[Federal Register: August 28, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 167)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51706-51711]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28au03-15]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 02-12480; Notice 2]
[RIN 2127-AI86]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Impact Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Interim final rule, request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule amends the schedule for compliance by
manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages with the upper
interior head protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.
This interim final rule delays the date on which manufacturers of
vehicles built in two or more stages must produce vehicles meeting the
upper interior head protection performance requirements of Standard No.
201 from September 1, 2003, until September 1, 2006. The agency is
issuing this interim final rule to provide time to complete a
rulemaking action initiated by petitions for rulemaking requesting that
NHTSA consider modifying the requirements of Standard No. 201 as they
apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Since that
rulemaking action may result in modification of Standard No. 201 as it
applies to these multi-stage vehicles, the agency has decided to extend
the compliance date until the final action is taken on the petitions.
It
[[Page 51707]]
expects to take final action before September 1, 2006.
DATES: This interim final rule becomes effective on September 1, 2003.
Comments on this interim rule are due no later than September 29, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
12480] by any of the following methods:
[sbull] Web site: http://dms.dot.gov Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
[sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
[sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
[sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5
pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
[sbull] Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Analyses and
Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For non-legal issues, you may call Dr. William Fan, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-4922, facsimile (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues, you may call Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief
Counsel, at (202) 366-5263.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petitions for Rulemaking and the June 2002 Interim Final Rule
III. Comments in Response to the June 2002 Interim Final Rule
IV. RVIA and NTEA Petitions For Rulemaking
V. Interim Final Rule
VI. Public Participation
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Background
NHTSA issued a final rule on August 18, 1995, amending Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact, to require passenger cars, and trucks, buses and multipurpose
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, to provide head protection during a
crash when an occupant's head strikes the upper interior, i.e., the
roof pillars, side rails, headers, and the roof itself of the vehicle.
(60 FR 430341) The final rule responded to the NHTSA Authorization Act
of 1991 (sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (``ISTEA''), Pub. L. 102-240). ISTEA required NHTSA to
address several vehicle safety matters through rulemaking. One of these
matters, set forth in section 2503(5), was improved head impact
protection from interior components of passenger cars.
The final rule, which mandated compliance with the new requirements
beginning on September 1, 1998, significantly expanded the scope of
Standard No. 201. Previously, the standard applied to the instrument
panel, seat backs, interior compartment doors, arm rests and sun
visors. To determine compliance with the upper interior impact
requirements, the final rule added procedures for a new in-vehicle
component test in which a Free Motion Headform (FMH) is fired at
certain target locations on the upper interior of a vehicle at an
impact speed of up to and including 24 km/h (15 mph). Data collected
from a FMH impact are translated into a value known as a Head Injury
Criterion (HIC) score. The resultant HIC must not exceed 1000.
The standard, as further amended on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718),
provided manufacturers with four alternate phase-in schedules for
complying with the upper interior impact requirements. First, as set
forth in S6.1.1, manufacturers could comply by having the following
percentages of their production meet the upper interior impact
requirements: 10 percent of production on or after September 1, 1998
and before September 1, 1999; 25 percent of production on or after
September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2000, 40 percent of
production on or after September 1, 2000 and before September 1, 2001,
70 percent of production on or after September 1, 2001 and before
September 1, 2002, and 100 percent of production after September 1,
2002.
Second, an alternative schedule set forth in S6.1.2 provided that
manufacturers could comply by meeting the following phase-in schedule:
7 percent of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998
and before September 1, 1999; 31 percent of vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2000; 40 percent of
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and before
September 1, 2001; 70 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2001 and before September 1, 2002; and 100 percent of all
vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2002.
Third, under a third phase-in schedule set forth in S6.1.3,
manufacturers did not have to produce any complying vehicles before
September 1, 1999. However, all vehicles produced on or after that date
had to comply.
Fourth, S6.1.4 of the April 8, 1997 final rule provided that multi-
stage vehicles produced after September 1, 2002, were required to
comply.
II. Petitions for Rulemaking and the June 2002 Interim Final Rule
The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) filed a petition
for rulemaking on October 4, 2001 requesting that the agency modify
Standard No. 201 to exclude conversion vans and motor homes with gross
vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less from
the application of the upper interior head protection requirements of
the Standard. The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) filed a
petition for rulemaking on November 27, 2001 seeking similar relief for
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Both petitions requested
that NHTSA extend the existing phase-in for manufacturers of multi-
stage vehicles (i.e., the fourth one described above) from September 1,
2002 to March 1, 2004. By letters dated March 28 and April 5, 2002,
NHTSA indicated it was granting the petitions. The agency is currently
embarking on a rulemaking proceeding to address the issues raised in
the petitions.
NHTSA published an interim final rule in the Federal Register (67
FR 41348, June 18, 2002) extending the date by which vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages must comply with the upper interior
head protection requirements. As we explained in the
[[Page 51708]]
preamble to the June 18, 2002 interim final rule, the agency found that
the RVIA and NTEA petitions raised questions regarding NHTSA's earlier
estimates of the compliance costs that the upper interior head
protection requirements imposed on multi-stage manufacturers. We
indicated that some of the points raised by the RVIA and NTEA could
have merit, including the possibility that NHTSA had overestimated the
degree by which cooperative and component, rather than full vehicle,
testing could lower compliance costs. We also observed that incomplete
vehicle manufacturers who supply unfinished vehicles to intermediate
and final stage manufacturers appeared to be certifying smaller areas
of the upper interior of the vehicles than was anticipated when the
upper interior head protection requirements were promulgated.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to
evaluate the potential impacts of their proposed and final rules on
small businesses. When NHTSA issued the final rule establishing the
upper interior head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 201
in August 1995, the agency determined that the new requirements would
impose a burden on small manufacturers, but that this burden would not
result in a significant economic impact. The October 2001 petition
filed by RVIA and the November 2001 petition filed by NTEA disputed the
agency's position that compliance with the upper interior head
protection requirements of Standard No. 201 would not be unduly
burdensome. Both petitioners argued that efforts by their member
companies to meet the upper interior requirement suggest that NHTSA's
prior estimates may have been incorrect.
The member companies of RVIA and NTEA are manufacturers who
purchase incomplete vehicles from major manufacturers to serve as the
basis for specialty vehicles to meet certain uses and markets. As such,
they may face a variety of challenges in certifying that their vehicles
meet applicable safety standards. To afford final stage manufacturers
sufficient leadtime to comply with the new upper interior head
protection requirements, the agency's August 18, 1995 final rule stated
that final stage manufacturers did not have to meet the standard until
the last year of the phase-in. Nonetheless, our June 2002 interim final
rule indicated that NHTSA could, when establishing the aforementioned
deadline, have underestimated the difficulties faced by final stage
manufacturers in meeting the new requirements.
In particular, we indicated that cooperative testing--which we had
considered as one option for reducing costs when we issued the final
rule in 1995--might not be practicable depending on the uniqueness of
the vehicle interior and the features incorporated into it. In this
market, where the uniqueness of the interior and the features
incorporated into that interior are primary concerns of buyers,
competitors are not likely to share their designs. We also observed
that reducing compliance test costs by testing components outside of a
vehicle rather than testing a complete vehicle may not be as practical
as we had estimated in the 1995 final rule. Finally, we noted that
final stage manufacturer modifications, such as raising or replacing
the original roof, would likely result in relocation of certain
specified target areas and reduce the ability of these manufacturers to
rely on the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's certification that the
vehicle met the standard for the target areas at their original
location.
Because NHTSA needed further time to complete rulemaking, we issued
an interim final rule extending the existing compliance date for final
stage manufacturers to September 1, 2003. Although RVIA and NTEA
requested that the agency extend the compliance date to March 1, 2004,
we indicated our belief that such an extension was not necessary and
that any future rulemaking could further modify the deadline
established by this interim final rule.
III. Comments in Response to the June 2002 Interim Final Rule
The comment period for the June 2002 interim final rule closed on
August 19, 2002. NHTSA did not receive any comments regarding the June
2002 interim final rule. However, as noted below in Section V, the
agency has received a comment opposing additional extensions to the
compliance date as requested by the January 20, 2003 RVIA and February
6, 2003 NTEA petitions for rulemaking.
IV. RVIA and NTEA Petitions For Rulemaking
On January 20, 2003, RVIA submitted a petition for rulemaking
requesting that NHTSA grant an extension of the September 1, 2003
compliance date applicable for vehicles built in two or more stages to
September 1, 2004. The organization stated that conversion vehicle and
motorhome manufacturers are often small business entities who need
additional time to develop required safety devices and designs. These
small businesses also, according to RVIA, would need additional time to
conduct research and certification testing on their vehicles. RVIA
noted that since NHTSA was still completing rulemaking that may involve
changes to the Standard as it applies to multi-stage vehicles, its
members could not complete all the necessary testing to conform to any
new requirements. Accordingly, RVIA indicated that an additional
extension would be appropriate.
On February 6, 2003, NTEA submitted a petition for rulemaking
seeking to extend the compliance date for vehicles built in two or more
stages from September 1, 2003 to a future date that would provide its
members with sufficient time to comply with any new requirements
imposed by the pending rulemaking. In support of its request, NTEA
observed that the preamble to the agency's June 18, 2002 interim final
rule indicated that extension of the compliance deadline for multi-
stage manufacturers was necessitated by NHTSA's ongoing consideration
of potential changes to the upper interior head protection requirements
applicable to these manufacturers. Since NHTSA had not yet completed
the rulemaking action that led to the original grant of an extension,
NTEA stated that the agency should further extend the compliance date
to complete the rulemaking and provide manufacturers of multi-stage
vehicles with sufficient leadtime to meet any new requirements issued
as a result of that rulemaking.
The petition also referred NHTSA to some of the issues raised by
NTEA in its November 2001 petition. In particular, NTEA reiterated that
its members are small businesses with limited financial resources.
Given these limited resources and its estimate that compliance would
impose costs of more than $160,000,000 on the work truck industry, NTEA
argued that requiring its members to meet the existing upper interior
head protection provisions of Standard No. 201 is economically
impracticable. Moreover, NTEA argued again that the volume of testing
that would have to be completed by its members--who produce large
numbers of unique vehicles customized for different applications--also
made compliance impracticable.
Since NHTSA had not completed its ongoing rulemaking action and
would not do so in time for its members to comply with the September 1,
2003 compliance date, NTEA requested that NHTSA extend the compliance
deadline for multi-stage manufacturers to an
[[Page 51709]]
appropriate date after NHTSA completes the pending rulemaking.
V. Interim Final Rule
When NHTSA issued the final rule establishing the upper interior
head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 201 in August 1995,
the agency determined that the new requirements would impose a burden
on small manufacturers, but that this burden would not result in a
significant economic impact. The petitions filed by RVIA and NTEA in
the fall of 2001 disputed this finding and submitted information
suggesting that NHTSA's prior estimate of the burdens imposed by the
head impact protection requirements may have been incorrect. NHTSA has
granted the NTEA and RVIA petitions and is now engaged in a rulemaking
action. Unfortunately, NHTSA's consideration of the aforementioned
rulemaking action has not yet been concluded. The compliance date set
by our June 2002 interim final rule--September 1, 2003--is now only
weeks away.
Given the imminence of the September 1, 2003 compliance date and
the fact that NHTSA has not yet issued any formal proposal responding
to the original NTEA and RVIA petitions for rulemaking, the agency has
determined that it is appropriate to again extend the deadline. In
order to minimize the possibility of an additional extension, this
interim final rule extends the compliance date for vehicles built in
two or more stages for an additional three years. Accordingly, vehicles
built in two or more stages are required to meet the upper interior
head protection requirements of Standard No. 201 on or after September
1, 2006. However, as we noted when issuing the June 2002 interim final
rule, future rulemaking can, if needed, further modify the deadline.
The agency believes that there is good cause to find that providing
notice and comment in connection with this rulemaking action is
impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. NHTSA
notes that time constraints prevent the completion of notice and
comment rulemaking before the current September 1, 2003 compliance
date. Moreover, this interim final rule does not alter any provisions
other than the foregoing compliance date. Substantive changes to
Standard No. 201, if any, will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking.
Although NHTSA did not receive any comments regarding the extension
of the compliance date contained in our June 2002 interim final rule,
the agency has received a letter opposing further extensions. A
manufacturer of motorhomes and camper vans, Home And Park Motorhomes
(Home and Park), indicated that it understood that RVIA was requesting
that NHTSA further extend the September 1, 2003 compliance date. Based
on its belief that NHTSA had extended the compliance date to be sure
that final stage manufacturers would have the opportunity to purchase
incomplete vehicles offering pass-through certification, Home and Park
indicated that it had brought its vehicles into compliance in
anticipation of having to comply with the upper interior head
protection requirements by September 1, 2003. Having expended
considerable resources to do so, Home and Park stated that further
extensions of the compliance deadline would penalize conscientious
manufacturers and delay introduction of safer interiors for
recreational vehicles.
NHTSA is aware that delaying the compliance date could arguably
result in a decrease in safety if multi-stage manufacturers that have
the capability to meet the upper interior head protection requirements
do not do so. When we issued our June 2002 interim final rule, we
estimated that the safety benefit of requiring one year's production of
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages to meet the upper interior
head protection requirements is approximately 18-24 equivalent lives
saved each year for the front seats and one equivalent life saved each
year for the rear seats. Although this estimate may overstate the
safety risks of extending the compliance date due to the fact that many
recreational vehicles and conversion vans are not driven as much as
more conventional vehicles, these benefits could be lost during the
period of the extension.
The potential safety loss would only be realized if multi-stage
manufacturers would be able to meet the upper interior head protection
requirements while maintaining production. When issuing our June 2002
interim final rule, we indicated that NHTSA may have underestimated the
costs and difficulties faced by final stage manufacturers in meeting
the upper interior head protection requirements. While Home and Park
indicated that it had brought its vehicles into compliance, it appears
to have done so based on the expectation that the compliance date was
extended to increase the availability of pass-through certification.
However, a limit on the ability to rely on pass-through certification
was recognized by NHTSA as but one source of the challenges facing
final stage manufacturers. Our June 2002 interim final rule cited a
number of reasons why the agency believed that further relief for
multi-stage manufacturers might be appropriate.
For reasons more fully discussed in our June 18, 2002 interim final
rule, NHTSA has granted the NTEA and RVIA petitions and is now engaged
in a rulemaking action considering whether to adopt further amendments
to Standard No. 201. NHTSA has not yet resolved these issues, so this
interim final rule extends the compliance date to September 1, 2006 to
afford the agency time to take further action.
We note also that in extending the compliance date for vehicles
built in two or more stages, NHTSA is also extending the compliance
date for vehicles modified by alterers. Unlike final stage
manufacturers, alterers begin with a certified vehicle and modify it to
meet the needs of a particular market. Giving alterers additional time
to comply with a standard allows the alterer to take a certified
vehicle out of compliance, an action that NHTSA is normally reluctant
to take. However, the challenges involved in meeting Standard No. 201
that are faced by final stage manufacturers also apply to alterers. If
a vehicle manufacturer waits until the last possible moment to certify
vehicles, alterers will not have the opportunity to do any engineering
analysis to determine if the alterations affect compliance. Alterers
also have limited engineering resources and testing capabilities. This
may be telling where the alterer needs to change an original design to
meet the demands of a particular application.
The agency requests written comments on extending the phase-in for
vehicles manufactured for two or more stages. All comments submitted in
response to this document will be considered by the agency. Following
the close of the comment period, the agency will publish a document in
the Federal Register responding to the comments and, if appropriate,
will make further amendments to the extension of the phase-in
requirements amended by this interim final rule.
VI. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to comment on this interim final
rule. It is requested, but not required, that two copies be submitted
to the Office of Docket Management, Room PL-401, Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
All comments must be limited to 15 pages in length. Necessary
attachments may be appended to those submissions without regard to the
15-page limit (49
[[Page 51710]]
CFR 553.21). This limitation is intended to encourage commenters to
detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
Written comments to the public docket must be received by September
29, 2003.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date will be considered and will be available for examination
in the docket at the above address before and after that date. To the
extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be
considered. However, the rulemaking action may proceed at any time
after that date.
NHTSA will continue to file relevant material in the docket as it
becomes available after the closing date, and it is recommended that
interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons who wish to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the docket should enclose, in the envelope with their
comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
Copies of all comments will be placed in the Docket for this
interim final rule in the Office of Docket Management, Room PL-401,
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Economic Impacts
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. It does not impose any burden on manufacturers
and extends the compliance date for existing regulatory requirements
for a period of three years. The agency believes that this impact is so
minimal as to not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory
evaluation.
B. Environmental Impacts
We have not conducted an evaluation of the impacts of this final
rule under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rulemaking
action extends the date by which manufacturers of vehicles built in two
or more stages must comply with the upper interior head impact
protection requirements of Standard No. 201. It does not impose any
change that would have any environmental impacts. Accordingly, no
environmental assessment is required.
C. Impacts on Small Entities
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the agency has
considered the impact this rulemaking will have on small entities. As
this action will provide a short term benefit for small entities by
delaying the compliance date, it will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities within the context of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
each agency to evaluate the potential effects of a rule on small
businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has set size
standards for determining if a business within a specific industrial
classification is a small business. The Standard Industrial
Classification code used by the SBA for Motor Vehicles and Passenger
Car Bodies (3711) defines a small manufacturer as one having 1,000
employees or fewer.
Most of the intermediate and final stage manufacturers of vehicles
built in two or more stages have 1,000 or fewer employees. This interim
final rule extends the date by which these manufacturers must produce
vehicles that meet the upper interior head protection requirements of
Standard No. 201. Although this action does not modify those
requirements, it provides these small businesses additional time to
meet them. In the agency's view, issuance of this interim final rule is
necessary to prevent adverse effects that may have been underestimated
in a prior rulemaking establishing the requirements at issue. For this
reason, this interim final rule regarding the compliance date will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The agency performed a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for
the previous one-year extension and placed a copy in the docket. See
``Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Head Impact Protection, FMVSS
201,'' June 2002, Docket 02-12480. That analysis is
applicable to this three-year extension as well.
D. Federalism
E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' E.O. 13132 defines the term ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism
implication, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that
is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the
funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State
and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This interim final rule will not have substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) 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. This action, which extends the compliance date
by which manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages must
meet the upper interior head impact protection requirements of Standard
No. 201, will not result in additional expenditures by
[[Page 51711]]
State, local or tribal governments or by any members of the private
sector. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment
pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no information collection requirements in this rule.
G. 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.
H. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please forward them
to Otto Matheke, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
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 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, an explanation of the reasons for not
using such standards.
We are not aware of any available and potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards, i.e., ones regarding the performance of
vehicle interior components in protecting against head impacts.
Therefore, this rule is not based on any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571.201--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 21411, 21415, 21417, and 21466;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S6.1 introductory text,
S6.1.4.1, S6.1.4.2 and S6.2 introductory text to read as follows:
* * * * *
S6.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998. Except as
provided in S6.3 and S6.1.4, for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 1998 and before September 1, 2002, a percentage of the
manufacturer's production, as specified in S6.1.1, S6.1.2, or S6.1.3
shall conform, at the manufacturer's option, to either S6.1(a) or
S6.1(b). For vehicles manufactured by final stage manufacturers on or
after September 1, 1998 and before September 1, 2006, a percentage of
the manufacturer's production as specified in S6.1.4 shall, except as
provided in S6.3, conform, to either S6.1(a) or S6.1(b). The
manufacturer shall select the option by the time it certifies the
vehicle and may not thereafter select a different option for the
vehicle.
* * * * *
S6.1.4.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and
before September 1, 2006 are not required to comply with the
requirements specified in S7.
S6.1.4.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2006 shall
comply with the requirements specified in S7.
* * * * *
S6.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 and
vehicles built in two or more stages manufactured after September 1,
2006. Except as provided in S6.1.4 and S6.3, vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2002 shall, when tested under the conditions of
S8, conform, at the manufacturer's option, to either S6.2(a) or
S6.2(b). Vehicles manufactured by final stage manufacturers on or after
September 1, 2006 shall, except as provided in S6.3, when tested under
the conditions of S8, conform, at the manufacturer's option, to either
S6.2(a) or S6.2(b). The manufacturer shall select the option by the
time it certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a different
option for the vehicle.
* * * * *
Issued on August 22, 2003.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-22010 Filed 8-25-03; 2:09 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P