Document ID: NHTSA-2007-0105-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact
Posted Date: 2007-09-05T04:00Z

[Federal Register: September 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 171)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 50900-50906]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05se07-8]                         

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

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

[[Page 50901]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 60 FR 43031, Aug. 18, 1995; Docket No. NHTSA-1996-1762-
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 71 FR 51121, August 29, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 multi-stage 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 odd-shaped 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

[[Page 50902]]

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

[[Page 50903]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Secondary 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We are placing in the docket a memorandum that discusses 
that survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 50904]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 pass-through 
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 Daimler-
Chrysler 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We are placing in the docket a memorandum that discusses 
some of these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 50905]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 pass-through 
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

[[Page 50906]]

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.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends chapter V of title 49 
of the Code of Federal Regulations by amending 49 CFR Sec.  571.201 to 
read as follows:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

0
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.

0
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:

Sec.  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 cut-away 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