[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 29 (Monday, February 14, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7414-7436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2751]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 555, 567, 568, and 571

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


Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The final rule amends four different parts of title 49 to 
address the certification issues related to vehicles built in two or 
more stages and, to a lesser degree, to altered vehicles. The 
amendments allow the use of pass-through certification so that it can 
be used not only for multi-stage vehicles based on chassis-cabs, but 
also for those based on other types of incomplete vehicles. The 
amendments also create a new process under which intermediate and 
final-stage manufacturers and alterers can obtain temporary exemptions 
from dynamic performance requirements, and provide an automatic one 
year of additional lead time for new safety requirements for 
intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers, unless the 
agency determines with respect to a particular requirement that a 
longer or shorter time period is appropriate. This final rule also 
refines the agency's interpretation of ``vehicle type'' to more 
appropriately reflect the congressional and judicial considerations. 
Because vehicles built in two or more stages are more properly 
considered a ``vehicle type,'' the agency will be able more properly to 
consider the benefits and burdens of various compliance options when 
developing Federal motor vehicle standards.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this final rule are 
effective September 1, 2006.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document 
and submit your petition to: Administrator, Room 5220, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Harry Thompson, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (telephone 202-366-5289).
    For legal issues: Steve Wood, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA 
(telephone (202) 366-2992).
    You can reach both of these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended and 
recodified, mandates the issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards and requires the manufacturers of motor vehicles to certify 
that their vehicles comply with all applicable standards. While some 
vehicles are manufactured in a single stage by a single manufacturer, 
others are manufactured in multiple stages by a series of 
manufacturers.
    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 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

[[Page 7415]]

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 
allows what is commonly referred to as ``pass-through certification.'' 
As long as a subsequent manufacturer meets the conditions of the 
chassis-cab certification, 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 applicable 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. NHTSA said in the SNPRM that when issuing the original set 
of regulations regarding certification of vehicles built in two or more 
stages, the agency 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 37814 (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 Ass'n v. NHTSA, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th Cir. 
1990). The court cited NHTSA's acknowledgement in the preamble to the 
final rule that most final-stage manufacturers are not capable of 
performing dynamic crash 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In response to the NTEA decision, on December 3, 1991, NHTSA 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (56 FR 61392) to 
extend the certification requirements that currently apply only to 
manufacturers of chassis-cabs to all incomplete vehicle manufacturers, 
and to permit all final-stage manufacturers to ``pass through'' the 
certification of the incomplete vehicle under certain circumstances. 
That NPRM engendered considerable controversy and virtually no support. 
In the comments, there was a clear division in positions among the 
various segments of the multi-stage vehicle industry.
    On November 17, 1995, NHTSA published a Notice announcing that it 
would hold a public meeting to seek information from final-stage and 
intermediate manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages, 
manufacturers of incomplete vehicles, and the public on certification 
of vehicles that are manufactured in stages and suggestions for action 
with respect to NHTSA's regulations and FMVSSs that govern the 
manufacture of vehicles in stages (60 FR 57694). In the notice, the 
agency stated its belief that multi-stage vehicle certification is an 
area in which negotiated rulemaking may be

[[Page 7416]]

beneficial, and invited comments on the advisability of conducting 
negotiated rulemaking in this area.
    The public meeting was held on December 12, 1995. Companies, trade 
associations, and individuals made presentations at the meeting and/or 
submitted written comments for the record. Many of the comments 
endorsed using regulatory negotiation for this rulemaking; none opposed 
the process. Based on this response, NHTSA determined that establishing 
an ad hoc advisory committee on this subject is in the public interest.

III. Negotiated Rulemaking Process

    In May 1999, 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 two facilitators and 23 individuals, many, but 
not all of whom remained active in the negotiations throughout the 
negotiated rulemaking process. The Committee was comprised of 
representatives from:

    (1) Incomplete vehicle manufacturers (General Motors (GM), Ford, 
Motor Coach Industries (MCI), DaimlerChrysler, International Truck 
and Engine Corp. (International), Freightliner, and Workhorse Custom 
Chassis (Workhorse));
    (2) Component manufacturers (Atwood Mobile Products (Atwood) and 
Bornemann Products (Bornemann));
    (3) Final-stage manufacturers and alterers (National Truck 
Equipment Association (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 Manufacturers 
Council of Small School Buses, Mid-Size Bus Manufacturers 
Association (AMD));
    (4) End users of the vehicle (American Automobile Association 
(AAA), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), National Association of 
Fleet Administrators (NAFA), and the 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 these companies 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, concerning the possible exclusion 
of final-stage manufacturers from the need to comply with 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. This issue 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. The Committee representative for GM 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 that the various manufacturers could not agree which one 
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 over 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

[[Page 7417]]

Committee members still involved in the process. All Committee members 
had an opportunity to review and comment on the Committee 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 
crash 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's 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 
decided to move forward with the publication of a Supplemental Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on which all Committee members were free 
to offer unrestricted comments. In the SNPRM, NHTSA recognized 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 believed it 
would have been unfair to restrict comment on any portions of the 
proposal. Nevertheless, NHTSA believed that the draft regulation 
represented a significant improvement over the existing regulations 
governing the certification of vehicles built in two or more stages. 
Additionally, the agency recognized 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. NHTSA believes the negotiated 
rulemaking process has been valuable in drafting amendments that 
balance the practical needs of all parties represented by the 
Committee. Accordingly, NHTSA decided to propose amending the 
applicable regulations as drafted by the Committee.

IV. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On June 28, 2004, NHTSA published a SNPRM (69 FR 36038) proposing 
to amend five different parts of title 49 to establish a comprehensive 
regulatory scheme for addressing certification issues related to 
vehicles built in two or more stages and, to a lesser degree, to 
altered vehicles. In the SNPRM, NHTSA provided background on 
certification issues, discussed the negotiated rulemaking process and 
summarized the primary issues involved in the rulemaking, noting a lack 
of consensus among members of the negotiated rulemaking Committee. 
NHTSA proposed amendments to the applicable regulations as drafted by 
the Committee but invited comments from Committee members and the 
public regarding the proposed changes.

A. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 555

    In the SNPRM, NHTSA proposed 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 proposed new subpart would apply to final-stage 
manufacturers and alterers who need a temporary exemption from a 
portion of a safety standard (or set of safety standards) for which the 
agency verifies compliance solely through dynamic crash testing. The 
new subpart would streamline the temporary exemption process by 
allowing an association or other party representing the interests of 
multiple manufacturers to bundle exemption petitions for a specific 
vehicle design, thus permitting a single explanation of the potential 
safety impact and good faith attempts to comply with the standards.
    Under the proposed subpart, each manufacturer seeking an exemption 
would be required to demonstrate financial hardship and certify that it 
has been unable to manufacture a compliant vehicle. Exemptions based on 
financial hardship under the proposed rule could not be granted to 
companies manufacturing more than 10,000 vehicles per year, and any 
exemption could not apply to more than 2,500 vehicles per year.\7\ 
Additionally, under the proposed subpart, NHTSA would commit to 
informing an applicant within 30 days whether the application is 
complete and would attempt to grant or deny the petition within 120 
days of its acknowledgement that the application is complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the SNPRM, although NHTSA considered a negotiated 
rulemaking subcommittee suggestion to exclude certain intermediate and 
final-stage manufacturers completely from standards based on dynamic 
crash tests, NHTSA stated that it believed that limitations set forth 
in 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the court's ruling in Nader v. Volpe, 320 
F.Supp. 266 (D.D.C. 1970), aff'd, 475 F.2d 216 (D.C. Cir. 1973), 
preclude the agency from doing so. Accordingly, NHTSA instead proposed 
changes to 49 CFR Part 555 to permit temporary exemptions in an effort 
to ease the financial burdens on final-stage manufacturers for 
standards based on the performance of a vehicle in a dynamic crash 
test.

B. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 567

    NHTSA proposed expanding 49 CFR part 567, Certification, for all 
vehicles. The proposal would revise significantly the section dealing 
with certification of vehicles built in two or more stages, 49 CFR 
567.5. It was intended to extend pass-through certification beyond 
chassis-cabs now in Sec.  567.5(a) to all incomplete vehicles. The 
proposal also stated that incomplete vehicle manufacturers assume legal 
responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the Act with 
respect to components and systems they install on the incomplete 
vehicle and, to the extent that the vehicle is completed in accordance 
with the IVD, for all components and systems added by the final-stage 
manufacturer, except for defects in those components and systems or 
defects in workmanship by the final-stage manufacturer.
    Under the proposed regulation, manufacturers of incomplete vehicles 
would be required to 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, an intermediate stage manufacturer would be required to place 
an information label on the incomplete vehicle that identifies the

[[Page 7418]]

intermediate stage manufacturer, month and year the intermediate 
manufacturer last performed work on the vehicle, and GVWR/GAWR 
limitations, if different from those provided by the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer. The final-stage manufacturer would be required to place a 
certification label on the vehicle that specifies that the vehicle 
conforms to all applicable standards, and may also specify that it has 
or has not, for FMVSSs listed, stayed within the confines of the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or simply makes a 
statement of conformity. In addition, notwithstanding the 
certification, this section of the proposed regulation would assign 
legal responsibility for each stage of vehicle manufacture with respect 
to systems and components supplied on the vehicle, work performed on 
the vehicle, and the accuracy of the information contained in the IVD 
and addenda to the IVD. The SNPRM inadvertently deleted from part 567 
the definition of chassis-cab, found in existing Sec.  567.3, and 
requirements for persons who do not alter certified vehicles or do so 
with readily attachable components, found in existing Sec.  567.6.

C. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 568

    In the SNPRM, NHTSA proposed revising 49 CFR part 568, Vehicles 
Manufactured in Two or More Stages, to note expressly that an 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer may incorporate by reference body 
builder or other design and engineering guidance into the IVD. The 
agency noted its expectation that design and engineering guides, if 
included, would generally provide instructions on certain aspects of 
further manufacturing, which would assist multi-stage manufacturers to 
pass through the compliance statements from incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers. NHTSA indicated that the incorporation of design and 
engineering guides should not unreasonably limit the circumstances in 
which it will be possible to pass through these compliance statements. 
Further, the agency stated that these guides would 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.

D. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 571

    NHTSA also requested comments on its proposed revisions to 49 CFR 
571.8, Effective Date, providing intermediate and final-stage 
manufacturers and alterers an automatic additional year for compliance 
with certain amendments to the FMVSSs. Under the proposal, the 
additional leadtime would apply unless NHTSA decides that such leadtime 
is inappropriate as part of a rulemaking amending or establishing a 
safety standard. The proposed change also would allow NHTSA to provide 
even more additional leadtime upon a determination that one-year is 
insufficient. The agency additionally could determine that the safety 
problem is so significant that providing additional leadtime would 
result in an unacceptable risk of injury or death. Further, Congress 
could direct NHTSA to require compliance with a new standard by a 
specified date. In those instances in which Congress limits the 
agency's discretion to provide additional leadtime, all manufacturers 
and alterers would be required to meet the compliance date set forth in 
the standard.
    NHTSA noted in the SNPRM that incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
often do not provide final-stage manufacturers with information 
necessary to certify their vehicles until shortly before, and in some 
cases even after, the effective date of the standard in question. The 
same problem arises when an incomplete vehicle is substantively changed 
as the result of a model year changeover. The agency stated that giving 
alterers an additional year allows alterers to take certified vehicles 
out of compliance, an action typically viewed with disfavor by NHTSA. 
However, the problems faced by final-stage manufacturers also are 
applicable to alterers. If a vehicle manufacturer waits until the last 
possible moment to certify vehicles, alterers will not have the ability 
to conduct any engineering analysis to determine if the alterations 
affect compliance.
    Under the proposed changes, for phased-in requirements, the 
additional year would be applied at the end of the phase-in. NHTSA 
stated that 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 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.
    With respect to vehicle modifiers, NHTSA recognized in the SNPRM 
the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association'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, NHTSA noted that because vehicle modifiers bear no 
certification responsibility, a change to provide modifiers with an 
additional year to make modifications would not be made in the context 
of amending part 571. Further, NHTSA said that it believed that the 
businesses engaging in operations that may invalidate compliance 
certification should be held responsible for their actions. The agency 
acknowledged its awareness 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. 
The SNPRM noted that while a vehicle modifier that knowingly makes an 
item of mandatory safety equipment inoperative may be subject to fines, 
it could not be compelled to conduct a recall campaign to remedy any 
safety-related defects or noncompliances resulting from its work.

E. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 573

    NHTSA also proposed revisions to 49 CFR part 573. Under existing 
regulations, the manufacturer of a motor vehicle is responsible for any 
safety-related defect or noncompliance determined to exist in the 
vehicle or in any item of original equipment. 49 CFR 573.5; 49 CFR 579 
(prior to 2002); see 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(F) and (G). In the case of 
multi-stage vehicles, ultimate responsibility has rested with the 
final-stage manufacturer because, in part, incomplete vehicles are 
classified as original equipment items. 58 FR 40402, 40403 (July 28, 
1993). Nonetheless, NHTSA's regulations provide that in the case of a 
defect in vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, compliance with 
specified recall requirements by either the manufacturer of the 
incomplete vehicle or any subsequent manufacturer shall be considered 
compliance by all manufacturers. 49 CFR 573.3(c).
    In the course of this rulemaking, final-stage manufacturers have 
sought to shift ultimate responsibility under the rule for some recalls 
to incomplete vehicle manufacturers. In cases where the final-stage 
manufacturer and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer agree on recall 
responsibility, the matter is essentially straightforward. In cases 
where the final-stage manufacturer and the

[[Page 7419]]

incomplete vehicle manufacturer do not agree on recall responsibility, 
this raises the question of how this responsibility is to be assigned. 
As noted in the SNPRM, an associated issue was the mechanism for 
assuring a timely recall in the event the various manufacturers could 
not agree who was responsible. 69 FR 36041. From a safety perspective, 
timeliness and finality were very important in light of the obvious 
problem of the existence of a safety-related defect or noncompliance 
not addressed by a recall because manufacturers were squabbling over 
responsibility.
    In the SNPRM, NHTSA presented its proposed changes to section 
573.5, addressing those instances in which either the manufacturers or 
NHTSA determine that the vehicle or its original equipment has a 
safety-related defect or noncompliance but the parties dispute their 
accountability for the recall. In such an instance, under the proposed 
rule, NHTSA would assign recall responsibility to the party it believes 
is in the best position to conduct and notification and remedy 
campaign. Proposed Sec.  573.5(c), 69 FR 36056. Although the agency 
expected that there should be very few instances in which a dispute 
arises regarding which manufacturer should conduct a recall campaign, 
NHTSA indicated 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.
    As discussed above, currently, the final-stage manufacturer has the 
ultimate responsibility. Thus, there is not any need for the agency to 
assign responsibility. This approach avoids delays in removing unsafe 
vehicles from the road. Within this structure, the manufacturers work 
out issues of responsibility.
    In the SNPRM, NHTSA further proposed that its determination would 
not be reviewable. Sec.  573.5(c). NHTSA acknowledged its concerns 
whether the nonreviewability provision could withstand judicial 
scrutiny. NHTSA noted that courts favor review of final agency actions. 
In the SNPRM, NHTSA indicated its belief that the nonreviewability 
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 (APA). 
Accordingly, given its concerns about the likelihood that the 
nonreviewability provision could withstand judicial scrutiny, NHTSA 
invited commenters to provide arguments and analyses regarding 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.
    In addition, NHTSA reprinted in the preamble to the SNPRM the 
alternative language offered in the negotiated rulemaking by 
DaimlerChrysler, which would repeat the specific allocation of legal 
responsibility among incomplete vehicle, intermediate, and final-stage 
manufacturers found in proposed section 567.5. However, NHTSA noted 
that DaimlerChrysler's language would not provide a dispute resolution 
mechanism and would not ensure that a recall campaign is conducted in a 
timely manner in the event of a dispute.

V. Summary of Public Comments to the SNPRM

    NHTSA received nine comments in response to the SNPRM. Five 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers (GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, 
International, Freightliner), one association representing incomplete 
truck manufacturers (Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA)), and three 
associations representing the final-stage manufacturer or alterer 
industry (RVIA, NTEA, NADA) submitted comments. Although International, 
Ford and RVIA submitted comments after the deadline for comments 
passed, NHTSA considered the late comments in writing this Final Rule.
    The commenters responding to the proposal in part 555 for financial 
hardship temporary exemptions for alterers and final-stage 
manufacturers generally favored the adoption of the exemptions. 
However, the associations representing the final-stage manufacturer or 
alterer industry portrayed temporary exemptions as only a partial 
solution to the problems such manufacturers face with respect to 
certification through dynamic crash testing and requested that NHTSA 
provide safe harbors for low-production vehicles.
    In general, commenters supported changes to part 567 to eliminate 
the current distinction between chassis-cabs and other incomplete 
vehicles and conveyed overall support for the proposal allocating legal 
responsibility for each stage of vehicle manufacture. Some commenters 
representing incomplete vehicle manufacturers suggested modifications 
to the language proposed in section 567.5(b) to clarify the intent or 
to ensure that incomplete vehicle manufacturers are not assigned legal 
responsibility for things over which they have no control.
    With respect to the proposed revisions to part 568 to permit 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers to incorporate by reference body 
builder or other design and engineering guidance into the IVD, those 
who commented either generally supported or did not oppose the 
proposal. Two of the final-stage manufacturer representatives expressed 
concerns that the incorporation of additional documents could create 
further burdens for final-stage manufacturers.
    In general, commenters favored the automatic one-year extension 
proposed for part 571. However, some of the commenters representing 
final-stage manufacturers suggested that the rule include an additional 
year of leadtime for final-stage manufacturers under certain 
circumstances associated with the introduction of new model year 
vehicles.
    Finally, among the most contentious proposals for which NHTSA 
received comments were the proposed revisions to part 573 to allow 
NHTSA to determine which manufacturer is in the best position to 
conduct a recall when the parties dispute their accountability for a 
safety-related defect or noncompliance and whether such a determination 
could be nonreviewable. The incomplete vehicle manufacturers expressed 
disapproval of the proposed revisions to part 573, while the commenters 
representing final-stage manufacturers articulated support for the 
proposal.

VI. Agency Response to Comments

    The comments received regarding the changes proposed in the SNPRM 
to the five different parts of title 49 are summarized in more detail 
below. The agency's responses to these comments also are discussed 
below.

A. 49 CFR Part 555

1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 555
    The five commenters who submitted comments on the proposed changes 
to part 555 (GM, Ford, NADA, RVIA, NTEA) expressed general support for 
the financial hardship temporary exemption for alterers, intermediate, 
and final-stage manufacturers.
    GM commented that the proposed revisions would provide a better 
means for temporary exemptions than the mechanism found in the current 
regulatory text. Ford pointed to an

[[Page 7420]]

inconsistency between the statement in the preamble of the proposed 
rule that the exemption would only apply to safety requirements with 
which NHTSA verifies compliance through dynamic crash testing, while 
the proposed text of section 555.12 permits ``a temporary exemption 
from the provisions of any portion of a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard.'' (Emphasis added.) Ford stated that NHTSA should limit the 
temporary exemptions to requirements that are based on dynamic crash 
testing. Additionally, Ford indicated its disapproval of NHTSA's 
proposal that manufacturers would not have to commit to achieving full 
compliance by the expiration of the exemption, commenting that the rule 
should excuse compliance in instances of ``legitimate hardship'' but 
should not completely excuse compliance. Ford added that where 
compliance is impractical because of the design of a special purpose 
vehicle, the text of the promulgated rule should handle the exclusion 
specifically.
    Although NADA expressed support for the temporary exemptions as 
proposed, it noted ``the proposed exemption process is by no means a 
panacea and may prove unwieldy in certain circumstances.''
    RVIA generally supported the amendments to part 555, but requested 
clarification regarding the limitations in Sec.  555.11 that the 
temporary exemption apply only to entities that produce or alter no 
more than 10,000 vehicles per year and cannot apply to more than 2,500 
vehicles sold in the United States in any twelve-month period. In 
particular, RVIA suggested clarifying language to specify that, when 
determining eligibility for a temporary exemption, only vehicles built 
in two or more stages should be counted in the aggregate limit of 
10,000 vehicles per year. RVIA wanted to ensure that an RV 
manufacturer's non-applicable single stage towable vehicles would not 
be counted in the aggregate limit of 10,000 vehicles per year when 
determining eligibility for a temporary exclusion. Despite generally 
supporting the proposed amendments to part 555, RVIA additionally 
commented that the amendments provide an ``imperfect system of 
temporary exemptions.'' Accordingly, RVIA encouraged NHTSA to consider 
regulatory and legislative alternatives to expand its exemption and 
exemption renewal authority, including the authority to grant safe 
harbor exemptions for low-production vehicles.
    NTEA provided comments regarding the proposal for a financial 
hardship temporary exemption for alterers and final-stage 
manufacturers. As evidenced in its comments responding to the SNPRM, 
NTEA prefers either consortium testing as an alternate means of 
demonstrating compliance with dynamic standards or a ``safe harbor'' 
for intermediate and final-stage manufacturers under certain 
circumstances. NTEA noted that the negotiated rulemaking committee did 
not embrace NTEA's suggestion for consortium testing. A negotiated 
rulemaking subcommittee suggested a safe harbor, but NHTSA rejected the 
suggestion in the SNPRM, on the basis that it would be an impermissible 
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the ruling in Nader. NTEA argued in 
its comments, however, that neither section 30113 nor the Nader 
decision prevents NHTSA from requiring dynamic crash testing only for 
vehicles for which demonstrating compliance is practicable. NTEA 
recommended that if NHTSA believes it does not have statutory authority 
to implement the subcommittee's suggestion, NHTSA should seek the 
necessary statutory authority in order to adequately address final-
stage manufacturers' compliance problems.
    Nonetheless, NTEA expressed support for the proposed temporary 
exemption provision, but commented that the temporary exemption would 
be only a partial solution to the problem of verification through 
dynamic crash testing because relief would be limited. NTEA asserted 
that under the temporary exemption provisions of part 555, petitions 
would be required for each model produced, each final-stage 
manufacturer would need to submit individual filings for each petition, 
and new petitions would be required when customers ask final-stage 
manufacturers to produce slight variations of the vehicle combinations. 
Accordingly, NTEA commented that NHTSA would not be able to respond 
promptly to this vast number of petitions. NTEA additionally commented 
that inconsistent with the court's ruling in NTEA, ``[a]n uncertain, 
awkward and time consuming petition process, with an uncertain outcome 
on the merits, is not an adequate substitute to a legitimate compliance 
alternative.'' NTEA recommended that NHTSA seek statutory authority to 
expand temporary exemptions to a wider class of manufacturers.
2. Agency Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 555
a. Authority To Exclude Multi-Stage Vehicles From FMVSSs
    In response to the public comments arguing that we possess 
authority to exclude multi-stage vehicles as a group from a standard, 
we decided to re-examine our position on that issue. The discussion in 
the SNPRM of our authority appears to have conflated our authority to 
exclude types of vehicles permanently from the application of a 
standard with our authority to exempt individual manufacturers 
temporarily from a standard.
    Multi-stage vehicles are aimed at a variety of niche markets, most 
of which are too small to be serviced economically by single stage 
manufacturers. Some multi-stage vehicles are built from chassis-cabs 
completed with an intact occupant compartment. Others are built from 
less complete vehicles and designed to service particular needs--often 
necessitating the addition by the final-stage manufacturer of its own 
occupant compartment. The agency must balance accommodating this 
segment of the motor vehicle market with the requirements of the 
Vehicle Safety Act.
    The courts have set forth a number of principles the agency must 
take into account when considering these issues. First, the mandate in 
the Vehicle Safety Act that the agency consider whether a proposed 
standard is appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle for 
which it is prescribed is intended to ensure that consumers are 
provided an array of purchasing choices and to preclude some standards 
that will effectively eliminate certain types of vehicles from the 
market. See Chrysler Corp. v. Dept. of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 
679 (6th Cir. 1972) (agency may not establish a standard that 
effectively eliminates convertibles and sports cars from the market). 
Second, the agency may not provide exemptions for single manufacturers 
beyond those specified by statute. See Nader v. Volpe, 320 F. Supp. 266 
(D.D.C. 1970), motion to vacate affirmance denied, 475 F.2d 916 (DC 
Cir. 1973). Finally, the agency must provide adequate compliance 
provisions for final-stage manufacturers. Failing to provide these 
manufacturers with a means of establishing compliance would render a 
standard impracticable as to them. See National Truck Equipment Ass'n 
v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th 
Cir. 1990) (''NTEA'').
    One of the traditional ways in which the agency has handled the 
difficulties of these multi-stage vehicles has been

[[Page 7421]]

simply to exclude all vehicles, single-stage as well as multi-stage, 
within the upper GVWR range of light vehicles, typically 8,500 lb. 
GVWR-10,000 lb. GVWR. Many of the multi-stage vehicles manufactured for 
commercial use cluster in that GVWR range.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As the Court noted in NTEA (at 1158): ``The Administration 
could meet the needs of final-stage manufacturers in many ways. It 
could exempt from the steering column displacement standard all 
commercial vehicles or all vehicles finished by final-stage 
manufacturers. It could exempt those vehicles for which a final-
stage manufacturer cannot pass through the certification from the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers. It could change the pass-through 
regulations. It could reexamine the issue and prove that final-stage 
manufacturers can conduct engineering studies, and then provide in 
the regulation that such studies exceed the capacities of final-
stage manufacturers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency traditionally took this approach because the agency 
historically was of the view that it could not subject vehicles built 
in multiple stages to any different requirements than those built in a 
single stage. That was because the agency had construed section 
30111(b)(3) of the Safety Act, which instructs the agency to ``consider 
whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate 
for the particular type of motor vehicle * * * for which it is 
prescribed,'' as precluding such an approach.
    In reaching that conclusion, the agency had focused on a comment in 
the Senate Report:

In determining whether any proposed standard is ``appropriate'' for 
the particular type of motor-vehicle * * * for which it is 
prescribed, the committee intends that the Secretary will consider 
the desirability of affording consumers continued wide range of 
choices in the selection of motor vehicles. Thus it is not intended 
that standards will be set which will eliminate or necessarily be 
the same for small cars or such widely accepted models as 
convertibles and sports cars, so long as all motor vehicles meet 
basic minimum standards. Such differences, of course, would be based 
on the type of vehicle rather than its place of origin or any 
special circumstances of its manufacturer.

    Focusing on the last sentence of that passage, the agency construed 
multi-stage vehicles with regard to the ``special circumstances of 
[their] manufacturer,'' See 60 FR 38749, 38758, July 28, 1995, rather 
than considering whether multi-stage vehicles constitute a ``type of 
vehicle.'' See NTEA (at 1151) (Noting the agency's regulation defining 
``incomplete vehicle'' as ``an assemblage consisting as a minimum, of 
frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension 
system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be 
part of the completed vehicle that requires further manufacturing 
operations * * * to become a completed vehicle.'' 49 CFR 568.3 (1989)).
    We have considered our historical view of the legislative history 
in light of relevant case law and our experience with the compliance 
difficulties imposed on final-stage manufacturers. We note that the 
language we had previously considered to be a limitation does not 
appear in the statutory text. Nothing in the statutory text implies 
that Congress intended that incomplete vehicles not be deemed a vehicle 
type subject to special consideration during the regulatory process. We 
believe the sentence found in the Senate Report was intended to avoid 
regulatory distinctions based on manufacturer-specific criteria (such 
as place of production or manner of importation). This is consistent 
with the Court's conclusion in Nader v. Volpe, supra, that the agency 
cannot give exemptions to particular manufacturers beyond that provided 
by the statute.
    We are also concerned that we had overlooked the existence of 
relevant physical attributes of multi-stage vehicles. Many of the 
multi-stage vehicles in question have distinct physical features 
related to their end use. More important, all of them incorporate 
incomplete vehicles other than chassis-cabs. Especially in the context 
of the difficulties of serving niche markets, the physical limitations 
of the incomplete vehicles other than chassis-cabs can adversely affect 
the ability of multi-stage manufacturer to design safety performance 
into their completed vehicles.
    Further, as previously applied, our interpretation limits our 
ability to secure increases in safety. Excluding all vehicles within a 
given GVWR range from a safety requirement because of the possible 
compliance difficulties of some of those vehicles means not obtaining 
the safety benefits of that requirement for any of those vehicles. 
Likewise, applying a lesser requirement to all of those vehicles 
instead of a higher requirement for some of the vehicles and a lower 
requirement for the balance of the vehicles also entails a loss of 
safety benefits.
    It would be perverse to conclude that the Vehicle Safety Act 
permits us to exclude all vehicles within a certain GVWR range 
primarily because of the compliance difficulties of multi-stage 
vehicles within that range, but not to limit the exclusion to only the 
multi-stage vehicles within that range. This would enable consumers to 
obtain the safety benefits of regulating the other vehicles within that 
weight range.
    Accordingly, we have refined our views to conclude that it is 
appropriate to consider incomplete vehicles, other than those 
incorporating chassis-cabs, as a vehicle type subject to consideration 
in the establishment of regulation. We anticipate that final-stage 
manufacturers using chassis-cabs to produce multi-stage vehicles would 
be in position to take advantage of ``pass-through certification'' of 
chassis-cabs, and therefore are not including such vehicles in the 
category of those for which this optional compliance method is 
available.
b. Suggestion That Exemptions Be Premised on Commitment to Achieving 
Full Compliance
    NHTSA agrees with Ford that vehicle configurations for which 
compliance with a standard is impracticable or unnecessary should be 
excluded from that standard. However, given the myriad configurations 
of vehicles, it may not always be possible to identify and list all of 
those vehicles to be excluded from the standard. Moreover, some FMVSSs 
with dynamic crash test requirements have been amended and multi-stage 
and altered vehicle will be required to comply at a future date. It may 
not be economically practicable for a final-stage manufacturer to test 
very low volume or one-of-a-kind vehicle configurations. In those 
instances in which there is no pass-through certification in the IVD, 
final-stage manufacturers need a process that enables them to produce 
and sell such vehicles without having to commit to meeting the FMVSS at 
the end of the three-year exemption period.
c. Scope of New Exemption Provisions
    Ford is correct that we inadvertently omitted language limiting the 
new exemption provision to FMVSS requirements that are based on dynamic 
crash testing. We have added appropriate limiting language to part 555.
d. Production Volume Limit on Eligibility for Exemption
    The Vehicle Safety Act limits eligibility for financial hardship to 
companies manufacturing more than 10,000 motor vehicles per year.\9\ As 
we interpret this to include all vehicles of any type, we cannot 
exclude single stage towable vehicles from the calculation. Section 
571.3 of title 49 CFR defines ``trailer'' as a type of motor vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Anticipated Volume of Applications for New Exemptions
    We believe that as a result of our conclusion that multi-stage 
vehicles

[[Page 7422]]

constitute a vehicle type and can be excluded, if appropriate, from 
particular FMVSSs, the volume of petitions will be less than 
anticipated at the time of the SNPRM. Moreover, the number of such 
petitions can be reduced if manufacturers and associations submit them 
for ranges of vehicle configurations, as permitted in Sec.  555.12(e).
f. Handling of New Exemption Applications
    We do not agree with NTEA's characterization of how petitions would 
be handled under the new petition process. Further, by potentially 
reducing the volume of petitions, the new interpretation of authority 
to exclude multi-stage vehicles from FMVSSs makes those 
characterizations even less appropriate.

B. 49 CFR Part 567

1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 567
    Commenters generally favored some of the proposed changes to part 
567. In particular, commenters supported the elimination of the 
distinction between chassis-cabs and other incomplete vehicles. Some 
commenters favored the proposal to assign legal responsibility for each 
stage of vehicle manufacture with respect to systems and components 
supplied on the vehicle, work performed, and the accuracy of the 
information contained in the IVD and addendums to the IVD. However, 
several commenters recommended revisions to the language proposed in 
the SNPRM for part 567.
    DaimlerChrysler, which, as discussed above, had proposed revisions 
to part 573, stated that the proposed Sec.  567.5 refers only to 
defects and not to noncompliances, and accordingly recommended that the 
agency revise proposed Sec. Sec.  567.5(c) and (d) to clarify that 
intermediate and final-stage manufacturers are responsible for 
noncompliances in components or systems added by them, or noncompliance 
resulting from work done by them.
    NADA urged NHTSA to provide additional language in the preamble of 
the final rule to clarify the changes to Sec.  567.6 and related 
definitions. NADA specifically indicated that the proposed definition 
of ``readily attachable component'' could create confusion in light of 
the agency's history of interpreting what constitutes vehicle 
alteration.
    With respect to requirements proposed in Sec.  567.5(b) for 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers, TMA offered the following alternative 
language to Sec.  567.5(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) to make the intent of the 
section more clear:

    (ii) Components and systems that are incorporated into the 
completed vehicle by an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer in 
accordance with the instructions contained in the IVD, except for 
defects in those components or systems or defects in workmanship by 
the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer; and
    (iii) The accuracy of the information contained in the IVD.

    International and Freightliner also commented on Sec.  567.5(b), 
requesting that NHTSA delete proposed Sec.  567.5(b)(1)(ii). 
International and Freightliner expressed concerns about incomplete 
manufacturers' certification responsibilities under that proposed 
section. As they noted, the proposal suggests that the incomplete 
manufacturer has legal responsibility for something that it has no 
control over. The comments explained that incomplete manufacturers 
cannot enumerate or prohibit every conceivable contingency that a 
subsequent manufacture may think up. Freightliner also posed the 
question whether such language makes the incomplete manufacturer 
responsible for the design or engineering of a system or component, not 
engineered according to sound engineering principles, because it is not 
specifically prohibited in the IVD. International and Freightliner 
favored a policy under which each manufacturer at each stage of 
manufacture is responsible for components and systems it supplies for a 
vehicle as well as the accuracy of information it supplies in the IVD, 
its addendum, or the certification. With respect to incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers, the language in Sec.  567.5(b)(1)(i) and (iii), 
according to International and Freightliner, already accomplishes this 
objective of ensuring proper allocation of responsibility. 
International and Freightliner further argued that in addition to 
deleting paragraph (b)(1)(ii), NHTSA should conform paragraphs (c) and 
(d) pertaining to intermediate and final-stage manufacturers 
accordingly.
    NHTSA received three comments supporting the proposed labeling 
requirements. GM favored the labeling requirements and noted that the 
revisions to part 567 will harmonize labeling requirements for multi-
stage vehicles with those found in Canada. RVIA expressed support for 
the labeling and label content requirements. NADA commented that the 
labeling revisions are appropriate.
    GM, DaimlerChrysler, and Freightliner responded to NHTSA's request 
for comments regarding whether the agency should amend 567.4(g)(1) 
either to specify that the name of the business entity accepting legal 
responsibility for a defect or noncompliance or that 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. GM commented that such a revision to Sec.  
567.4(g)(1) is unnecessary because proposed Sec.  567.5(d)(2)(i), (f), 
and (g), as published, sufficiently address the issue of the 
manufacturer's name appearing on the certification label. 
DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner, however, urged NHTSA to modify Sec.  
567.4(g)(1) to allow or require the entity accepting responsibility for 
the vehicle to be listed as the manufacturer on the certification 
label. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner commented that the current rule 
requiring the ``actual assembler'' to be listed on the certification 
label is confusing, especially when assembly is done under contract by 
an entity who may have no presence in the U.S. and has no public name 
recognition. In addition, the vehicle manufacturer, not the actual 
assembler, typically markets the vehicle, makes TREAD reports, and 
conducts safety recalls for the vehicle. Thus, according to 
DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner, the certification label should 
identify the entity that accepts legal responsibility in the U.S.
    Commenters also suggested typographical changes to the part 567 
language proposed in the SNPRM. First, GM and TMA noted that the 
definition of ``Addendum'' in Sec.  567.3 refers to Sec.  568.5(a), but 
subsection (a) does not exist. GM and TMA recommended that NHTSA change 
the reference to Sec.  568.5. Second, GM and TMA commented that 
proposed Sec.  567.4(g)(4)(ii) refers to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles as ``MPVS'' and suggested that the correct abbreviation is 
``MPVs'' as found in Sec.  567.4(g)(4)(iii). Third, GM and TMA stated 
Sec.  567.4(m)(1) and (m)(2) of the proposed regulation are identical 
to Sec. Sec.  567.4(l)(1) and (l)(2) and recommended that NHTSA delete 
Sec. Sec.  567.4(m)(1) and (m)(2). Finally, RVIA indicated that 
although the text in Sec. Sec.  567.1 and 567.2 refers to a 
certification ``label or tag,'' the word ``tag'' does not appear 
elsewhere in part 567. RVIA consequently recommended that NHTSA delete 
all references to ``tags.''

[[Page 7423]]

2. Agency Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 567
a. Addressing in Part 567 Responsibility for Noncompliances and Safety 
Related Defects
    In the SNPRM, NHTSA proposed adding provisions to part 567 that 
would allocate responsibility for all duties, which includes 
noncompliances and safety-related defects, among incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers, intermediate manufacturers, and final-stage 
manufacturers.\10\ However, it left unchanged a provision in part 573 
that also address responsibility for noncompliances and safety-related 
defects, assigning that responsibility to the final-stage manufacturer 
(49 CFR 573.5(a)) and proposed with respect to multi-stage vehicles 
that if the manufacturers did not agree over who was responsible, the 
agency would determine who would conduct a notification and remedy 
campaign (proposed Sec.  573.5(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NHTSA proposed to amend part 573 by adding a provision 
under which the agency would allocate responsibility in the event of 
a dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the final-stage manufacturer has the ultimate 
responsibility for notifying the agency of a noncompliance or a defect 
related to motor vehicle safety and of conducting a notification and 
remedy (recall) campaign. However, as a practical matter, the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers nearly always readily conduct the 
recall when responsible. This basic approach under part 573 avoids 
delays in removing unsafe vehicles from the road. The agency is 
concerned that amending part 567 to allocate this responsibility among 
manufacturers at the various stages of production would overlap part 
573, which would result in confusion and potential inconsistencies. 
Further, the commenters generally and some commenters specifically 
strongly opposed the related proposal to amend part 573 to provide for 
the agency to resolve disputes between manufacturers. As discussed 
below, the agency has decided not to amend part 573. Accordingly, the 
agency believes that part 568 should not be amended to address 
notification or remedy (recall) responsibilities for safety-related 
defects or noncompliances. As a result, part 568 is limited to 
certification responsibilities.
b. Proposed Definition of ``Readily Attachable Component''
    Proposed Sec.  567.3 would define the term ``altered vehicle,'' in 
part, as a previously certified vehicle ``that has been modified other 
than by the use of readily attachable components.'' The section also 
proposed to define the term ``readily attachable component'' as ``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.'' Since issuing the proposed rule, the agency has 
reconsidered the need to separately define ``readily attachable 
component.'' We note that insofar as the proposed definition 
characterizes ``readily attachable component'' as ``non-original 
equipment,'' it would potentially conflict with 49 CFR 573.4, which 
defines ``original equipment,'' in part, as ``motor vehicle equipment 
(other than a tire) that was installed in or on a motor vehicle at the 
time of its delivery to the first purchaser.'' In light of that 
definition, all equipment that is on a vehicle prior to its first 
retail sale, including that added by an alterer, is ``original 
equipment.'' The proposed definition also appears to be unduly 
restrictive in that it would limit ``readily attachable'' components to 
ones that ``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.'' Because it could 
introduce uncertainty as to what constitutes an ``altered vehicle,'' 
and does not clarify that issue in a meaningful way, the agency has 
concluded that it would be best to eliminate the proposed definition of 
``readily attachable component'' from this final rule. The agency has 
addressed the issue through interpretations and believes that this 
approach is satisfactory.
c. Responsibility of Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturers for Work 
Performed at a Later Stage of Production
    We have considered International's and Freightliner's concerns 
about the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's responsibility for matters 
it has no control over. The proposal reflected a view that various 
manufacturers should be responsible for the components and systems that 
they provide. It is not clear how it impacted pass-through 
certification, but it could reduce the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's responsibilities under the IVD. In our view, there is no 
simple and easy resolution of the issue of allocation of certification 
responsibilities for multi-stage vehicles. A vehicle that meets FMVSS 
is far more than an assemblage of components and systems that are 
bolted or welded together. The completed vehicle must be an integrated 
whole that performs properly under a variety of conditions. For 
example, at a basic level, if an incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
provided a windshield defrosting and defogging system and a windshield 
wiping system and washing system, ordinarily one would expect that the 
vehicle would meet FMVSS No. 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging 
Systems and FMVSS No. 104 Windshield Wiping System and Washing Systems. 
However, if the final-stage manufacturer added, modified, or deleted 
anything that resulted in a noncompliance with one or both of these 
standards, there should be two consequences. First, the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer would no longer be responsible and, second, the 
final-stage manufacturer would be responsible. Similarly, ordinarily 
the final-stage manufacturer of a school bus, which adds exterior 
features, would be expected to assure that the mirrors reveal the 
presence of children, as required by FMVSS No. 111 Rearview Mirrors.
    Second, at a more complex level, a number of FMVSS involve dynamic 
tests of the complete vehicle. Absent completion of the vehicle within 
the envelope of the incomplete vehicle document, testing by the final-
stage manufacturer is warranted. For example, FMVSSs for brake systems 
include vehicle performance requirements. The incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer ordinarily could not be expected to supply a brake system 
on a chassis that would comply with the applicable performance 
standards for any and all applications by a final-stage manufacturer. 
Similarly, the final-stage manufacturer cannot maintain that the brakes 
satisfied the standards simply because the brake systems and components 
were supplied by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Appropriate 
engineering and testing to meet performance requirements are warranted. 
The incomplete vehicle manufacturer can provide an IVD and, if the 
final-stage manufacturer adheres to the IVD, it can certify the vehicle 
without testing. Alternately, the final-stage manufacturer can certify 
the vehicle based on it own.
    Third, at a more complex level, a number of Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards involve dynamic crash tests. In these tests, the 
completed vehicle must meet standards. It is far from

[[Page 7424]]

sufficient, for example, that a vehicle has a functioning air bag or 
that part of the vehicle meets a test short of a crash test. See, e.g., 
65 FR 30698. Thus, the fact that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
supplied components or systems without more does not relieve the final-
stage manufacturer of its certification responsibilities for 
performance that depends only in part on those components or systems in 
a crash.
    The final rule adopts much of the SNPRM as it pertained to 
certification and reflects the concerns identified above. The final-
stage manufacturer certifies that the vehicle meets applicable FMVSSs 
but can rely on the prior manufacturers' IVD. The incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer and intermediate manufacturers have certification 
responsibilities for the vehicle as further manufactured or completed 
by a final-stage manufacturer to the extent that the vehicle is 
completed in accordance with the IVD. The incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer and intermediate manufacturers also have certification 
responsibilities for equipment subject to equipment standards that they 
supply and for other items and associated standards in the contract 
between them and the next stage manufacturer(s). The fact that some 
components were provided by an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, absent 
more, does not shift responsibility for certification to them with 
respect to completed vehicle performance standards such as those 
requiring dynamic crash tests.
    Some comments by incomplete vehicle manufacturers concern uncertain 
future events and negligent workmanship. The following indicates the 
difficulties inherent in providing detailed rules. Assume an incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer produces a school bus shell and an IVD stating 
that final stage manufacturer A must order certain passenger seats from 
company C, which it does. The seats arrive from company C complete with 
attaching hardware that includes special hardened fasteners. 
Unfortunately, the fasteners are lost. Company A obtains bolts from a 
local hardware store and installs the passenger seats in the school bus 
shell. The vehicle is tested by NHTSA and the passenger seats fails to 
meet FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. 
The question would be whether the final stage manufacturer completed 
the vehicle in accordance with the IVD. If, however, the passenger 
seats are installed with the correct attachment hardware but the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer did not follow its design, omitting the 
reinforcing plates under the floor areas where the seats are to be 
mounted, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for 
the invalid certification with FMVSS No. 222.
    As a second hypothetical, assume that the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's IVD provides for compliance with FMVSS No. 111 Rearview 
Mirrors. It provides mounting holes for mirrors on the incomplete 
vehicle and specifies certain mirrors. If the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer did not follow its design, mislocating the mounting holes 
for attaching the mirrors, the final stage manufacturer installed the 
correct mirrors, and the vehicle fails to meet FMVSS No. 111, the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for the 
certification violation.
d. Labeling Requirements
    Given that there were not any objections, NHTSA is adopting the 
labeling requirements as proposed.
e. Reference to 568.5(a)
    NHTSA agrees that the reference was incorrect and has corrected it, 
as suggested by the commenters.
f. Abbreviation of MPVs
    NHTSA has corrected the abbreviation as suggested.
g. Duplicative Provisions Regarding Minimum Size of Letters and Numbers
    NHTSA agrees that Sec. Sec.  567.4(l) and 567.4(m) are duplicative. 
NHTSA intended to propose that the minimum size of the lettering and 
numbering be increased to 4 mm to improve readability. Accordingly, the 
agency is deleting Sec.  567.4(l) and redesignating Sec. Sec.  567.4(m) 
and 567.4(l).
h. Reference to Tags
    NHTSA agrees that the reference to tags is unnecessary and should 
be deleted.

C. 49 CFR Part 568

1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 568
    Five commenters (GM, NADA, RVIA, NTEA, TMA) submitted comments on 
the proposed changes to part 568. GM and NADA generally supported the 
proposed revisions to part 568 to note expressly that incomplete 
vehicle manufacturers may incorporate by reference body builder or 
other design and engineering guidance into the IVD. GM and TMA 
suggested a technical correction to proposed Sec. Sec.  568.7(a) and 
(b), which refer to Sec.  568.6(b), a section that does not exist in 
the proposed regulation. GM and TMA recommended that the proper 
reference is to Sec.  568.6. NHTSA agrees that the reference was 
incorrect and has corrected it, as suggested by the commenters.
    NTEA indicated that it does not oppose the proposed changes to part 
568. However, NTEA voiced its concern that permitting incomplete 
vehicle manufacturers to incorporate additional documents into the IVD 
could become burdensome for final-stage manufacturers and could produce 
the same problems that currently limit pass-through certification. NTEA 
stated that IVDs are often so restrictive that a final-stage 
manufacturer cannot accomplish pass-through certification. NTEA 
commented further that allowing incomplete vehicle manufacturers to 
incorporate by reference lengthy and complicated documents into IVDs 
might make it easier for incomplete vehicle manufacturers to restrict 
compliance envelopes. Accordingly, NTEA recommended that NHTSA require 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers to make available to final-stage 
manufacturers at no cost all documents incorporated by reference into 
IVDs. NTEA also urged NHTSA to require that incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers act in good faith to provide conformity statements that 
are likely to be passed through to other manufacturers (i.e., that are 
not automatically invalidated by upfitting the vehicle in any way).
    RVIA concurred with and endorsed NTEA's comments, although RVIA 
also submitted its own comments. RVIA's comments on the proposed 
changes to part 568 focused on motor home and conversion vehicle 
manufacturers' lack of personnel and monetary resources to comply with 
regulations involving dynamic crash testing or other costly tests. Due 
to this reported lack of resources, RVIA commented that final-stage 
manufacturers must rely heavily on incomplete vehicle manufacturers' 
IVDs in order to certify that a vehicle complies with the standards. 
RVIA contended that Sec.  568.4(b) should be expanded and strengthened 
to require incomplete vehicle manufacturers to provide ``reasonable 
compliance guidelines'' in the body builder book or other documentation 
as part of the IVD. Reasonable compliance guidelines, according to 
RVIA, are necessary for final-stage manufacturers because incomplete 
vehicle manufacturers currently provide narrow compliance envelopes, 
making it difficult for final-stage manufacturers to achieve pass-
through certification. NHTSA does not believe that a provision 
requiring incomplete vehicle manufacturers to provide ``reasonable 
compliance guidelines'' is necessary since it could not be effectively 
enforced due to the

[[Page 7425]]

subjectivity of the quoted language. As an alternative to amending the 
proposed regulation to make the inclusion of body builder or other 
design and engineering compliance guidance mandatory in the IVD, RVIA 
requested that NHTSA monitor the issue and revisit whether to add such 
a requirement one year after the effective date of the final rule.
2. Agency Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 568
a. Reference to Part 568
    We have corrected the reference as suggested.
b. Making Documents Incorporated in the IVDs Freely Available
    NHTSA is not adopting the suggestion that if incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers incorporate materials such as body builder or other 
design and engineering guidance, they must provide free copies of those 
materials. This is a marketplace issue that incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers and final-stage manufacturers can resolve. Incomplete 
vehicle manufacturers already have business reasons (e.g., promoting 
the sales of their incomplete vehicles) to provide copies, and final-
stage manufacturers already have business reasons (to produce a safe, 
reliable vehicle) to obtain them, even if those materials are not 
incorporated by reference. Incorporation of these materials will 
provide additional, more precise guidance, thus increasing clarity of 
that guidance.
c. Requiring Compliance Guidelines Be ``Reasonable'' or Prepared ``in 
Good Faith''
    NHTSA is not adopting these suggestions. As discussed above, 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers have business reasons to provide 
workable IVDs. There is no market for incomplete vehicles that cannot 
be manufactured into completed vehicles that will meet the applicable 
FMVSSs. Further, due to its subjectivity, the suggested language is not 
susceptible to effective enforcement.

D. 49 CFR Part 571

1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 571
    NHTSA received comments from Ford, GM, TMA, NADA, NTEA, and RVIA on 
the proposed revisions to part 571. All of these commenters generally 
supported the proposal granting intermediate and final-stage 
manufacturers and alterers an automatic one-year extension to meet the 
new requirements of the standard. Ford commented, however, that after a 
completed vehicle is certified to a safety standard, NHTSA should not 
allow alterers to render the certification inoperative unless the 
alterer is changing the vehicle to a type to which the rule does not 
apply. NTEA suggested that the standard also provide final-stage 
manufacturers and alterers an additional year of leadtime when an 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer introduces a new model. RVIA similarly 
commented that the one-year extension also should apply when an 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer's model year changeovers require final-
stage manufacturers to do additional testing or when an incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer certifies its vehicles late in the process, 
providing subsequent manufacturers with little time to determine if the 
changes affect compliance. RVIA noted that although the SNPRM 
recognized the certification difficulties faced by a final-stage 
manufacturer in light of substantive changes to a chassis as a result 
of a model year changeover, the proposed amendment to part 571 does 
provide an explicit one-year extension for a final-stage manufacturer 
to achieve compliance when a model year changeover occurs, requiring 
additional testing. Accordingly, RVIA urged NHTSA to amend Sec.  571 to 
specify that the one-year extension applies when an incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's model year changes require new testing or when an 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer does not provide equipment for new or 
additional compliance verification at least one year in advance of the 
effective date of compliance. For Sec.  571.8 and other regulations, 
NADA suggested NHTSA use the term ``vehicle alterer'' rather than 
``alterer.''
2. Agency Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 571
a. Proposed Automatic One-Year Extension of Effective Date
    Except as noted in the next paragraph, NHTSA has decided to adopt 
the amendments to part 571 as proposed. No commenter opposed their 
adoption. Further, those commenters who addressed the amendments 
supported them. The agency notes that its recognition that vehicles 
built in two or more stages may be a vehicle type under the agency's 
regulations does not exclude them from motor vehicle safety standards. 
For example, if the vehicle is a truck, it is subject to standards 
applicable to trucks and is not excluded because it was built in two or 
more stages. Nonetheless, as with convertibles, the agency may, as 
appropriate, provide for particular options in its standards for 
multistage vehicles.
b. Eligibility of Alterers for Extension
    NHTSA has decided to include alterers in the provision for 
additional leadtime. The agency notes that the problems faced by final-
stage manufacturers in certifying that a vehicle manufactured in two or 
more stages complies with all applicable FMVSSs also are faced by 
alterers with respect to their own certification responsibilities. If a 
vehicle manufacturer waits until the last possible moment to certify 
its vehicles, alterers will not have the ability to conduct any 
engineering analysis to determine if their alterations will affect 
compliance. Therefore, the agency has decided to provide alterers with 
the same lead-time it is providing to final-stage manufacturers.
c. Additional Leadtime Following Introduction of New Model
    NHTSA has decided not to adopt this suggestion. This issue involves 
business decisions that should be made by incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers. They need to make the design changes and other documents 
available to final-stage manufacturers in sufficient time so that those 
manufacturers can make current model year changes to the design of the 
vehicles they complete and ensure that those vehicles meet the FMVSSs.
d. Use of the Term ``Alterer''
    NHTSA sees no need to replace the term ``alterer'' with the term 
``vehicle alterer'' in part 571 or the other parts addressed in this 
final rule. Accordingly, no change has been made.

E. 49 CFR Part 573

1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 573
a. NHTSA Determination of Which Manufacturer Is in the ``Best 
Position'' To Conduct a Recall
    As discussed above, to assure a prompt resolution of the issue of 
recall responsibility in a multi-stage context, NHTSA proposed that the 
agency would allocate recall responsibility when the various 
manufacturers could not agree on which was the responsible party. 69 FR 
36047, 36056. The majority of commenters opposed these revisions to 
part 573.
    In its comments on the SNPRM, GM stated that historically 
manufacturers have been able to resolve issues of the determination of 
recall responsibility and asserted that this trend likely will continue 
in the future, thus not

[[Page 7426]]

requiring a NHTSA determination of which party should conduct a recall. 
GM further objected on the grounds that the agency would be injecting 
itself into evaluating the relative financial health of various 
manufacturers. Similarly, DaimlerChrysler expressed the concern that 
NHTSA should not make decisions on who should pay for a recall on the 
basis of the more substantial resources of an incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer.
    International commented extensively on this proposal. International 
shared NHTSA's concern that a disagreement between manufacturers 
regarding responsibility for a safety-related defect or noncompliance 
could hinder manufacturers' rapid response in issuing a recall. 
However, International suggested that manufacturers rarely disagree 
regarding who should conduct a recall because they want to keep 
goodwill with their customers and because NHTSA's existing powers to 
investigate and assess penalties deter manufacturers from disagreeing 
to the point of necessitating NHTSA involvement. International further 
expressed its belief that this section would give NHTSA the power to 
order a manufacturer to conduct a recall even though neither NHTSA nor 
the manufacturer has determined that a defect or noncompliance exists 
in the equipment it manufactured. Moreover, International questioned 
whether NHTSA has the necessary statutory authority to require a recall 
in such circumstances.
    Ford suggested that allowing NHTSA to determine responsibility 
might cause intermediate and final-stage manufacturers to try to avoid 
recall responsibility, shifting the recall burden to incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers.
    DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner, a DaimlerChrysler Company, argued 
that part 573 should not be revised to permit NHTSA to decide which 
manufacturer is in the best position to conduct a recall. They 
commented that NHTSA has proposed no standards to evaluate which party 
is in the best position to conduct a recall and has not identified 
sufficiently when NHTSA would intervene, other than when parties 
disagree about responsibility. DaimlerChrysler, which had its own 
proposal on allocation of responsibility that appeared in the SNPRM (p. 
36047), commented that, upon a determination by NHTSA that another 
manufacturer is in the best position to conduct the recall, the 
proposed amendment to Sec.  573.5 seemingly would permit NHTSA to 
override the allocations of recall responsibility for certification 
proposed in Sec.  567.5 to impose responsibility on a manufacturer 
other than the manufacturer responsible under Sec.  567.5. Moreover, 
DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner stated that although NHTSA expects few 
instances would arise in which a dispute occurs between manufacturers 
regarding recall responsibility, enacting this type of ``referee'' 
provision would cause more disputes and delays and would thrust NHTSA 
into the middle of commercial disputes from which it has traditionally 
removed itself for good reason. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner added 
that NHTSA's involvement in a determination of responsibility would 
complicate the recalling manufacturer's ability to recover expenses 
from the responsible party, as is currently done, as courts or 
arbitrators likely would give considerable weight to NHTSA 
determinations regarding which entities are best suited to conduct 
recalls. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner also questioned whether this 
``referee provision'' is consistent with the Vehicle Safety Act.
    TMA commented that absent the proposed provision, NHTSA nonetheless 
would possess the necessary authority to issue a determination of 
responsibility.
    NTEA and RVIA submitted comments supporting the proposed changes to 
allow NHTSA to determine which manufacturer is in the best position to 
conduct a recall. Both NTEA and RVIA noted the financial hardships for 
final-stage manufacturers when they conduct recalls, regardless of 
whether they are responsible for the defect or noncompliance. NTEA 
added that each manufacturer responsible for a particular defect or 
noncompliance should conduct its own recall.
b. Nonreviewability of NHTSA Determination
    Under a system in which NHTSA may assign the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer ultimate responsibility for a recall, to assure the speedy 
implementation of a recall, NHTSA proposed that its resolution of any 
dispute would have to be both final and non-reviewable. See 69 FR 
36056. The commenters who opposed NHTSA determining which manufacturer 
is in the best position to conduct a recall also expressed disapproval 
of the nonreviewability of such a decision. DaimlerChrysler and 
Freightliner commented that NHTSA does not have the authority to deem 
its decisions nonreviewable, as a provision allowing nonreviewable 
agency decisions would be inconsistent with the Administrative 
Procedure Act. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner agreed with NHTSA's 
statement in the SNPRM that a court would likely review an agency 
decision unless it is deemed something other than a final agency 
action. Additionally, DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner expressed 
confusion regarding how a manufacturer's right to judicial review of a 
NHTSA determination of a defect or noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 
would be reconciled with a nonreviewable order that a manufacturer 
conduct a recall. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner also expressed a 
lack of understanding of the difference between an order under 49 
U.S.C. 30118(b) that requires a manufacturer to provide notice and a 
remedy (i.e., a recall) and may be contested in court, and an order 
under proposed Sec.  573.5 that would require a manufacturer to conduct 
a recall but could not be contested.
    Ford also commented that NHTSA decisions allocating recall 
responsibility must be judicially reviewable. GM and TMA indicated that 
even if manufacturers could not resolve a dispute regarding recall 
responsibility, NHTSA instead could issue a determination of 
responsibility without necessitating that the decision be 
nonreviewable. Nonreviewability of a NHTSA determination regarding 
which party is in the best position to conduct a recall, according to 
International, could cause a chilling effect on manufacturers' 
willingness to report possible defects or noncompliance to NHTSA.
    NTEA recognized NHTSA's concerns regarding nonreviewability, 
commenting that NHTSA could eliminate or change the proposal but should 
not change the other proposed amendments to part 573.
c. Suggested Alternative Language for Section 573.5
    During the negotiated rulemaking process, DaimlerChrysler proposed 
alternative language for allocating recall responsibility between the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer and final-stage manufacturer. Daimler 
Chrysler suggested that the allocation of legal responsibility in Sec.  
567.5 be repeated in Sec.  573.5 and offered language. The language 
offered by DaimlerChrysler was reprinted in the preamble to the SNPRM. 
69 FR 36047; but see 69 FR 36056. In their comments responding to the 
SNPRM, Ford and TMA indicated that the language offered by 
DaimlerChrysler was preferable to the language proposed by NHTSA, which 
they flatly opposed.
    Although acknowledging that the proposed changes to Sec.  573.5 
should not impact directly dealers' involvement in safety recalls, NADA 
offered the

[[Page 7427]]

following substitute language for Sec.  573.5(c):

In the event of a safety-related defect or noncompliance involving a 
motor vehicle manufactured in two or more stages, each incomplete, 
intermediate, final-stage or equipment manufacturer is responsible 
if the defect or noncompliance involved its workmanship or the 
components or systems it supplied.

    Under its proposed language, NADA indicated that NHTSA might 
occasionally need to determine who is responsible for a defect or 
noncompliance, but not who is in the best position to conduct a recall. 
Manufacturers, according to NADA, usually will determine responsibility 
voluntarily.
    NTEA acknowledged the alternative offered by DaimlerChrysler, 
commenting that the DaimlerChrysler language appears to adopt NHTSA's 
original proposal, except that it does not discuss allocation of 
responsibility in the event of a dispute. NTEA indicated its support 
for the DaimlerChrysler language as well as NHTSA's original proposal.
2. Agency Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 573
a. NHTSA Determination of Which Manufacturer Is in the Best Position To 
Conduct a Recall
    In response to the public comments on proposed Sec.  573.5(c) 
permitting the agency to determine which manufacturer is in the best 
position to conduct a recall, NHTSA has re-examined the merits of this 
proposal. NHTSA's primary concern is safety; NHTSA is also concerned 
that the rule be workable. The most compelling fact is that under 
existing Sec.  573.5, in general, recalls are not delayed by disputes 
between manufacturers. In fact, practical disputes rarely occur; the 
last known one of any significance occurred prior to 1990. It is clear 
from this fact that the private parties are able to resolve and in fact 
are successfully resolving the issues regarding the conducting of 
recalls in almost all instances under the existing regulatory structure 
without the suggestion of any possible need for intervention by the 
agency. NHTSA has no reason to believe that there will be any greater 
need for agency intervention in the future. In addition, the proposal 
was not well received. Accordingly, the agency has decided not to adopt 
the proposed provision.
b. Nonreviewability of NHTSA Determination
    In light of the agency's decision not to adopt the proposed 
provision for agency determinations as to which party is in the best 
position to conduct a particular recall, the proposal to make agency 
determinations nonreviewable is moot. Also, there were substantial 
objections to, and a number of substantial questions about, the merits 
of this proposal.
c. Suggested Alternative Language for Section 573.5
    The agency has decided not to add to Sec.  573.5 the language 
suggested by DaimlerChrysler. Further, the agency is not adding an 
alternative suggestion regarding the allocation of responsibility in 
the event of a dispute. As discussed above, NHTSA's interest, 
commensurate with the public interest, is for a rapid and final 
resolution of recall responsibility so as to have unsafe motor vehicles 
repaired as soon as possible. In the context of the manufacturer's 
independent duty under 49 U.S.C. 30118(c) to give notification of and 
to remedy safety defects that it learns of (United States v. General 
Motors Corp., 574 F. Supp. 1047, 1049 (D.D.C. 1983)), the existing rule 
meets the fundamental safety need for prompt recalls. As General Motors 
noted, historically, incomplete and final-stage manufacturers have been 
able to resolve issues of determination of responsibility. If not, the 
default assignment of responsibility is to the final-stage 
manufacturer, which retains its right to seek indemnification or 
contribution from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. This has been 
NHTSA's historical position (see 58 FR 40402) and it has stood the test 
of time. In addition, we have substantial doubts that a formulaic 
approach offered by DaimlerChrysler would work as needed for safety-
related defects. It does not provide a truly bright line test. As NADA 
recognized, disputes would arise under it. From a safety perspective, 
the best resolution is to leave the rule where as it now stands. We 
would add that this provides an incentive for a final-stage 
manufacturer to deal with a solid and reputable incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer. If the rule were cast to impose recall responsibility on 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, final-stage manufacturers' 
interests in lower production costs likely would in some instances 
result in the final-stage manufacturers' acquisition and use of 
incomplete vehicles that would not withstand the rigors of the road as 
well as those offered at higher prices by competing incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers. There would be considerable practical issues in 
obtaining an effective recall by bargain basement incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers. For example, in recent years, we have seen a significant 
influx of low price imports of low quality equipment from essentially 
unknown foreign manufacturers with no corporate presence in the United 
States.

F. Other Issues

1. Early Warning Reporting
    DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner noted that the rule proposed in 
the SNPRM does not address the issue of responsibility of incomplete or 
intermediate vehicle manufacturers with respect to part 579 and the 
Early Warning Reporting rules. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner 
observed that although NHTSA has issued interpretations recognizing 
final-stage manufacturers as the ``vehicle manufacturers'' under the 
early warning rules, final-stage manufacturers in many cases do not 
receive consumer complaints or carry out warranty work on primary 
vehicle systems. Accordingly, DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner 
suggested that if NHTSA adopts regulations altering the 
responsibilities of incomplete, intermediate, and final-stage 
manufacturers, it simultaneously should consider revising its 
interpretations of the early warning rules.
    Agency response: As the issue raised by DaimlerChrysler and 
Freightliner is outside scope of this rulemaking, we are not addressing 
it in this final rule. This may be considered in the assessment of the 
early warning program, which we expect to begin in about two years. See 
69 FR 57867 (September 28, 2004).
2. Safety of Altering Certified Vehicles
    NADA objected to preambular statements regarding vehicle 
alteration, particularly the suggestion that vehicle alterations are 
inherently wrong and that NHTSA disfavors vehicle alterations made 
after the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than retail.
    Agency response: Alterations to a certified vehicle prior to first 
retail sale are not viewed with disfavor by the agency, provided the 
alterer certifies the vehicle as continuing to comply with the FMVSS 
affected by the alterations. Alterers of cargo vans, for example, who 
install work-performing equipment in a completed vehicle, should be 
treated no differently than a final-stage manufacturer who installs the 
same work-performing equipment in an incomplete vehicle. However, the 
agency does view with disfavor vehicle modifications, performed after 
first retail sale, that take a vehicle out of compliance with 
applicable FMVSSs, except as permitted under 49 CFR part

[[Page 7428]]

595 to accommodate persons with disabilities.
3. Effective Date
    GM and TMA suggested that the effective date for the rule be the 
first occurrence of September 1, one year following publication of the 
Final Rule. GM indicated that this is a reasonable effective date, 
given that manufacturers may need time to implement several of the 
proposed requirements pertaining to labeling and documentation. TMA 
stipulated that this effective date will allow TMA members time for 
reviewing and updating their IVD and/or body builder books.
    Agency response: The agency has decided to adopt the suggestion of 
GM and TMA. The agency believes that their suggested date will provide 
a reasonable period of time to come into compliance. Thus, the 
effective date will be September 1, 2006.

VII. 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 does 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 that incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
accept legal responsibility for their vehicles, they may incur some 
additional certification costs. Likewise, they will 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

    I have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) I certify that this 
action does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small businesses. Although a significant number of final-
stage manufacturers and alterers are small businesses, this rule does 
not have a significant economic impact on these entities. It provides 
for a new process for temporary exemptions from dynamic crash testing 
performance requirements. It recognizes multi-stage vehicles as a 
vehicle type, which allows for adoption of standards with options for 
them. It provides for full use of pass-through certifications beyond 
chassis-cabs. It thus reduces burdens on final-stage manufacturers, 
many of which are small businesses.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it does 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. This final rule does not have 
any 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 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 does 
not require the expenditure of resources above and beyond $100 million 
annually.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    The 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 final rule 
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 final rule includes the following ``collections of 
information,'' as that term is defined in 5 CFR part 1320 Controlling 
Paperwork Burdens on the Public:
    Today's final rule requires 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). A request for extension of the clearance for these 
requirements is pending at OMB. See also 69 FR 70168.
    For the following reasons, NHTSA estimates that the new information 
labels will have a minimal net increase in the information collection 
burden on the public.\11\ There are approximately 40 incomplete motor 
vehicle manufacturers that will be affected by this labeling 
requirement, and the labels will be placed on approximately 556,000 
vehicles per year. The label will be placed on each vehicle by the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer and each intermediate manufacturer 
once. Since, in this final rule, 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

[[Page 7429]]

annual burden imposed on the public as a result of the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer labels will be 116 hours (556,600 vehicles 
multiplied by .0002 hours per label multiplied by 1.5, representing an 
estimate that intermediate manufacturers will be involved in the 
production of half of the vehicles affected). 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 already install this label on a 
voluntary basis for vehicles sold in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ No commenter questioned these calculations, which also 
appeard in the SNPRM, albeit without an estimation of the burden on 
intermediate manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 \12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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. 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.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR chapter V as 
follows:

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

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 555 of title 49 continues to read as 
follows:

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

0
2. Part 555 is 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

0
3. Paragraph (b)(6) of Sec.  555.5 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  555.5  Application for exemption.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Specify any part of the information and data submitted which 
petitioner requests be withheld from public disclosure in accordance 
with part 512 of this chapter.
    (i) The information and data which petitioner requests be withheld 
from public disclosure must be submitted in accordance with Sec.  512.4 
of this chapter.
    (ii) The petitioner's request for withholding from public 
disclosure must be accompanied by a certification in support as set 
forth in appendix A to part 512 of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
4. Subpart B is added to read as follows:
Subpart B--Vehicles Built In Two or More Stages and Altered Vehicles
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--Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages and Altered 
Vehicles


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 a total 
exceeding 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, an intermediate 
manufacturer, a manufacturer of incomplete vehicles other than chassis-
cabs, or a 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 any performance requirement for which a 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifies the use of a dynamic 
crash test procedure to determine compliance. 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;

[[Page 7430]]

    (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, as provided by Sec.  
555.5(b)(6).
    (1) The information and data which petitioner requests be withheld 
from public disclosure must be submitted in accordance with Sec.  512.4 
of this chapter.
    (2) The petitioner's request for withholding from public disclosure 
must be accompanied by a certification in support as set forth in 
appendix A to 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 crash tests) that the applicant 
desires NHTSA to consider in deciding whether to grant the application 
based on economic hardship.
    (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 
furnished, per part 568 of this chapter, by the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer or by 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, each temporary exemption granted by the 
Administrator under this subpart shall be in effect for a period of 
three 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 
(s)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 sub-part shall affix a 
label that meets meet all the requirements of 49 CFR 555.9.

0
5. Part 567 is 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 do not alter certified vehicles 
or do so with readily attachable components.
567.7 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 to be affixed to 
motor vehicles as required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act, as amended (the Vehicle Safety Act) (49 U.S.C. 30115) and 
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended (the 
Cost Savings Act), (49 U.S.C. 30254 and 33109), to address 
certification-related duties and liabilities, 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), 
Bumper Standards (part 581 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 including 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 required by 49 CFR 567.4, Registered Importers of vehicles 
admitted into the United States under 49 U.S.C. 30141-30147 and 49 CFR 
part 591 must affix a label 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 of this 
chapter.
    Altered vehicle means a completed vehicle previously certified in 
accordance with Sec.  567.4 or Sec.  567.5 that has been altered other 
than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable 
components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or by minor 
finishing operations such as

[[Page 7431]]

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 or vehicle type 
classification.
    Alterer means a person who alters by addition, substitution, or 
removal of components (other than readily attachable components) a 
certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle other than 
for resale.
    Chassis-cab means an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant 
compartment, that requires only the addition of cargo-carrying, work-
performing, or load-bearing components to perform its intended 
functions.
    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 (including the frame) 
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 chassis (including 
the frame) 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) and (b).
    Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures 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 a vehicle manufactured in two or more 
stages.


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 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, D.C. 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 actual 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--2,400 kg (5,290 lb) with LT245/75R16(E) tires.
    (b) Front--5,215 kg (11,500 lb) with 295/75R22.5(G) tires.
    First intermediate to rear--9,070 kg (20,000 lb) with 295/
75R22.5(G) tires.

    (5) One of the following statements, as appropriate:
    (i) For passenger cars, the statement: ``This vehicle conforms to 
all applicable

[[Page 7432]]

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''.
    (6) Vehicle identification number.
    (7) 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, to meet 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: 4,400 lb with P195/65R15 tires; 4,800 lb with P205/75R15 
tires.
    GAWR: Front--2,000 lb with P195/65R15 tires at 24 psi; 2,200 lb 
with P205/75R15 tires at 24 psi. Rear--2,400 lb with P195/65R15 
tires at 28 psi; 2,600 lb with P205/75R15 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, 120, 129 and 139 (Sec. Sec.  571.110, 571.120, 
571.129 and 571.139 of this chapter).
    (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 assembler of the passenger car, a 
label meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be affixed 
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 a vehicle 
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 certification-related duties and liabilities under the Vehicle 
Safety Act with respect to:
    (i) Components and systems it installs or supplies for installation 
on the incomplete vehicle, unless changed by a subsequent manufacturer;
    (ii) The vehicle as further manufactured or completed by an 
intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, to the extent that the

[[Page 7433]]

vehicle is completed in accordance with the IVD; and
    (iii) 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, 
if known. 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 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 certification-related 
duties and liabilities under the Vehicle Safety Act with respect to:
    (i) Components and systems it installs or supplies for installation 
on the incomplete vehicle, unless changed by a subsequent manufacturer;
    (ii) The vehicle as further manufactured or completed by an 
intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, to the extent that the 
vehicle is completed in accordance with the addendum to the IVD 
furnished by the intermediate vehicle manufacturer;
    (iii) Any work done by the intermediate manufacturer on the 
incomplete vehicle that was not performed in accordance with the IVD or 
an addendum of a prior intermediate manufacturer; and
    (iv) The accuracy of the information in any addendum to the IVD 
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''.
    (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.
    (v) Vehicle identification number.
    (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 
certification-related duties and liabilities under the Vehicle Safety 
Act, except to the extent that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or 
an intermediate manufacturer has provided equipment subject to a safety 
standard or expressly assumed responsibility for standards related to 
systems and components it supplied and except to the extent that the 
final-stage manufacturer completed the vehicle in accordance with the 
prior manufacturers' IVD or any addendum furnished pursuant to 49 CFR 
part 568, as to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards fully 
addressed therein.
    (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--2,400 kg (5,290 lb) with LT245/75R16(E) tires;
    (b) Front--5,215 kg (11,500 lb) with 295/75R22.5(G) tires;
    (c) First intermediate to rear--9,070 kg (20,000 lb) with 295/
75R22.5(G) 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' IVD, 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' IVD, where applicable, except for [insert FMVSS(s)]. 
This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, [and Bumper and Theft Prevention 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.

[[Page 7434]]

    (C) Notwithstanding the certification statements in paragraph 
(d)(2)(v)(A) of this section, the legal responsibilities and 
liabilities for certification under the Vehicle Safety Act shall be 
allocated among the vehicle manufacturers as provided in 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 for certification under 
the Vehicle Safety 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 for certification under 
the Vehicle Safety 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.


Sec.  567.6.  Requirements for persons who do not alter certified 
vehicles or do so with readily attachable components.

    A person who does not alter a motor vehicle or who alters such a 
vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily 
attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies, or 
minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the 
vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label 
to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to 
the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle. If such 
a person is a distributor of the motor vehicle, allowing the 
manufacturer's label to remain affixed to the vehicle shall satisfy the 
distributor's certification requirements under the Vehicle Safety Act.


Sec.  567.7  Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

    (a) With respect to the vehicle alterations it performs, an 
alterer:
    (1) Has a duty to determine continued conformity of the altered 
vehicle with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, Bumper, and Theft 
Prevention standards, and
    (2) Assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities for 
certification under the Vehicle Safety 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 date of manufacture of the certified vehicle (as 
specified on the certification label), 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.

0
5. Part 568 is 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, as amended (49 U.S.C. 
Sec.  30115) and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as 
amended (49 U.S.C. 32504 and 33108(c)).


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 (``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 permit a person 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,

[[Page 7435]]

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--2,400 kg (5,290 lb) with LT245/75R16(E) tires;
    (b) Front--5,215 kg (11,500 lb) with 295/75R22.5(G) tires.
    (c) First intermediate to rear--9,070 kg (20,000 lb) with 295/
75R22.5(G) 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 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 a vehicle manufactured in two or 
more stages 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 
affects the validity of the statements in the IVD, that manufacturer 
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 selected by the final-stage manufacturer, including 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, as amended (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 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 Vehicle Safety Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally 
manufactured, Sec. Sec.  568.5 and 568.6 do not apply to that vehicle. 
In such a case, the intermediate manufacturer 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

0
7. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues to read as 
follows:

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

0
8. Section 571.8 is 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 vehicles and altered 
vehicles. Unless Congress directs or the agency expressly determines 
that this paragraph does not apply, the date for manufacturer 
certification of compliance with any standard, or amendment to a 
standard, that is issued on or after September 1, 2006 is, insofar as 
its application to intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and 
alterers is

[[Page 7436]]

concerned, one year after the last applicable date for manufacturer 
certification of compliance. Nothing in this provision shall be 
construed as prohibiting earlier compliance with the standard or 
amendment or as precluding NHTSA from extending a compliance effective 
date for intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers by 
more than one year.

    Issued: February 8, 2005.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-2751 Filed 2-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P