, a crash at this impact speed would be 
survivable.
    Agency response: The agency is not amending the impact speed of 
either the side or rear impact requirement established in the December 
2003 final rule. The Center for Auto Safety and the Automotive Safety 
Research Institute did not provide the data or analysis regarding the 
potential benefits for increasing the speed of the side and rear impact 
requirements. As we stated in the December 2003 final rule, the impact 
test procedures established in the final rule effectively reproduce the 
damage profile seen in real world crashes that most often lead to 
fires. Further, an amendment to increase the impact side speed to 50 
(80 km/h) or 60 (95 km/h) mph and increase the rear impact speed to 80 
mph (128 km/h) is beyond the scope of the notice of proposed rulemaking 
that led to the December 2003 final rule.

III. Correction

    General Motors stated that in upgrading the rear impact test, the 
agency inadvertently amended the requirements of FMVSS No. 305, 
Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electrical shock 
protection. FMVSS No. 305 requires vehicles that use electricity as 
propulsion power to meet requirements for limitation of electrolyte 
spillage, retention of propulsion batteries during a crash, and 
electrical isolation of the chassis from the high-voltage system. 
Section 7.4 of FMVSS No. 305 (Rear moving barrier impact test 
conditions) references the test conditions in S7.3 of FMVSS No. 301, 
including the impact speed and barrier. General Motors noted that by 
amending the rear impact test procedure in FMVSS No. 301, the agency 
also amended, most likely unintentionally, the rear impact test 
procedure applicable to electric-powered vehicles.
    General Motors is correct in that NHTSA did not intend to amend the 
rear impact test requirements for electric vehicles. This notice amends 
S7.4 of FMVSS No. 305 to maintain the current rear impact test 
requirements for electric-powered vehicles.
    Additionally, the agency is amending S6.2 Rear moving barrier 
impact of FMVSS No. 305 to permit manufacturers to comply with the rear 
moving barrier impact requirements under the applicable conditions of 
the upgraded FMVSS No. 301. Prior to the upgrade of the FMVSS No. 301 
rear moving barrier impact test, compliance with the FMVSS Nos. 301 and 
305 rear moving barrier requirements was based on similar test 
conditions and procedures. The similarity in test conditions gave 
manufacturers of gas-electric hybrid vehicles the opportunity to 
conduct one test instead of two to determine compliance with the two 
sets of rear impact requirements. Gas-electric hybrid vehicles with a 
GVWR of 4536 kg or less are subject to the rear moving impact 
requirements of both FMVSS Nos. 301 and 305, if they use both liquid 
fuel and more than 48 nominal volts of electricity as propulsion power. 
As a result of the FMVSS No. 301 upgrade, compliance with the FMVSS 
Nos. 301 and 305 rear moving barrier requirements is no longer based on 
similar test conditions and procedures. The differences in the 
conditions and procedures could eliminate the opportunity to conduct 
one test instead of two for gas-electric hybrid vehicles.
    To reinstate the opportunity to conduct two tests instead of one, 
we are amending FMVSS No. 305 to permit compliance with the electrolyte 
spillage, battery retention and electrical isolation rear moving 
barrier impact requirements of FMVSS No. 305 under the upgraded FMVSS 
No. 301 rear moving barrier test conditions. As stated in the December 
2003 final rule, the upgraded FMVSS No. 301 rear moving barrier test 
conditions are more stringent than the current conditions. Therefore, 
this revision will permit manufacturers of gas-electric hybrid vehicles 
to conduct fewer tests, while maintaining, if not improving, current 
levels of vehicle safety. A manufacturer's decision to certify under 
this option must irrevocably be made not later than the time of 
certification.

IV. Effective Date

    The agency is making the amendments in this final rule effective on 
August 31, 2004. The agency is making them effective in less than 30 
days because of the imminence of September 1, 2004, the compliance date 
for the upgraded side impact test, as established by the December 2003 
final rule. Specifying an effective date for today's final rule prior 
to that compliance date is necessary to establish a new compliance 
date. This will prevent manufacturers from having to certify vehicles 
at potentially great expense on September 1, 2004, when those vehicles 
are provided additional compliance lead time in this document.

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 document was not reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action has been determined to not 
be significant under the Department's regulatory policies and 
procedures. The amendments made in this final rule do not significantly 
impact the costs and benefits of the December 2003 final rule.

[[Page 51397]]

The agency has concluded that the impacts of today's amendments are so 
minimal that a regulatory evaluation is not required.
    In response to petitions for rulemaking to the December 2003 FMVSS 
No. 301 upgrade, we are providing additional lead time for specified 
vehicles and manufacturers. Manufacturers of motor vehicles with a 
gross vehicle weight rating greater than 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) are 
provided an additional year of lead time to comply with the upgraded 
side impact requirements to determine what changes if any need to be 
made. The agency is also providing multistage manufacturers and 
alterers an additional year of lead time to comply with both the 
upgraded side and rear impact requirements. This will permit alterers 
and multistage manufacturers to rely on an incomplete vehicle 
certification without delaying production. Additionally, small volume 
manufacturers are permitted to comply with the rear impact upgrade 
phase-in with the following percentages of production: 0%, 0%, and 
100%. This allows small manufacturers to avoid the expense of testing 
and possibly modifying a model going out of production during the first 
two years of the phase-in, and delays their costs to the final year. 
The agency is also providing flexibility for manufacturers of vehicles 
that are required to comply with both FMVSS Nos. 301 and 305, which may 
reduce the amount of vehicle testing performed.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The December 2003 final rule, which this notice amends, was 
certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The amendments made by this final rule do not 
substantially impact the economic effects of the December 2003 final 
rule, except that this final rule provides multistage manufacturers and 
alterers, many of which are small entities, additional time to comply 
with the December 2003 final rule.
    Consequently, the agency has concluded that this rulemaking will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed these amendments for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that they will 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 has 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal 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 in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, 
or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
more than $100 million annually. Consequently, no Unfunded Mandates 
assessment has been prepared.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 
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 rule does not 
establish any new information collection requirements.

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

I. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) is determined 
to be ``economically significant'' as defined

[[Page 51398]]

under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety 
risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we 
must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned 
rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable 
to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by us.
    This rulemaking does not involve decisions about health risks that 
disproportionately affect children.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This final rule does not address matters such as performance 
requirements or test conditions, procedures or devices. It addresses 
compliance schedules only. Therefore, the voluntary consensus standards 
are not relevant to this final rule. In the December 2003 final rule, 
the agency noted that there were not any voluntary consensus standards 
available at that time. It stated further that NHTSA would consider any 
such standards when they become available.

K. Privacy Act

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

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.

49 CFR Part 586

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR Part 571 
and Part 586 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 571.301 is amended by adding paragraphs S6.2(c), S6.3(c), 
S6.3(d) and S6.3(e), and by revising S6, S8.1(a), S8.1(b), S8.2.1 and 
S8.2.2 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.301  Standard No. 301; Fuel system integrity.

* * * * *
    S6. Test requirements. Each vehicle with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less 
shall be capable of meeting the requirements of any applicable barrier 
crash test followed by a static rollover, without alteration of the 
vehicle during the test sequence. A particular vehicle need not meet 
further requirements after having been subjected to a single barrier 
crash test and a static rollover test. Where manufacturer options are 
specified in this standard, the manufacturer must select an option not 
later than the time it certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter 
select a different option for that vehicle. Each manufacturer must, 
upon request from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
provide information regarding which of the compliance options it has 
selected for a particular vehicle or make/model.
* * * * *
    S6.2 Rear moving barrier crash.* * *
* * * * *
    (c) Small volume manufacturers. Notwithstanding S6.2(b) of this 
standard, vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2004 and 
before September 1, 2008 by a manufacturer that produces fewer than 
5,000 vehicles worldwide annually may meet the requirements of S6.2(a). 
Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008 by small volume 
manufacturers must meet the requirements of S6.2(b).
* * * * *
    S6.3 Side moving barrier crash. * * *
* * * * *
    (c) Notwithstanding S6.3(b) of this standard, vehicles having a 
GVWR greater than 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) may meet S6.3(a) of this standard 
until September 1, 2005. Vehicles that have a GVWR greater than 6,000 
lb (2,722 kg) and that are manufactured on or after September 1, 2005 
must meet the requirements of S6.3(b).
    (d) Notwithstanding S6.3(b) of this standard, vehicles with a GVWR 
of 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) or less that are manufactured in two or more 
stages or altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after having 
been previously certified in accordance with Part 567 of this chapter 
may meet S6.3(a) of this standard until September 1, 2005. Vehicles 
with a GVWR of 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) or less that are manufactured in two 
or more stages or altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after 
having been previously certified in accordance with Part 567 of this 
chapter and that are manufactured on or after September 1, 2005 must 
meet the requirements of S6.3(b)
    (e) Notwithstanding S6.3(b) and (c) of this standard, vehicles with 
a GVWR greater than 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) that are manufactured in two or 
more stages or altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after 
having been previously certified in accordance with Part 567 of this 
chapter may meet S6.3(a) of this standard until September 1, 2006. 
Vehicles with a GVWR greater than 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) that are 
manufactured in two or more stages or altered (within the meaning of 49 
CFR 567.7) after having been previously certified in accordance with 
Part 567 of this chapter and that are manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2006 must meet the requirements of S6.3(b).
* * * * *
    S8.1 Rear impact test upgrade. (a) Vehicles manufactured on or 
after September 1, 2006 and before September 1, 2007. For vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, and before September 1, 
2007, the number of vehicles complying with S6.2(b) of this standard 
must not be less than 40 percent of:
    (1) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2004, and before September 1, 
2007; or
    (2) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2006, 
and before September 1, 2007.
    (b) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2007 and before 
September 1, 2008. For vehicles

[[Page 51399]]

manufactured on or after September 1, 2007 and before September 1, 
2008, the number of vehicles complying with S6.2(b) of this standard 
must not be less than 70 percent of:
    (1) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2005, and before September 1, 
2008; or
    (2) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2007, 
and before September 1, 2008.
* * * * *
    S8.2.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2006 and 
before September 1, 2009 are not required to comply with the 
requirements specified in S6.2(b) of this standard.
    S8.2.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 must 
comply with the requirements specified in S6.2(b) of this standard.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 571.305 is amended by revising S6.2 and S7.4 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  571.305  Standard No. 305; Electric powered vehicles: electrolyte 
spillage and electrical shock protection.

* * * * *
    S6.2 Rear moving barrier impact. The vehicle must meet the 
requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3, when:
    (a) it is impacted from the rear by a barrier moving at any speed 
up to and including 48 km/h, with a dummy at each front outboard 
designated seating position, or
    (b) at the manufacturer's option (with said option irrevocably 
selected prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle), it 
is impacted at 80  1.0 km/h with 50th percentile test 
dummies as specified in part 572 of this chapter at each front outboard 
designated seating position under the conditions specified in S7.3(b) 
of FMVSS No. 301 and S7 of this section as applicable.
* * * * *
    S7.4 Rear moving barrier impact test conditions. In addition to the 
conditions of S7.1 and S7.2, the rear moving barrier test conditions 
for S6.2(a) are those specified in S8.2 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 
571.208), except for the positioning of the barrier and the vehicle. 
The rear moving barrier is described in S8.2 of Standard No. 208 of 
this chapter. The barrier and test vehicle are positioned so that at 
impact--
    (a) The vehicle is at rest in its normal attitude;
    (b) The barrier is traveling at 48 km/h with its face perpendicular 
to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle; and
    (c) A vertical plane through the geometric center of the barrier 
impact surface and perpendicular to that surface coincides with the 
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.
* * * * *

PART 586--FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY UPGRADE PHASE-IN REPORTING 
REQUIREMENTS

0
4. The authority citation for Part 586 continues to read as follows:

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

0
5. Section 586.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) as follows:


Sec.  586.6  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Phase-in reporting requirements. * * *
* * * * *
    (4) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer 
complied with the requirements of S6.2(b), or S6.2(c) if applicable, of 
Standard No. 301 (49 CFR 571.301) for the period covered by the report 
and the basis for that statement;
* * * * *

    Issued: August 12, 2004.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-18968 Filed 8-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P