Federal Register, Volume 69 Issue 123 (Monday, June 28, 2004)

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

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

Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
03-15817] by any of the following methods:
Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Analyses and
Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

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

[[Page 36039]]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Background

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

[[Page 36040]]

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

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

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

II. Negotiated Rulemaking Process

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 36041]]

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

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

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

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

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

III. Summary of the Proposal

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

[[Page 36042]]

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

IV. Discussion of Issues

A. Legal Requirements

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

B. Costs Associated With Certification Responsibilities

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

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

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

C. Prohibition Against Manufacturer-Oriented Exemptions

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

[[Page 36043]]

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

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

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

D. Need To Assure Safety of Vehicles

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

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

E. Allocation of Certification Responsibility

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

[[Page 36044]]

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

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

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

F. Issues Faced by Alterers of Completed Vehicles

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

[[Page 36045]]

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

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

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

G. Issues Not Addressed in the Negotiated Rulemaking Process

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

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

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

H. Specifics of the Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 36046]]

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

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

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

[[Page 36047]]

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

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

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

[[Page 36048]]

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

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

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

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

C. National Environmental Policy Act

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

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). The final rule, if
issued, would not require the expenditure of resources above and beyond
$100 million annually.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

The proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

[[Page 36049]]

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

H. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2)
concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by us.
This rulemaking is not economically significant.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards \13\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise
impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult
with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required
by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of the
reasons for not using such standards. This rulemaking only addresses
the allocation of legal responsibilities among regulated parties. As
such, the issues involved here are not amenable to the development of
voluntary standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21.)
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given under ADDRESSES.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov to
review the statement.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read comments on
the Internet, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
2. On that page, click on ``simple search.''
3. On the next page, type in the docket number shown at the
beginning of this document. There is no need to type in the name of the
agency or the year that the docket was opened. For example, if the
docket number is ``NHTSA-03-123545,'' you would type in ``12345''.
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired

[[Page 36050]]

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

K. Plain Language

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

L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subpart A--General

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

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

Sec. 555.11 Application.

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

Sec. 555.12 Petition for exemption.

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

Sec. 555.13 Basis for petition.

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

Sec. 555.14 Processing of petitions.

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

Sec. 555.15 Time period for exemptions.

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

[[Page 36051]]

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

Sec. 555.16 Renewal of exemptions.

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

Sec. 555.17 Termination of temporary exemptions.

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

Sec. 555.18 Temporary exemption labels.

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

PART 567--CERTIFICATION

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

PART 567--CERTIFICATION

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

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

Sec. 567.1 Purpose.

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

Sec. 567.2 Application.

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

Sec. 567.3 Definitions.

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

Sec. 567.4 Requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.

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

[[Page 36052]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 36053]]

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

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

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

[[Page 36054]]

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

Examples of combined ratings:

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

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

[[Page 36055]]

responsibilities under 49 CFR parts 573 and 577.

Sec. 567.6 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

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

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

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

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

Sec. 568.1 Purpose and scope.

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

Sec. 568.2 Application.

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

Sec. 568.3 Definitions.

Sec. 568.4 Requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers.

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

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

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

[[Page 36056]]

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

Sec. 568.5 Requirements for intermediate manufacturers.

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

Sec. 568.6 Requirements for final-stage manufacturers.

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

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

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

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

Sec. 571.8 Effective date.

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

PART 573--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTS

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

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

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

Sec. 573.5 Defect and noncompliance responsibility.

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

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