50900 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 60 FR 43031, Aug. 18, 1995; Docket No. 

NHTSA–1996–1762–1. 

(b) Standard Report—At a minimum, 

the State, the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico shall submit an error rate 

report to the Department, as required in 

§ 98.100, made subsequent to the 

baseline submission report as set forth 

in § 98.102(a) which includes the 

following information on errors and 

resulting improper payments occurring 

in the administration of CCDF grant 

funds, including Federal Discretionary 

Funds (which includes any funds 

transferred from the TANF Block Grant), 

Mandatory and Matching Funds and 

State Matching and Maintenance-ofEffort (MOE Funds): 

(1) All the information reported in the 

baseline submission, as set forth in 

§ 98.102(a), updated for the current 

cycle; 

(2) For each category of data listed in 

§ 98.102(a)(1) through (5), States, the 

District of Columbia and Puerto Rico 

must include data and targets from the 

prior cycle in addition to data from the 

current cycle and targets for the next 

cycle; 

(3) Description of whether the State, 

the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico 

met error rate targets set in the prior 

cycle and, if not, an explanation of why 

not; 

(4) Discussion of the causes of 

improper payments identified in the 

prior cycle and actions that were taken 

to correct those causes, in addition to a 

discussion on the causes of improper 

payments identified in the current cycle 

and actions that will be taken to correct 

those causes in order to reduce the error 

rates; and 

(5) Such other information as 

specified by the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07–4308 Filed 8–29–07; 3:01 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2007–29131] 

RIN 2127–AI93 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Occupant Protection in 

Interior Impact 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Our safety standard on 

occupant protection in interior impact 

requires, in part, that light vehicles 

provide head protection when an 

occupant’s head strikes upper interior 

components, such as pillars, side rails, 

headers, and the roof during a crash. 

While these requirements already apply 

to most vehicles, the compliance date 

for altered vehicles and vehicles built in 

two or more stages is September 1, 2007. 

In April 2006, we responded to two 

petitions for rulemaking by proposing 

certain amendments to the head 

protection requirements as they apply to 

these vehicles. We also proposed to 

delay the compliance date of the 

requirements for these vehicles. In this 

document, after carefully considering 

both the safety benefits of the upper 

interior protection requirements and 

practicability concerns relating to 

vehicles built in two or more stages and 

certain altered vehicles, we are 

amending the standard to limit these 

requirements to only the front seating 

positions of those vehicles. In addition, 

we are excluding from the requirements 

a narrow group of multi-stage vehicles 

delivered to the final stage manufacturer 

without an occupant compartment. 

Finally, we have decided to delay the 

compliance date of the head impact 

protection requirements as they apply to 

final stage manufacturers and alterers 

until September 1, 2009. 

DATES: The amendments made by this 

final rule are effective September 1, 

2007. The compliance date for the head 

impact protection requirements for 

altered vehicles and vehicles built in 

two or more stages is September 1, 2009. 

Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions 

for reconsideration of this final rule 

must be received not later than October 

22, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

should refer to the docket number above 

and be submitted to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

portion of this document (Section V; 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices) for 

DOT’s Privacy Act Statement regarding 

documents submitted to the agency’s 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

following persons at the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, 

DC 20590: 

For technical and policy issues: David 

Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards, telephone: (202) 366–3273, 

facsimile: (202) 366–7002, E-mail: 

David.Sutula@dot.gov. 

For legal issues: Ari Scott, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 366–

2992, facsimile: (202) 366–3820, E-mail: 

Ari.Scott@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

a. Previous History of Head Protection 

Requirements of FMVSS No. 201 

b. Petitions for Rulemaking and Agency 

Response 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

a. Proposal To Limit the Area Subject to 

the FMH Impacts in Certain Vehicles 

b. Proposal To Exclude Vehicles Without a 

Finished Occupant Compartment From 

the FMH Impact Requirements 

c. Question Regarding Multistage Vehicles 

With Raised Roofs 

d. Change of Effective Date 

III. Public Comments 

IV. The Final Rule and Response to Public 

Comments 

a. Limitation of the Areas Subject to 

FMVSS No. 201 

b. Areas Behind the Partition 

c. Conversion Vans and Recreational 

Vehicles 

d. Multi-Stage Vehicles Completed From a 

Cutaway Chassis 

e. Delay of Compliance Date 

f. Miscellaneous Issues 

g. Effective Date 

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

VI. Regulatory Text 

I. Background 

a. Previous History of Head Protection 

Requirements of FMVSS No. 201 

On August 18, 1995, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) issued a final rule (August 

1995) amending Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, 

‘‘Occupant Protection in Interior 

Impact,’’ to provide enhanced head 

impact protection.1 The August 1995 

final rule required passenger cars, and 

trucks, buses and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, to 

provide protection when an occupant’s 

head strikes upper interior components, 

including pillars, side rails, headers, 

and the roof, during a crash. The final 

rule set minimum performance 

requirements for upper interior 

components by establishing target areas 

that must be padded or otherwise have 

energy absorbing properties to minimize 

head injury in the event of a crash. The 

final rule added procedures for a new 

in-vehicle component test in which a 

free-motion head form (FMH) is fired at 

certain target locations on the upper 

interior of a vehicle at an impact speed 

of 24 km/h (15 mph). Targets that are 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 50901 

2See 71 FR 51121, August 29, 2006. 3 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–24497. 

located on or within 50 mm (2 inches) 

of dynamically deployable upper 

interior head protection systems (air 

bags systems) can, at the option of the 

manufacturer, be impacted at the 

reduced speed of 19 km/h (12 mph). 

Data collected from a FMH impact are 

translated into a Head Injury Criterion 

(HIC(d)) score. The resultant HIC(d) 

must not exceed 1000. 

The 1995 final rule provided 

manufacturers with three alternate 

phase-in schedules for complying with 

the FMH impact requirements. At this 

time, all vehicles except altered vehicles 

and vehicles manufactured in two or 

more stages are required to comply with 

the FMH impact requirements. The 

compliance date for altered vehicles and 

vehicles manufactured in two or more 

stages to comply with these 

requirements has been delayed several 

times, and is presently September 1, 

2007.2

b. Petitions for Rulemaking and Agency 

Response 

This rulemaking was initiated in 

response to petitions for rulemaking 

submitted by the Recreation Vehicle 

Industry Association (RVIA) and the 

National Truck Equipment Association 

(NTEA). The member companies of 

RVIA and NTEA are generally 

considered final stage manufacturers 

and alterers. That is, they purchase 

incomplete vehicles from major 

manufacturers to serve as the basis for 

specialty vehicles (manufactured in two 

or more stages) for certain uses and 

markets, or alter completed vehicles 

prior to first retail sale. As such, the 

petitioners’ members face a variety of 

challenges in certifying that their 

vehicles meet applicable safety 

standards. We note that with respect to 

vehicles manufactured in two or more 

stages, some multi-stage vehicles are 

built from chassis-cabs with a 

completed occupant compartment. 

Others are built from less complete 

vehicles, sometimes necessitating the 

addition by the final stage manufacturer 

of its own occupant compartment. The 

final stage manufacturer is responsible 

for certification of the completed 

vehicle, although certification can often 

‘‘pass-through’’ from the incomplete 

vehicle manufacturer. 

RVIA and NTEA petitioned the 

agency to permanently exclude certain 

types of altered vehicles and vehicles 

manufactured in two or more stages 

from these requirements. On April 24, 

2006, the agency published in the 

Federal Register (71 FR 20932) a 

response to petitions for rulemaking; 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 3

in response to those petitions. NHTSA 

granted the petitions in part and denied 

them in part, and proposed certain 

amendments to the standard. 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

As indicated above, the agency 

published its April 2006 NPRM in 

response to the RVIA and NTEA 

petitions. The NPRM proposed to limit 

the occupant compartment area subject 

to the FMH impact requirements in 

ambulances, motor homes, and other 

vehicles manufactured in two or more 

stages, as well as altered vehicles. 

Furthermore, the NPRM proposed to 

exclude from the requirements a narrow 

group of multi-stage vehicles delivered 

to the final stage manufacturer without 

an occupant compartment. Finally, the 

NPRM proposed to delay the effective 

date of the requirements to September 1, 

2008. 

a. Proposal To Limit the Area Subject to 

the FMH Impacts in Certain Vehicles 

In ambulances and motor homes, the 

current standard excludes the occupant 

compartment area located more than 

600 mm (24 inches) behind the seating 

reference point of the driver’s seating 

position from the FMH impact 

requirements. For all other vehicles, the 

occupant compartment area located 

more than 600 mm (24 inches) behind 

the seating reference point of the 

rearmost designated seating position is 

similarly excluded from the FMH 

impact requirements. 

For altered vehicles and vehicles 

manufactured in two or more stages, 

including motor homes and 

ambulances, we proposed to limit the 

area subject to the FMH impact 

requirements to not more than 300 mm 

(12 inches) behind the seating reference 

point of the driver’s seating position. 

We stated that this would have the 

effect of limiting the FMH impact 

requirements to the front seating 

positions for these vehicles. We stated 

our belief that the distance reduction to 

300 mm (12 inches) is more 

representative of the distance between 

the seating reference point and the 

upper seat back/head restraint location 

where the occupant’s head is located. 

We also stated that because of the front 

head restraint height requirements, we 

believe it is unlikely that the head of a 

seated occupant would come in contact 

with bulkheads, partitions, or overhead 

cabinets and storage shelves located 

further than 300 mm (12 inches) behind 

the seating reference point (SgRP) of the 

driver’s seating position. 

We stated that in developing this 

proposal, we had carefully considered 

both the safety benefits of the FMH 

requirements and practicability 

concerns relating to multistage vehicles. 

Based on previous estimates of the 

benefits of the FMVSS No. 201 final 

rule, and estimates from the National 

Automotive Sampling System, 

Crashworthiness Data System of the 

percent of injuries occurring to light 

truck occupants in multi-stage vehicles, 

the agency derived the following 

estimate of safety benefits. Requiring all 

multi-stage manufactured vehicles to 

meet FMVSS No. 201 would have 

annual benefits in the front seat of 16–

22 fewer fatalities and 19–22 fewer AIS 

2–5 injuries. However, in the rear seats, 

the benefits were estimated to be less 

than 1 fatality (which would round 

down to 0) and 1 AIS 2–5 injury. Thus, 

based on this analysis, excluding multistage vehicles from targets that could 

not be struck by the front row occupants 

would have a very small impact on 

safety. 

Given the small safety benefits 

associated with the FMH impact 

requirements for rear seating positions 

and practicability concerns, we 

tentatively concluded that the FMH 

impact requirements should be limited 

to the front seating positions for these 

vehicles. 

We noted that, as indicated in its 

petition, many commercial vehicles 

manufactured by NTEA members 

feature bulkheads or partitions located 

less than 600 mm (24 inches) behind the 

rearmost designated seating position. 

Bulkheads or partitions are used in a 

variety of work vehicles that haul oddshaped objects that cannot be readily 

secured in the cargo area. These 

structures protect the driver and 

passenger from loose or shifting cargo or 

work equipment. NTEA had argued that 

the installation of bulkheads or 

partitions would likely require 

relocation of target areas originally 

certified by the incomplete vehicle 

manufacturer, thus significantly adding 

to the compliance burden. 

We also noted that RVIA had argued 

that most conversion vans (CVs) and 

motor homes feature unique interior 

designs. Specifically, these vehicles 

include overhead cabinets, side 

valances, raised roof structures, and 

other unusual interior components. 

Among other things, RVIA stated that 

cooperative testing, suggested by 

NHTSA as a way to lessen compliance 

costs associated with FMH 

requirements, is not practicable because 

each RVIA member manufactures 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
50902 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

unique vehicles, each substantially 

different from its competitors. RVIA 

argued that cooperative testing would 

eliminate interior customization, which 

would in turn result in a loss of market 

for CVs and motor homes. 

We stated that we believed our 

proposal to effectively limit the FMH 

impact requirements to the front seating 

positions for these vehicles would 

provide appropriate relief to the 

industries represented by NTEA and 

RVIA, while continuing to meet the 

need for safety. 

We noted that NTEA and RVIA 

members can ordinarily purchase 

incomplete vehicles that are already 

designed to meet the FMH impact 

requirements for the front seating 

positions. Under our proposal, final 

stage manufacturers would ordinarily be 

able to take advantage of pass-through 

certification by not changing the upper 

interior portions of the front of the 

vehicle. 

We also stated that we believe the 

requirements are justified by safety. As 

indicated above, we estimate that 

requiring all multi-stage manufactured 

vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 201 would 

have annual benefits in the front seat of 

16–22 fewer fatalities and 19–22 fewer 

AIS 2–5 injuries. We stated that given 

the safety significance of these 

requirements, we believed, in situations 

where final stage manufacturers use 

incomplete vehicles that have occupant 

compartments that either are designed 

to meet the FMH impact requirements 

for the front seating positions or can be 

purchased in a configuration that is 

designed to meet those requirements, it 

would be inconsistent with the need for 

safety to generally exclude the vehicles 

from these head impact protection 

requirements. We also noted that while 

final stage manufacturers will be able to 

submit petitions under subpart B of part 

555, it is unlikely in this type of 

situation that the agency would find it 

in the public interest to exclude final 

stage manufacturers from the front seat 

head impact protection requirements of 

FMVSS No. 201 to facilitate 

customization of the upper interior 

portions of the front of the vehicle. 

We noted that the proposal would, 

however, facilitate customization of the 

rear of vehicles, including conversion 

vans, where there would be no 

significant impact on safety. We also 

stated that we continue to believe that 

final stage manufacturers can use 

cooperative testing to determine the 

types of changes that can be made while 

enabling vehicles to continue to comply 

with the FMH requirements, including 

ones related to use of overhead cabinets, 

raised roof structures, and so forth. We 

stated that while customization of the 

front portion of occupant compartments 

will be more difficult and may be more 

limited, it will by no means be 

eliminated. 

b. Proposal To Exclude Vehicles 

Without a Finished Occupant 

Compartment From the FMH Impact 

Requirements 

We tentatively concluded that a 

narrow group of multi-stage vehicles 

contains physical attributes that make 

compliance with the FMH impact 

requirements impracticable. These are 

vehicles built on a ‘‘stripped’’ chassis; 

i.e., an incomplete vehicle without an 

occupant compartment. The 

manufacturers of these vehicles would 

not be able to rely on pass-through 

certification. This is because these 

vehicles are highly customized and 

produced in quantities that would make 

compliance prohibitively expensive. 

Further, these vehicles are often 

equipped with partitions and bulkheads 

that present a further impediment to the 

compliance efforts. We noted that for 

vehicles manufactured from stripped 

chassis, the cost of meeting the FMH 

impact requirements could be 

substantial because alternative means of 

compliance such as pass-through 

certification are not available. 

We stated that in the context of 

serving niche markets demanding 

specialized work vehicles that are not 

delivered to the final stage 

manufacturers with an intact occupant 

compartment (unlike for example, 

chassis cabs and cutaway vans), we 

believed that the physical limitations of 

these vehicles can adversely affect the 

ability of multi-stage manufacturers to 

design safety performance into their 

completed vehicles. Accordingly, we 

believed it appropriate to exclude this 

narrow group of vehicles from FMH 

impact testing. 

c. Question Regarding Multi-Stage 

Vehicles With Raised Roofs 

The NPRM also raised the issue of 

offering a manufacturer alternative for 

vehicles with raised roofs. This would 

allow the final stage manufacturer to 

certify that the vehicle meets the FMH 

impact requirements in either the 

original or altered configuration. The 

reasoning behind this was that while 

some test points have been altered due 

to the raised roof, those points are very 

unlikely to be impacted by a seated 

occupant. 

d. Change of Effective Date 

The NPRM proposed to delay the 

effective date of the FMH impact 

requirements as they apply to final stage 

manufacturers and alterers until 

September 1, 2008. 

III. Public Comments 

Both NTEA and RVIA submitted 

comments generally supportive of the 

NPRM. Both entities supported the 

proposal to delay the effective date for 

compliance with the requirements to 

September 1, 2008. In addition, NTEA 

suggested that the date be extended 

further if the delay is not published by 

January 2007. The proposal to limit the 

area that is subject to the FMH impact 

requirements was also supported by 

both commenters. Finally, both parties 

were generally supportive of the 

proposal to exclude vehicles delivered 

to a final stage manufacturer without an 

occupant compartment from the FMH 

requirements. 

While generally supportive of the 

NPRM, both entities suggested 

expanding the scope of vehicles 

excluded from the FMH impact 

requirements beyond that which was 

proposed by NHTSA. Citing the small 

size and economic difficulties of the 

recreational vehicle industry, RVIA 

stated that NHTSA should consider 

excluding CVs and motor homes from 

the FMH impact requirements. It argued 

that given the numerous interior layouts 

for these vehicles, a large number of 

tests would need to be performed, 

burdening the industry 

disproportionately. RVIA also reiterated 

its original cost estimates presented in 

its petition, stating that interior designs 

and layouts can change every year, thus 

making the industry unable to amortize 

testing costs over a number of years. 

NTEA also supported expanding the 

scope of the FMH impact requirement 

exclusion to additional vehicles. In 

addition to vehicles delivered without 

an occupant compartment, NTEA 

suggested that multi-stage vehicles built 

from ‘‘chassis cutaways,’’ i.e., 

incomplete vehicles delivered with an 

occupant compartment but without the 

rear part of the chassis, should be 

excluded as well. NTEA stated that the 

occupant compartment in these vehicles 

is not delivered ‘‘intact,’’ because there 

is no rear wall. NTEA also requested 

clarification regarding which vehicles 

would be excluded. 

Finally, NTEA provided comments 

concerning the testing of vehicles with 

bulkheads and partitions in relation to 

the FMH impact requirements. 

Specifically, it expressed concern that 

partition, bulkheads, and B-pillars on 

the majority of vehicles used 

commercially with a GVWR of 10,000 

lbs. or less would fall within the 

proposed testing area. This, NTEA 

stated, would lead to high testing and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 50903 

4Secondary impacts occur when part of the FMH 

(usually the chin) strikes in the vicinity of the 

intended target at or near the time that the forehead 

impact zone contacts that target, more specifically, 

within the HIC(d) calculation time period specified 

in S7. 

5We are placing in the docket a memorandum 

that discusses that survey. 

compliance costs for small 

manufacturers. In addition, NTEA asked 

for clarification on whether secondary 

headform hits would count towards the 

overall HIC(d) value, suggesting that 

they should not. NTEA also suggested 

that areas located less than 300 mm (12 

inches) from the forward seating 

position, but behind bulkheads or 

partitions, should not be tested under 

the impact requirements. 

IV. The Final Rule and Response to 

Public Comments 

a. Limitation of the Areas Subject to 

FMVSS No. 201 

The agency is adopting its proposal to 

limit, for multi-stage vehicles, the FMH 

impact requirements to the front of 

vehicles, i.e., we are excluding targets 

more than 300 mm (12 inches) behind 

the driver’s SgRP. This change will 

maintain the vast majority of the safety 

benefits for multi-stage vehicles, while 

facilitating customization of the rear of 

vehicles. 

As the cited safety data indicate, the 

vast majority of the safety benefits of the 

FMH impact accrue mainly in the front 

portions of the vehicle. Because of the 

front head restraint height requirements, 

we believe it is unlikely that the head 

of a seated occupant would come in 

contact with bulkheads, partitions, or 

overhead cabinets and storage shelves 

located further than 300 mm (12 inches) 

behind the seating reference point of the 

driver’s seating position. Therefore, we 

believe that this final rule preserves the 

vast majority of the safety benefits 

provided by the FMH impact 

requirements for multistage vehicles. 

We note that NTEA and RVIA 

members can ordinarily purchase 

incomplete vehicles that are already 

designed to meet the FMH impact 

requirements for the front seating 

positions. Thus, under our proposal, 

final stage manufacturers would 

ordinarily be able to take advantage of 

pass-through certification by not 

changing the upper interior portions of 

the front of the vehicle. 

NTEA expressed concern about the 

installation of partitions and bulkheads 

behind the occupant seating 

compartment. It was concerned that the 

300 mm (12 inches) distance from the 

driver’s SgRP could include the B-pillar 

of the majority vehicles used 

commercially with a GVWR of 10,000 

lbs. or less. It indicated that partitions 

and bulkheads could fall within the 

detailed area, and themselves become 

subject to testing. 

NHTSA notes, as a general matter, 

that while partitions are not necessarily 

targeted by the FMH requirements, 

secondary impacts 4 on partitions are 

permitted as well as relocation of a 

targeted area in accordance with S10(b). 

In these cases, any secondary impacts 

would be incorporated into the total 

HIC(d) value, and any target areas that 

are relocated may fall upon a bulkhead 

or partition provided that the contact 

area is not specifically excluded from 

the test. 

As indicated above, the purpose of 

excluding targets more than 300 mm (12 

inches) behind the driver’s SgRP is to 

address the special circumstances of 

final stage manufacturers, while 

maintaining the vast majority of the 

benefits from the FMH requirements. To 

the extent that bulkheads, partitions or 

other items located more than 300 mm 

(12 inches) behind the driver’s SgRP 

could contribute to the HIC(d) value, 

final stage manufacturers could 

potentially need to add 

countermeasures to comply with 

FMVSS No. 201, as well as engage in 

testing, engineering analysis, or other 

means to have a basis for certifying 

compliance. 

To ensure that the change we are 

making provides the intended 

accommodation for final stage 

manufacturers, we are providing that 

tests for altered vehicles and vehicles 

built in two or more stages do not 

include, within the time period for 

measuring HIC(d), any FMH contact 

with components rearward of the plane 

300 mm (12 inches) behind the driver’s 

SgRP. Of course, if it is possible to strike 

an intended target within the range of 

permissible approach angles without 

FMH contact with components rearward 

of that plane, the agency will test the 

target in that fashion. We note that the 

position we are taking on this specific 

issue should not be viewed as an 

indication of how we might address the 

issue of secondary impacts for other 

portions of FMVSS No. 201. 

In order to take full advantage of this 

accommodation, a final stage 

manufacturer or alterer adding a 

partition or bulkhead needs to ensure 

that it is rearward of the plane 300 mm 

(12 inches) behind the driver’s SgRP. 

NHTSA notes that it has surveyed 

several vehicles with partitions,5 and 

the closest partition was approximately 

380 mm behind the driver’s SgRP. We 

believe that partitions are ordinarily 

located more than 300 mm (12 inches) 

behind the driver’s SgRP in order to 

permit the seat to recline. Therefore, we 

believe the change we are adopting 

provides appropriate accommodation 

for final stage manufacturers and 

alterers. 

We note, however, that if a final stage 

manufacturer or alterer wishes to add a 

partition or bulkhead closer than 300 

mm (12 inches) behind the driver’s 

SgRP, it can add any needed 

countermeasures (e.g., padding) to 

comply with FMVSS No. 201, and 

conduct testing, engineering analysis, or 

other means to have a basis for 

certifying compliance. It could do this 

on its own, in conjunction with the 

partition manufacturer, or as part of 

cooperative testing. 

b. Areas Behind the Partition 

In its comments, NTEA asserted that 

it is not practical to include targets that 

are behind the forward surface of a 

partition or bulkhead. NTEA argued that 

these targets could not possibly be 

contacted by the head of an occupant 

seated forward of the partition. The 

agency believes, for reasons discussed 

earlier, that partitions are ordinarily 

located more than 300 mm (12 inches) 

behind the driver’s SgRP. Therefore, this 

issue would affect few vehicles. In any 

event, barring a particularly rare series 

of events (which would be unlikely to 

be alleviated by the installation of 

additional interior padding), the agency 

concurs that these areas are unlikely to 

be impacted by a person in the front 

occupant compartment, and it is 

therefore not appropriate to test areas 

behind such partitions or bulkheads. 

NHTSA is adjusting the rule to exclude 

these areas from the FMH impact 

requirements as well. 

c. Conversion Vans and Recreational 

Vehicles 

RVIA expressed concern that, given 

the small size of the manufacturers of 

these products, as well as the declining 

size of the market, meeting the FMH 

impact requirements is impractical. It 

requested that CVs and motor homes be 

completely excluded from the FMH 

impact requirements. While NHTSA 

recognizes that most manufacturers 

represented by RVIA meet the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) 

definition for small businesses, we do 

not believe that this should preclude 

these manufacturers from being required 

to meet the FMH impact requirements 

for the front seats. 

We believe that the safety benefits of 

FMVSS No. 201 can be maintained 

without substantial burdens being 

imposed on multi-stage manufacturers. 

Much like other vehicles, CVs and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
50904 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

6We also note that the agency has created a 

temporary exemption process for multi-stage 

vehicles by which intermediate and final stage 

manufacturers and alterers can obtain temporary 

exemptions from dynamic performance 

requirements based on financial hardship. The 

agency also allows associations or multiple 

manufacturers to ‘‘bundle’’ temporary exemption 

petitions for specific vehicle designs. See 70 FR 

7414. 

7We are placing in the docket a memorandum 

that discusses some of these vehicles. 

motor homes in this category are 

typically manufactured from an Original 

Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) chassis 

product that has a completed front 

passenger compartment. Most of these 

have Incomplete Vehicle Documents 

(IVDs), so that the final stage 

manufacturer has the option of 

purchasing an OEM incomplete vehicle 

that is pre-certified to meet the FMH 

impact requirements.6

While the RVIA states that small 

motor home and CV manufacturers 

expect to have to conduct substantial 

compliance testing at high costs, we do 

not believe that this is necessarily the 

case. Under our rule, as long as the final 

stage manufacturers preserve the OEM 

specifications in the forward area 

subject to the FMH impact 

requirements, they can customize the 

rear portion of the interior. By not 

changing the upper interior portions of 

the vehicle, they will be able to take 

advantage of pass-through certification. 

We continue to believe that these 

requirements are justified by the safety 

benefits cited above and discussed in 

the NPRM. 

Moreover, as discussed in the NPRM, 

final stage manufacturers can use 

cooperative testing to determine the 

types of changes that can be made while 

enabling vehicles to continue to comply 

with the FMH requirements, including 

ones related to use of overhead cabinets, 

raised roof structures, and so forth. 

Thus, while customization of the front 

portion of occupant compartments will 

be more difficult and may be more 

limited, it is by no means eliminated. 

d. Multi-Stage Vehicles Completed From 

a Cutaway Chassis 

As part of the final rule, we have 

decided to adopt our proposal to 

exclude from the FMH requirements a 

narrow group of multi-stage vehicles 

delivered to the final stage manufacturer 

without an occupant compartment. 

However, we are not extending that 

exclusion to vehicles completed from a 

‘‘chassis cutaway.’’ A chassis cutaway 

consists of part of a chassis, which is 

delivered to a final stage manufacturer 

without a back wall. In its comments, 

NTEA suggested that a chassis cutaway 

is not ‘‘intact,’’ and therefore should be 

excluded from the FMH impact 

requirements. NTEA stated that it would 

not be able to certify a vehicle built from 

a chassis cutaway using pass-through 

certification because the OEM provides 

no guidelines for maintaining ‘‘vital 

spatial clearance.’’ This lack of 

guidelines, NTEA claims, prohibit the 

use of reasonable engineering analysis 

for pass-through compliance with 

FMVSS No. 201. 

NHTSA does not accept NTEA’s 

argument in this area for several 

reasons. First, provided no changes have 

been made to the portion of the 

occupant compartment forward of the 

rearmost part of the B-pillar (and if 

located 300 mm rearward of the driver’s 

SgRP), it is reasonable for a 

manufacturer to assume that all ‘‘vital 

spatial clearances’’ will have been 

maintained. Therefore, in these 

situations, the final stage manufacturer 

can take advantage of the available passthrough certification. 

Second, we are aware of the 

availability of some cutaway chassis 

vehicles that can be used in this manner 

by final stage manufacturers. NHTSA is 

aware of cutaway vehicles 

manufactured by Ford and DaimlerChrysler that are provided with IVDs 

certifying that the vehicle will meet the 

FMH impact requirements of FMVSS 

No. 201 forward of the cut point in the 

forward occupant compartment.7 This 

includes compliance with all applicable 

spatial clearance requirements. Because 

these vehicles are available to second 

stage manufacturers, we do not believe 

that compliance will be overly 

burdensome, and cutaway vehicles do 

not merit additional compliance relief. 

e. Delay of Compliance Date 

Both commenters supported NHTSA’s 

proposal to delay the implementation 

date of the FMH impact requirements. 

NTEA further requested that NHTSA 

delay the implementation date until 

September 1, 2009 if the final rule is not 

published prior to January 2007. 

NHTSA agrees with the commenters 

that the extension is necessary to 

provide manufacturers of altered 

vehicles sufficient time to comply with 

the FMH impact requirements. 

Considering the timing of this final rule, 

we are delaying the implementation 

until September 1, 2009. 

f. Miscellaneous Issues 

NHTSA makes note of two additional 

issues that were addressed in the 

NPRM. First, in the NPRM, we 

requested comments on an issue related 

to multistage vehicles with raised roofs. 

We stated that we were considering 

permitting manufacturers to meet 

requirements for either the target 

locations as calculated for the original 

configuration or changed configuration. 

We did not receive comments on this 

issue, and have decided not to adopt 

such a provision. 

Second, we proposed to extend the 

scope of the agency’s new more 

streamlined temporary exemption 

procedures such that multistage 

manufacturers would be able to petition 

NHTSA for an exemption from the FMH 

impact requirements. See 71 FR at 

20936. The new procedures streamline 

the temporary exemption process by 

allowing an association or another 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. We noted, however, that the 

same issue was also before the agency 

in another proceeding. In a final rule 

published in the Federal Register (71 

FR 28179) on May 15, 2006, this 

procedure was extended to final stage 

manufacturers in relation to the FMH 

requirements of FMVSS No. 201. 

Therefore, this final rule does not 

specifically address that issue. We also 

note that the May 2006 final rule 

addressed a number of other relevant 

issues relating to final stage 

manufacturers and alterers. 

g. Effective Date 

We find good cause for making this 

rule effective in less than 30 days, i.e., 

September 1, 2007. As discussed above, 

we have concluded that certain 

amendments should be made that will 

provide relief to final stage 

manufacturers and alterers, and also 

that the compliance date of the relevant 

requirements should be delayed to 

September 1, 2009. If the September 1, 

2007 compliance date were not 

changed, it is likely that some final stage 

manufacturers and alterers would need 

to immediately stop producing or 

altering some of the specialty vehicles 

they provide. 

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 50905 

8The Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small 

business, in part, as a business entity ‘‘which 

operates primarily within the United States.’’ (13 

CFR 121.105(a)). 

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 final rule 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 new 

burdens on manufacturers of vehicles 

built in two or more stages or vehicle 

alterers. Further, this rule limits certain 

existing requirements as they apply to 

multi-stage vehicles, and excludes a 

narrow group of multi-stage vehicles 

manufactured from chassis without 

occupant compartments from the same 

requirements. The agency believes that 

this impact is so minimal as to not 

warrant the preparation of a full 

regulatory evaluation. 

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must either 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions) 8 or 

certify that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

order to make such a certification, the 

agency must conduct a threshold 

analysis. The results of that analysis 

must be included in a statement that 

accompanies the certification and 

provides the factual basis for making it. 

I hereby certify that this final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this final rule under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. While it is true that the 

vast majority of intermediate and final 

stage manufacturers of vehicles built in 

two or more stages and alterers have 

1,000 or fewer employees, we believe 

the impact of this final rule will not be 

detrimental. This final rule permits 

these companies to comply with the 

FMH impact requirements of FMVSS 

No. 201 for the front occupant 

compartment only, as opposed to the 

requirements that must be met by 

original manufacturers. Final stage 

manufacturers and alterers can either 

rely on the original equipment 

manufacturer’s certification (using passthrough certification) or install interior 

padding and undertake available 

compliance testing. Also, final stage 

manufacturers and alterers using a 

‘‘stripped chassis’’ vehicle are exempt 

from the FMH impact requirements. 

Finally, this rule delays the effective 

date of the requirements until 

September 1, 2009. Accordingly, there 

will be no significant economic impact 

on small businesses, small 

organizations, or small governmental 

units by these amendments. For these 

reasons the agency has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis. 

c. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for 

the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. Accordingly, no 

environmental assessment is required. 

d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s final 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking would not have 

federalism implications because a final 

rule, if issued, would 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.’’

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the preemptive effect of today’s 

rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have 

preemptive effect in at least two ways. 

First, the National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 

preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect under 

this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

that preempts State law, not today’s 

rulemaking, so consultation would be 

inappropriate. 

In addition to the express preemption 

noted above, the Supreme Court has 

also recognized that State requirements 

imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers, including sanctions 

imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and 

execution of a NHTSA safety standard. 

When such a conflict is discerned, the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes their State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American 

Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.C. 861 (2000). 

NHTSA has not outlined such potential 

State requirements in today’s 

rulemaking, however, in part because 

such conflicts can arise in varied 

contexts, but it is conceivable that such 

a conflict may become clear through 

subsequent experience with today’s 

standard and test regime. NHTSA may 

opine on such conflicts in the future, if 

warranted. See id. at 883–86. 

e. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This final rule would not have any 

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 

30103, whenever a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 

State may not adopt or maintain a safety 

standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance which is not identical to 

the Federal standard, except to the 

extent that the state requirement 

imposes a higher level of performance 

and applies only to vehicles procured 

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets 

forth a procedure for judicial review of 

final rules establishing, amending, or 

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. That section does not require 

submission of a petition for 

reconsideration or other administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court. 

f. Unfunded Mandates 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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
50906 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation). The assessment 

may be combined with other 

assessments, as it is here. 

This final rule is not likely to result 

in expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments or automobile 

manufacturers and/or their suppliers of 

more than $100 million annually. If 

adopted, it would not impose any new 

burdens on manufacturers of vehicles 

built in two or more stages or vehicle 

alterers. Further, this final rule limits 

certain existing requirements as they 

apply to multistage vehicles, and 

exclude a narrow group of multistage 

vehicles manufactured from chassis 

without occupant compartments from 

the same requirements. 

g. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), 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 no 

reporting requirements or requests for 

information. 

h. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

i. 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. 

VI. Regulatory Text 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends chapter V of title 49 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations by 

amending 49 CFR § 571.201 to read as 

follows: 

PART 571—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation of Part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 2011, 30115, 

30116 and 30117; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. Section 571.201 is amended by 

revising S6.1.4 through S6.1.4.2, S6.3(b) 

and S6.3(c) to read as set forth below: 

§ 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant 

protection in interior impact. 

* * * * * 

S6.1.4 Phase-in Schedule #4 A final 

stage manufacturer or alterer may, at its 

option, comply with the requirements 

set forth in S6.1.4.1 and S6.1.4.2. 

S6.1.4.1 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 1998 and before 

September 1, 2009 are not required to 

comply with the requirements specified 

in S7. 

S6.1.4.2 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2009 shall comply 

with the requirements specified in S7. 

* * * * * 

S6.3 * * * 

(b) Any target located rearward of a 

vertical plane 600 mm behind the 

seating reference point of the rearmost 

designated seating position. For altered 

vehicles and vehicles built in two or 

more stages, including ambulances and 

motor homes, any target located 

rearward of a vertical plane 300 mm 

behind the seating reference point of the 

driver’s designated seating position 

(tests for altered vehicles and vehicles 

built in two or more stages do not 

include, within the time period for 

measuring HIC(d), any free motion 

headform contact with components 

rearward of this plane). If an altered 

vehicle or vehicle built in two or more 

stages is equipped with a transverse 

vertical partition positioned between 

the seating reference point of the 

driver’s designated seating position and 

a vertical plane 300 mm behind the 

seating reference point of the driver’s 

designated seating position, any target 

located rearward of the vertical partition 

is excluded. 

(c) Any target in a vehicle 

manufactured in two or more stages that 

is delivered to a final stage 

manufacturer without an occupant 

compartment. Note: Motor homes, 

ambulances, and other vehicles 

manufactured using a chassis cab, a cutaway van, or any other incomplete 

vehicle delivered to a final stage 

manufacturer with a furnished front 

compartment are not excluded under 

this S6.3(c). 

* * * * * 

Issued: August 30, 2007. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 07–4324 Filed 8–30–07; 4:52 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 070323069–7117–02; I.D. 

031907A] 

RIN 0648–AV46 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to 

establish catch accounting requirements 

for persons who receive, buy, or accept 

Pacific whiting deliveries of 4,000 

pounds (lb) (1.18 mt) or more from 

vessels using midwater trawl gear 

during the Pacific whiting primary 

season for the shore-based sector. This 

action is intended to improve NMFS’s 

ability to effectively monitor the Pacific 

whiting shoreside fishery such that 

catch of Pacific whiting and incidentally 

caught species, including overfished 

groundfish species, do not result in a 

species’ optimum yield (OY), harvest 

guideline, allocations, or bycatch limits 

being exceeded. This action is also 

intended to provide for timely reporting 

of Chinook salmon take as specified in 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7 Biological Opinion for 

Chinook salmon catch in the Pacific 

groundfish fishery. This action is 

consistent with the conservation goals 

and objectives of the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). 

DATES: Effective October 5, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the 

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA), Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and the 

Small Entity Compliance Guide are 

available from D. Robert Lohn, 

Administrator, Northwest Region, 

NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, 

Seattle, WA 98115–0070, phone: 206–

526–6150. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES