[Federal Register: February 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 29)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7414-7436]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14fe05-18]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 555, 567, 568, and 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5673]
RIN 2127-AE27
Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The final rule amends four different parts of title 49 to
address the certification issues related to vehicles built in two or
more stages and, to a lesser degree, to altered vehicles. The
amendments allow the use of pass-through certification so that it can
be used not only for multi-stage vehicles based on chassis-cabs, but
also for those based on other types of incomplete vehicles. The
amendments also create a new process under which intermediate and
final-stage manufacturers and alterers can obtain temporary exemptions
from dynamic performance requirements, and provide an automatic one
year of additional lead time for new safety requirements for
intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers, unless the
agency determines with respect to a particular requirement that a
longer or shorter time period is appropriate. This final rule also
refines the agency's interpretation of ``vehicle type'' to more
appropriately reflect the congressional and judicial considerations.
Because vehicles built in two or more stages are more properly
considered a ``vehicle type,'' the agency will be able more properly to
consider the benefits and burdens of various compliance options when
developing Federal motor vehicle standards.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this final rule are
effective September 1, 2006.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, Room 5220, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Harry Thompson,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (telephone 202-366-5289).
For legal issues: Steve Wood, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA
(telephone (202) 366-2992).
You can reach both of these officials at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended and
recodified, mandates the issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety
standards and requires the manufacturers of motor vehicles to certify
that their vehicles comply with all applicable standards. While some
vehicles are manufactured in a single stage by a single manufacturer,
others are manufactured in multiple stages by a series of
manufacturers.
Certification problems related to vehicles built in two or more
stages have troubled both the automotive industry and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) almost since the agency's
creation. An early set of NHTSA regulations on this subject was
overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals thirty years ago.
Rex Chainbelt v. Volpe, 486 F.2d 757 (7th Cir. 1973); appeal after
remand, Rex Chainbelt v. Brinegar, 511 F.2d 1215 (7th Cir. 1975). The
court's decision focused on chassis-cabs and stated that for such
vehicles a ``dual certification'' was required: a partial certification
by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and a complementary partial
certification by the final-stage manufacturer, resulting in a fully
certified vehicle. In response, the agency amended 49 CFR 567.5,
Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages, and part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to
define ``chassis-cabs'' and establish special certification
requirements for chassis-cab manufacturers, which are
[[Page 7415]]
usually large vehicle manufacturers such as General Motors Corporation
(GM) and Ford Motor Company (Ford).
Pursuant to these regulations, manufacturers of chassis-cabs are
required to place on the incomplete vehicle a certification label
stating under what conditions the chassis-cab has been certified. This
allows what is commonly referred to as ``pass-through certification.''
As long as a subsequent manufacturer meets the conditions of the
chassis-cab certification, that manufacturer may rely on this
certification and pass it through when certifying the completed
vehicle.
However, the amended regulations did not impose corresponding
certification responsibilities on manufacturers of incomplete vehicles
other than chassis-cabs (e.g., incomplete vans, cut-away chassis,
stripped chassis and chassis-cowls).
49 CFR part 568 requires the manufacturers of all incomplete
vehicles to provide with each incomplete vehicle an incomplete vehicle
document (IVD). This document details, with varying degrees of
specificity, the types of future manufacturing contemplated by the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer and must provide, for each applicable
safety standard, one of three statements that a subsequent manufacturer
can rely on when certifying compliance of the vehicle, as finally
manufactured, to some or all of all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS).
First, the IVD may state, with respect to a particular safety
standard, that the vehicle, when completed, will conform to the
standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the
incomplete vehicle. This representation is most often made with respect
to chassis-cabs, since a significant portion of the occupant
compartment is already complete.
Second, the IVD may provide a statement for a particular standard
or set of standards of specific conditions of final manufacture under
which the completed vehicle will conform to the standard. This
statement is applicable in those instances in which the incomplete
vehicle manufacturer has provided all or a portion of the equipment
needed to comply with the standard, but subsequent manufacturing might
be expected to change the vehicle such that it may not comply with the
standard once finally manufactured. For example, the incomplete vehicle
could be equipped with a brake system that would, in many instances,
enable the vehicle to comply with the applicable brake standard once
the vehicle was complete, but that would not enable it to comply if the
vehicle's weight or center of gravity were significantly altered.
Third, the IVD may identify those standards for which no
representation of conformity is made because conformity with the
standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete
vehicle. Thus, a manufacturer of a stripped chassis may be unable to
make any representations about conformity to any crashworthiness
standards if the incomplete vehicle does not contain an occupant
compartment. NHTSA said in the SNPRM that when issuing the original set
of regulations regarding certification of vehicles built in two or more
stages, the agency indicated that it believed final-stage manufacturers
would be able to rely on the representations made in the IVDs when
certifying the completed vehicle's compliance with all applicable
FMVSSs.
The distinction between chassis-cabs and other forms of incomplete
vehicles created by the 1977 amendment of 49 CFR part 567,
Certification, was based on NHTSA's belief that incomplete vehicles
other than chassis-cabs may be insufficiently manufactured to justify
any type of certification statement, given its legal implications, by
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. With respect to these other
vehicles, NHTSA maintained its position that the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer should be able to provide sufficient information in the
IVD to inform the final-stage manufacturer about the extent to which it
could rely on manufacturing operations of the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer when determining whether additional engineering resources
were needed to certify compliance with all applicable standards in good
faith. See 42 FR 37814 (July 25, 1977).
The distinction between certification responsibilities of
manufacturers of chassis-cabs and the responsibilities of manufacturers
of other types of incomplete vehicles led to a successful challenge to
a NHTSA regulation in the early 1990s. In 1987, NHTSA amended FMVSS No.
204, Steering column displacement, to expand the applicability of the
standard from vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
4,000 lb to vehicles with a GVWR of up to 6,500 lb. 52 FR 44893
(November 23, 1987); denial of petitions for reconsideration: 54 FR
24344 (June 7, 1989). This amendment had the effect of making the
standard applicable to some types of vehicles typically manufactured in
two or more stages. The National Truck and Equipment Association (NTEA)
challenged those amendments as they applied to final-stage
manufacturers. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the challenged rule was
not practicable for final-stage manufacturers that cannot ``pass-
through'' the certification of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.
National Truck and Equipment Ass'n v. NHTSA, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th Cir.
1990). The court cited NHTSA's acknowledgement in the preamble to the
final rule that most final-stage manufacturers are not capable of
performing dynamic crash testing or in-house engineering analysis, as
well as the fact that ``pass-through'' certification was not available
under the existing regulations unless the incomplete vehicle were a
chassis-cab. While the court's decision was technically limited to
FMVSS No. 204, NHTSA recognized that the court's decision would likely
be deemed equally applicable to other safety standards for which the
cost of certification was high.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of particular concern to final-stage vehicle manufacturers
is the cost of certifying to the dynamic crash test requirements of
some of the safety standards. Under these standards, NHTSA conducts
compliance testing by crashing a vehicle. While NHTSA has always
maintained that a manufacturer need not actually crash the vehicle
in order to certify compliance, it generally has not specified
alternative certification methods in the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to the NTEA decision, on December 3, 1991, NHTSA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (56 FR 61392) to
extend the certification requirements that currently apply only to
manufacturers of chassis-cabs to all incomplete vehicle manufacturers,
and to permit all final-stage manufacturers to ``pass through'' the
certification of the incomplete vehicle under certain circumstances.
That NPRM engendered considerable controversy and virtually no support.
In the comments, there was a clear division in positions among the
various segments of the multi-stage vehicle industry.
On November 17, 1995, NHTSA published a Notice announcing that it
would hold a public meeting to seek information from final-stage and
intermediate manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages,
manufacturers of incomplete vehicles, and the public on certification
of vehicles that are manufactured in stages and suggestions for action
with respect to NHTSA's regulations and FMVSSs that govern the
manufacture of vehicles in stages (60 FR 57694). In the notice, the
agency stated its belief that multi-stage vehicle certification is an
area in which negotiated rulemaking may be
[[Page 7416]]
beneficial, and invited comments on the advisability of conducting
negotiated rulemaking in this area.
The public meeting was held on December 12, 1995. Companies, trade
associations, and individuals made presentations at the meeting and/or
submitted written comments for the record. Many of the comments
endorsed using regulatory negotiation for this rulemaking; none opposed
the process. Based on this response, NHTSA determined that establishing
an ad hoc advisory committee on this subject is in the public interest.
III. Negotiated Rulemaking Process
In May 1999, NHTSA published a notice of intent to convene a
negotiated rulemaking committee, and sought the names of interested
participants (64 FR 27499; May 20, 1999). The chartered Committee
originally consisted of two facilitators and 23 individuals, many, but
not all of whom remained active in the negotiations throughout the
negotiated rulemaking process. The Committee was comprised of
representatives from:
(1) Incomplete vehicle manufacturers (General Motors (GM), Ford,
Motor Coach Industries (MCI), DaimlerChrysler, International Truck
and Engine Corp. (International), Freightliner, and Workhorse Custom
Chassis (Workhorse));
(2) Component manufacturers (Atwood Mobile Products (Atwood) and
Bornemann Products (Bornemann));
(3) Final-stage manufacturers and alterers (National Truck
Equipment Association (NTEA), National Mobility Equipment Dealers
Association (NMEDA), Mark III Industries (Mark III), Environmental
Industries Associations (EIA), Recreation Vehicle Industry
Association (RVIA), Blue Bird Body Co. (Blue Bird), National
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), and an individual
representing the Ambulance Manufacturers Division and Manufacturers
Council of Small School Buses, Mid-Size Bus Manufacturers
Association (AMD));
(4) End users of the vehicle (American Automobile Association
(AAA), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), National Association of
Fleet Administrators (NAFA), and the Center for Auto Safety (CFAS));
(5) Vehicle testing facilities (TRC Corp.), and
(6) NHTSA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While not a member of the Committee, Transport Canada
attended several of the Committee meetings and provided valuable
input. This informal participation by Transport Canada has helped
both Canada and the United States develop regulations that will be
closely harmonized should the proposed language be adopted by NHTSA.
Indeed, the Canadian regulation is already in effect, although the
proposed rule developed by the committee contains additional detail.
Several other parties representing these groups were also
contacted, particularly those who could represent the end user of the
vehicle. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and
Consumers Union declined to participate. Public Citizen initially
expressed an interest in participating, but decided against doing so
when it discovered that CFAS would be involved. The Teamsters Union,
which represents many of the drivers of the commercial motor vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages, also declined the agency's
invitation to participate. While listed as a Committee member, AAA did
not attend any meetings. The PVA attended only the December 1999 public
meeting, and Mark III stopped participating when the company went out
of business.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NHTSA has the authority to decide whether the participation
of these three parties was critical to balance or representation of
all affected interests on the Committee. The interests represented
by AAA and PVA were also represented by the CFAS and NAFA. Likewise,
the interests of final-stage manufacturers were represented by
several parties other than Mark III, including associations (NMEDA,
RVIA, and NTEA) and an individual company (Blue Bird Body Company).
Finally, while Mark III was actively involved in the negotiations
prior to ceasing business operations, AAA and PVA played no active
role in the process with PVA attending only the first, introductory
meeting, and AAA attending none of the meetings. Accordingly, NHTSA
has determined that the participation of these three parties was not
critical to the negotiated rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 1999, NHTSA held a public meeting during which it
broadly discussed the substantive issues that would be the subject of,
and the ground rules that would apply to, the negotiated rulemaking
process. Subsequent public meetings were held in February and March
2000, and the meeting of the chartered Committee commenced in May 2000.
In the earlier meetings, the Committee members covered the ground rules
associated with a negotiated rulemaking, discussed the history leading
up to the formation of the Committee and stated their position vis-
[agrave]-vis the desired outcome. The subsequent meetings addressed
several issues, including the likelihood of vehicles built in two or
more stages being involved in motor vehicle crashes, the potential for
legal liability when subsequent manufacturers complete manufacturing
operations outside of the IVD or pass-through certification, and the
perceived and actual needs of end consumers to have certain features on
their vehicles.
Another meeting was held in October 2000, during which all issues
save two were largely resolved.\4\ First, International and
Freightliner, who were not at the October 2000 meeting,\5\ expressed
concerns in writing about incomplete vehicle manufacturers' taking
legal responsibility for incomplete vehicles through representations
made in the IVD. Since these companies offered no solution addressing
their concerns, instead positing that there was no need to change the
existing regulatory scheme, the issue was tabled until the next
meeting. The other remaining issue, concerning the possible exclusion
of final-stage manufacturers from the need to comply with certain
safety standards in cases in which the manufacturer's production of the
vehicle in question is limited, had been the most contentious issue at
each of the previous meetings. This issue largely impacted four members
of the committee, NHTSA, NTEA, AMD, and RVIA. Given the limited impact
on the Committee as a whole, as well as the potential for the issue to
prevent any consensus on changes to parts 567 and 568, the Committee
agreed to hold no more meetings unless the four interested parties were
able to come to an agreement on how to address potential exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The minutes of these meetings are in the docket.
\5\ While the October 2000 meeting had been scheduled for some
time prior to it taking place, final confirmation of the meeting by
the mediator occurred only a few days prior. Accordingly, some
Committee members, including International and Freightliner, were
unable to attend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After meetings between the NTEA, AMD and NHTSA, at which the NTEA
represented RVIA's interests, a final Committee meeting was held in
February 2002. The Committee representative for GM facilitated this
final meeting. Not all members of the Committee were able to attend the
final meeting, although a broad-based representation was available.
At the beginning of the meeting, two outstanding issues remained:
(1) The scope of certification representations made by incomplete
vehicle manufacturers, and (2) a mechanism for assuring a timely recall
in the event that the various manufacturers could not agree which one
was responsible for a given noncompliance or safety defect.\6\ At the
conclusion of the meeting, there remained objections from several of
the incomplete vehicle manufacturers over the possible acceptance of
legal responsibility for unanticipated manufacturing operations by
subsequent manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The mechanism to ensure a timely recall was discussed and
generally agreed upon by the Committee on the second day of the
meeting. Some Committee members left the meeting early because of
travel arrangements. These individuals, as well as those Committee
members who did not attend the meeting, did not have an opportunity
to discuss this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA agreed to draft the Committee report for circulation among
those
[[Page 7417]]
Committee members still involved in the process. All Committee members
had an opportunity to review and comment on the Committee report.
Atwood, Bornemann, Blue Bird, and Workhorse concurred with the report
without further comment. NADA, GM, NTEA, AMD and RVIA offered extensive
revisions, but generally concurred with the report's content, while
TRC, NAFA, CFAS, EIA, and MCI did not comment on the draft report.
NMEDA's comments were limited to concerns about the exclusion of
vehicle modifiers from the proposed generic leadtime, the potential for
allocation of recall responsibility to vehicle equipment manufacturers,
and the applicability of new temporary exemption procedures to dynamic
crash test conditions. Ford, Freightliner, International, and
DaimlerChrysler objected to the provision that NHTSA could allocate
initial recall responsibility when the various involved manufacturers
could not agree which was the responsible party. International
disagreed with the provisions that would allocate legal responsibility
among each manufacturer in the manufacturing process, stating it could
not be responsible for further manufacturing operations outside of its
control. It suggested a revision to the draft regulation that would
prevent subsequent stage manufacturers from relying on any incomplete
vehicle manufacturer's representation if the subsequent stage
manufacturer modified or added originally supplied components or
systems in such a manner as to affect certification or the validity of
stated weight ratings.
Given the lack of consensus among the Committee members, NHTSA
decided to move forward with the publication of a Supplemental Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on which all Committee members were free
to offer unrestricted comments. In the SNPRM, NHTSA recognized that
various Committee members compromised their initial positions as part
of the negotiation process. Given the lack of consensus on all aspects
of the draft regulation developed by the Committee, NHTSA believed it
would have been unfair to restrict comment on any portions of the
proposal. Nevertheless, NHTSA believed that the draft regulation
represented a significant improvement over the existing regulations
governing the certification of vehicles built in two or more stages.
Additionally, the agency recognized that the negotiated rulemaking
process afforded all participants a unique opportunity to fully
evaluate proposed changes to the existing regulations, as well as
possible alternative approaches. NHTSA believes the negotiated
rulemaking process has been valuable in drafting amendments that
balance the practical needs of all parties represented by the
Committee. Accordingly, NHTSA decided to propose amending the
applicable regulations as drafted by the Committee.
IV. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On June 28, 2004, NHTSA published a SNPRM (69 FR 36038) proposing
to amend five different parts of title 49 to establish a comprehensive
regulatory scheme for addressing certification issues related to
vehicles built in two or more stages and, to a lesser degree, to
altered vehicles. In the SNPRM, NHTSA provided background on
certification issues, discussed the negotiated rulemaking process and
summarized the primary issues involved in the rulemaking, noting a lack
of consensus among members of the negotiated rulemaking Committee.
NHTSA proposed amendments to the applicable regulations as drafted by
the Committee but invited comments from Committee members and the
public regarding the proposed changes.
A. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 555
In the SNPRM, NHTSA proposed establishing a new subpart in 49 CFR
part 555, Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper
Standards, that would be limited to final-stage manufacturers and
alterers. The proposed new subpart would apply to final-stage
manufacturers and alterers who need a temporary exemption from a
portion of a safety standard (or set of safety standards) for which the
agency verifies compliance solely through dynamic crash testing. The
new subpart would streamline the temporary exemption process by
allowing an association or other party representing the interests of
multiple manufacturers to bundle exemption petitions for a specific
vehicle design, thus permitting a single explanation of the potential
safety impact and good faith attempts to comply with the standards.
Under the proposed subpart, each manufacturer seeking an exemption
would be required to demonstrate financial hardship and certify that it
has been unable to manufacture a compliant vehicle. Exemptions based on
financial hardship under the proposed rule could not be granted to
companies manufacturing more than 10,000 vehicles per year, and any
exemption could not apply to more than 2,500 vehicles per year.\7\
Additionally, under the proposed subpart, NHTSA would commit to
informing an applicant within 30 days whether the application is
complete and would attempt to grant or deny the petition within 120
days of its acknowledgement that the application is complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the SNPRM, although NHTSA considered a negotiated
rulemaking subcommittee suggestion to exclude certain intermediate and
final-stage manufacturers completely from standards based on dynamic
crash tests, NHTSA stated that it believed that limitations set forth
in 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the court's ruling in Nader v. Volpe, 320
F.Supp. 266 (D.D.C. 1970), aff'd, 475 F.2d 216 (D.C. Cir. 1973),
preclude the agency from doing so. Accordingly, NHTSA instead proposed
changes to 49 CFR Part 555 to permit temporary exemptions in an effort
to ease the financial burdens on final-stage manufacturers for
standards based on the performance of a vehicle in a dynamic crash
test.
B. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 567
NHTSA proposed expanding 49 CFR part 567, Certification, for all
vehicles. The proposal would revise significantly the section dealing
with certification of vehicles built in two or more stages, 49 CFR
567.5. It was intended to extend pass-through certification beyond
chassis-cabs now in Sec. 567.5(a) to all incomplete vehicles. The
proposal also stated that incomplete vehicle manufacturers assume legal
responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the Act with
respect to components and systems they install on the incomplete
vehicle and, to the extent that the vehicle is completed in accordance
with the IVD, for all components and systems added by the final-stage
manufacturer, except for defects in those components and systems or
defects in workmanship by the final-stage manufacturer.
Under the proposed regulation, manufacturers of incomplete vehicles
would be required to place an information label on the vehicle (or ship
a label with the IVD if it cannot be placed on the vehicle) that
identifies the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, month and year of
manufacture, and GVWR/GAWR limitations of the incomplete vehicle and
provides the vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle.
Likewise, an intermediate stage manufacturer would be required to place
an information label on the incomplete vehicle that identifies the
[[Page 7418]]
intermediate stage manufacturer, month and year the intermediate
manufacturer last performed work on the vehicle, and GVWR/GAWR
limitations, if different from those provided by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer. The final-stage manufacturer would be required to place a
certification label on the vehicle that specifies that the vehicle
conforms to all applicable standards, and may also specify that it has
or has not, for FMVSSs listed, stayed within the confines of the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or simply makes a
statement of conformity. In addition, notwithstanding the
certification, this section of the proposed regulation would assign
legal responsibility for each stage of vehicle manufacture with respect
to systems and components supplied on the vehicle, work performed on
the vehicle, and the accuracy of the information contained in the IVD
and addenda to the IVD. The SNPRM inadvertently deleted from part 567
the definition of chassis-cab, found in existing Sec. 567.3, and
requirements for persons who do not alter certified vehicles or do so
with readily attachable components, found in existing Sec. 567.6.
C. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 568
In the SNPRM, NHTSA proposed revising 49 CFR part 568, Vehicles
Manufactured in Two or More Stages, to note expressly that an
incomplete vehicle manufacturer may incorporate by reference body
builder or other design and engineering guidance into the IVD. The
agency noted its expectation that design and engineering guides, if
included, would generally provide instructions on certain aspects of
further manufacturing, which would assist multi-stage manufacturers to
pass through the compliance statements from incomplete vehicle
manufacturers. NHTSA indicated that the incorporation of design and
engineering guides should not unreasonably limit the circumstances in
which it will be possible to pass through these compliance statements.
Further, the agency stated that these guides would provide more
detailed design constraints than an IVD, reducing the likelihood that a
subsequent stage manufacturer could successfully claim that it was
unaware that a particular modification would invalidate the previous
manufacturer's compliance statement.
D. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 571
NHTSA also requested comments on its proposed revisions to 49 CFR
571.8, Effective Date, providing intermediate and final-stage
manufacturers and alterers an automatic additional year for compliance
with certain amendments to the FMVSSs. Under the proposal, the
additional leadtime would apply unless NHTSA decides that such leadtime
is inappropriate as part of a rulemaking amending or establishing a
safety standard. The proposed change also would allow NHTSA to provide
even more additional leadtime upon a determination that one-year is
insufficient. The agency additionally could determine that the safety
problem is so significant that providing additional leadtime would
result in an unacceptable risk of injury or death. Further, Congress
could direct NHTSA to require compliance with a new standard by a
specified date. In those instances in which Congress limits the
agency's discretion to provide additional leadtime, all manufacturers
and alterers would be required to meet the compliance date set forth in
the standard.
NHTSA noted in the SNPRM that incomplete vehicle manufacturers
often do not provide final-stage manufacturers with information
necessary to certify their vehicles until shortly before, and in some
cases even after, the effective date of the standard in question. The
same problem arises when an incomplete vehicle is substantively changed
as the result of a model year changeover. The agency stated that giving
alterers an additional year allows alterers to take certified vehicles
out of compliance, an action typically viewed with disfavor by NHTSA.
However, the problems faced by final-stage manufacturers also are
applicable to alterers. If a vehicle manufacturer waits until the last
possible moment to certify vehicles, alterers will not have the ability
to conduct any engineering analysis to determine if the alterations
affect compliance.
Under the proposed changes, for phased-in requirements, the
additional year would be applied at the end of the phase-in. NHTSA
stated that this leadtime is appropriate because incomplete vehicle
manufacturers often complete their certification testing just before
start of production for a new model year. In the case of new
requirements that are phased-in, the incomplete manufacturer may wait
until the end of the phase-in to conduct certification testing or
analysis for incomplete vehicles. This is because, for many
manufacturers, the incomplete vehicle fleet is only a small proportion
of its overall production.
With respect to vehicle modifiers, NHTSA recognized in the SNPRM
the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association's concern that
vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify vehicles after first
sale other than for resale, face the same problems as vehicle alterers.
However, NHTSA noted that because vehicle modifiers bear no
certification responsibility, a change to provide modifiers with an
additional year to make modifications would not be made in the context
of amending part 571. Further, NHTSA said that it believed that the
businesses engaging in operations that may invalidate compliance
certification should be held responsible for their actions. The agency
acknowledged its awareness of instances in which vehicle alterers have
attempted to avoid certification responsibility by waiting until a
customer has taken possession of a vehicle to make changes that would
take the vehicle out of compliance with one or more safety standards.
The SNPRM noted that while a vehicle modifier that knowingly makes an
item of mandatory safety equipment inoperative may be subject to fines,
it could not be compelled to conduct a recall campaign to remedy any
safety-related defects or noncompliances resulting from its work.
E. Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 573
NHTSA also proposed revisions to 49 CFR part 573. Under existing
regulations, the manufacturer of a motor vehicle is responsible for any
safety-related defect or noncompliance determined to exist in the
vehicle or in any item of original equipment. 49 CFR 573.5; 49 CFR 579
(prior to 2002); see 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(F) and (G). In the case of
multi-stage vehicles, ultimate responsibility has rested with the
final-stage manufacturer because, in part, incomplete vehicles are
classified as original equipment items. 58 FR 40402, 40403 (July 28,
1993). Nonetheless, NHTSA's regulations provide that in the case of a
defect in vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, compliance with
specified recall requirements by either the manufacturer of the
incomplete vehicle or any subsequent manufacturer shall be considered
compliance by all manufacturers. 49 CFR 573.3(c).
In the course of this rulemaking, final-stage manufacturers have
sought to shift ultimate responsibility under the rule for some recalls
to incomplete vehicle manufacturers. In cases where the final-stage
manufacturer and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer agree on recall
responsibility, the matter is essentially straightforward. In cases
where the final-stage manufacturer and the
[[Page 7419]]
incomplete vehicle manufacturer do not agree on recall responsibility,
this raises the question of how this responsibility is to be assigned.
As noted in the SNPRM, an associated issue was the mechanism for
assuring a timely recall in the event the various manufacturers could
not agree who was responsible. 69 FR 36041. From a safety perspective,
timeliness and finality were very important in light of the obvious
problem of the existence of a safety-related defect or noncompliance
not addressed by a recall because manufacturers were squabbling over
responsibility.
In the SNPRM, NHTSA presented its proposed changes to section
573.5, addressing those instances in which either the manufacturers or
NHTSA determine that the vehicle or its original equipment has a
safety-related defect or noncompliance but the parties dispute their
accountability for the recall. In such an instance, under the proposed
rule, NHTSA would assign recall responsibility to the party it believes
is in the best position to conduct and notification and remedy
campaign. Proposed Sec. 573.5(c), 69 FR 36056. Although the agency
expected that there should be very few instances in which a dispute
arises regarding which manufacturer should conduct a recall campaign,
NHTSA indicated it is critical that any campaign not be delayed while
the various manufacturers attempt to assess liability. NHTSA's
determination would be limited to recall responsibilities and would not
serve to impose fault or ultimate responsibility for the economic
burden on the party ordered to conduct the recall.
As discussed above, currently, the final-stage manufacturer has the
ultimate responsibility. Thus, there is not any need for the agency to
assign responsibility. This approach avoids delays in removing unsafe
vehicles from the road. Within this structure, the manufacturers work
out issues of responsibility.
In the SNPRM, NHTSA further proposed that its determination would
not be reviewable. Sec. 573.5(c). NHTSA acknowledged its concerns
whether the nonreviewability provision could withstand judicial
scrutiny. NHTSA noted that courts favor review of final agency actions.
In the SNPRM, NHTSA indicated its belief that the nonreviewability
provision would only withstand judicial review if a court determined
that NHTSA's decision as to who must conduct the recall is not a final
agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Accordingly, given its concerns about the likelihood that the
nonreviewability provision could withstand judicial scrutiny, NHTSA
invited commenters to provide arguments and analyses regarding which
manufacturer should be deemed responsible for a recall campaign in the
event that NHTSA and the various-stage vehicle manufacturers could not
determine in a timely manner which party should bear responsibility for
the recall.
In addition, NHTSA reprinted in the preamble to the SNPRM the
alternative language offered in the negotiated rulemaking by
DaimlerChrysler, which would repeat the specific allocation of legal
responsibility among incomplete vehicle, intermediate, and final-stage
manufacturers found in proposed section 567.5. However, NHTSA noted
that DaimlerChrysler's language would not provide a dispute resolution
mechanism and would not ensure that a recall campaign is conducted in a
timely manner in the event of a dispute.
V. Summary of Public Comments to the SNPRM
NHTSA received nine comments in response to the SNPRM. Five
incomplete vehicle manufacturers (GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford,
International, Freightliner), one association representing incomplete
truck manufacturers (Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA)), and three
associations representing the final-stage manufacturer or alterer
industry (RVIA, NTEA, NADA) submitted comments. Although International,
Ford and RVIA submitted comments after the deadline for comments
passed, NHTSA considered the late comments in writing this Final Rule.
The commenters responding to the proposal in part 555 for financial
hardship temporary exemptions for alterers and final-stage
manufacturers generally favored the adoption of the exemptions.
However, the associations representing the final-stage manufacturer or
alterer industry portrayed temporary exemptions as only a partial
solution to the problems such manufacturers face with respect to
certification through dynamic crash testing and requested that NHTSA
provide safe harbors for low-production vehicles.
In general, commenters supported changes to part 567 to eliminate
the current distinction between chassis-cabs and other incomplete
vehicles and conveyed overall support for the proposal allocating legal
responsibility for each stage of vehicle manufacture. Some commenters
representing incomplete vehicle manufacturers suggested modifications
to the language proposed in section 567.5(b) to clarify the intent or
to ensure that incomplete vehicle manufacturers are not assigned legal
responsibility for things over which they have no control.
With respect to the proposed revisions to part 568 to permit
incomplete vehicle manufacturers to incorporate by reference body
builder or other design and engineering guidance into the IVD, those
who commented either generally supported or did not oppose the
proposal. Two of the final-stage manufacturer representatives expressed
concerns that the incorporation of additional documents could create
further burdens for final-stage manufacturers.
In general, commenters favored the automatic one-year extension
proposed for part 571. However, some of the commenters representing
final-stage manufacturers suggested that the rule include an additional
year of leadtime for final-stage manufacturers under certain
circumstances associated with the introduction of new model year
vehicles.
Finally, among the most contentious proposals for which NHTSA
received comments were the proposed revisions to part 573 to allow
NHTSA to determine which manufacturer is in the best position to
conduct a recall when the parties dispute their accountability for a
safety-related defect or noncompliance and whether such a determination
could be nonreviewable. The incomplete vehicle manufacturers expressed
disapproval of the proposed revisions to part 573, while the commenters
representing final-stage manufacturers articulated support for the
proposal.
VI. Agency Response to Comments
The comments received regarding the changes proposed in the SNPRM
to the five different parts of title 49 are summarized in more detail
below. The agency's responses to these comments also are discussed
below.
A. 49 CFR Part 555
1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 555
The five commenters who submitted comments on the proposed changes
to part 555 (GM, Ford, NADA, RVIA, NTEA) expressed general support for
the financial hardship temporary exemption for alterers, intermediate,
and final-stage manufacturers.
GM commented that the proposed revisions would provide a better
means for temporary exemptions than the mechanism found in the current
regulatory text. Ford pointed to an
[[Page 7420]]
inconsistency between the statement in the preamble of the proposed
rule that the exemption would only apply to safety requirements with
which NHTSA verifies compliance through dynamic crash testing, while
the proposed text of section 555.12 permits ``a temporary exemption
from the provisions of any portion of a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard.'' (Emphasis added.) Ford stated that NHTSA should limit the
temporary exemptions to requirements that are based on dynamic crash
testing. Additionally, Ford indicated its disapproval of NHTSA's
proposal that manufacturers would not have to commit to achieving full
compliance by the expiration of the exemption, commenting that the rule
should excuse compliance in instances of ``legitimate hardship'' but
should not completely excuse compliance. Ford added that where
compliance is impractical because of the design of a special purpose
vehicle, the text of the promulgated rule should handle the exclusion
specifically.
Although NADA expressed support for the temporary exemptions as
proposed, it noted ``the proposed exemption process is by no means a
panacea and may prove unwieldy in certain circumstances.''
RVIA generally supported the amendments to part 555, but requested
clarification regarding the limitations in Sec. 555.11 that the
temporary exemption apply only to entities that produce or alter no
more than 10,000 vehicles per year and cannot apply to more than 2,500
vehicles sold in the United States in any twelve-month period. In
particular, RVIA suggested clarifying language to specify that, when
determining eligibility for a temporary exemption, only vehicles built
in two or more stages should be counted in the aggregate limit of
10,000 vehicles per year. RVIA wanted to ensure that an RV
manufacturer's non-applicable single stage towable vehicles would not
be counted in the aggregate limit of 10,000 vehicles per year when
determining eligibility for a temporary exclusion. Despite generally
supporting the proposed amendments to part 555, RVIA additionally
commented that the amendments provide an ``imperfect system of
temporary exemptions.'' Accordingly, RVIA encouraged NHTSA to consider
regulatory and legislative alternatives to expand its exemption and
exemption renewal authority, including the authority to grant safe
harbor exemptions for low-production vehicles.
NTEA provided comments regarding the proposal for a financial
hardship temporary exemption for alterers and final-stage
manufacturers. As evidenced in its comments responding to the SNPRM,
NTEA prefers either consortium testing as an alternate means of
demonstrating compliance with dynamic standards or a ``safe harbor''
for intermediate and final-stage manufacturers under certain
circumstances. NTEA noted that the negotiated rulemaking committee did
not embrace NTEA's suggestion for consortium testing. A negotiated
rulemaking subcommittee suggested a safe harbor, but NHTSA rejected the
suggestion in the SNPRM, on the basis that it would be an impermissible
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the ruling in Nader. NTEA argued in
its comments, however, that neither section 30113 nor the Nader
decision prevents NHTSA from requiring dynamic crash testing only for
vehicles for which demonstrating compliance is practicable. NTEA
recommended that if NHTSA believes it does not have statutory authority
to implement the subcommittee's suggestion, NHTSA should seek the
necessary statutory authority in order to adequately address final-
stage manufacturers' compliance problems.
Nonetheless, NTEA expressed support for the proposed temporary
exemption provision, but commented that the temporary exemption would
be only a partial solution to the problem of verification through
dynamic crash testing because relief would be limited. NTEA asserted
that under the temporary exemption provisions of part 555, petitions
would be required for each model produced, each final-stage
manufacturer would need to submit individual filings for each petition,
and new petitions would be required when customers ask final-stage
manufacturers to produce slight variations of the vehicle combinations.
Accordingly, NTEA commented that NHTSA would not be able to respond
promptly to this vast number of petitions. NTEA additionally commented
that inconsistent with the court's ruling in NTEA, ``[a]n uncertain,
awkward and time consuming petition process, with an uncertain outcome
on the merits, is not an adequate substitute to a legitimate compliance
alternative.'' NTEA recommended that NHTSA seek statutory authority to
expand temporary exemptions to a wider class of manufacturers.
2. Agency Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 555
a. Authority To Exclude Multi-Stage Vehicles From FMVSSs
In response to the public comments arguing that we possess
authority to exclude multi-stage vehicles as a group from a standard,
we decided to re-examine our position on that issue. The discussion in
the SNPRM of our authority appears to have conflated our authority to
exclude types of vehicles permanently from the application of a
standard with our authority to exempt individual manufacturers
temporarily from a standard.
Multi-stage vehicles are aimed at a variety of niche markets, most
of which are too small to be serviced economically by single stage
manufacturers. Some multi-stage vehicles are built from chassis-cabs
completed with an intact occupant compartment. Others are built from
less complete vehicles and designed to service particular needs--often
necessitating the addition by the final-stage manufacturer of its own
occupant compartment. The agency must balance accommodating this
segment of the motor vehicle market with the requirements of the
Vehicle Safety Act.
The courts have set forth a number of principles the agency must
take into account when considering these issues. First, the mandate in
the Vehicle Safety Act that the agency consider whether a proposed
standard is appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle for
which it is prescribed is intended to ensure that consumers are
provided an array of purchasing choices and to preclude some standards
that will effectively eliminate certain types of vehicles from the
market. See Chrysler Corp. v. Dept. of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659,
679 (6th Cir. 1972) (agency may not establish a standard that
effectively eliminates convertibles and sports cars from the market).
Second, the agency may not provide exemptions for single manufacturers
beyond those specified by statute. See Nader v. Volpe, 320 F. Supp. 266
(D.D.C. 1970), motion to vacate affirmance denied, 475 F.2d 916 (DC
Cir. 1973). Finally, the agency must provide adequate compliance
provisions for final-stage manufacturers. Failing to provide these
manufacturers with a means of establishing compliance would render a
standard impracticable as to them. See National Truck Equipment Ass'n
v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th
Cir. 1990) (''NTEA'').
One of the traditional ways in which the agency has handled the
difficulties of these multi-stage vehicles has been
[[Page 7421]]
simply to exclude all vehicles, single-stage as well as multi-stage,
within the upper GVWR range of light vehicles, typically 8,500 lb.
GVWR-10,000 lb. GVWR. Many of the multi-stage vehicles manufactured for
commercial use cluster in that GVWR range.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As the Court noted in NTEA (at 1158): ``The Administration
could meet the needs of final-stage manufacturers in many ways. It
could exempt from the steering column displacement standard all
commercial vehicles or all vehicles finished by final-stage
manufacturers. It could exempt those vehicles for which a final-
stage manufacturer cannot pass through the certification from the
incomplete vehicle manufacturers. It could change the pass-through
regulations. It could reexamine the issue and prove that final-stage
manufacturers can conduct engineering studies, and then provide in
the regulation that such studies exceed the capacities of final-
stage manufacturers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency traditionally took this approach because the agency
historically was of the view that it could not subject vehicles built
in multiple stages to any different requirements than those built in a
single stage. That was because the agency had construed section
30111(b)(3) of the Safety Act, which instructs the agency to ``consider
whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate
for the particular type of motor vehicle * * * for which it is
prescribed,'' as precluding such an approach.
In reaching that conclusion, the agency had focused on a comment in
the Senate Report:
In determining whether any proposed standard is ``appropriate'' for
the particular type of motor-vehicle * * * for which it is
prescribed, the committee intends that the Secretary will consider
the desirability of affording consumers continued wide range of
choices in the selection of motor vehicles. Thus it is not intended
that standards will be set which will eliminate or necessarily be
the same for small cars or such widely accepted models as
convertibles and sports cars, so long as all motor vehicles meet
basic minimum standards. Such differences, of course, would be based
on the type of vehicle rather than its place of origin or any
special circumstances of its manufacturer.
Focusing on the last sentence of that passage, the agency construed
multi-stage vehicles with regard to the ``special circumstances of
[their] manufacturer,'' See 60 FR 38749, 38758, July 28, 1995, rather
than considering whether multi-stage vehicles constitute a ``type of
vehicle.'' See NTEA (at 1151) (Noting the agency's regulation defining
``incomplete vehicle'' as ``an assemblage consisting as a minimum, of
frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension
system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be
part of the completed vehicle that requires further manufacturing
operations * * * to become a completed vehicle.'' 49 CFR 568.3 (1989)).
We have considered our historical view of the legislative history
in light of relevant case law and our experience with the compliance
difficulties imposed on final-stage manufacturers. We note that the
language we had previously considered to be a limitation does not
appear in the statutory text. Nothing in the statutory text implies
that Congress intended that incomplete vehicles not be deemed a vehicle
type subject to special consideration during the regulatory process. We
believe the sentence found in the Senate Report was intended to avoid
regulatory distinctions based on manufacturer-specific criteria (such
as place of production or manner of importation). This is consistent
with the Court's conclusion in Nader v. Volpe, supra, that the agency
cannot give exemptions to particular manufacturers beyond that provided
by the statute.
We are also concerned that we had overlooked the existence of
relevant physical attributes of multi-stage vehicles. Many of the
multi-stage vehicles in question have distinct physical features
related to their end use. More important, all of them incorporate
incomplete vehicles other than chassis-cabs. Especially in the context
of the difficulties of serving niche markets, the physical limitations
of the incomplete vehicles other than chassis-cabs can adversely affect
the ability of multi-stage manufacturer to design safety performance
into their completed vehicles.
Further, as previously applied, our interpretation limits our
ability to secure increases in safety. Excluding all vehicles within a
given GVWR range from a safety requirement because of the possible
compliance difficulties of some of those vehicles means not obtaining
the safety benefits of that requirement for any of those vehicles.
Likewise, applying a lesser requirement to all of those vehicles
instead of a higher requirement for some of the vehicles and a lower
requirement for the balance of the vehicles also entails a loss of
safety benefits.
It would be perverse to conclude that the Vehicle Safety Act
permits us to exclude all vehicles within a certain GVWR range
primarily because of the compliance difficulties of multi-stage
vehicles within that range, but not to limit the exclusion to only the
multi-stage vehicles within that range. This would enable consumers to
obtain the safety benefits of regulating the other vehicles within that
weight range.
Accordingly, we have refined our views to conclude that it is
appropriate to consider incomplete vehicles, other than those
incorporating chassis-cabs, as a vehicle type subject to consideration
in the establishment of regulation. We anticipate that final-stage
manufacturers using chassis-cabs to produce multi-stage vehicles would
be in position to take advantage of ``pass-through certification'' of
chassis-cabs, and therefore are not including such vehicles in the
category of those for which this optional compliance method is
available.
b. Suggestion That Exemptions Be Premised on Commitment to Achieving
Full Compliance
NHTSA agrees with Ford that vehicle configurations for which
compliance with a standard is impracticable or unnecessary should be
excluded from that standard. However, given the myriad configurations
of vehicles, it may not always be possible to identify and list all of
those vehicles to be excluded from the standard. Moreover, some FMVSSs
with dynamic crash test requirements have been amended and multi-stage
and altered vehicle will be required to comply at a future date. It may
not be economically practicable for a final-stage manufacturer to test
very low volume or one-of-a-kind vehicle configurations. In those
instances in which there is no pass-through certification in the IVD,
final-stage manufacturers need a process that enables them to produce
and sell such vehicles without having to commit to meeting the FMVSS at
the end of the three-year exemption period.
c. Scope of New Exemption Provisions
Ford is correct that we inadvertently omitted language limiting the
new exemption provision to FMVSS requirements that are based on dynamic
crash testing. We have added appropriate limiting language to part 555.
d. Production Volume Limit on Eligibility for Exemption
The Vehicle Safety Act limits eligibility for financial hardship to
companies manufacturing more than 10,000 motor vehicles per year.\9\ As
we interpret this to include all vehicles of any type, we cannot
exclude single stage towable vehicles from the calculation. Section
571.3 of title 49 CFR defines ``trailer'' as a type of motor vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Anticipated Volume of Applications for New Exemptions
We believe that as a result of our conclusion that multi-stage
vehicles
[[Page 7422]]
constitute a vehicle type and can be excluded, if appropriate, from
particular FMVSSs, the volume of petitions will be less than
anticipated at the time of the SNPRM. Moreover, the number of such
petitions can be reduced if manufacturers and associations submit them
for ranges of vehicle configurations, as permitted in Sec. 555.12(e).
f. Handling of New Exemption Applications
We do not agree with NTEA's characterization of how petitions would
be handled under the new petition process. Further, by potentially
reducing the volume of petitions, the new interpretation of authority
to exclude multi-stage vehicles from FMVSSs makes those
characterizations even less appropriate.
B. 49 CFR Part 567
1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 567
Commenters generally favored some of the proposed changes to part
567. In particular, commenters supported the elimination of the
distinction between chassis-cabs and other incomplete vehicles. Some
commenters favored the proposal to assign legal responsibility for each
stage of vehicle manufacture with respect to systems and components
supplied on the vehicle, work performed, and the accuracy of the
information contained in the IVD and addendums to the IVD. However,
several commenters recommended revisions to the language proposed in
the SNPRM for part 567.
DaimlerChrysler, which, as discussed above, had proposed revisions
to part 573, stated that the proposed Sec. 567.5 refers only to
defects and not to noncompliances, and accordingly recommended that the
agency revise proposed Sec. Sec. 567.5(c) and (d) to clarify that
intermediate and final-stage manufacturers are responsible for
noncompliances in components or systems added by them, or noncompliance
resulting from work done by them.
NADA urged NHTSA to provide additional language in the preamble of
the final rule to clarify the changes to Sec. 567.6 and related
definitions. NADA specifically indicated that the proposed definition
of ``readily attachable component'' could create confusion in light of
the agency's history of interpreting what constitutes vehicle
alteration.
With respect to requirements proposed in Sec. 567.5(b) for
incomplete vehicle manufacturers, TMA offered the following alternative
language to Sec. 567.5(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) to make the intent of the
section more clear:
(ii) Components and systems that are incorporated into the
completed vehicle by an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer in
accordance with the instructions contained in the IVD, except for
defects in those components or systems or defects in workmanship by
the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer; and
(iii) The accuracy of the information contained in the IVD.
International and Freightliner also commented on Sec. 567.5(b),
requesting that NHTSA delete proposed Sec. 567.5(b)(1)(ii).
International and Freightliner expressed concerns about incomplete
manufacturers' certification responsibilities under that proposed
section. As they noted, the proposal suggests that the incomplete
manufacturer has legal responsibility for something that it has no
control over. The comments explained that incomplete manufacturers
cannot enumerate or prohibit every conceivable contingency that a
subsequent manufacture may think up. Freightliner also posed the
question whether such language makes the incomplete manufacturer
responsible for the design or engineering of a system or component, not
engineered according to sound engineering principles, because it is not
specifically prohibited in the IVD. International and Freightliner
favored a policy under which each manufacturer at each stage of
manufacture is responsible for components and systems it supplies for a
vehicle as well as the accuracy of information it supplies in the IVD,
its addendum, or the certification. With respect to incomplete vehicle
manufacturers, the language in Sec. 567.5(b)(1)(i) and (iii),
according to International and Freightliner, already accomplishes this
objective of ensuring proper allocation of responsibility.
International and Freightliner further argued that in addition to
deleting paragraph (b)(1)(ii), NHTSA should conform paragraphs (c) and
(d) pertaining to intermediate and final-stage manufacturers
accordingly.
NHTSA received three comments supporting the proposed labeling
requirements. GM favored the labeling requirements and noted that the
revisions to part 567 will harmonize labeling requirements for multi-
stage vehicles with those found in Canada. RVIA expressed support for
the labeling and label content requirements. NADA commented that the
labeling revisions are appropriate.
GM, DaimlerChrysler, and Freightliner responded to NHTSA's request
for comments regarding whether the agency should amend 567.4(g)(1)
either to specify that the name of the business entity accepting legal
responsibility for a defect or noncompliance or that the names of both
the vehicle assembler and the business entity accepting such legal
responsibility be listed as the vehicle manufacturer on the
certification label. GM commented that such a revision to Sec.
567.4(g)(1) is unnecessary because proposed Sec. 567.5(d)(2)(i), (f),
and (g), as published, sufficiently address the issue of the
manufacturer's name appearing on the certification label.
DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner, however, urged NHTSA to modify Sec.
567.4(g)(1) to allow or require the entity accepting responsibility for
the vehicle to be listed as the manufacturer on the certification
label. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner commented that the current rule
requiring the ``actual assembler'' to be listed on the certification
label is confusing, especially when assembly is done under contract by
an entity who may have no presence in the U.S. and has no public name
recognition. In addition, the vehicle manufacturer, not the actual
assembler, typically markets the vehicle, makes TREAD reports, and
conducts safety recalls for the vehicle. Thus, according to
DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner, the certification label should
identify the entity that accepts legal responsibility in the U.S.
Commenters also suggested typographical changes to the part 567
language proposed in the SNPRM. First, GM and TMA noted that the
definition of ``Addendum'' in Sec. 567.3 refers to Sec. 568.5(a), but
subsection (a) does not exist. GM and TMA recommended that NHTSA change
the reference to Sec. 568.5. Second, GM and TMA commented that
proposed Sec. 567.4(g)(4)(ii) refers to multipurpose passenger
vehicles as ``MPVS'' and suggested that the correct abbreviation is
``MPVs'' as found in Sec. 567.4(g)(4)(iii). Third, GM and TMA stated
Sec. 567.4(m)(1) and (m)(2) of the proposed regulation are identical
to Sec. Sec. 567.4(l)(1) and (l)(2) and recommended that NHTSA delete
Sec. Sec. 567.4(m)(1) and (m)(2). Finally, RVIA indicated that
although the text in Sec. Sec. 567.1 and 567.2 refers to a
certification ``label or tag,'' the word ``tag'' does not appear
elsewhere in part 567. RVIA consequently recommended that NHTSA delete
all references to ``tags.''
[[Page 7423]]
2. Agency Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 567
a. Addressing in Part 567 Responsibility for Noncompliances and Safety
Related Defects
In the SNPRM, NHTSA proposed adding provisions to part 567 that
would allocate responsibility for all duties, which includes
noncompliances and safety-related defects, among incomplete vehicle
manufacturers, intermediate manufacturers, and final-stage
manufacturers.\10\ However, it left unchanged a provision in part 573
that also address responsibility for noncompliances and safety-related
defects, assigning that responsibility to the final-stage manufacturer
(49 CFR 573.5(a)) and proposed with respect to multi-stage vehicles
that if the manufacturers did not agree over who was responsible, the
agency would determine who would conduct a notification and remedy
campaign (proposed Sec. 573.5(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NHTSA proposed to amend part 573 by adding a provision
under which the agency would allocate responsibility in the event of
a dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the final-stage manufacturer has the ultimate
responsibility for notifying the agency of a noncompliance or a defect
related to motor vehicle safety and of conducting a notification and
remedy (recall) campaign. However, as a practical matter, the
incomplete vehicle manufacturers nearly always readily conduct the
recall when responsible. This basic approach under part 573 avoids
delays in removing unsafe vehicles from the road. The agency is
concerned that amending part 567 to allocate this responsibility among
manufacturers at the various stages of production would overlap part
573, which would result in confusion and potential inconsistencies.
Further, the commenters generally and some commenters specifically
strongly opposed the related proposal to amend part 573 to provide for
the agency to resolve disputes between manufacturers. As discussed
below, the agency has decided not to amend part 573. Accordingly, the
agency believes that part 568 should not be amended to address
notification or remedy (recall) responsibilities for safety-related
defects or noncompliances. As a result, part 568 is limited to
certification responsibilities.
b. Proposed Definition of ``Readily Attachable Component''
Proposed Sec. 567.3 would define the term ``altered vehicle,'' in
part, as a previously certified vehicle ``that has been modified other
than by the use of readily attachable components.'' The section also
proposed to define the term ``readily attachable component'' as ``non-
original equipment components and/or assemblies that can be installed
without special tools or expertise and are substantially similar in
design, method of attachment and safety performance to similar motor
vehicle equipment offered and/or validated by the motor vehicle
manufacturer for the specific model or vehicle platform on which it is
being installed in conformance with the equipment manufacturer's
instructions.'' Since issuing the proposed rule, the agency has
reconsidered the need to separately define ``readily attachable
component.'' We note that insofar as the proposed definition
characterizes ``readily attachable component'' as ``non-original
equipment,'' it would potentially conflict with 49 CFR 573.4, which
defines ``original equipment,'' in part, as ``motor vehicle equipment
(other than a tire) that was installed in or on a motor vehicle at the
time of its delivery to the first purchaser.'' In light of that
definition, all equipment that is on a vehicle prior to its first
retail sale, including that added by an alterer, is ``original
equipment.'' The proposed definition also appears to be unduly
restrictive in that it would limit ``readily attachable'' components to
ones that ``are substantially similar in design, method of attachment
and safety performance to similar motor vehicle equipment offered and/
or validated by the motor vehicle manufacturer.'' Because it could
introduce uncertainty as to what constitutes an ``altered vehicle,''
and does not clarify that issue in a meaningful way, the agency has
concluded that it would be best to eliminate the proposed definition of
``readily attachable component'' from this final rule. The agency has
addressed the issue through interpretations and believes that this
approach is satisfactory.
c. Responsibility of Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturers for Work
Performed at a Later Stage of Production
We have considered International's and Freightliner's concerns
about the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's responsibility for matters
it has no control over. The proposal reflected a view that various
manufacturers should be responsible for the components and systems that
they provide. It is not clear how it impacted pass-through
certification, but it could reduce the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer's responsibilities under the IVD. In our view, there is no
simple and easy resolution of the issue of allocation of certification
responsibilities for multi-stage vehicles. A vehicle that meets FMVSS
is far more than an assemblage of components and systems that are
bolted or welded together. The completed vehicle must be an integrated
whole that performs properly under a variety of conditions. For
example, at a basic level, if an incomplete vehicle manufacturer
provided a windshield defrosting and defogging system and a windshield
wiping system and washing system, ordinarily one would expect that the
vehicle would meet FMVSS No. 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging
Systems and FMVSS No. 104 Windshield Wiping System and Washing Systems.
However, if the final-stage manufacturer added, modified, or deleted
anything that resulted in a noncompliance with one or both of these
standards, there should be two consequences. First, the incomplete
vehicle manufacturer would no longer be responsible and, second, the
final-stage manufacturer would be responsible. Similarly, ordinarily
the final-stage manufacturer of a school bus, which adds exterior
features, would be expected to assure that the mirrors reveal the
presence of children, as required by FMVSS No. 111 Rearview Mirrors.
Second, at a more complex level, a number of FMVSS involve dynamic
tests of the complete vehicle. Absent completion of the vehicle within
the envelope of the incomplete vehicle document, testing by the final-
stage manufacturer is warranted. For example, FMVSSs for brake systems
include vehicle performance requirements. The incomplete vehicle
manufacturer ordinarily could not be expected to supply a brake system
on a chassis that would comply with the applicable performance
standards for any and all applications by a final-stage manufacturer.
Similarly, the final-stage manufacturer cannot maintain that the brakes
satisfied the standards simply because the brake systems and components
were supplied by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Appropriate
engineering and testing to meet performance requirements are warranted.
The incomplete vehicle manufacturer can provide an IVD and, if the
final-stage manufacturer adheres to the IVD, it can certify the vehicle
without testing. Alternately, the final-stage manufacturer can certify
the vehicle based on it own.
Third, at a more complex level, a number of Federal motor vehicle
safety standards involve dynamic crash tests. In these tests, the
completed vehicle must meet standards. It is far from
[[Page 7424]]
sufficient, for example, that a vehicle has a functioning air bag or
that part of the vehicle meets a test short of a crash test. See, e.g.,
65 FR 30698. Thus, the fact that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer
supplied components or systems without more does not relieve the final-
stage manufacturer of its certification responsibilities for
performance that depends only in part on those components or systems in
a crash.
The final rule adopts much of the SNPRM as it pertained to
certification and reflects the concerns identified above. The final-
stage manufacturer certifies that the vehicle meets applicable FMVSSs
but can rely on the prior manufacturers' IVD. The incomplete vehicle
manufacturer and intermediate manufacturers have certification
responsibilities for the vehicle as further manufactured or completed
by a final-stage manufacturer to the extent that the vehicle is
completed in accordance with the IVD. The incomplete vehicle
manufacturer and intermediate manufacturers also have certification
responsibilities for equipment subject to equipment standards that they
supply and for other items and associated standards in the contract
between them and the next stage manufacturer(s). The fact that some
components were provided by an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, absent
more, does not shift responsibility for certification to them with
respect to completed vehicle performance standards such as those
requiring dynamic crash tests.
Some comments by incomplete vehicle manufacturers concern uncertain
future events and negligent workmanship. The following indicates the
difficulties inherent in providing detailed rules. Assume an incomplete
vehicle manufacturer produces a school bus shell and an IVD stating
that final stage manufacturer A must order certain passenger seats from
company C, which it does. The seats arrive from company C complete with
attaching hardware that includes special hardened fasteners.
Unfortunately, the fasteners are lost. Company A obtains bolts from a
local hardware store and installs the passenger seats in the school bus
shell. The vehicle is tested by NHTSA and the passenger seats fails to
meet FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.
The question would be whether the final stage manufacturer completed
the vehicle in accordance with the IVD. If, however, the passenger
seats are installed with the correct attachment hardware but the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer did not follow its design, omitting the
reinforcing plates under the floor areas where the seats are to be
mounted, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for
the invalid certification with FMVSS No. 222.
As a second hypothetical, assume that the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer's IVD provides for compliance with FMVSS No. 111 Rearview
Mirrors. It provides mounting holes for mirrors on the incomplete
vehicle and specifies certain mirrors. If the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer did not follow its design, mislocating the mounting holes
for attaching the mirrors, the final stage manufacturer installed the
correct mirrors, and the vehicle fails to meet FMVSS No. 111, the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for the
certification violation.
d. Labeling Requirements
Given that there were not any objections, NHTSA is adopting the
labeling requirements as proposed.
e. Reference to 568.5(a)
NHTSA agrees that the reference was incorrect and has corrected it,
as suggested by the commenters.
f. Abbreviation of MPVs
NHTSA has corrected the abbreviation as suggested.
g. Duplicative Provisions Regarding Minimum Size of Letters and Numbers
NHTSA agrees that Sec. Sec. 567.4(l) and 567.4(m) are duplicative.
NHTSA intended to propose that the minimum size of the lettering and
numbering be increased to 4 mm to improve readability. Accordingly, the
agency is deleting Sec. 567.4(l) and redesignating Sec. Sec. 567.4(m)
and 567.4(l).
h. Reference to Tags
NHTSA agrees that the reference to tags is unnecessary and should
be deleted.
C. 49 CFR Part 568
1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 568
Five commenters (GM, NADA, RVIA, NTEA, TMA) submitted comments on
the proposed changes to part 568. GM and NADA generally supported the
proposed revisions to part 568 to note expressly that incomplete
vehicle manufacturers may incorporate by reference body builder or
other design and engineering guidance into the IVD. GM and TMA
suggested a technical correction to proposed Sec. Sec. 568.7(a) and
(b), which refer to Sec. 568.6(b), a section that does not exist in
the proposed regulation. GM and TMA recommended that the proper
reference is to Sec. 568.6. NHTSA agrees that the reference was
incorrect and has corrected it, as suggested by the commenters.
NTEA indicated that it does not oppose the proposed changes to part
568. However, NTEA voiced its concern that permitting incomplete
vehicle manufacturers to incorporate additional documents into the IVD
could become burdensome for final-stage manufacturers and could produce
the same problems that currently limit pass-through certification. NTEA
stated that IVDs are often so restrictive that a final-stage
manufacturer cannot accomplish pass-through certification. NTEA
commented further that allowing incomplete vehicle manufacturers to
incorporate by reference lengthy and complicated documents into IVDs
might make it easier for incomplete vehicle manufacturers to restrict
compliance envelopes. Accordingly, NTEA recommended that NHTSA require
incomplete vehicle manufacturers to make available to final-stage
manufacturers at no cost all documents incorporated by reference into
IVDs. NTEA also urged NHTSA to require that incomplete vehicle
manufacturers act in good faith to provide conformity statements that
are likely to be passed through to other manufacturers (i.e., that are
not automatically invalidated by upfitting the vehicle in any way).
RVIA concurred with and endorsed NTEA's comments, although RVIA
also submitted its own comments. RVIA's comments on the proposed
changes to part 568 focused on motor home and conversion vehicle
manufacturers' lack of personnel and monetary resources to comply with
regulations involving dynamic crash testing or other costly tests. Due
to this reported lack of resources, RVIA commented that final-stage
manufacturers must rely heavily on incomplete vehicle manufacturers'
IVDs in order to certify that a vehicle complies with the standards.
RVIA contended that Sec. 568.4(b) should be expanded and strengthened
to require incomplete vehicle manufacturers to provide ``reasonable
compliance guidelines'' in the body builder book or other documentation
as part of the IVD. Reasonable compliance guidelines, according to
RVIA, are necessary for final-stage manufacturers because incomplete
vehicle manufacturers currently provide narrow compliance envelopes,
making it difficult for final-stage manufacturers to achieve pass-
through certification. NHTSA does not believe that a provision
requiring incomplete vehicle manufacturers to provide ``reasonable
compliance guidelines'' is necessary since it could not be effectively
enforced due to the
[[Page 7425]]
subjectivity of the quoted language. As an alternative to amending the
proposed regulation to make the inclusion of body builder or other
design and engineering compliance guidance mandatory in the IVD, RVIA
requested that NHTSA monitor the issue and revisit whether to add such
a requirement one year after the effective date of the final rule.
2. Agency Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 568
a. Reference to Part 568
We have corrected the reference as suggested.
b. Making Documents Incorporated in the IVDs Freely Available
NHTSA is not adopting the suggestion that if incomplete vehicle
manufacturers incorporate materials such as body builder or other
design and engineering guidance, they must provide free copies of those
materials. This is a marketplace issue that incomplete vehicle
manufacturers and final-stage manufacturers can resolve. Incomplete
vehicle manufacturers already have business reasons (e.g., promoting
the sales of their incomplete vehicles) to provide copies, and final-
stage manufacturers already have business reasons (to produce a safe,
reliable vehicle) to obtain them, even if those materials are not
incorporated by reference. Incorporation of these materials will
provide additional, more precise guidance, thus increasing clarity of
that guidance.
c. Requiring Compliance Guidelines Be ``Reasonable'' or Prepared ``in
Good Faith''
NHTSA is not adopting these suggestions. As discussed above,
incomplete vehicle manufacturers have business reasons to provide
workable IVDs. There is no market for incomplete vehicles that cannot
be manufactured into completed vehicles that will meet the applicable
FMVSSs. Further, due to its subjectivity, the suggested language is not
susceptible to effective enforcement.
D. 49 CFR Part 571
1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 571
NHTSA received comments from Ford, GM, TMA, NADA, NTEA, and RVIA on
the proposed revisions to part 571. All of these commenters generally
supported the proposal granting intermediate and final-stage
manufacturers and alterers an automatic one-year extension to meet the
new requirements of the standard. Ford commented, however, that after a
completed vehicle is certified to a safety standard, NHTSA should not
allow alterers to render the certification inoperative unless the
alterer is changing the vehicle to a type to which the rule does not
apply. NTEA suggested that the standard also provide final-stage
manufacturers and alterers an additional year of leadtime when an
incomplete vehicle manufacturer introduces a new model. RVIA similarly
commented that the one-year extension also should apply when an
incomplete vehicle manufacturer's model year changeovers require final-
stage manufacturers to do additional testing or when an incomplete
vehicle manufacturer certifies its vehicles late in the process,
providing subsequent manufacturers with little time to determine if the
changes affect compliance. RVIA noted that although the SNPRM
recognized the certification difficulties faced by a final-stage
manufacturer in light of substantive changes to a chassis as a result
of a model year changeover, the proposed amendment to part 571 does
provide an explicit one-year extension for a final-stage manufacturer
to achieve compliance when a model year changeover occurs, requiring
additional testing. Accordingly, RVIA urged NHTSA to amend Sec. 571 to
specify that the one-year extension applies when an incomplete vehicle
manufacturer's model year changes require new testing or when an
incomplete vehicle manufacturer does not provide equipment for new or
additional compliance verification at least one year in advance of the
effective date of compliance. For Sec. 571.8 and other regulations,
NADA suggested NHTSA use the term ``vehicle alterer'' rather than
``alterer.''
2. Agency Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 571
a. Proposed Automatic One-Year Extension of Effective Date
Except as noted in the next paragraph, NHTSA has decided to adopt
the amendments to part 571 as proposed. No commenter opposed their
adoption. Further, those commenters who addressed the amendments
supported them. The agency notes that its recognition that vehicles
built in two or more stages may be a vehicle type under the agency's
regulations does not exclude them from motor vehicle safety standards.
For example, if the vehicle is a truck, it is subject to standards
applicable to trucks and is not excluded because it was built in two or
more stages. Nonetheless, as with convertibles, the agency may, as
appropriate, provide for particular options in its standards for
multistage vehicles.
b. Eligibility of Alterers for Extension
NHTSA has decided to include alterers in the provision for
additional leadtime. The agency notes that the problems faced by final-
stage manufacturers in certifying that a vehicle manufactured in two or
more stages complies with all applicable FMVSSs also are faced by
alterers with respect to their own certification responsibilities. If a
vehicle manufacturer waits until the last possible moment to certify
its vehicles, alterers will not have the ability to conduct any
engineering analysis to determine if their alterations will affect
compliance. Therefore, the agency has decided to provide alterers with
the same lead-time it is providing to final-stage manufacturers.
c. Additional Leadtime Following Introduction of New Model
NHTSA has decided not to adopt this suggestion. This issue involves
business decisions that should be made by incomplete vehicle
manufacturers. They need to make the design changes and other documents
available to final-stage manufacturers in sufficient time so that those
manufacturers can make current model year changes to the design of the
vehicles they complete and ensure that those vehicles meet the FMVSSs.
d. Use of the Term ``Alterer''
NHTSA sees no need to replace the term ``alterer'' with the term
``vehicle alterer'' in part 571 or the other parts addressed in this
final rule. Accordingly, no change has been made.
E. 49 CFR Part 573
1. Summary of Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 573
a. NHTSA Determination of Which Manufacturer Is in the ``Best
Position'' To Conduct a Recall
As discussed above, to assure a prompt resolution of the issue of
recall responsibility in a multi-stage context, NHTSA proposed that the
agency would allocate recall responsibility when the various
manufacturers could not agree on which was the responsible party. 69 FR
36047, 36056. The majority of commenters opposed these revisions to
part 573.
In its comments on the SNPRM, GM stated that historically
manufacturers have been able to resolve issues of the determination of
recall responsibility and asserted that this trend likely will continue
in the future, thus not
[[Page 7426]]
requiring a NHTSA determination of which party should conduct a recall.
GM further objected on the grounds that the agency would be injecting
itself into evaluating the relative financial health of various
manufacturers. Similarly, DaimlerChrysler expressed the concern that
NHTSA should not make decisions on who should pay for a recall on the
basis of the more substantial resources of an incomplete vehicle
manufacturer.
International commented extensively on this proposal. International
shared NHTSA's concern that a disagreement between manufacturers
regarding responsibility for a safety-related defect or noncompliance
could hinder manufacturers' rapid response in issuing a recall.
However, International suggested that manufacturers rarely disagree
regarding who should conduct a recall because they want to keep
goodwill with their customers and because NHTSA's existing powers to
investigate and assess penalties deter manufacturers from disagreeing
to the point of necessitating NHTSA involvement. International further
expressed its belief that this section would give NHTSA the power to
order a manufacturer to conduct a recall even though neither NHTSA nor
the manufacturer has determined that a defect or noncompliance exists
in the equipment it manufactured. Moreover, International questioned
whether NHTSA has the necessary statutory authority to require a recall
in such circumstances.
Ford suggested that allowing NHTSA to determine responsibility
might cause intermediate and final-stage manufacturers to try to avoid
recall responsibility, shifting the recall burden to incomplete vehicle
manufacturers.
DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner, a DaimlerChrysler Company, argued
that part 573 should not be revised to permit NHTSA to decide which
manufacturer is in the best position to conduct a recall. They
commented that NHTSA has proposed no standards to evaluate which party
is in the best position to conduct a recall and has not identified
sufficiently when NHTSA would intervene, other than when parties
disagree about responsibility. DaimlerChrysler, which had its own
proposal on allocation of responsibility that appeared in the SNPRM (p.
36047), commented that, upon a determination by NHTSA that another
manufacturer is in the best position to conduct the recall, the
proposed amendment to Sec. 573.5 seemingly would permit NHTSA to
override the allocations of recall responsibility for certification
proposed in Sec. 567.5 to impose responsibility on a manufacturer
other than the manufacturer responsible under Sec. 567.5. Moreover,
DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner stated that although NHTSA expects few
instances would arise in which a dispute occurs between manufacturers
regarding recall responsibility, enacting this type of ``referee''
provision would cause more disputes and delays and would thrust NHTSA
into the middle of commercial disputes from which it has traditionally
removed itself for good reason. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner added
that NHTSA's involvement in a determination of responsibility would
complicate the recalling manufacturer's ability to recover expenses
from the responsible party, as is currently done, as courts or
arbitrators likely would give considerable weight to NHTSA
determinations regarding which entities are best suited to conduct
recalls. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner also questioned whether this
``referee provision'' is consistent with the Vehicle Safety Act.
TMA commented that absent the proposed provision, NHTSA nonetheless
would possess the necessary authority to issue a determination of
responsibility.
NTEA and RVIA submitted comments supporting the proposed changes to
allow NHTSA to determine which manufacturer is in the best position to
conduct a recall. Both NTEA and RVIA noted the financial hardships for
final-stage manufacturers when they conduct recalls, regardless of
whether they are responsible for the defect or noncompliance. NTEA
added that each manufacturer responsible for a particular defect or
noncompliance should conduct its own recall.
b. Nonreviewability of NHTSA Determination
Under a system in which NHTSA may assign the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer ultimate responsibility for a recall, to assure the speedy
implementation of a recall, NHTSA proposed that its resolution of any
dispute would have to be both final and non-reviewable. See 69 FR
36056. The commenters who opposed NHTSA determining which manufacturer
is in the best position to conduct a recall also expressed disapproval
of the nonreviewability of such a decision. DaimlerChrysler and
Freightliner commented that NHTSA does not have the authority to deem
its decisions nonreviewable, as a provision allowing nonreviewable
agency decisions would be inconsistent with the Administrative
Procedure Act. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner agreed with NHTSA's
statement in the SNPRM that a court would likely review an agency
decision unless it is deemed something other than a final agency
action. Additionally, DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner expressed
confusion regarding how a manufacturer's right to judicial review of a
NHTSA determination of a defect or noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118
would be reconciled with a nonreviewable order that a manufacturer
conduct a recall. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner also expressed a
lack of understanding of the difference between an order under 49
U.S.C. 30118(b) that requires a manufacturer to provide notice and a
remedy (i.e., a recall) and may be contested in court, and an order
under proposed Sec. 573.5 that would require a manufacturer to conduct
a recall but could not be contested.
Ford also commented that NHTSA decisions allocating recall
responsibility must be judicially reviewable. GM and TMA indicated that
even if manufacturers could not resolve a dispute regarding recall
responsibility, NHTSA instead could issue a determination of
responsibility without necessitating that the decision be
nonreviewable. Nonreviewability of a NHTSA determination regarding
which party is in the best position to conduct a recall, according to
International, could cause a chilling effect on manufacturers'
willingness to report possible defects or noncompliance to NHTSA.
NTEA recognized NHTSA's concerns regarding nonreviewability,
commenting that NHTSA could eliminate or change the proposal but should
not change the other proposed amendments to part 573.
c. Suggested Alternative Language for Section 573.5
During the negotiated rulemaking process, DaimlerChrysler proposed
alternative language for allocating recall responsibility between the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer and final-stage manufacturer. Daimler
Chrysler suggested that the allocation of legal responsibility in Sec.
567.5 be repeated in Sec. 573.5 and offered language. The language
offered by DaimlerChrysler was reprinted in the preamble to the SNPRM.
69 FR 36047; but see 69 FR 36056. In their comments responding to the
SNPRM, Ford and TMA indicated that the language offered by
DaimlerChrysler was preferable to the language proposed by NHTSA, which
they flatly opposed.
Although acknowledging that the proposed changes to Sec. 573.5
should not impact directly dealers' involvement in safety recalls, NADA
offered the
[[Page 7427]]
following substitute language for Sec. 573.5(c):
In the event of a safety-related defect or noncompliance involving a
motor vehicle manufactured in two or more stages, each incomplete,
intermediate, final-stage or equipment manufacturer is responsible
if the defect or noncompliance involved its workmanship or the
components or systems it supplied.
Under its proposed language, NADA indicated that NHTSA might
occasionally need to determine who is responsible for a defect or
noncompliance, but not who is in the best position to conduct a recall.
Manufacturers, according to NADA, usually will determine responsibility
voluntarily.
NTEA acknowledged the alternative offered by DaimlerChrysler,
commenting that the DaimlerChrysler language appears to adopt NHTSA's
original proposal, except that it does not discuss allocation of
responsibility in the event of a dispute. NTEA indicated its support
for the DaimlerChrysler language as well as NHTSA's original proposal.
2. Agency Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to 49 CFR Part 573
a. NHTSA Determination of Which Manufacturer Is in the Best Position To
Conduct a Recall
In response to the public comments on proposed Sec. 573.5(c)
permitting the agency to determine which manufacturer is in the best
position to conduct a recall, NHTSA has re-examined the merits of this
proposal. NHTSA's primary concern is safety; NHTSA is also concerned
that the rule be workable. The most compelling fact is that under
existing Sec. 573.5, in general, recalls are not delayed by disputes
between manufacturers. In fact, practical disputes rarely occur; the
last known one of any significance occurred prior to 1990. It is clear
from this fact that the private parties are able to resolve and in fact
are successfully resolving the issues regarding the conducting of
recalls in almost all instances under the existing regulatory structure
without the suggestion of any possible need for intervention by the
agency. NHTSA has no reason to believe that there will be any greater
need for agency intervention in the future. In addition, the proposal
was not well received. Accordingly, the agency has decided not to adopt
the proposed provision.
b. Nonreviewability of NHTSA Determination
In light of the agency's decision not to adopt the proposed
provision for agency determinations as to which party is in the best
position to conduct a particular recall, the proposal to make agency
determinations nonreviewable is moot. Also, there were substantial
objections to, and a number of substantial questions about, the merits
of this proposal.
c. Suggested Alternative Language for Section 573.5
The agency has decided not to add to Sec. 573.5 the language
suggested by DaimlerChrysler. Further, the agency is not adding an
alternative suggestion regarding the allocation of responsibility in
the event of a dispute. As discussed above, NHTSA's interest,
commensurate with the public interest, is for a rapid and final
resolution of recall responsibility so as to have unsafe motor vehicles
repaired as soon as possible. In the context of the manufacturer's
independent duty under 49 U.S.C. 30118(c) to give notification of and
to remedy safety defects that it learns of (United States v. General
Motors Corp., 574 F. Supp. 1047, 1049 (D.D.C. 1983)), the existing rule
meets the fundamental safety need for prompt recalls. As General Motors
noted, historically, incomplete and final-stage manufacturers have been
able to resolve issues of determination of responsibility. If not, the
default assignment of responsibility is to the final-stage
manufacturer, which retains its right to seek indemnification or
contribution from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. This has been
NHTSA's historical position (see 58 FR 40402) and it has stood the test
of time. In addition, we have substantial doubts that a formulaic
approach offered by DaimlerChrysler would work as needed for safety-
related defects. It does not provide a truly bright line test. As NADA
recognized, disputes would arise under it. From a safety perspective,
the best resolution is to leave the rule where as it now stands. We
would add that this provides an incentive for a final-stage
manufacturer to deal with a solid and reputable incomplete vehicle
manufacturer. If the rule were cast to impose recall responsibility on
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, final-stage manufacturers'
interests in lower production costs likely would in some instances
result in the final-stage manufacturers' acquisition and use of
incomplete vehicles that would not withstand the rigors of the road as
well as those offered at higher prices by competing incomplete vehicle
manufacturers. There would be considerable practical issues in
obtaining an effective recall by bargain basement incomplete vehicle
manufacturers. For example, in recent years, we have seen a significant
influx of low price imports of low quality equipment from essentially
unknown foreign manufacturers with no corporate presence in the United
States.
F. Other Issues
1. Early Warning Reporting
DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner noted that the rule proposed in
the SNPRM does not address the issue of responsibility of incomplete or
intermediate vehicle manufacturers with respect to part 579 and the
Early Warning Reporting rules. DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner
observed that although NHTSA has issued interpretations recognizing
final-stage manufacturers as the ``vehicle manufacturers'' under the
early warning rules, final-stage manufacturers in many cases do not
receive consumer complaints or carry out warranty work on primary
vehicle systems. Accordingly, DaimlerChrysler and Freightliner
suggested that if NHTSA adopts regulations altering the
responsibilities of incomplete, intermediate, and final-stage
manufacturers, it simultaneously should consider revising its
interpretations of the early warning rules.
Agency response: As the issue raised by DaimlerChrysler and
Freightliner is outside scope of this rulemaking, we are not addressing
it in this final rule. This may be considered in the assessment of the
early warning program, which we expect to begin in about two years. See
69 FR 57867 (September 28, 2004).
2. Safety of Altering Certified Vehicles
NADA objected to preambular statements regarding vehicle
alteration, particularly the suggestion that vehicle alterations are
inherently wrong and that NHTSA disfavors vehicle alterations made
after the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than retail.
Agency response: Alterations to a certified vehicle prior to first
retail sale are not viewed with disfavor by the agency, provided the
alterer certifies the vehicle as continuing to comply with the FMVSS
affected by the alterations. Alterers of cargo vans, for example, who
install work-performing equipment in a completed vehicle, should be
treated no differently than a final-stage manufacturer who installs the
same work-performing equipment in an incomplete vehicle. However, the
agency does view with disfavor vehicle modifications, performed after
first retail sale, that take a vehicle out of compliance with
applicable FMVSSs, except as permitted under 49 CFR part
[[Page 7428]]
595 to accommodate persons with disabilities.
3. Effective Date
GM and TMA suggested that the effective date for the rule be the
first occurrence of September 1, one year following publication of the
Final Rule. GM indicated that this is a reasonable effective date,
given that manufacturers may need time to implement several of the
proposed requirements pertaining to labeling and documentation. TMA
stipulated that this effective date will allow TMA members time for
reviewing and updating their IVD and/or body builder books.
Agency response: The agency has decided to adopt the suggestion of
GM and TMA. The agency believes that their suggested date will provide
a reasonable period of time to come into compliance. Thus, the
effective date will be September 1, 2006.
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant.
Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this
rulemaking document under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.'' The rulemaking action has also been determined to be
nonsignificant under the Department's regulatory policies and
procedures.
This rule does not impose any additional costs on regulated parties
or on the American public since it merely clarifies legal
responsibilities related to the certification of vehicles built in two
or more stages. To the extent that incomplete vehicle manufacturers
accept legal responsibility for their vehicles, they may incur some
additional certification costs. Likewise, they will incur additional
costs in the event of a recall resulting from their statements on the
information label or in the IVD. As a practical matter, most incomplete
vehicle manufacturers have been willing to pay for recalls associated
with work performed by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or within
the scope of their representations in the IVD even though there has
been no express legal requirement that they do so.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) I certify that this
action does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses. Although a significant number of final-
stage manufacturers and alterers are small businesses, this rule does
not have a significant economic impact on these entities. It provides
for a new process for temporary exemptions from dynamic crash testing
performance requirements. It recognizes multi-stage vehicles as a
vehicle type, which allows for adoption of standards with options for
them. It provides for full use of pass-through certifications beyond
chassis-cabs. It thus reduces burdens on final-stage manufacturers,
many of which are small businesses.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it does not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. This final rule does not have
any substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local officials. The final rule is
not intended to preempt state tort civil actions.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). The final rule does
not require the expenditure of resources above and beyond $100 million
annually.
F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
The final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section
49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final rule
contains a collection of information because it expands the number of
information labels required beyond manufacturers of chassis-cabs. There
is no burden to the general public.
This final rule includes the following ``collections of
information,'' as that term is defined in 5 CFR part 1320 Controlling
Paperwork Burdens on the Public:
Today's final rule requires information labels similar to a
certification label for incomplete vehicles that are not chassis-cabs.
At present, OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of labeling
requirements under OMB clearance no. 2127-0512, Consolidated Labeling
Requirements for Motor Vehicles (Except the Vehicle Identification
Number). A request for extension of the clearance for these
requirements is pending at OMB. See also 69 FR 70168.
For the following reasons, NHTSA estimates that the new information
labels will have a minimal net increase in the information collection
burden on the public.\11\ There are approximately 40 incomplete motor
vehicle manufacturers that will be affected by this labeling
requirement, and the labels will be placed on approximately 556,000
vehicles per year. The label will be placed on each vehicle by the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer and each intermediate manufacturer
once. Since, in this final rule, NHTSA specifies the exact content of
the labels, the manufacturers will spend 0 hours developing the labels.
NHTSA estimates the technical burden time (time required for affixing
labels) to be .0002 hours per label. NHTSA estimates that the total
[[Page 7429]]
annual burden imposed on the public as a result of the incomplete
vehicle manufacturer labels will be 116 hours (556,600 vehicles
multiplied by .0002 hours per label multiplied by 1.5, representing an
estimate that intermediate manufacturers will be involved in the
production of half of the vehicles affected). Canada already requires
labels of the type contemplated in today's notice on incomplete
vehicles manufactured for the Canadian market, and the larger
incomplete vehicle manufacturers already install this label on a
voluntary basis for vehicles sold in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ No commenter questioned these calculations, which also
appeard in the SNPRM, albeit without an estimation of the burden on
intermediate manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2)
concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by us.
This rulemaking is not economically significant.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards \12\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise
impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult
with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required
by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of the
reasons for not using such standards. This rulemaking only addresses
the allocation of legal responsibilities among regulated parties. As
such, the issues involved here are not amenable to the development of
voluntary standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based
or design-specific technical specifications and related management
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR chapter V as
follows:
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 555, 567, 568, and 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
PART 555--TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY AND BUMPER
STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 555 of title 49 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113, 32502, Pub. L. 105-277; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Part 555 is amended by designating Sec. Sec. 555.1 through 555.10
as subpart A and by adding a heading to read as follows:
Subpart A--General
0
3. Paragraph (b)(6) of Sec. 555.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 555.5 Application for exemption.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Specify any part of the information and data submitted which
petitioner requests be withheld from public disclosure in accordance
with part 512 of this chapter.
(i) The information and data which petitioner requests be withheld
from public disclosure must be submitted in accordance with Sec. 512.4
of this chapter.
(ii) The petitioner's request for withholding from public
disclosure must be accompanied by a certification in support as set
forth in appendix A to part 512 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
4. Subpart B is added to read as follows:
Subpart B--Vehicles Built In Two or More Stages and Altered Vehicles
Sec.
555.11 Application.
555.12 Petition for exemption.
555.13 Basis for petition.
555.14 Processing of petitions.
555.15 Time period for exemptions.
555.16 Renewal of exemptions.
555.17 Termination of temporary exemptions.
555.18 Temporary exemption labels.
Subpart B--Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages and Altered
Vehicles
Sec. 555.11 Application.
This subpart applies to alterers and manufacturers of motor
vehicles built in two or more stages to which one or more standards are
applicable. No manufacturer or alterer that produces or alters a total
exceeding 10,000 motor vehicles annually shall be eligible for a
temporary exemption under this subpart. Any exemption granted under
this subpart shall be limited, per manufacturer, to 2,500 vehicles to
be sold in the United States in any 12 consecutive month period.
Nothing in this subpart prohibits an alterer, an intermediate
manufacturer, a manufacturer of incomplete vehicles other than chassis-
cabs, or a final-stage manufacturer from applying for a temporary
exemption under subpart A of this part.
Sec. 555.12 Petition for exemption.
An alterer, intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, or industry
trade association representing a group of alterers, intermediate and/or
final-stage manufacturers may seek, as to any vehicle configuration
built in two or more stages, a temporary exemption or a renewal of a
temporary exemption from any performance requirement for which a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifies the use of a dynamic
crash test procedure to determine compliance. Each petition for an
exemption under this section must be submitted to NHTSA and must:
(a) Be written in the English language;
(b) Be submitted in three copies to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590;
(c) State the full name and address of the applicant, the nature of
its organization (e.g., individual, partnership, corporation, or trade
association), the name of the State or country under the laws of which
it is organized, and the name of each alterer, or intermediate and/or
final-stage manufacturer for which the exemption is sought;
[[Page 7430]]
(d) State the number, title, paragraph designation, and the text or
substance of the portion(s) of the standard(s) from which the exemption
is sought;
(e) Describe by type and use each vehicle configuration (or range
of vehicle configurations) for which the exemption is sought;
(f) State the estimated number of units of each vehicle
configuration to be produced annually by each of the manufacturer(s)
for whom the exemption is sought;
(g) Specify any part of the information and data submitted which
the petitioner requests be withheld from public disclosure in
accordance with part 512 of this chapter, as provided by Sec.
555.5(b)(6).
(1) The information and data which petitioner requests be withheld
from public disclosure must be submitted in accordance with Sec. 512.4
of this chapter.
(2) The petitioner's request for withholding from public disclosure
must be accompanied by a certification in support as set forth in
appendix A to part 512 of this chapter.
Sec. 555.13 Basis for petition.
The petition shall:
(a) Discuss any factors (e.g., demand for the vehicle
configuration, loss of market, difficulty in procuring goods and
services necessary to conduct dynamic crash tests) that the applicant
desires NHTSA to consider in deciding whether to grant the application
based on economic hardship.
(b) Explain the grounds on which the applicant asserts that the
application of the dynamic crash test requirements of the standard(s)
in question to the vehicles covered by the application would cause
substantial economic hardship to each of the manufacturers on whose
behalf the application is filed, providing a complete financial
statement for each manufacturer and a complete description of each
manufacturer's good faith efforts to comply with the standards,
including a discussion of:
(1) The extent that no Type (1) or Type (2) statement with respect
to such standard is available in the incomplete vehicle document
furnished, per part 568 of this chapter, by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer or by a prior intermediate-stage manufacturer or why, if
one is available, it cannot be followed, and
(2) The existence, or lack thereof, of generic or cooperative
testing that would provide a basis for demonstrating compliance with
the standard(s);
(c) Explain why the requested temporary exemption would not
unreasonably degrade safety.
Sec. 555.14 Processing of petitions.
The Administrator shall notify the petitioner whether the petition
is complete within 30 days of receipt. The Administrator shall attempt
to approve or deny any complete petition submitted under this subpart
within 120 days after the agency acknowledges that the application is
complete. Upon good cause shown, the Administrator may review a
petition on an expedited basis.
Sec. 555.15 Time period for exemptions.
Subject to Sec. 555.16, each temporary exemption granted by the
Administrator under this subpart shall be in effect for a period of
three years from the effective date. The Administrator shall identify
each exemption by a unique number.
Sec. 555.16 Renewal of exemptions.
An alterer, intermediate or final-stage manufacturer or a trade
association representing a group of alterers or, intermediate and/or
final-stage manufacturers may apply for a renewal of a temporary
exemption. Any such renewal petition shall be filed at least 60 days
prior to the termination date of the existing exemption and shall
include all the information required in an initial petition. If a
petition for renewal of a temporary exemption that meets the
requirements of this subpart has been filed not later than 60 days
before the termination date of an exemption, the exemption does not
terminate until the Administrator grants or denies the petition for
renewal.
Sec. 555.17 Termination of temporary exemptions.
The Administrator may terminate or modify a temporary exemption if
(s)he determines that:
(a) The temporary exemption was granted on the basis of false,
fraudulent, or misleading representations or information; or
(b) The temporary exemption is no longer consistent with the public
interest and the objectives of the Act.
Sec. 555.18 Temporary exemption labels.
An alterer or final-stage manufacturer of a vehicle that is covered
by one or more exemptions issued under this sub-part shall affix a
label that meets meet all the requirements of 49 CFR 555.9.
0
5. Part 567 is revised to read as follows:
PART 567--CERTIFICATION
Sec.
567.1 Purpose.
567.2 Application.
567.3 Definitions.
567.4 Requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.
567.5 Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two
or more stages.
567.6 Requirements for persons who do not alter certified vehicles
or do so with readily attachable components.
567.7 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, 32502,
32504, 33101-33104, 33108, and 33109; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50.
Sec. 567.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to specify the content and location of,
and other requirements for, the certification label to be affixed to
motor vehicles as required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act, as amended (the Vehicle Safety Act) (49 U.S.C. 30115) and
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended (the
Cost Savings Act), (49 U.S.C. 30254 and 33109), to address
certification-related duties and liabilities, and to provide the
consumer with information to assist him or her in determining which of
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (part 571 of this chapter),
Bumper Standards (part 581 of this chapter), and Federal Theft
Prevention Standards (part 541 of this chapter), are applicable to the
vehicle.
Sec. 567.2 Application.
(a) This part applies to manufacturers including alterers of motor
vehicles to which one or more standards are applicable.
(b) In the case of imported motor vehicles that do not have the
label required by 49 CFR 567.4, Registered Importers of vehicles
admitted into the United States under 49 U.S.C. 30141-30147 and 49 CFR
part 591 must affix a label as required by 49 CFR 567.4, after the
vehicle has been brought into conformity with the applicable Safety,
Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards.
Sec. 567.3 Definitions.
All terms that are defined in the Act and the rules and standards
issued under its authority are used as defined therein. The term
``bumper'' has the meaning assigned to it in Title I of the Cost
Savings Act and the rules and standards issued under its authority.
Addendum means the document described in Sec. 568.5 of this
chapter.
Altered vehicle means a completed vehicle previously certified in
accordance with Sec. 567.4 or Sec. 567.5 that has been altered other
than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable
components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or by minor
finishing operations such as
[[Page 7431]]
painting, before the first purchase of the vehicle other than for
resale, in such a manner as may affect the conformity of the vehicle
with one or more Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard(s) or the
validity of the vehicle's stated weight ratings or vehicle type
classification.
Alterer means a person who alters by addition, substitution, or
removal of components (other than readily attachable components) a
certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle other than
for resale.
Chassis-cab means an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant
compartment, that requires only the addition of cargo-carrying, work-
performing, or load-bearing components to perform its intended
functions.
Completed vehicle means a vehicle that requires no further
manufacturing operations to perform its intended function.
Final-stage manufacturer means a person who performs such
manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a
completed vehicle.
Incomplete trailer means a vehicle that is capable of being drawn
and that consists, at a minimum, of a chassis (including the frame)
structure and suspension system but needs further manufacturing
operations performed on it to become a completed vehicle.
Incomplete vehicle means
(1) An assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of chassis (including
the frame) structure, power train, steering system, suspension system,
and braking system, in the state that those systems are to be part of
the completed vehicle, but requires further manufacturing operations to
become a completed vehicle; or
(2) An incomplete trailer.
Incomplete vehicle document or IVD means the document described in
49 CFR 568.4(a) and (b).
Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an
incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken
separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle.
Intermediate manufacturer means a person, other than the incomplete
vehicle manufacturer or the final-stage manufacturer, who performs
manufacturing operations on a vehicle manufactured in two or more
stages.
Sec. 567.4 Requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.
(a) Each manufacturer of motor vehicles (except vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages) shall affix to each vehicle a
label, of the type and in the manner described below, containing the
statements specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
(b) The label shall be riveted or permanently affixed in such a
manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.
(c) Except for trailers and motorcycles, the label shall be affixed
to either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that
meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position, or if
none of these locations is practicable, to the left side of the
instrument panel. If that location is also not practicable, the label
shall be affixed to the inward-facing surface of the door next to the
driver's seating position. If none of the preceding locations is
practicable, notification of that fact, together with drawings or
photographs showing a suggested alternate location in the same general
area, shall be submitted for approval to the Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. The
location of the label shall be such that it is easily readable without
moving any part of the vehicle except an outer door.
(d) The label for trailers shall be affixed to a location on the
forward half of the left side, such that it is easily readable from
outside the vehicle without moving any part of the vehicle.
(e) The label for motorcycles shall be affixed to a permanent
member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of
the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is
easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the
steering system.
(f) The lettering on the label shall be of a color that contrasts
with the background of the label.
(g) The label shall contain the following statements, in the
English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than
three thirty-seconds of an inch high, in the order shown:
(1) Name of manufacturer: Except as provided in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of this section, the full corporate or
individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle shall be spelled
out, except that such abbreviations as ``Co.'' or ``Inc.'' and their
foreign equivalents, and the first and middle initials of individuals,
may be used. The name of the manufacturer shall be preceded by the
words ``Manufactured By'' or ``Mfd By.'' In the case of imported
vehicles to which the label required by this section is affixed by the
Registered Importer, the name of the Registered Importer shall also be
placed on the label in the manner described in this paragraph, directly
below the name of the actual assembler.
(i) If a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled
by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with
the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used.
(ii) If a vehicle is fabricated and delivered in complete but
unassembled form, such that it is designed to be assembled without
special machinery or tools, the fabricator of the vehicle may affix the
label and name itself as the manufacturer for the purposes of this
section.
(iii) If a trailer is sold by a person who is not its manufacturer,
but who is engaged in the manufacture of trailers and assumes legal
responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the Act with
respect to that trailer, the name of that person may appear on the
label as the manufacturer. In such a case the name shall be preceded by
the words ``Responsible Manufacturer'' or ``Resp Mfr.''
(2) Month and year of manufacture: This shall be the time during
which work was completed at the place of main assembly of the vehicle.
It may be spelled out, as ``June 2000'', or expressed in numerals, as
``6/00''.
(3) ``Gross Vehicle Weight Rating'' or ``GVWR'' followed by the
appropriate value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of
the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the
number of the vehicle's designated seating positions. However, for
school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds
per passenger and 150 pounds for the driver.
(4) ``Gross Axle Weight Rating'' or ``GAWR,'' followed by the
appropriate value in pounds, for each axle, identified in order from
front to rear (e.g., front, first intermediate, second intermediate,
rear). The ratings for any consecutive axles having identical gross
axle weight ratings when equipped with tires having the same tire size
designation may, at the option of the manufacturer, be stated as a
single value, with the label indicating to which axles the ratings
apply.
Examples of combined ratings:
GAWR:
(a) All axles--2,400 kg (5,290 lb) with LT245/75R16(E) tires.
(b) Front--5,215 kg (11,500 lb) with 295/75R22.5(G) tires.
First intermediate to rear--9,070 kg (20,000 lb) with 295/
75R22.5(G) tires.
(5) One of the following statements, as appropriate:
(i) For passenger cars, the statement: ``This vehicle conforms to
all applicable
[[Page 7432]]
Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards in
effect on the date of manufacture shown above.'' The expression
``U.S.'' or ``U.S.A.'' may be inserted before the word ``Federal''.
(ii) In the case of multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and
trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, the statement: ``This
vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and
theft prevention standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown
above.'' The expression ``U.S.'' or ``U.S.A.'' may be inserted before
the (word ``Federal'').
(iii) In the case of multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and
trucks with a GVWR of over 6,000 pounds, the statement: ``This vehicle
conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in
effect on the date of manufacture shown above.'' The expression
``U.S.'' or ``U.S.A.'' may be inserted before the word ``Federal''.
(6) Vehicle identification number.
(7) The type classification of the vehicle as defined in Sec.
571.3 of this chapter (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer).
(h) Multiple GVWR-GAWR ratings. (1) (For passenger cars only) In
cases in which different tire sizes are offered as a customer option, a
manufacturer may at its option list more than one set of values for
GVWR and GAWR, to meet the requirements of paragraphs (g) (3) and (4)
of this section. If the label shows more than one set of weight rating
values, each value shall be followed by the phrase ``with --tires,''
inserting the proper tire size designations. A manufacturer may, at its
option, list one or more tire sizes where only one set of weight
ratings is provided.
Example: Passenger Car
GVWR: 4,400 lb with P195/65R15 tires; 4,800 lb with P205/75R15
tires.
GAWR: Front--2,000 lb with P195/65R15 tires at 24 psi; 2,200 lb
with P205/75R15 tires at 24 psi. Rear--2,400 lb with P195/65R15
tires at 28 psi; 2,600 lb with P205/75R15 tires at 28 psi.
(2) (For multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers,
and motorcycles) The manufacturer may, at its option, list more than
one GVWR-GAWR-tire-rim combination on the label, as long as the listing
contains the tire-rim combination installed as original equipment on
the vehicle by the manufacturer and conforms in content and format to
the requirements for tire-rim-inflation information set forth in
Standard Nos. 110, 120, 129 and 139 (Sec. Sec. 571.110, 571.120,
571.129 and 571.139 of this chapter).
(3) At the option of the manufacturer, additional GVWR-GAWR ratings
for operation of the vehicle at reduced speeds may be listed at the
bottom of the certification label following any information that is
required to be listed.
(i) [Reserved]
(j) A manufacturer may, at its option, provide information
concerning which tables in the document that accompanies the vehicle
pursuant to Sec. 575.6(a) of this chapter apply to the vehicle. This
information may not precede or interrupt the information required by
paragraph (g) of this section.
(k) In the case of passenger cars imported into the United States
under 49 CFR 591.5(f) to which the label required by this section has
not been affixed by the original assembler of the passenger car, a
label meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be affixed
before the vehicle is imported into the United States, if the car is
from a line listed in Appendix A of 49 CFR part 541. This label shall
be in addition to, and not in place of, the label required by
paragraphs (a) through (j), inclusive, of this section.
(1) The label shall be riveted or permanently affixed in such a
manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.
(2) The label shall be affixed to either the hinge pillar, door-
latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to
the driver's seating position, or, if none of these locations is
practicable, to the left side of the instrument panel. If that location
is also not practicable, the label shall be affixed to the inward-
facing surface of the door next to the driver's seating position. The
location of the label shall be such that it is easily readable without
moving any part of the vehicle except an outer door.
(3) The lettering on the label shall be of a color that contrasts
with the background of the label.
(4) The label shall contain the following statements, in the
English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than
three thirty-seconds of an inch high, in the order shown:
(i) Model year (if applicable) or year of manufacture and line of
the vehicle, as reported by the manufacturer that produced or assembled
the vehicle. ``Model year'' is used as defined in Sec. 565.3(h) of
this chapter. ``Line'' is used as defined in Sec. 541.4 of this
chapter.
(ii) Name of the importer. The full corporate or individual name of
the importer of the vehicle shall be spelled out, except that such
abbreviations as ``Co.'' or ``Inc.'' and their foreign equivalents and
the middle initial of individuals, may be used. The name of the
importer shall be preceded by the words ``Imported By''.
(iii) The statement: ``This vehicle conforms to the applicable
Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard in effect on the date
of manufacture.''
(l)(1) In the case of a passenger car imported into the United
States under 49 CFR 591.5(f) which does not have a vehicle
identification number that complies with 49 CFR 565.4 (b), (c), and (g)
at the time of importation, the Registered Importer shall permanently
affix a label to the vehicle in such a manner that, unless the label is
riveted, it cannot be removed without being destroyed or defaced. The
label shall be in addition to the label required by paragraph (a) of
this section, and shall be affixed to the vehicle in a location
specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) The label shall contain the following statement, in the English
language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 4 mm
high, with the location on the vehicle of the original manufacturer's
identification number provided in the blank: ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER'S
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER SUBSTITUTING FOR U.S. VIN IS LOCATED ------.
Sec. 567.5 Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in
two or more stages.
(a) Location of information labels for incomplete vehicles. Each
incomplete vehicle manufacturer or intermediate vehicle manufacturer
shall permanently affix a label to each incomplete vehicle, in the
location and form specified in Sec. 567.4, and in a manner that does
not obscure other labels. If the locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4(c)
are not practicable, the label may be provided as part of the IVD
package so that it can be permanently affixed in the acceptable
locations provided for in that subsection when the vehicle is
sufficiently manufactured to allow placement in accordance therewith.
(b) Incomplete vehicle manufacturers. (1) Except as provided in
paragraph (f) of this section and notwithstanding the certification of
a final-stage manufacturer under 49 CFR 567.5(d)(2)(v), each
manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle assumes legal responsibility for
all certification-related duties and liabilities under the Vehicle
Safety Act with respect to:
(i) Components and systems it installs or supplies for installation
on the incomplete vehicle, unless changed by a subsequent manufacturer;
(ii) The vehicle as further manufactured or completed by an
intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, to the extent that the
[[Page 7433]]
vehicle is completed in accordance with the IVD; and
(iii) The accuracy of the information contained in the IVD.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, each
incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall affix an information label to
each incomplete vehicle that contains the following statements:
(i) Name of incomplete vehicle manufacturer preceded by the words
``incomplete vehicle MANUFACTURED BY'' or ``incomplete vehicle MFD
BY''.
(ii) Month and year of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle. This
may be spelled out, as in ``JUNE 2000'', or expressed in numerals, as
in ``6/00''. No preface is required.
(iii) ``Gross Vehicle Weight Rating'' or ``GVWR'' followed by the
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds), which shall not be less
than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150
pounds times the number of the vehicle's designated seating positions,
if known. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight
allowance shall be 120 pounds per passenger and 150 pounds for the
driver.
(iv) ``Gross Axle Weight Rating'' or ``GAWR,'' followed by the
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds) for each axle, identified
in order from front to rear (e.g., front, first intermediate, second
intermediate, rear). The ratings for any consecutive axles having
identical gross axle weight ratings when equipped with tires having the
same tire size designation may be stated as a single value, with the
label indicating to which axles the ratings apply.
(v) Vehicle Identification Number.
(c) Intermediate manufacturers. (1) Except as provided in
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section and notwithstanding the
certification of a final-stage manufacturer under Sec. 567.5(d)(2)(v),
each intermediate manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured in two or more
stages assumes legal responsibility for all certification-related
duties and liabilities under the Vehicle Safety Act with respect to:
(i) Components and systems it installs or supplies for installation
on the incomplete vehicle, unless changed by a subsequent manufacturer;
(ii) The vehicle as further manufactured or completed by an
intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, to the extent that the
vehicle is completed in accordance with the addendum to the IVD
furnished by the intermediate vehicle manufacturer;
(iii) Any work done by the intermediate manufacturer on the
incomplete vehicle that was not performed in accordance with the IVD or
an addendum of a prior intermediate manufacturer; and
(iv) The accuracy of the information in any addendum to the IVD
furnished by the intermediate vehicle manufacturer.
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section,
each intermediate manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle shall affix an
information label, in a manner that does not obscure the labels applied
by previous stage manufacturers, to each incomplete vehicle, which
contains the following statements:
(i) Name of intermediate manufacturer, preceded by the words
``INTERMEDIATE MANUFACTURE BY'' or ``INTERMEDIATE MFR''.
(ii) Month and year in which the intermediate manufacturer
performed its last manufacturing operation on the incomplete vehicle.
This may be spelled out, as ``JUNE 2000'', or expressed as numerals, as
``6/00''. No preface is required.
(iii) ``Gross Vehicle Weight Rating'' or ``GVWR'', followed by the
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds), if different from that
identified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.
(iv) ``Gross Axle Weight Rating'' or ``GAWR'' followed by the
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds), if different from that
identified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.
(v) Vehicle identification number.
(d) Final-stage manufacturers. (1) Except as provided in paragraphs
(f) and (g) of this section, each final-stage manufacturer of a vehicle
manufactured in two or more stages assumes legal responsibility for all
certification-related duties and liabilities under the Vehicle Safety
Act, except to the extent that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or
an intermediate manufacturer has provided equipment subject to a safety
standard or expressly assumed responsibility for standards related to
systems and components it supplied and except to the extent that the
final-stage manufacturer completed the vehicle in accordance with the
prior manufacturers' IVD or any addendum furnished pursuant to 49 CFR
part 568, as to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards fully
addressed therein.
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section,
each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a certification label to each
vehicle, in a manner that does not obscure the labels applied by
previous stage manufacturers, and that contains the following
statements:
(i) Name of final-stage manufacturer, preceded by the words
``MANUFACTURED BY'' or ``MFD BY''.
(ii) Month and year in which final-stage manufacture is completed.
This may be spelled out, as in ``JUNE 2000'', or expressed in numerals,
as in ``6/00''. No preface is required.
(iii) ``Gross Vehicle Weight Rating'' or ``GVWR'' followed by the
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds), which shall not be less
than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150
pounds times the number of the vehicle's designated seating positions.
However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall
be 120 pounds per passenger and 150 pounds for the driver.
(iv) ``GROSS AXLE WEIGHT RATING'' or ``GAWR'', followed by the
appropriate value in kilograms and (pounds) for each axle, identified
in order from front to rear (e.g., front, first intermediate, second
intermediate, rear). The ratings for any consecutive axles having
identical gross axle weight ratings when equipped with tires having the
same tire size designation may be stated as a single value, with the
label indicating to which axles the ratings apply.
Examples of combined ratings:
(a) All axles--2,400 kg (5,290 lb) with LT245/75R16(E) tires;
(b) Front--5,215 kg (11,500 lb) with 295/75R22.5(G) tires;
(c) First intermediate to rear--9,070 kg (20,000 lb) with 295/
75R22.5(G) tires.
(v)(A) One of the following alternative certification statements:
(1) ``This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards, [and Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, if
applicable] in effect in (month, year).''
(2) ``This vehicle has been completed in accordance with the prior
manufacturers' IVD, where applicable. This vehicle conforms to all
applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, [and Bumper and
Theft Prevention Standards, if applicable] in effect in (month,
year).''
(3) ``This vehicle has been completed in accordance with the prior
manufacturers' IVD, where applicable, except for [insert FMVSS(s)].
This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, [and Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards if applicable] in
effect in (month, year).''
(B) The date shown in the statement required in paragraph
(d)(2)(v)(A) of this section shall not be earlier than the
manufacturing date provided by the incomplete or intermediate stage
manufacturer and not later than the date of completion of the final-
stage manufacture.
[[Page 7434]]
(C) Notwithstanding the certification statements in paragraph
(d)(2)(v)(A) of this section, the legal responsibilities and
liabilities for certification under the Vehicle Safety Act shall be
allocated among the vehicle manufacturers as provided in 567.5(b)(1),
(c)(1), and (d)(1), and 49 CFR 568.4(a)(9).
(vi) Vehicle identification number.
(vii) The type classification of the vehicle as defined in 49 CFR
571.3 (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer).
(e) More than one set of figures for GVWR and GAWR, and one or more
tire sizes, may be listed in satisfaction of the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section, as provided in Sec.
567.4(h).
(f) If an incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes legal
responsibility for all duties and liabilities for certification under
the Vehicle Safety Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally
manufactured, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall ensure that a
label is affixed to the final vehicle in conformity with paragraph (d)
of this section, except that the name of the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer shall appear instead of the name of the final-stage
manufacturer after the words ``MANUFACTURED BY'' or ``MFD BY'' required
by paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
(g) If an intermediate manufacturer of a vehicle assumes legal
responsibility for all duties and liabilities for certification under
the Vehicle Safety Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally
manufactured, the intermediate manufacturer shall ensure that a label
is affixed to the final vehicle in conformity with paragraph (d) of
this section, except that the name of the intermediate manufacturer
shall appear instead of the name of the final-stage manufacturer after
the words ``MANUFACTURED BY'' or ``MFD BY'' required by paragraph (f)
of this section.
Sec. 567.6. Requirements for persons who do not alter certified
vehicles or do so with readily attachable components.
A person who does not alter a motor vehicle or who alters such a
vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily
attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies, or
minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the
vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label
to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to
the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle. If such
a person is a distributor of the motor vehicle, allowing the
manufacturer's label to remain affixed to the vehicle shall satisfy the
distributor's certification requirements under the Vehicle Safety Act.
Sec. 567.7 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.
(a) With respect to the vehicle alterations it performs, an
alterer:
(1) Has a duty to determine continued conformity of the altered
vehicle with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, Bumper, and Theft
Prevention standards, and
(2) Assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities for
certification under the Vehicle Safety Act.
(b) The vehicle manufacturer's certification label and any
information labels shall remain affixed to the vehicle and the alterer
shall affix to the vehicle an additional label in the manner and
location specified in Sec. 567.4, in a manner that does not obscure
any previously applied labels, and containing the following
information:
(1) The statement: ``This vehicle was altered by (individual or
corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed)
and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards affected by the
alteration and in effect in (month, year).'' The second date shall be
no earlier than the date of manufacture of the certified vehicle (as
specified on the certification label), and no later than the date
alterations were completed.
(2) If the gross vehicle weight rating or any of the gross axle
weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown
on the original certification label, the modified values shall be
provided in the form specified in Sec. 567.4(g)(3) and (4).
(3) If the vehicle as altered has a different type classification
from that shown on the original certification label, the type as
modified shall be provided.
0
5. Part 568 is revised to read as follows:
PART 568--VEHICLES MANUFACTURED IN TWO OR MORE STAGES--ALL
INCOMPLETE, INTERMEDIATE AND FINAL-STAGE MANUFACTURERS OF VEHICLES
MANUFACTURED IN TWO OR MORE STAGES
Sec.
568.1 Purpose and scope.
568.2 Application.
568.3 Definitions.
568.4 Requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers.
568.5 Requirements for intermediate manufacturers.
568.6 Requirements for final-stage manufacturers.
568.7 Requirements for manufacturers who assume legal responsibility
for a vehicle.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 568.1 Purpose and scope.
The purpose of this part is to prescribe the method by which
manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages shall
ensure conformity of those vehicles with the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards (``standards'') and other regulations issued under the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (49 U.S.C.
Sec. 30115) and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as
amended (49 U.S.C. 32504 and 33108(c)).
Sec. 568.2 Application.
This part applies to incomplete vehicle manufacturers, intermediate
manufacturers, and final-stage manufacturers of vehicles manufactured
in two or more stages.
Sec. 568.3 Definitions.
All terms that are defined in the Act and the rules and standards
issued under its authority are used as defined therein. The term
``bumper'' has the meaning assigned to it in Title I of the Cost
Savings Act and the rules and standards issued under its authority. The
definitions contained in 49 CFR Part 567 apply to this part.
Sec. 568.4 Requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers.
(a) The incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall furnish for each
incomplete vehicle, at or before the time of delivery, an incomplete
vehicle document (``IVD'') that contains the following statements, in
the order shown, and all other information required by this part to be
included therein:
(1) Name and mailing address of the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer.
(2) Month and year during which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer
performed its last manufacturing operation on the incomplete vehicle.
(3) Identification of the incomplete vehicle(s) to which the
document applies. The identification shall be by vehicle identification
number (VIN) or groups of VINs to permit a person to ascertain
positively that a document applies to a particular incomplete vehicle
after the document has been removed from the vehicle.
(4) Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the completed vehicle for
which the incomplete vehicle is intended.
(5) Gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle of the completed
vehicle, listed and identified in order from front to rear (e.g.,
front, first intermediate,
[[Page 7435]]
second intermediate, rear). The ratings for any consecutive axles
having identical gross axle weight ratings when equipped with tires
having the same tire size designation may, at the option of the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer, be stated as a single value, with the
label indicating to which axles the ratings apply.
Examples of combined ratings:
(a) All axles--2,400 kg (5,290 lb) with LT245/75R16(E) tires;
(b) Front--5,215 kg (11,500 lb) with 295/75R22.5(G) tires.
(c) First intermediate to rear--9,070 kg (20,000 lb) with 295/
75R22.5(G) tires.
(6) Listing of the vehicle types as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 (e.g.,
truck, MPV, bus, trailer) into which the incomplete vehicle may
appropriately be manufactured.
(7) Listing, by number, of each standard, in effect at the time of
manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, that applies to any of the
vehicle types listed in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, followed in
each case by one of the following three types of statement, as
applicable:
(i) Type 1--A statement that the vehicle when completed will
conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified
components of the incomplete vehicle.
Example: 104-This vehicle when completed will conform to FMVSS No.
104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, if no alterations are
made in the windshield wiper components.
(ii) Type 2--A statement of specific conditions of final
manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed
vehicle will conform to the standard.
Example: 121--This vehicle when completed will conform to FMVSS No.
121, Air Brake Systems, if it does not exceed any of the gross axle
weight ratings, if the center of gravity at GVWR is not higher than
nine feet above the ground, and if no alterations are made in any
brake system component.
(iii) Type 3--A statement that conformity with the standard cannot
be determined based upon the components supplied on the incomplete
vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no
representation as to conformity with the standard.
(8) Each document shall contain a table of contents or chart
summarizing all the standards applicable to the vehicle pursuant to 49
CFR 568.4(a)(7).
(9) A certification that the statements contained in the incomplete
vehicle document are accurate as of the date of manufacture of the
incomplete vehicle and can be used and relied on by any intermediate
and/or final-stage manufacturer as a basis for certification.
(b) To the extent the IVD expressly incorporates by reference body
builder or other design and engineering guidance (Reference Material),
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall make such Reference Material
readily available to subsequent manufacturers. Reference Materials
incorporated by reference in the IVD shall be deemed to be part of the
IVD.
(c) The IVD shall be attached to the incomplete vehicle in such a
manner that it will not be inadvertently detached, or alternatively, it
may be sent directly to a final-stage manufacturer, intermediate
manufacturer or purchaser for purposes other than resale to whom the
incomplete vehicle is delivered. The Reference Material in paragraph
(b) of this section need not be attached to each vehicle.
Sec. 568.5 Requirements for intermediate manufacturers.
Each intermediate manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured in two or
more stages shall furnish to the final-stage manufacturer the document
required by 49 CFR 568.4 in the manner specified in that section. If
any of the changes in the vehicle made by the intermediate manufacturer
affects the validity of the statements in the IVD, that manufacturer
shall furnish an addendum to the IVD that contains its name and mailing
address and an indication of all changes that should be made in the IVD
to reflect changes that it made to the vehicle. The addendum shall
contain a certification by the intermediate manufacturer that the
statements contained in the addendum are accurate as of the date of
manufacture by the intermediate manufacturer and can be used and relied
on by any subsequent intermediate manufacturer(s) and the final-stage
manufacturer as a basis for certification.
Sec. 568.6 Requirements for final-stage manufacturers.
Each final-stage manufacturer shall complete the vehicle in such a
manner that it conforms to the applicable standards in effect on the
date selected by the final-stage manufacturer, including the date of
manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or
a date between those two dates. This requirement shall, however, be
superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by
its terms to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.
Sec. 568.7 Requirements for manufacturers who assume legal
responsibility for a vehicle.
(a) If an incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes legal
responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers
by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (49
U.S.C. chapter 301) (hereafter referred to as the Act), with respect to
a vehicle as finally manufactured, the requirements of Sec. Sec.
568.4, 568.5 and 568.6 do not apply to that vehicle. In such a case,
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer shall ensure that a label is
affixed to the final vehicle in conformity with 49 CFR 567.5(f).
(b) If an intermediate manufacturer of a vehicle assumes legal
responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers
by the Vehicle Safety Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally
manufactured, Sec. Sec. 568.5 and 568.6 do not apply to that vehicle.
In such a case, the intermediate manufacturer shall ensure that a label
is affixed to the final vehicle in conformity with 49 CFR 567.5(g). The
assumption of responsibility by an intermediate manufacturer does not,
however, change the requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers
in Sec. 568.4.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
7. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
8. Section 571.8 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 571.8 Effective date.
(a) Firefighting vehicles. Notwithstanding the effective date
provisions of the motor vehicle safety standards in this part, the
effective date of any standard or amendment of a standard issued after
September 1, 1971, to which firefighting vehicles must conform shall
be, with respect to such vehicles, either 2 years after the date on
which such standard or amendment is published in the rules and
regulations section of the Federal Register, or the effective date
specified in the notice, whichever is later, except as such standard or
amendment may otherwise specifically provide with respect to
firefighting vehicles.
(b) Vehicles built in two or more stages vehicles and altered
vehicles. Unless Congress directs or the agency expressly determines
that this paragraph does not apply, the date for manufacturer
certification of compliance with any standard, or amendment to a
standard, that is issued on or after September 1, 2006 is, insofar as
its application to intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and
alterers is
[[Page 7436]]
concerned, one year after the last applicable date for manufacturer
certification of compliance. Nothing in this provision shall be
construed as prohibiting earlier compliance with the standard or
amendment or as precluding NHTSA from extending a compliance effective
date for intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers by
more than one year.
Issued: February 8, 2005.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-2751 Filed 2-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P