Document ID: NHTSA-2009-0093-0016
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Roof Crush Resistance
Posted Date: 2010-04-07T04:00Z

[Federal Register: April 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 66)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 17590-17604]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07ap10-11]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0093]
RIN 2127-AG51

 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; further response to comments.

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

SUMMARY: In May 2009, NHTSA published a final rule that upgraded the 
agency's safety standard on roof crush resistance. This document 
provides a further response to comments submitted by the National Truck 
Equipment Association (NTEA) during that rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call 
Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, 
telephone 202-366-4801. For legal issues, you may call J. Edward 
Glancy, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202-366-2992. You may 
send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, 
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Final Rule Upgrading FMVSS No. 216
    B. Challenge by NTEA
    C. Consent Motion To Stay Briefing Schedule
II. Today's Document and Related Actions
III. Multi-Stage Vehicles and the Multi-Stage Certification Scheme
    A. Multi-Stage Vehicles
    B. Safety Standards and Certification
    C. 2005 and 2006 Final Rules on Certification of Vehicles Built 
in Two or More Stages
IV. Multi-Stage Issues in the Rulemaking To Upgrade FMVSS No. 216
    A. FMVSS No. 216 Prior to the Upgrade
    B. The Proposed Rule
    C. Public Comments
    D. May 2009 Final Rule
V. Further Response to Comments Regarding Multi-Stage Vehicles
    A. Introduction
    B. The Current Certification Scheme Is Not an Unlawful 
Delegation of Agency Authority
    C. Current IVDs Concerning FMVSS No. 216 are Workable
    D. Final-Stage Manufacturers Can Certify Their Vehicles Built on 
Chassis-Cabs as Being Compliant With FMVSS No. 216a
    E. In General, IVDs Are Workable
    F. NHTSA Provided a Testing Alternative, FMVSS No. 220
    G. There Is Little Cost for Multi-Stage Manufacturers To Comply 
With FMVSS No. 216a
    H. Conclusion

I. Background

A. Final Rule Upgrading FMVSS No. 216

    On May 12, 2009, as part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the 
serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious 
injury in those crashes, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (74 FR 
22348) a final rule substantially upgrading Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. The upgraded 
standard is designated FMVSS No. 216a.
    First, for the vehicles previously subject to the standard, i.e., 
passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses 
with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 
pounds) or less, the rule doubled the amount of force the vehicle's 
roof structure must withstand in the specified test, from 1.5 times the 
vehicle's unloaded weight to 3.0 times the vehicle's unloaded weight. 
We note that this value is sometimes referred to as the strength-to-
weight ratio (SWR), e.g., a SWR of 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and so forth.
    Second, the rule extended the applicability of the standard so that 
it will also apply to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms 
(6,000 pounds), but not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). 
The rule established a force requirement of 1.5 times the vehicle's 
unloaded weight for these newly included vehicles.
    Third, the rule required all of the above vehicles to meet the 
specified force requirements in a two-sided test, instead of a single-
sided test. For the two-sided test, the same vehicle must meet the 
force requirements when tested first on one side and then on the other 
side of the vehicle.
    Fourth, the rule established a new requirement for maintenance of 
headroom, i.e., survival space, during testing in addition to the 
existing limit on the amount of roof crush. The rule also included a 
number of special provisions, including ones related to leadtime, to 
address the needs of multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, and small 
volume manufacturers.

B. Challenge by NTEA

    NTEA filed a petition for review of the May 2009 final rule in the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That organization 
had submitted comments during the rulemaking opposing the agency's 
proposed revisions with respect to multi-stage vehicles.

C. Consent Motion To Stay Briefing Schedule

    NHTSA filed with the Court a motion for a stay of the briefing 
schedule. The agency stated that it believed the Court's consideration 
of the challenge by NTEA would be facilitated by a fuller response to 
the comments that organization had submitted during the rulemaking, 
which would permit both NTEA and the Court to more fully address the 
agency's rationale. NHTSA also noted that petitions for reconsideration 
of the rule were pending before the agency. NTEA consented to the 
motion and the Court granted a six-month stay of the briefing schedule 
on October 2, 2009.

II. Today's Document and Related Actions

    In this document, we provide a fuller response to comments 
submitted by NTEA on our proposal to upgrade FMVSS No. 216.
    We are also publishing two separate documents related to the May 
2009 final rule. One is a response to petitions for reconsideration of 
that rule. The other is a correcting rule. The correcting rule 
incorporates a provision that was discussed in the preamble but 
inadvertently omitted from the regulatory text. As explained in the 
preamble, the agency decided to

[[Page 17591]]

exclude a narrow category of multi-stage vehicles from FMVSS No. 216 
altogether, multi-stage trucks with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms 
(6,000 pounds) not built on either a chassis-cab or an incomplete 
vehicle with a full exterior van body. The regulatory text 
inadvertently omitted the reference to incomplete vehicles with a full 
exterior van body.

III. Multi-Stage Vehicles and the Multi-Stage Certification Scheme

A. Multi-Stage Vehicles

    Multi-stage vehicles are motor vehicles that are produced in two or 
more stages. These vehicles are not produced by a single manufacturer 
on an assembly line as is the typical passenger car or sport utility 
vehicle. Instead, one manufacturer produces an ``incomplete vehicle'' 
which requires further manufacturing operations to become a completed 
vehicle. As defined in 49 CFR 567.3, an incomplete vehicle is an 
assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of chassis (including the frame) 
structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking 
system, in the state that those systems are to be part of the completed 
vehicle, but requires further manufacturing operations to become a 
completed vehicle.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The definition of ``incomplete vehicle'' also includes 
incomplete trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most incomplete vehicles are manufactured by large manufacturers, 
such as General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. Most final-stage 
manufacturers are small businesses.\2\ Multi-stage vehicles are aimed 
at a variety of niche markets, most of which are too small to be 
serviced economically by single stage manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As defined by The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of degree of completeness, the spectrum of incomplete 
vehicles ranges from a stripped chassis, i.e., an incomplete vehicle 
without an occupant compartment, to a chassis-cab. As defined in 49 CFR 
567.3, a chassis-cab is an incomplete vehicle, with a completed 
occupant compartment, that requires only the addition of cargo-
carrying, work-performing, or load-bearing components to perform its 
intended functions. A type of incomplete vehicle that falls between 
stripped chassis and chassis-cabs on this spectrum is a chassis 
cutaway, which is an incomplete vehicle delivered with a partial 
occupant compartment that does not have a rear wall.
    In a typical situation, the incomplete vehicle is delivered to the 
final-stage manufacturer which adds work-performing or cargo-carrying 
components to complete the vehicle. For example, the incomplete vehicle 
may be a chassis-cab, i.e., have a cab, but nothing built on the frame 
behind the cab. As completed, it may be a dry freight van (box truck), 
dump truck, tow truck, or plumber's truck. In some cases, there may 
also be intermediate stage manufacturers involved in the production of 
a multi-stage motor vehicle.

B. Safety Standards and Certification

    NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to 
the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of 
motor vehicle equipment under the authority of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, codified as Chapter 301 of Title 
49 of the United States Code, ``Motor Vehicle Safety'' (Vehicle Safety 
Act).\3\ The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or 
equipment. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a ``self-
certification'' process under which each manufacturer is responsible 
for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety 
standards.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.
    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) and 30115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and 
procedures that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the 
vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular 
safety standard. NHTSA follows these specified test procedures and 
conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, 
manufacturers are not required to test their products in the manner 
specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product 
at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with 
all relevant standards.
    A manufacturer may evaluate its products in various ways to 
determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety 
standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures 
specified in the standard and to provide a basis for its certification 
of compliance. Depending on the circumstances, the manufacturer may be 
able to base its certification on actual testing (according to the 
procedure specified in the standard or some other procedure), computer 
simulation, engineering analysis, engineering judgment or other 
means.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 71 FR 28183-28184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All motor vehicles, whether single stage or multi-stage, must be 
certified to meet applicable FMVSSs.\6\ NHTSA has developed specific 
certification regulations for multi-stage vehicles. The certification 
process is governed by 49 CFR part 567 Certification. 49 CFR 567.5 sets 
forth the certification requirements for manufacturers of vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages. Certification responsibilities for 
the applicable FMVSSs are communicated between manufacturers with the 
use of an incomplete vehicle document (IVD). With limited exceptions, 
\7\each manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle and each intermediate 
manufacturer \8\ assumes legal responsibility for all certification-
related duties under the Vehicle Safety Act with respect to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) and 30115.
    \7\ See 70 FR at 7432-33, 49 CFR 567.5(b) and (c).
    \8\ In the remainder of the preamble, NHTSA will not discuss 
intermediate manufacturers separately.

    (i) Components and systems it installs or supplies for 
installation on the incomplete vehicle, unless changed by a 
subsequent manufacturer;
    (ii) The vehicle as further manufactured or completed by an 
intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, to the extent that the 
vehicle is completed in accordance with the IVD; and
    (iii) The accuracy of the information contained in the IVD.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 49 CFR 567.5(b)(1).

    Final-stage manufacturers have complementary duties. Pursuant to 49 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR 567.5(d), final-stage manufacturers assume

legal responsibility for all certification-related duties and 
liabilities under the Vehicle Safety Act, except to the extent that 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or an intermediate manufacturer 
has provided equipment subject to a safety standard or expressly 
assumed responsibility for standards related to systems and 
components it supplied and except to the extent that the final-stage 
manufacturer completed the vehicle in accordance with the prior 
manufacturers' IVD or any addendum furnished pursuant to 49 CFR part 
568, as to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards fully 
addressed therein.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 49 CFR 567.5(d)(1).

    Final-stage manufacturers also have the duty to affix a 
certification label to each vehicle in a manner that does not obscure 
labels affixed by previous stage manufacturers and that, among other 
things, contains certification statements.\11\ The final-stage 
manufacturer may make one of the following alternative certification 
statements: (1) The vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS; (2) the 
vehicle was completed in accordance with the prior manufacturers' IVD 
where applicable and conforms to all applicable FMVSS; or (3) the 
vehicle

[[Page 17592]]

was completed in accordance with the prior manufacturers' IVD where 
applicable except for certain listed exceptions by FMVSS and the 
vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 49 CFR 567.5(d)(2).
    \12\ 49 CFR 567.5(d)(2)(v)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As reflected above, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer furnishes 
an IVD for incomplete vehicles pursuant to 49 CFR 568.4. For each 
applicable FMVSS, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes one of 
three affirmative statements in the IVD: (1) a Type 1 statement that 
the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no 
alterations are made in identified components (this representation is 
most often made with respect to chassis-cabs since, as indicated 
earlier, they have a completed occupant compartment); (2) a Type 2 
statement that sets forth the specific conditions of final manufacture 
under which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer specifies that the 
completed vehicle will conform to the standard (e.g., the vehicle, when 
completed, will meet the brake standard if it does not exceed gross 
axle weight ratings, the center of gravity at a specific vehicle weight 
rating is not above a certain height and no alterations are made to any 
brake system component on the incomplete vehicle); or (3) a Type 3 
statement that conformity to the standard cannot be determined based on 
the incomplete vehicle as supplied, and the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard 
(e.g., when components and systems must be added by the final-stage 
manufacturer and compliance cannot be decided at the time the 
incomplete vehicle leaves the incomplete vehicle manufacturer).
    When the IVD makes a Type 1 or Type 2 statement, there is ``pass-
through'' certification unless obviated by a subsequent manufacturer. 
The final-stage manufacturer can rely on the IVD to certify the vehicle 
to a particular standard.
    Multi-stage vehicle manufacturers sometimes ``alter'' a vehicle to 
the end-users' specifications. An altered vehicle is one that is 
completed and certified in accordance with the agency's regulations and 
then altered before the first retail sale of the vehicle, in such a 
manner as may affect the vehicle's compliance with one or more FMVSS or 
the validity of the vehicle's stated weight ratings or vehicle type 
classification. This definition does not include the addition, 
substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, such as 
mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or by minor finishing operations 
such as painting. The person which performs such operations on a 
completed vehicle is referred to as a vehicle ``alterer.'' An alterer 
must certify that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable 
FMVSS affected by the alteration.

C. 2005 and 2006 Final Rules on Certification of Vehicles Built in Two 
or More Stages

    On February 14, 2005, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (70 
FR 7414) a final rule amending four different parts of Title 49 to 
address various certification issues related to vehicles built in two 
or more stages and, to a lesser degree, to altered vehicles. Among 
other things, the rule allowed the use of pass-through certification so 
that it can be used not only for multi-stage vehicles based on chassis-
cabs, but also for those based on other types of incomplete vehicles.
    In the preamble to the February 2005 final rule, and in other 
documents in that rulemaking, NHTSA discussed the history of issues 
related to the certification of vehicles built in two or more stages, 
which have long been sources of contention within the affected industry 
and before the agency and the courts.
    Since 1977, NHTSA's regulations for certification of multi-stage 
vehicles have contained provisions for certification statements by 
chassis-cab manufacturers.\13\ In 1990, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in National Truck and Equipment 
Ass'n v. NHTSA, 919 F.2d 1148 (6th Cir. 1990), that the requirements of 
a particular FMVSS were impracticable for final-stage manufacturers 
using vehicles other than chassis-cabs for which the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer was not required to provide ``pass-through'' 
certification. That decision led to rulemaking that ultimately resulted 
in the February 2005 multi-stage certification final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 49 CFR 567.5 (1977 and 1978). See 42 FR 37814 (July 25, 
1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NTEA petitioned for reconsideration of the February 2005 multi-
stage certification final rule. NHTSA responded to that organization's 
petition in a final rule; response to petition for reconsideration 
published in the Federal Register (71 FR 28168) on May 15, 2006. While 
the agency made some changes in the February 2005 final rule in 
response to the petition, it denied the remainder of the petition for 
reconsideration that addressed issues regarding certification of multi-
stage vehicles and responsibility for recalls of multi-stage vehicles.
    In its petition for reconsideration of the February 2005 
certification final rule, NTEA challenged the regulatory scheme of 
certifying multi-stage vehicles.\14\ It claimed, among other things, 
that the provided IVDs are unworkable, insufficient, and that it is not 
possible for a final-stage manufacturer to comply with the agency's 
multi-stage certification regulations. Furthermore, NTEA argued that 
even if compliance were possible, it would be economically ruinous to 
NTEA's members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ We note that NTEA submitted its comments on NHTSA's notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to upgrade the roof crush resistance 
standard in November 2005. Those comments, which addressed a number 
of multi-stage issues, were thus submitted after the agency had 
published its February 2005 final rule on certification of multi-
stage vehicles but before NHTSA responded to NTEA's petition for 
reconsideration of the certification rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In denying most aspects of NTEA's petition for reconsideration, 
NHTSA provided specific and detailed responses to these and other 
relevant arguments. We explained that certification is important for 
safety and that the certification scheme is ``workable.''
    We stated that in recognition of the fact that incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers do not control work performed by final-stage 
manufacturers and can fairly anticipate only some things, but not 
everything done by final-stage manufacturers, the regulatory system of 
``pass-through'' certification is reasonable. The IVD provides the 
basis for the final-stage manufacturer's certification with enumerated 
FMVSS, on various conditions, including, for example, that the final-
stage manufacturer does not exceed the GVWR of the chassis or introduce 
modifications to the incomplete vehicle that interfere with compliance. 
As we explained, the IVD is a general document that accompanies the 
incomplete vehicle. IVDs are typically not limited to one application 
(one body or type of equipment), but contain limits and conditions in 
light of the nature and capacity of the chassis and potential problems 
resulting from completion of an incomplete vehicle. Final-stage 
manufacturers are informed, by the IVD, of components and systems that 
should not be altered, and, by following those instructions and other 
information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, they are able to 
certify.
    Overall, NTEA sought to remove the certification responsibility 
from final-stage manufacturers and impose much of that responsibility 
on incomplete vehicle manufacturers. NTEA's petition ignored the fact 
that incomplete vehicle

[[Page 17593]]

manufacturers do not control what final-stage manufacturers do with the 
incomplete vehicles.
    As we noted, a system of pass-through certification has existed for 
more than 25 years, and in that time many multi-stage vehicles have 
been built and certified by final-stage manufacturers. This fact alone 
indicates that the system is workable and operates as intended. 
Moreover, as we pointed out, the availability of multi-stage vehicles 
belies NTEA's position,\15\ and, contrary to that petitioner's 
position, market forces create business reasons for incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers to provide workable IVDs. We noted that NTEA's argument 
ignores the fact that the system is not broken--many types of multi-
stage vehicles are being manufactured and offered for sale, including 
those manufactured by NTEA members. These include ambulances, service 
trucks, small school buses, mid-size buses, tow trucks and vans.\16\ 
The fact that vehicles such as these are being made indicates that the 
IVDs are workable. We also noted that NTEA ignored the cooperative 
relationships between incomplete and final-stage manufacturers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 71 FR at 28176 (section titled ``The Availability of Multi-
stage Vehicles Belies NTEA's Position'') and at 28184-85 (section 
titled ``NHTSA's Market Forces Argument Is Justified and Consistent 
With the Multi-stage Vehicle Market'').
    \16\ See, e.g., http://www.ntea.com/mr/divisions.asp.
    \17\ We cited the example of General Motors' relationships with 
final-stage manufacturers it refers to as Special Vehicle 
Manufacturers. 71 FR at 28185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our May 2006 response to petitions, we explained that 
certification serves an important safety function in the multi-stage 
vehicle business. Many multi-stage vehicles carry people and important 
cargo--from schoolchildren on school buses to liquid fuel on propane 
and gasoline trucks. The safety need for certification of compliance 
with FMVSS in these types of vehicles is uncontroverted.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 71 FR at 28176; See also 71 FR at 28175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of responding to NTEA's claim in its petition to the 2005 
Rule that the existing IVD's are not workable, we carefully examined 
the certification statements included in an IVD that NTEA appended to 
its petition.\19\ The IVD was for the General Motors (GM) CK chassis-
cab. We analyzed certification statements for FMVSS Nos. 105, Hydraulic 
and Electric Brake Systems; 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; 204, 
Steering Control Rearward Displacement; 201, Occupant Protection in 
Interior Impact; 212, Windshield Mounting; 219, Windshield Zone 
Intrusion; 214, Side Impact Protection; 208, Occupant Crash Protection; 
216, Roof Crush Resistance; and 301, Fuel System Integrity. In each 
instance, we showed why the IVD was workable and why various 
limitations were reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 71 FR at 28177-28183 (section titled ``The Existing IVDs 
Are Workable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also explained that many resources are available to final-stage 
manufacturers.\20\ As a group, final-stage manufacturers do not operate 
in an informational vacuum. In addition to the IVDs, these resources 
include upfitter \21\ guides from incomplete vehicle manufacturers, 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer help lines, the final-stage 
manufacturers' own experience and judgment, and commercially available 
software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 71 FR 28183-28184 (section titled ``Additional Resources 
Available to Final-Stage Manufacturers'').
    \21\ Final-stage manufacturers are sometimes referred to as 
upfitters in the trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also explained that issues regarding impracticability should be 
decided in the context of rulemaking for each FMVSS.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 71 FR 28186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Multi-Stage Issues in the Rulemaking To Upgrade FMVSS No. 216

A. FMVSS No. 216 Prior to the Upgrade

    FMVSS No. 216 seeks to reduce deaths and serious injuries resulting 
from the roof of a vehicle being crushed and pushed into the occupant 
compartment when the roof strikes the ground during rollover crashes. 
Prior to the upgrade, the standard required that when a large steel 
test plate (sometimes referred to as a platen) is placed in contact 
with either side of the forward edge of the roof of a vehicle and then 
pressed downward, simulating contact of the roof with the ground during 
a rollover crash, with steadily increasing force until a force 
equivalent to 1.5 times the unloaded weight of the vehicle is reached, 
the distance that the test plate has moved from the point of contact 
must not exceed 127 mm (5 inches). The criterion of the test plate not 
being permitted to move more than a specified amount is sometimes 
referred to as the ``platen travel'' criterion. The application of 
force was limited to 22,240 Newtons (5,000 pounds) for passenger cars, 
even if the unloaded weight of the car times 1.5 is greater than that 
amount.
    Since 1991, this standard applied to passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 
kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less.\23\ Compliance with the final rule 
was required on September 1, 1994. Therefore, FMVSS No. 216 has applied 
to some multi-stage vehicles, e.g., certain small trucks and small 
recreation vehicles, since 1994.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 56 FR 15510.
    \24\ GM has sold an incomplete vehicle chassis-cab, the GMT-355, 
that has a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less and is 
therefore subject to FMVSS No. 216. This chassis-cab is based on the 
Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon. Final-stage manufacturers can certify 
completed vehicles by using the IVD for the GMT 355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Proposed Rule

1. NPRM and SNPRM in General
    On August 23, 2005, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (70 FR 
49223) a NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance.\25\ The 
NPRM reflected comments received in response to a Request for Comments 
(``RFC'') published in the Federal Register (66 FR 53376) on October 
22, 2001, and research and testing conducted prior to the publication 
of the RFC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To better address fatalities and injuries occurring in roof-
involved rollover crashes, we proposed to extend the application of the 
standard to vehicles with a GVWR of up to 4,536 kilograms (10,000 
pounds), and to strengthen the requirements of FMVSS No. 216 by 
mandating that the vehicle roof structures withstand a force equivalent 
to 2.5 times the unloaded vehicle weight (``SWR''), and to eliminate 
the 22,240 Newton (5,000 pound) force limit for passenger cars. We note 
that shortly before the NPRM was published, Congress enacted the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which included a specific requirement for us to 
upgrade FMVSS No. 216 relating to roof strength for driver and 
passenger sides for motor vehicles with a GVWR of not more than 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds).
    Further, in recognition of the fact that the pre-test distance 
between the interior surface of the roof and a given occupant's head 
varies from vehicle model to vehicle model, we proposed to regulate 
roof strength by requiring that the crush not exceed the available 
headroom. Under the proposal, this requirement would replace the 
current limit on platen travel.
    We also proposed to:
     Allow vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, other 
than chassis-cabs, to be certified to the roof crush requirements of 
FMVSS No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, instead of FMVSS No. 
216.
     Clarify the definition and scope of exclusion for 
convertibles.

[[Page 17594]]

     Revise the vehicle tie-down procedure to minimize 
variability in testing.
    On January 30, 2008, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (73 FR 
5484) a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) for our 
ongoing roof crush resistance rulemaking.\26\ In that document, we 
asked for public comment on a number of issues that might affect the 
content of the final rule, including possible variations in the 
proposed requirements. We also announced the release of the results of 
various vehicle tests conducted since the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Multi-Stage Issues
    In our August 2005 NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 216, we included a 
section titled ``Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.'' \27\ 
For vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, other than vehicles 
incorporating chassis-cabs, we proposed to give manufacturers the 
option of certifying to either the existing roof crush requirements of 
FMVSS No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, or the new roof crush 
requirements of FMVSS No. 216. FMVSS No. 220 uses a horizontal plate, 
instead of the angled plate of Standard No. 216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 70 FR 49234-49235.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing our proposal, we considered whether the proposed 
standard would be appropriate for the type of motor vehicle for which 
it would be prescribed. We stated that we believed it was appropriate 
to consider incomplete vehicles, other than those incorporating 
chassis-cabs, as a vehicle type subject to different regulatory 
requirements. We anticipated that final-stage manufacturers using 
chassis-cabs to produce multi-stage vehicles would be in position to 
take advantage of ``pass-through certification'' of chassis-cabs, and 
therefore did not believe the option of alternative compliance with 
FMVSS No. 220 was appropriate.
    We noted that while we believed that the requirements in FMVSS No. 
220 have been effective for school buses, we were concerned that they 
may not be as effective for other vehicle types. The FMVSS No. 216 test 
procedure results in roof deformations that are consistent with the 
observed crush patterns in the real world for light vehicles. Because 
of this, we explained that our preference would be to use the FMVSS No. 
216 test procedure for light vehicles. We believed, however, that this 
approach would fail to consider the practicability problems and special 
issues for multi-stage manufacturers.
    We stated that in these circumstances, we believed that the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 220 appeared to offer a reasonable avenue to 
balance the desire to respond to the needs of multi-stage manufacturers 
and the need to increase safety in rollover crashes. We noted that 
several states already require ``para-transit'' vans and other buses, 
which are typically manufactured in multiple stages, to comply with the 
roof crush requirements of FMVSS No. 220.\28\ We tentatively concluded 
that these state requirements show the burden on multi-stage 
manufacturers for evaluating roof strength in accordance with FMVSS No. 
220 is not unreasonable, and applying FMVSS No. 220 to these vehicles 
would ensure that there are some requirements for roof crush protection 
where none currently exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ These states include Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
Tennessee, Michigan, Utah, Alabama, and California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Public Comments

    We received comments concerning requirements for multi-stage and 
altered vehicles from Advocates for Highway Safety (``Advocates''), 
NTEA, National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) and 
Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA).
1. Overview of Comments on Multi-Stage Issues
    Advocates stated that it opposed permitting FMVSS No. 220 as an 
alternative for multi-stage vehicles. It claimed that FMVSS No. 220 is 
a ``weak'' standard whose effects on roof strength in actual rollover 
crashes are mostly unknown.
    NTEA recommended that all multi-stage vehicles be excluded from 
roof crush resistance requirements. It stated that manufacturers of 
non-chassis-cab vehicles will not be able to conduct the tests or 
perform engineering analysis to ensure conformance to FMVSS No. 220. 
NTEA also disagreed with the assumption that the presence of State 
requirements for FMVSS No. 220 compliance demonstrates that final-stage 
manufacturers can actually comply.
    NTEA also stated it is impractical for the agency to assume 
manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles built on chassis-cabs will be 
able to rely on IVDs to provide pass-through certification for 
compliance as it relates to roof strength. It argued that the final-
stage manufacturer would therefore be responsible for conducting costly 
analyses and testing to verify compliance with FMVSS No. 216.
    NMEDA expressed concern that the FMVSS No. 220 option would only be 
available for multi-stage vehicles. It asked that the FMVSS No. 220 
option be extended to raised or altered roof vehicles. To encompass the 
modifiers in the proposed upgrade to FMVSS No. 216, NMEDA asked that a 
vehicle roof that is altered after first retail sale be considered in 
compliance if it meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 216 or FMVSS No. 
220. NMEDA also stated that raising a roof increases the available 
headroom and that the roof therefore can crush more before there is any 
contact with an occupant's head. NMEDA requested the agency account for 
the additional headroom beyond the original vehicle's headroom in 
establishing any requirement.
    RVIA supported our proposal to permit FMVSS No. 220 as an option 
for small motor homes as this would allow manufacturers to address the 
unique issues concerning such specialized vehicles built in two or more 
stages.
2. Detailed Summary of NTEA Comments
    NTEA stated that NHTSA incorrectly assumes that final-stage 
manufacturers of vehicles built on chassis-cabs will be able to use 
pass-through certification as a means to comply with the rule. 
According to NTEA, NHTSA acknowledged certification problems faced by 
final-stage manufacturers with respect to safety standards that are 
based on the performance of a vehicle in a dynamic test. NTEA stated 
that in the preamble to the proposed rule to upgrade FMVSS No. 216, 
NHTSA made several references to the compliance difficulties and 
compliance issues faced by final-stage manufacturers, but without any 
explanation of the root cause of those problems. NTEA said the proposed 
standard is a dynamic test standard. NTEA stated that in the rulemaking 
revising certification regulations for multi-stage vehicles, NHTSA 
concluded that the cost of dynamic vehicle testing is a legitimate 
concern when relatively small numbers of similarly configured vehicles 
are produced by a small manufacturer. NTEA stated that the agency also 
noted that alternative means of compliance such as computer modeling 
are not appreciably more affordable for small volume manufacturing.
    According to NTEA, under these circumstances, no company could 
incur the costs of performing the tests described in the proposed rule 
(or in any other dynamic test standard). NTEA stated that the multi-
stage manufacturers, for the most part, do not produce any standard 
models. The

[[Page 17595]]

overwhelming majority of multi-stage vehicles are produced to end-user 
specifications on a custom-order basis reflecting specifications 
provided by the customer.
    NTEA argument that an FMVSS is not practicable if the only means of 
compliance offered in the Standard is the use of pass-through 
certification.
    NTEA argued that an FMVSS is not practicable if the only means of 
compliance offered in the Standard is the use of pass-through 
certification. It noted that the Vehicle Safety Act at 49 U.S.C. 
30111(a) states that each FMVSS must ``be practicable, meet the need 
for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms.'' NTEA 
cited the 1990 NTEA case, and stated that the Sixth Circuit ruled that 
``for a standard to be practicable, it must offer in the body of the 
standard, a means for all subject to the standard to prove 
compliance.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ NTEA comment to the NPRM at p. 5, quoting NTEA decision, 
919 F.2d at 1153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NTEA stated that NHTSA anticipates that final-stage manufacturers 
will be able to pass-through, and thereby rely on, the conformity 
statements provided by the chassis-cab manufacturers in IVDs. NTEA 
stated there is no requirement in NHTSA's regulations that compels an 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide the type of conformity 
statement as to any safety standard that would facilitate pass-through 
opportunities for the final-stage manufacturer. That organization said 
that the chassis-cab manufacturer has absolute discretion whether to 
provide a Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 statement.
    NTEA said that NHTSA apparently believes market forces will cause 
chassis-cab manufacturers to provide reasonable compliance envelopes 
when making conformity statements. NTEA cited the agency's multi-stage 
vehicle certification rulemaking, and the petition for reconsideration 
it submitted on the May 2005 final rule which, at that time, had not 
yet been responded to by NHTSA. NTEA claimed that it demonstrated 
through the submission of IVDs with its petition that NHTSA's market 
forces theory is not supported by the IVDs that are provided by major 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers. NTEA stated that those IVDs show that 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers routinely provide Type 1 and Type 2 
conformity statements that are so restrictive that they provide no 
opportunity whatsoever for pass-through certification.
    NTEA stated that if a chassis-cab manufacturer provides a Type 3 
conformity statement, there is nothing to pass-through to the final-
stage manufacturer. It stated that if the chassis-cab manufacturer 
provides a Type 1 conformity statement--i.e., one that states the 
vehicle will conform to the standard if no alterations are made to 
identified components in the vehicle--or if the manufacturer provides a 
Type 2 conformity statement--i.e., one that sets out specific 
conditions of final manufacture under which the vehicle would conform 
to the test--then the final-stage manufacturer's ability to rely on (or 
``pass-through'') the conformity statement depends entirely on whether 
the vehicle can be completed by the final-stage manufacturer within the 
parameters and limitations contained in the conformity statement. NTEA 
stated that if the parameters and limitations are reasonable, then 
there is some chance of pass-through, but if the parameters and 
limitations are unreasonable (or if the stated conditions of conformity 
are simply conservative as an engineering matter), pass-through will 
not be possible.
    NTEA also argued that incomplete vehicle manufacturers have strong 
incentive to provide very narrow compliance envelopes, given 
responsibilities set forth in the agency's certification regulation. 
NTEA cited 49 CFR 567.5 and stated that the certification regulations 
allocate to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer legal responsibility 
for all components incorporated by a final-stage manufacturer (other 
than defective components and systems) to the extent the vehicle is 
completed in accordance with the instructions contained in the IVD, 
while the regulations allocate to the final-stage manufacturer legal 
responsibility for any work done by the final-stage manufacturer to 
complete the vehicle that was not performed in accordance with 
instruction contained in the IVD.
    NTEA argued that in the context of pass-through certification, a 
conformity statement in an IVD is a zero-sum game. It said that if the 
final-stage manufacturer can complete the vehicle within the parameters 
and conditions of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's Type 1 or Type 
2 conformity statement, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer bears legal 
responsibility for compliance with the FMVSS in question; if the final-
stage manufacturer cannot complete the vehicle within the parameters of 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's Type 1 or Type 2 conformity 
statement, or if the incomplete vehicle manufacturer provides a Type 3 
conformity statement, the final-stage manufacturer bears legal 
responsibility for compliance with the subject FMVSS. NTEA stated that 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's control over the type and text of 
its conformity statements essentially gives it unfettered discretion to 
allocate to itself or to the final-stage manufacturer the legal 
responsibilities and liability for compliance with the safety standard, 
and its decision is not subject to review or challenge because the 
regulations do not require the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to be 
reasonable or to act in good faith in crafting its conformity 
statements. NTEA argued that this aspect of the certification scheme--
the ability of an interested private party to determine the legal 
liability of another party with respect to a safety standard--amounts 
to an impermissible delegation of NHTSA's statutory authority to a 
private party. It cited several cases.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See NTEA comment at p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NTEA argued that a safety standard cannot meet the statutory 
requirement that it be practicable if the sole, plausible means of 
compliance available to affected manufacturers is the use of pass-
through certification. It said that this is the case because that means 
of compliance depends entirely on the actions of private parties (i.e., 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers) that are free to provide Type 3 
statements as to any standard, and that are free to establish any 
parameters and conditions they wish, reasonable or unreasonable, in any 
Type 1 or Type 2 conformity statement. NTEA argued that the proposed 
rule thus fails to meet the requirement of the 1990 NTEA case that a 
standard offer in the body of the standard a means for all subject to 
the standard to prove compliance. NTEA cited its petition for 
reconsideration of the multi-stage vehicle certification rule, and 
claimed that it had demonstrated that incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
routinely provide Type 1 and Type 2 conformity statements with respect 
to dynamic test standards that are so restrictive as to effectively 
provide no pass-through opportunity whatsoever. NTEA argued that in the 
real world, i.e., the reality defined by the IVDs that chassis 
manufacturers provide with their products, pass-through certification 
is not a viable option for final-stage manufacturers.
    NTEA argument that the conformity statements in existing IVDs make 
clear that final-stage manufacturers are not likely to have pass-
through opportunities for the proposed rule.
    NTEA claimed that the inadequacy of pass-through certification as 
the sole, plausible means of demonstrating compliance to the proposed 
rule is plainly reflected in the IVDs that exist for chassis-cabs rated 
up to 2,722

[[Page 17596]]

kilograms (6,000 pounds) GVWR and for those rated 2,723 and 4,536 
kilograms (6,001--10,000 pounds) GVWR. That organization provided IVDs 
with conformity statements as examples of the restrictiveness of IVDs.
    NTEA stated that there is currently only one chassis-cab sold today 
that is rated 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less and is therefore 
subject to the existing FMVSS No. 216: the General Motors GMT-355 
chassis-cab. According to NTEA, all other currently available chassis-
cabs are rated above 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) GVWR and thus fall 
outside the purview of the existing standard.
    NTEA cited language from the IVD for the 2006 model year GMT-355, 
and attached a copy of the IVD to its comments. That organization 
claimed that the Type I conformity statement to FMVSS No. 216 included 
in that IVD would provide no pass-through opportunity whatsoever to a 
final-stage manufacturer. NTEA argued that it would be invalidated by 
any alteration that affected the function, physical, chemical, or 
mechanical properties of any component, assembly or system in the 
chassis-cab. NTEA stated that final-stage manufacturers at a minimum 
will install a truck body onto the GMT-355 chassis-cab. NTEA claimed 
that the simplest installation of a truck body likely weighing several 
hundred pounds, plus the means used by the final-stage manufacturer to 
mount that body (e.g., by drilling holes in to the frame of the 
chassis-cab and bolting the body to the frame) will affect the physical 
properties, for example, of the chassis frame and numerous other 
structural components of the chassis-cab.
    NTEA stated that GM includes an identical conformity statement for 
FMVSS No. 216 in its C/K fullsize pickup truck IVD. That organization 
stated that this also shows that GM is inclined to give a highly 
restrictive Type I statement. NTEA also stated that the IVDs provided 
by Ford for incomplete vehicles in the 2,723 and 4,536 kilograms (6,001 
to 10,000 pound) GVWR range provide highly restrictive conformity 
statements, and cited conformity statements for FMVSS Nos. 212, 219 and 
301.
    NTEA argument that it is impracticable for multi-stage vehicles 
built on non-chassis-cabs to be certified to the proposed rule or to 
FMVSS No. 220.
    NTEA argued that manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles built on 
non-chassis-cabs will be unable to confirm compliance of those vehicles 
either to the proposed rule or to FMVSS No. 220. It stated that those 
manufacturers will be unable to conduct the tests described in the 
proposed rule or to perform some alternative engineering analysis . 
NTEA argued that NHTSA's attempt to provide manufacturers with a 
reasonable certification option is well-intended, but misses the mark 
for several reasons.
    NTEA stated that, as NHTSA seems to recognize, pass-through 
certification is unlikely to be available to manufacturers of multi-
stage vehicles built on non-chassis-cabs, either for FMVSS No. 216 or 
for FMVSS No. 220, because those vehicles do not have completed cab 
compartments (which likely will cause the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers to provide Type 3 conformity statements or highly 
restrictive Type 1 or 2 conformity statements). NTEA stated that NHTSA 
proposed to permit manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles built on non-
chassis-cabs the option of certifying to FMVSS No. 220 instead of FMSS 
No. 216.
    First, according to NTEA, the only vehicles rated 10,000 pounds or 
less that are subject to FMVSS No. 220 are Type A school buses. NTEA 
stated that these vehicles are built primarily on the Ford E series 
cutaway chassis and the GM G-Van cutaway chassis. That organization 
stated that Ford and GM provide Type 3 conformity statements for these 
vehicle and that, accordingly, manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles 
completed on these non-chassis-cabs will have no opportunity to pass-
through the certification of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. NTEA 
attached copies of the IVDs for these vehicles to its comment.
    NTEA stated that as to all of the other models of non-chassis-cabs 
rated 10,000 pounds or less, there simply is no conformity statement 
provided with respect to FMVSS No. 220. That organization stated that 
this reflects the fact that none of these incomplete vehicles are used 
in the manufacturing of school buses.
    NTEA stated that NHTSA indicated in the preamble of the proposed 
rule that certain States require para-transit vans and other buses to 
comply with FMVSS No. 220 and that these State requirements show that 
the burden on multi-stage manufacturers for evaluating roof strength in 
accordance with FMVSS No. 220 is not unreasonable. NTEA stated that the 
existence of State requirements concerning compliance with a dynamic 
test standard is not good evidence that final-stage manufacturers in 
fact are able to confirm compliance of vehicles with that standard.
    NTEA also stated that to the extent school bus manufacturers or 
para-transit bus manufacturers are able to comply with FMVSS No. 220, 
that would merely reflect the particular circumstances regarding the 
manufacture of those vehicles, i.e., the production of relatively 
standardized models in relatively large production runs. NTEA stated 
that the fact that manufacturers in certain niche markets may be able 
to comply with FMVSS No. 220 does not change the fact that the typical 
final-stage manufacturer, which produces scores of vehicle 
configurations in small production runs, cannot demonstrate compliance 
with that dynamic testing standard through testing or engineering 
analysis.
    NTEA compliance cost estimates.
    NTEA stated that, in connection with its proposal, NHTSA presented 
extensive cost data which explain how much it would cost to 
structurally upgrade a vehicle in order to meet the new testing 
requirements, and then factored in increased vehicle weight and the 
effect on fuel costs. That organization stated that these costs are 
applied to populations of vehicle models each in the hundreds of 
thousands of vehicles.
    NTEA stated that NHTSA's cost estimates do not factor in the costs 
of compliance testing for multi-stage produced vehicles. That 
organization stated that its members are faced with at least 1,085 
identifiable vehicle configurations in the affected weight category 
that would require separate compliance testing. It stated that these 
vehicle configurations could be built by almost any of the 1,000 or 
more final-stage manufacturers in the U.S. NTEA stated that as each of 
these companies are competitors, there is no reason to believe that if 
one company actually tested one configuration that they would or could 
share that testing with another company. It also stated that no trade 
association or consortium could ever conduct over 1,000 compliance 
tests for the affected vehicle designs and then continue to test each 
year any of these configurations that are redesigned.
    NTEA cited cost estimates for conducting the FMVSS No. 216 test and 
a test based on FMVSS 220. It also stated that the test is a 
destructive test, and that while the vehicle could be repaired and sold 
as used, this would be unwise for liability reasons and the vehicle 
should be destroyed after the test. NTEA stated that there are few, if 
any, final-stage manufacturers that have the equipment or personnel to 
conduct such tests, and that they would need to outsource the testing. 
NTEA stated that to its knowledge there are only three companies in the 
country that regularly perform such tests for third parties, and

[[Page 17597]]

final-stage manufacturers would have to incur substantial costs to 
transport their vehicles long distances to have them tested. It also 
said that following the testing, the vehicles could not be sold as new 
and would need to be repaired even to be sold as used, resulting in 
additional costs to be absorbed by the final-stage manufacturer. NTEA 
stated that, given these costs, it would be impracticable for 
manufacturers to demonstrate compliance by performing tests.
    NTEA stated that NHTSA appeared to recognize that the cost of 
testing would be prohibitive for both vehicles built on chassis-cabs 
and those built on non-chassis-cabs, and that it would also be 
impracticable to demonstrate compliance by computer simulation or other 
engineering analysis. And, despite that recognition, NTEA stated that 
NHTSA proposed to apply the standard.
    Based on discussions with one of the companies that conduct FMVSS 
compliance tests, NTEA understands that the average cost of conducting 
the existing test in FMVSS No. 216 is approximately $3,600 per vehicle 
configuration. It stated that NHTSA estimates that tests to comply with 
the proposed regulation will cost approximately $5,000. NTEA stated 
that a total test cost of $5,000 plus a vehicle value loss of $15,000 
for 1,085 vehicle configurations results in testing costs of 
$21,700,000. It stated that this figure does not include design or 
structural costs for compliance or certain other costs.
    NTEA concluded this portion of its comment by stating that the cost 
benefit analysis prepared by NHTSA ignores more than 20 million dollars 
in compliance tests primarily placed on small businesses.
    NTEA conclusion.
    NTEA stated that, as demonstrated, final-stage manufacturers will 
face compliance burdens that are not reasonable under NHTSA's proposed 
rule, and that compliance with the proposed requirements in FMVSS No. 
216 will not be possible for final-stage manufacturers.
    That organization stated that while it applauded NHTSA's decision 
to propose an alternative to compliance with FMVSS No. 216, the option 
to comply with FMVSS No. 220 would not provide any relief to 
manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles built on non-chassis-cabs. It 
stated that, due to costs, those manufacturers will not be able to 
perform the dynamic tests set forth in the proposed rule or in FMSVS 
No. 220, nor conduct engineering analyses to simulate the performance 
of vehicles in those tests. It also stated that because manufacturers 
of non-chassis-cabs do not have a completed occupant compartment, there 
will be no pass-through certification opportunities for multi-stage 
vehicles built on those chassis. NTEA argued that the option of 
certifying to FMVSS No. 220 is no option at all.
    NTEA stated that as the demonstration of compliance with neither 
FMVSS No. 220 nor the proposed FMVSS No. 216 requirements will be 
possible for most final-stage manufacturers building on chassis-cabs or 
non-chassis-cabs, it urged that all vehicles manufactured in two or 
more stages be excluded from the rule.

D. May 2009 Final Rule

1. The Final Rule in General
    As discussed earlier, on May 12, 2009, as part of a comprehensive 
plan for reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of 
death and serious injury in those crashes, NHTSA published in the 
Federal Register (74 FR 22348) a final rule substantially upgrading 
FMVSS No. 216. The upgraded standard is designated FMVSS No. 216a.
    First, for the vehicles currently subject to the standard, i.e., 
passenger cars and MPVs, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 
kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, the rule doubled the amount of force 
the vehicle's roof structure must withstand in the specified test, from 
1.5 times the vehicle's unloaded weight to 3.0 times the vehicle's 
unloaded weight.
    Second, the rule extended the applicability of the standard so that 
it will also apply to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms 
(6,000 pounds), but not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). 
The rule established a force requirement of 1.5 times the vehicle's 
unloaded weight for these newly included vehicles.
    Third, the rule required all of the above vehicles to meet the 
specified force requirements in a two-sided test, instead of a single-
sided test, i.e., the same vehicle must meet the force requirements 
when tested first on one side and then on the other side of the 
vehicle.
    Fourth, the rule established a new requirement for maintenance of 
headroom, i.e., survival space, during testing in addition to the 
existing limit on the amount of roof crush.
    The rule also included a number of special provisions, including 
ones related to leadtime, to address the needs of multi-stage 
manufacturers, alterers, and small volume manufacturers.
2. The Final Rule and Multi-Stage Issues
    In the May 2009 final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 216, we included a 
section in the preamble titled ``Requirements for Multi-Stage and 
Altered Vehicles.'' \31\ We included a summary of the comments 
concerning requirements for multi-stage and altered vehicles from NTEA, 
NMEDA, Advocates, and RVIA, and a response to those comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 74 FR at 22372-74. This section was part of a larger 
section titled ``Agency Decision and Response to Comments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addressing the issues raised by NTEA, we stated that, as a 
general matter, we believe that it is neither necessary nor would it be 
appropriate to exclude all multi-stage vehicles from roof crush 
resistance requirements. We explained that the purpose of FMVSS No. 216 
is to improve occupant safety in the event of a rollover. If a multi-
stage vehicle is involved in a rollover, the vehicle's roof strength 
will be an important factor in providing occupant protection. We stated 
that, therefore, while we seek to address the special needs and 
circumstances of multi-stage manufacturers, we declined to provide any 
blanket exclusion for all multi-stage vehicles. However, based on 
NTEA's comments, we did not extend FMVSS No. 216 to any trucks built on 
van cutaways or other types of incomplete vehicles without a completed 
roof structure, a difference from the NPRM.
    The upgraded FMVSS No. 216 rule does not apply to any vehicles with 
a GVWR greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), including multi-
stage vehicles. A good number of multi-stage vehicles, such as tow-
trucks, some airport shuttles, and customized farm trucks, have a GVWR 
greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). Also, as with the 
previous version of FMVSS No. 216, the standard does not apply to 
school buses, which have been covered by FMVSS No. 220.
    In the final rule, we then addressed the issues raised by NTEA and 
other commenters separately for the different types of multi-stage 
vehicles. The requirements that apply to multi-stage vehicles with a 
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less are dependent on the 
GVWR and type of vehicle, including whether the vehicle was built using 
a chassis-cab.
    Multi-stage vehicles built on chassis-cab incomplete vehicles.
    If a vehicle is built on a chassis-cab, and it has a GVWR of 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, it is required to meet the same 
FMVSS No. 216 requirements as single stage vehicles. Therefore, these 
vehicles must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 216a and

[[Page 17598]]

have a SWR of at least 3.0 if they have a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms 
(6,000 pounds) or less and a SWR of 1.5 if they have a GVWR above that 
level but not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds).
    As background, we explained that a chassis-cab is an incomplete 
vehicle, with a completed occupant compartment, that requires only the 
addition of cargo-carrying, work-performing, or load-bearing components 
to perform its intended functions. As such, chassis-cabs have intact 
roof designs. Chassis-cabs are based on vehicles that are sold as 
complete vehicles by larger manufacturers, e.g., medium and full size 
pickup trucks, so their roof structure will be designed to meet the 
upgraded requirements of FMVSS No. 216. A good example of a chassis-cab 
vehicle is a moving truck. The driver of a chassis-cab vehicle would 
need to exit the vehicle to access the contents in the rear of the 
vehicle.
    We stated that after considering the comments of NTEA, we believed 
that final-stage manufacturers can rely on the incomplete vehicle 
documents (IVD) for pass-through certification of compliance with FMVSS 
No. 216 for vehicles built using chassis-cabs. To do this, final-stage 
manufacturers will need to remain within specifications contained in 
the IVD. We stated that since the stringency of FMVSS No. 216 (SWR 
requirement) is dependent on a vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight, the 
final-stage manufacturer would need to remain within the specification 
for unloaded vehicle weight. If they did not, the roof would not likely 
have the strength to comply with FMVSS No. 216. We also explained that 
final-stage manufacturers will need to avoid changes to the vehicle 
that would affect roof strength adversely.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ We also noted that some changes made by final-stage 
manufacturers could affect the ability to conduct an FMVSS No. 216 
test, e.g., for a multi-stage truck, the addition of a cargo box 
structure higher than the occupant compartment could interfere with 
the placement of the FMVSS No. 216 test device. To address this 
concern, we included a specification in the final rule that such 
structures are removed prior to testing. (However, the structures 
are still counted as part of a vehicle's unloaded weight.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multi-stage trucks with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 
pounds) not built using a chassis-cab and not built using an incomplete 
vehicle with a full exterior van body.
    We explained that, based on the comments received, we had decided 
to exclude from FMVSS No. 216 multi-stage trucks with a GVWR greater 
than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) not built using a chassis cab and 
not built using an incomplete vehicle with a full exterior van body. 
This was a change from the NPRM. First, to be excluded, these multi-
stage vehicles must be a truck. A truck is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as 
being a ``motor vehicle with motive power * * * designed primarily for 
the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.'' Second, 
to be excluded, these multi-stage trucks cannot be built using a 
chassis-cab or using an incomplete vehicle with a full exterior van 
body. Both chassis-cabs and incomplete vehicles built on a full 
exterior van body contain a completed roof structure, but would need 
additions before a final-stage manufacturer could certify its 
compliance as a completed vehicle. Incomplete vehicles with full 
exterior van bodies could include a van that did not have any seats. An 
incomplete vehicle such as this could, for example, be completed as a 
truck (cargo van) by adding front seats and interior shelves and 
partitions. Such a vehicle would not be excluded from the standard.
    If a multi-stage truck within this weight range is not built on a 
chassis-cab or on a full exterior van body, then the vehicle is 
excluded from FMVSS No. 216 and the final-stage manufacturer would not 
need to certify compliance with the standard. Typically, these vehicles 
would be built on cutaways or on a stripped chassis. A cutaway chassis 
is a van cab design whose occupant compartment is not complete and ends 
immediately behind the driver and front passenger seat, i.e. there is 
no wall behind the front seats. A good example of this type of a multi-
stage truck is a parcel delivery vehicle. These specialized vehicles 
are typically built on van cutaways because the driver or passenger may 
need access to the contents in the rear of the vehicle. A stripped 
chassis is an incomplete vehicle that is less complete than a cutaway, 
and could be nothing more than a rolling chassis consisting of only the 
engine, transmission, and ladder-type frame.
    The agency excluded these vehicles in the final rule because there 
may be practicability problems. These incomplete vehicles will not have 
an intact roof. Because the strength of the roof may be dependent on 
the structure to be added by the final-stage manufacturer, the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer may not provide IVD or similar 
information that would permit pass-through certification. Moreover, the 
design of the completed truck may be such that it is not possible to 
test the vehicle to FMVSS No. 216 (due to interference with the FMVSS 
test device) or inappropriate for testing with FMVSS No. 220.

Multi-Stage Buses and MPVS Not Built on Chassis-Cabs

    For other multi-stage vehicles not built on chassis-cabs, we stated 
that we continued to believe, for the reasons discussed in the NPRM, 
that permitting FMVSS No. 220 as an option is a reasonable way to 
balance the desire to respond to the needs of multi-stage manufacturers 
and the need to increase safety in rollover crashes. These vehicles 
would be classified as a bus or MPV. Under 49 CFR 571.3, a bus is a 
motor vehicle ``* * * designed for carrying more than ten persons,'' 
and a MPV is defined as a motor vehicle ``* * * designed to carry ten 
passengers or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with 
special features for occasional off-road operation.'' These buses and 
MPVs are built commonly using a van cutaway and would include, e.g., 
transit shuttle vehicles, ambulances, mobility vehicles and recreation 
vehicles. The FMVSS No. 220 test uses a single, horizontal platen and 
requires a SWR of 1.5.
    In responding to Advocates' comment arguing against permitting 
FMVSS No. 220 as an alternative for multi-stage vehicles because it 
believes that FMVSS No. 220 is not sufficiently stringent, we noted 
that the organization did not provide analysis or data addressing the 
special circumstances faced by multi-stage manufacturers, or explain 
why it believed these manufacturers could certify compliance of their 
vehicles to FMVSS No. 216. We stated, therefore, that the commenter had 
not provided a basis for us to take a different position than we had 
taken in the NPRM. We stated that, as we had discussed in the NPRM, we 
believed the requirements in FMVSS No. 220 have been effective for 
school buses, but we are concerned that they may not be as effective 
for other vehicle types. We explained that our preference would be to 
use the FMVSS No. 216 test procedure for light vehicles, but that this 
approach would fail to consider the practicability problems and special 
issues for multi-stage manufacturers.
    We noted that RVIA supported our proposal permitting testing to the 
FMVSS No. 220 standard, and that some of the vehicles in this category 
are already required to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 220 as a 
result of State regulations.

[[Page 17599]]

Multi-Stage Vehicles and Complete Vehicles With a GVWR Greater Than 
2,722 Kilograms (6,000 Pounds) Which Have Been Changed by Raising Their 
Original Roof

    In the May 2009 final rule preamble, we stated that, in response to 
the comments of NMEDA, we agreed that the FMVSS No. 220 option should 
be available to multi-stage and complete vehicles with a GVWR greater 
than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) which have been changed by raising 
their original roof.
    We stated that we believed that practicability issues arise for 
vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) whose 
roofs are raised. We also stated that we believe that the FMVSS No. 220 
option is appropriate for the ``para-transit'' vans and buses. We 
stated that the FMVSS No. 220 option will help ensure that these 
occupants are afforded a level of protection that is currently not 
required. We stated that we were not providing this option to vehicles 
with raised roofs and a GVWR of less than or equal to 2,722 kilograms 
(6,000 pounds).
    We stated that we believed that the practicability issues for 
vehicle alterers which raise roofs on the vehicles at issue are 
comparable to those of final-stage manufacturers. An alterer may raise 
a roof on a vehicle that was originally certified to FMVSS No. 216. We 
also stated that we believe that permitting alterers which raise roofs 
on these vehicles the option of certifying to FMVSS No. 220 balances 
potential practicability issues with the need to increase safety in 
rollovers.

Multi-Stage Vehicles With a GVWR of 2,722 Kilograms (6,000 Pounds) or 
Less

    If a multi-stage vehicle has a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 
pounds) or less, it previously was subject to FMVSS No. 216. If these 
vehicles are built using a chassis-cab, they must comply with the 
upgraded roof crush resistance standard, including the 3.0 SWR 
requirement. For these vehicles that are not built on a chassis-cab, 
the final-stage manufacturer has the option of meeting either the 
upgraded roof crush resistance standard in FMVSS No. 216a, or can meet 
the standard in FMVSS No. 220 (1.5 SWR). As previously discussed, that 
test uses a single, horizontal platen.

V. Further Response to Comments Regarding Multi-Stage Vehicles

    As a general matter, NTEA's comments on the agency's proposal to 
upgrade FMVSS No. 216 centered on two premises: (1) NHTSA's assumption 
that pass-through certification is available is invalid as evidenced by 
present IVDs; and (2) because NHTSA's pass-through certification scheme 
is invalid, NHTSA's analysis of the rule's impact and costs are flawed. 
The end result, according to NTEA, is that NHTSA's regulation on roof 
crush is impracticable for multi-stage vehicles, and, therefore, 
NHTSA's roof crush regulations should not include any requirements for 
multi-stage vehicles.
    To get to NTEA's conclusion--FMVSS No. 216 should not apply to 
multi-stage vehicles--one has to believe that the certification scheme 
for multi-stage vehicles, which has been in place for several decades, 
is unworkable and invalid, at least as applied to FMVSS No. 216. NTEA 
has been making this argument in various contexts for over 25 
years.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 71 FR 28169-28171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, NTEA makes the argument that pass-through certification 
is an impermissible delegation of NHTSA's statutory authority to a 
private party. Specific to FMVSS No. 216, NTEA believes NHTSA 
incorrectly assumes that pass-through certification will be available. 
NTEA argues that current IVDs prepared by incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers for FMVSS No. 216 and other standards are so restrictive 
that a final-stage manufacturer would violate the IVD by making a 
simple installation.
    If that is so, NTEA argues, the final-stage manufacturers would be 
left to conduct their own testing to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 
216. According to that organization, neither the two-sided platen test 
in FMVSS No. 216 nor the horizontal platen school bus test in FMVSS No. 
220 is workable. Testing to either standard is, in NTEA's estimation, 
too burdensome and costly. According to NTEA, because NHTSA incorrectly 
assumes that pass-through certifications will be available, the 
agency's analysis of the costs of the rule is incorrect, and the rule 
is overly burdensome as to final-stage manufacturers.
    For the reasons discussed below, NHTSA rejects NTEA's arguments and 
their conclusions.

A. Introduction

    While NTEA has repeatedly claimed that the present certification 
scheme for multi-stage vehicles is invalid and unworkable, the 
availability of multi-stage vehicles belies that claim. There are many 
multi-stage vehicles on the road that have been certified to a number 
of standards, and the final-stage manufacturers are still in business. 
There are large numbers of multi-stage vehicles, such as school buses, 
box trucks, tanker trucks, work trucks, flatbed and stake trucks, tow 
trucks, dump trucks, and gasoline tank trucks on the road.
    Moreover, final-stage manufacturers have certified multi-stage 
vehicles with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less to the 
current version of FMVSS No. 216. As noted earlier, FMVSS No. 216 was 
extended to trucks, buses, and MPVs with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms 
(6,000 pounds) or less in a final rule published in 1991. This is a 
relatively low gross vehicle weight rating for commercial vehicles, 
which results in limited offerings. But, significantly, General Motors 
(GM) has sold an incomplete vehicle chassis-cab, the GMT-355, that has 
a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less and is therefore 
subject to FMVSS No. 216. GM would not have offered the vehicle for 
years if there was not a market for them, as completed by final-stage 
manufacturers.
    We note that under the May 2009 final rule, FMVSS No. 216 will not 
be applicable to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kilograms 
(10,000 pounds). Incomplete vehicle manufacturers will not need to 
provide an IVD regarding FMVSS No. 216 for these heavier vehicles. In 
our estimation, the largest number of multi-stage vehicles are in this 
category.
    In addition, final-stage manufacturers are currently certifying the 
compliance of their vehicles with a number of complex safety standards 
that include crash testing as part of the agency's compliance tests. 
These include, for example, FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection, 
FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (frontal air bag technology), 
and FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. These manufacturers 
ordinarily rely on the IVD in making these certifications.
    NTEA's comments further contemplate no assistance from the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer. However, NHTSA has seen the converse 
to be true--there are IVDs, upfitter guides, best practices manuals and 
help lines provided by incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Final-stage 
manufacturers also have their own technical expertise and engineering 
judgment, and commercially available computer aided engineering 
software.
    Final-stage manufacturers can use their judgment, including 
engineering or technical judgment, to certify vehicles. Testing, as 
provided in the FMVSS, is not required as a matter of law to certify

[[Page 17600]]

a vehicle.\34\ Instead, sound judgment may be used. Many final-stage 
manufacturers bring considerable judgment to bear. They have been 
building and certifying vehicles for years. Final-stage manufacturers 
can and do use their base of experience in certifying vehicles as 
complying with the FMVSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ This has been recognized in interpretations by NHTSA's 
Chief Counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, NHTSA provided substantial leadtime. The rule becomes 
effective for multi-stage vehicles with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms 
(6,000 pounds) or less, i.e., the vehicles already covered by FMVSS No. 
216, on September 1, 2016, and for the other multi-stage vehicles with 
a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less on September 1, 2017. 
These dates are one year after the requirements are fully effective for 
single stage vehicles.

B. The Current Certification Scheme Is Not an Unlawful Delegation of 
Agency Authority

    NTEA argued that under the current certification scheme the ability 
of an interested private party to determine the legal responsibility of 
another party with respect to a safety standard, which it contends is 
the result of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer creating the IVD, 
amounts to an impermissible delegation of NHTSA's statutory authority 
to a private party.
    NTEA made the same argument in its petition for reconsideration of 
the certification rule, and the agency addressed it in its May 2006 
response to that petition.\35\ As we explained in that response, NTEA 
relied on a case involving an unlawful delegation of an agency's 
authority to a private entity.\36\ However, NTEA ignored the holding in 
that case, that the relevant inquiry on a private delegation issue is 
to assess Congressional intent, based on the pertinent statute(s) and 
its legislative history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 71 FR at 28186-87.
    \36\ Nat'l Park and Conservation Ass'n v. Stanton, 54 F.Supp. 2d 
7 (D.D.C. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress imposed the responsibility to 
certify compliance on manufacturers and distributors.\37\ The Safety 
Act created a self-certification scheme. Under this statutory 
framework, the agency promulgates the FMVSSs, and it is then the 
manufacturer's or distributor's responsibility to comply with these 
standards and to furnish a certification to the distributor or dealer 
that the vehicle or equipment conforms to all applicable FMVSSs. The 
statute, as originally enacted, did not provide for agency review and 
approval of the manufacturer's certification or for agency allocation 
of responsibility of certification in the multi-stage vehicle context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Section 114 of the Act, Public Law 89-563, 80 Stat. 726 
(recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30115).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's regulations do not provide for the agency to allocate 
certification responsibility between incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
and final-stage manufacturers.
    In 2000, Congress enacted the Transportation Recall Enhancement, 
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act.\38\ Section 9 of the Act 
amended 49 U.S.C. 30115 to address certification labels.\39\ In 
general, the amendments required an intermediate or final-stage 
manufacturer to certify with respect to each FMVSS either that it has 
followed the compliance documents provided by the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer or that it has chosen to assume responsibility for 
compliance with that standard.\40\ The amendments further provided that 
if an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer assumes responsibility 
for compliance with a standard covered by the documentation, it must 
notify the incomplete vehicle manufacturer within a reasonable 
time.\41\ Significantly, the TREAD Act amendments did not alter the 
regulatory approach in 49 CFR 567.5 and 49 CFR part 568. They did not 
require NHTSA to allocate certification responsibilities between the 
various manufacturers in the chain of production of multi-stage 
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Public Law 106-414.
    \39\ 114 Stat. 1805.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast to this regulatory approach, Congress has enacted other 
regulatory schemes that require agency review and approval of 
manufacturers' certifications. For example, the Clean Air Act requires 
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to test 
or require testing of motor vehicles or engines to determine whether 
they comply with the emissions requirements and, if they conform, to 
issue a certificate of conformity.\42\ In that context, EPA has a 
significant administrative role. In contrast, in the Vehicle Safety 
Act, Congress did not provide for agency review or approval of a 
manufacturer's certification before first sale. Moreover, the TREAD Act 
amendments specifically addressed certification in the multi-stage 
vehicle context and did not assign the agency an arbiter role in the 
certification process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 42 U.S.C. 7525(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the foregoing, NHTSA does not accept NTEA's argument 
that the certification scheme in NHTSA's regulations delegates too much 
power to a private entity.

C. Current IVDs Concerning FMVSS No. 216 Are Workable

    NTEA submitted with its comment relevant portions of the IVDs with 
Type 1 conformity statements for the General Motors 2006 GMT-355 
incomplete truck and also the IVD for the GM 2006 C/K full size 
incomplete truck.\43\ NTEA attached these documents to demonstrate that 
the simplest installation of a truck body likely weighing several 
hundred pounds, plus the means used by the final-stage manufacturer to 
mount that body (e.g., by drilling holes into the frame of the chassis-
cab and bolting the body to the frame) will affect the physical 
properties, e.g., of the chassis frame and numerous other structural 
components of the chassis-cab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ NTEA stated that GM included an identical conformity 
statement for FMVSS No. 216 in its IVD for the GM 2006 C/K full size 
incomplete truck, although, to NTEA's knowledge, GM did not produce 
a C/K chassis rated 6,000 pounds GVW or below. FMVSS No. 216 would 
have applied to the vehicle only if it were rated with a GVWR of 
2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GM's IVD allows for additions to the chassis-cab. The GMT-355's IVD 
states that the incomplete vehicle will comply with FMVSS No. 216 
``providing no alterations are made which affect the function, 
physical, chemical, or mechanical properties, environment, location, or 
vital spatial clearances of the components, assemblies or systems 
including but not limited to those listed below: antennae; body roof 
structure or components/reinforcements; body sheet metal/
reinforcements; body structural components/reinforcements; front rear 
and side glazing materials and mounting; structural components and door 
assemblies; windshield wipers; and windshield wiper motor.''
    NTEA read the IVD and claimed that adding a box to a chassis-cab 
frame would affect the physical, chemical, or mechanical properties of 
the body's structural components/reinforcements. Based on this 
statement, NTEA concluded that pass-through certification is not 
available. NHTSA disagrees.
    Before turning to the specifics, we note that NTEA characterized 
the FMVSS No. 216 test as a dynamic test. As a technical matter, the 
test is considered a quasi-static test rather than a dynamic test. In a 
quasi-static test, the conditions vary slowly enough so that

[[Page 17601]]

the dynamic effects are negligible.\44\ In developing our proposal to 
upgrade FMVSS No. 216, we considered potential dynamic tests, e.g., the 
Jordan Rollover System test and the Controlled Rollover Impact System 
test, but decided to focus on the quasi-static test procedure. This was 
an issue that was addressed in detail in the rulemaking. The quasi-
static test in this standard does, however, have some dynamic 
characteristics.\45\ In any event, potential compliance difficulties 
relate to the specific details of a test and relevant requirements 
based on that test rather than whether the test is called quasi-static 
or dynamic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ That is the case with the lowering of the FMVSS No. 216 
test device. In the FMVSS No. 216 test procedure, a test device 
applies a force, based on the vehicle's unloaded weight, to the 
vehicle's roof. The lower surface of the test device must not move 
more than the specified distance. The May 2009 final rule maintained 
the fundamental nature of the test.
    \45\ We believe the quasi-static test has sufficient dynamic 
characteristics that we would consider the new procedures adopted by 
the agency in the 2005 and 2006 certification rules for applying for 
temporary exemptions to be available for FMVSS No. 216, although we 
are not aware of any specific situations in which they would be 
needed. In those rules, NHTSA amended its regulations to establish a 
new process under which intermediate and final-stage manufacturers 
and alterers can obtain temporary exemptions from dynamic 
performance requirements of certain standards. While the 2005 rule 
limited this process to dynamic crash test requirements, in response 
to NTEA's petition, the agency expanded the scope of the 
availability of the new procedures in the 2006 rule so that 
manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles can petition the agency for a 
temporary exemption from requirements that incorporate various 
dynamic tests generally, and not exclusively dynamic crash tests. 
NHTSA explained that a dynamic test is one that requires application 
of forces or energy to the vehicle and the FMVSS include a variety 
of dynamic tests in addition to those involving crash tests. The 
agency noted that in some circumstances, there may be considerable 
costs associated with dynamic tests other than dynamic crash tests, 
and there may be significant damage to vehicles from such tests. 
Given the broad language used in characterizing dynamic tests, we 
would consider the procedures to be available for the quasi-static 
test specified by FMVSS No. 216. The test does require application 
of forces or energy to the vehicle and may result in significant 
damage to the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We now turn to the GMT-355 incomplete vehicle. This incomplete 
vehicle is classified as a body-on-frame, as distinguished from unibody 
construction used in making passenger cars, which generally do not have 
frames. The cab is attached to the frame. Roof strength is dependent on 
structural members of the vehicle's largely vertical pillars, including 
the A pillar (between the windshield and the front of the front door) 
and the B pillar (behind the front door), and the roof itself.
    In completing an incomplete GMT-355, the final-stage manufacturer 
adds a unit behind the cab. That unit or truck body is attached to the 
frame. Commonly, the attached unit is a box of some form that goods or 
materials can be carried in. The attached unit does not attach to the 
cab. Pass-through certification is readily available for this vehicle. 
The conformity statement in the IVD is written to allow modifications 
to the incomplete vehicle, but not to the components that affect the 
vehicle's roof strength.
    While pass-through certification is not provided if vehicle 
components related to roof strength are modified, NTEA has not provided 
an example where the addition of a truck body would modify the 
structural members of the A- and B- pillars, and NHTSA is unaware of 
one. NTEA did not provide other examples where roof modifications would 
be necessary. In the example of mounting a box to the frame, there 
would be no modifications to the roof.

D. Final-Stage Manufacturers Can Certify Their Vehicles Built on 
Chassis-cabs as Being Compliant With FMVSS No. 216a

    FMVSS No. 216 has applied to multi-stage vehicles with a GVWR of 
2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less since the early 1990s. Despite 
NTEA's articulated problems with the GMT-355 IVD, final-stage 
manufacturers undoubtedly have made additions to this incomplete 
vehicle and certified it compliant. Otherwise, GM would not have 
offered it for sale for years.
    There are a number of resources available for final-stage 
manufacturers. Many of these were mentioned in the 2006 response to 
NTEA's petition.\46\ These resources are still available. For example, 
General Motors has relationships with final-stage manufacturers, which 
it refers to as ``Special Vehicle Manufacturers,'' or SVMs. According 
to GM Upfitters' Best Practices Manual, ``[t]he success of the Upfitter 
Integration group depends on an atmosphere of communication, 
cooperation and trust between SVMs and GM. SVMs would therefore be 
expected to use the Upfitter Integration resources available to them 
(i.e., telephone hotline, quality surveys, guideline manuals and 
Upfitter Integration engineering expertise). SVMs are expected to have 
documented processes which are understood and accepted by all.'' (p. 
4).\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 71 FR 28185
    \47\ http://www.gmupfitter.com/publicat/Best_Practices.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the GM Upfitters' Best Practices Manual, NTEA reviews 
and recommends Body-Mounting Practices in the GM Upfitters' Best 
Practices Manual that identifies industry recognized processes and 
procedures. NTEA has a ``Body Practices Subcommittee'' that reviewed 
the mounting methods of several chassis manufacturers. NTEA approved 
four general mounting types. All mount to the frame and are permissible 
under the IVD for the GMT-355. None of the mounting methods involve 
attachments to the A- and B-pillars.
    A final-stage manufacturer is not limited to the IVD. If a final-
stage manufacturer wanted to make modifications beyond the IVD, it 
could still use the IVD as a starting point and then utilize technical 
judgment. This is different from a vehicle built on a stripped chassis 
where the final-stage manufacturer would be designing the complete 
occupant compartment structure. The final-stage manufacturer is 
beginning with a vehicle with a completed occupant compartment 
structure, including the roof, that it knows already meets FMVSS No. 
216, and can use judgment to ensure that the modifications it makes 
will not weaken the roof. As such, a final-stage manufacturer could 
complete the vehicle and certify it.
    In the case of chassis-cabs, for example, data are available on the 
strength of the roofs. Chassis-cabs have intact roof designs and for 
the most part are the same as vehicles that are sold as complete 
vehicles, such as large pickup trucks. The roof structures of those 
trucks will be designed to meet the upgraded requirements of FMVSS No. 
216. NHTSA tests vehicles, including pickup trucks, to FMVSS No. 216 
and makes the data available.\48\ Final-stage manufacturers can readily 
refer to these data for certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ For example, there are data available on NHTSA's testing of 
pickup trucks. NHTSA's testing of completed trucks under 6,000 lbs 
shows the following: (a) MY 2007 Chevy Colorado, GVWR = 4850 lbs, 
SWR 2.18 (Test 560), (b) MY 2007 Toyota Tacoma, GVWR = 5250 lbs, SWR 
3.29, (Test 566), (c) MY 2007 Toyota Tacoma, GVWR = 4550 lbs, SWR 
4.4 (Test 530).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NTEA also argued that Ford provided guidance for 10 safety 
standards in its 2006 Pickup Box Removal/Alterations Design 
Recommendations for the pick-up box removal for the Ford Ranger, but 
not for FMVSS No. 216 (p. 8 of NTEA's comments, footnote 4). It said 
that, therefore, in the alterer context, the alterer is on its own as 
to the roof crush resistance standard. We note that Ford's 2006 Pickup 
Box Removal/Alterations Design Recommendations do not involve 
incomplete vehicles. The Ranger is not sold as an incomplete vehicle. 
Ford's recommendations are for

[[Page 17602]]

alterers \49\ that remove a pick-up box from a completed vehicle. Ford 
has already certified that vehicle. The document cited in NTEA's 
comment is guidance and is not required under 49 CFR 567.7 for 
certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ An alterer ``means a person who alters by addition, 
substitution, or removal of components (other than readily 
attachable components) a certified vehicle before the first purchase 
of the vehicle other than for resale.'' 49 CFR 567.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, we have reviewed the Ford document in question and 
believe that NTEA has not shown a real problem for alterers. For pickup 
trucks such as the Ranger, the passenger compartment is completely 
separate from the cargo box. Each is separately secured to a common 
frame. For this reason, simply replacing the pickup box with an 
aftermarket body would not affect the strength of the roof.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The weight of the aftermarket body could affect the 
unloaded weight of the vehicle and, therefore, the amount of force 
the vehicle would need to withstand in a FMVSS No. 216 test. If 
replacing the pickup box with an aftermarket body resulted in 
greater unloaded vehicle weight, the alterer could consult with the 
manufacturer about implications for FMVSS No. 216 compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the FMVSS No. 216a test procedure adopted in the 2009 final 
rule, the body of the vehicle is securely mounted. In the case of a 
body-on-frame pickup truck, the occupant compartment cab would be 
rigidly mounted such that only the roof strength of the occupant 
compartment of the vehicle is tested. In support of the final rule, the 
agency tested a number of pickup trucks in one- and two-sided test 
configurations.\51\ In addition, the agency also tested an incomplete 
2008 Ford F-250 (NHTSA Test No. 571) \52\ chassis-cab pickup. The F-250 
was delivered and tested without a cargo bed. From our testing, the 
presence of the cargo box did not have any impact on the strength of 
the roof.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 74 FR 22391, Appendix B and C.
    \52\ Test reports available at http:// www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/
database/aspx/comdb/querytesttable.aspx.
    \53\ The F-250 chassis-cab's roof resisted a maximum force of 
just over 54,000 N when the first side of the roof was tested. In a 
test conducted with a 2003 Ford F-250 with the cargo bed attached, 
the roof resisted over 44,000 N on the first side. The difference in 
peak strength of the roof is attributed to the vehicles being 
different body styles for different model year vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NTEA also stated that for the 2004 model year, Ford produced the 
Freestar/Monterey van as an incomplete vehicle to be used in the 
manufacturer of mobility vehicles. It stated that these vehicles had a 
GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, and were thus subject 
to FMVSS No. 216. NTEA stated that for reasons that are unclear, Ford 
did not provide a conformity statement for FMVSS No. 216 in the IVD for 
this vehicle. NTEA stated that this is a situation where the final-
stage manufacturer would have no pass-through certification 
opportunity. NHTSA notes that the Freestar/Monterey vans have not been 
produced for years and NTEA did not demonstrate that the issue is 
likely to recur with newer models. We note, however that Ford has a 
mobility vehicle program, for transporting handicapped people, and NTEA 
has not demonstrated that there are any problems with respect to 
availability or certification of mobility vehicles. We also note that 
NMEDA did not cite any such difficulties. In addition, Ford has 
programs to assist mobility manufacturers.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See https://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/ non-html/qpg/
2004/mobilityguidelines04.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 216 is not, of course, currently applicable to vehicles 
with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds). For that 
reason, the IVDs for chassis-cabs currently used for these heavier 
vehicles do not and cannot be expected to address FMVSS No. 216. 
However, as the upgraded standard will apply to these vehicles, 
manufacturers will address it in the future.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 49 CFR 568.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. In General, IVDs Are Workable

    NTEA claimed that IVDs containing conformity statements for 
standards other than FMVSS No. 216 are overly restrictive. It cited the 
conformity statements provided by GM for the C/K fullsize pickup truck 
IVD. It also cited the IVD provided by Ford for the E-series incomplete 
vehicle with respect to FMVSS Nos. 212, 219 and 301. NTEA stated that 
the conformity statements are based on the performance of the vehicle 
in the dynamic tests in those standards.
    As noted earlier, in our May 2006 response to NTEA's petition for 
reconsideration of the certification rule, we addressed in detail 
NTEA's arguments in connection with the certification statements in the 
GM IVD that NTEA identified as inadequate. In each case, the agency's 
findings supported the conclusion that the existing IVDs are workable. 
Moreover, we demonstrated that the current multi-stage certification is 
workable and pointed out the errors in NTEA's arguments. Among other 
things, we noted that NTEA's petition did not identify any final-stage 
manufacturer that has been unable to certify a vehicle under the 
existing framework. Since this rulemaking is about FMVSS No. 216, and 
given the above discussion, there is no need to address other 
standards.
    The final rule becomes effective for multi-stage vehicles with a 
GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, i.e., the vehicles 
already covered by FMVSS No. 216, on September 1, 2016, and to the 
other multi-stage vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 
pounds) or less on September 1, 2017. These dates are one year after 
the requirements are fully effective for single stage vehicles. This is 
a seven-year leadtime for vehicles currently subject to the standard, 
and an eight-year leadtime for the vehicles newly subject to the 
standard. NHTSA anticipates that this leadtime will be ample for 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers and final-stage manufacturers to work 
out any issues.

F. NHTSA Provided a Testing Alternative, FMVSS No. 220

    NTEA commented that final-stage manufacturers of vehicles built on 
incomplete vehicles other than chassis-cabs (cutaways, chassis 
cowls,\56\ or stripped chassis) cannot rely on pass-through 
certification or perform the tests in FMVSS Nos. 216 or 220. It did not 
agree with statements in the NPRM that the existence of State 
operational requirements for para-transit vans and other buses to 
comply with FMVSS No. 220 is good evidence that final-stage 
manufacturers in fact are able to comply with that standard. It also 
said that the fact that final-stage manufacturers are able to comply 
with FMVSS No. 220 for some vehicles merely reflects the particular 
manufacturing of that vehicle, and the fact that certain niche markets 
can comply with FMVSS No. 220 does not translate to final-stage 
manufacturers that produce scores of vehicles in small production runs. 
NTEA thus advocated a lowest common denominator approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ An incomplete vehicle which is similar to a stripped 
chassis but includes a portion of the body bounded by the front 
fenders, hood and base of the windshield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA sees no reason to exclude all multi-stage vehicles from the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 216. We do recognize, unlike vehicles derived 
from chassis-cabs, there will not be an opportunity for a pass-through 
certification of FMVSS No. 216 for vehicles without intact roofs such 
as cutaways and stripped chassis. In light of this, in the 2009 final 
rule, for multi-stage trucks, NHTSA decided not to extend the coverage 
of the upgraded FMVSS No. 216 as proposed in the NPRM. Multi-stage 
trucks not built on a chassis-cab or a full exterior van body with a 
GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) are not covered. This 
is discussed below.

[[Page 17603]]

    Multi-stage trucks with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or 
less have already been subject to FMVSS No. 216, and no practicability 
issues have been identified. While there are differences between the 
existing requirements and those of the upgraded standard, the basic 
nature of the FMVSS No. 216 test is the same, i.e., a quasi-static test 
that applies a force to the roof. Moreover, the FMVSS No. 220 option 
will also be available (other than for trucks built using chassis-
cabs). Given these considerations, we believe that these vehicles do 
not raise practicability concerns. We note that we are not aware of any 
incomplete cutaway vehicles with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 
pounds) or less.
    We decided not to extend the standard to multi-stage trucks with a 
GVWR above 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) not built on a chassis-cab or 
a full exterior van body. The incomplete vehicles for these excluded 
multi-stage trucks will not have an intact roof, and because the 
strength of the roof may be dependent on the structure to be added by 
the final-stage manufacturer in completing the truck, the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer may not provide for pass-through certification. 
Moreover, the FMVSS No. 220 test was designed for school buses and uses 
a horizontal plate over the driver and passenger compartment instead of 
the angled plate of Standard No. 216. This test may not be appropriate 
for trucks with certain roof configurations.
    For the remaining multi-stage vehicles other than trucks, we 
believe that the FMVSS No. 220 option is a reasonable way to balance 
the need to increase safety in rollover crashes of multi-stage vehicles 
and the capabilities of multi-stage manufacturers. Examples of vehicles 
in this category include Type II ambulances,\57\ small recreation 
vehicles, and shuttle vans with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms 
(6,000 pounds) but not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). 
Some of these vehicles involve vans with raised roofs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See the Federal Specification for the Star-of-Life 
Ambulance (KKK-A-1822F), as promulgated by the General Services 
Administration. http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_
DOCUMENT/ambulanc_1_R2FI5H_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, NTEA's argument, which appears to be largely in the context 
of work trucks, on relatively unique configurations and very limited 
production numbers, does not truly apply. There are companies that make 
ambulances, other companies that make small RVs, and others that make 
shuttle vans. These vehicles are generally made in larger production 
runs and/or with relatively standardized exterior structures. 
Therefore, there are significantly fewer issues related to special 
structural issues potentially affecting roof configuration and roof 
strength for multipurpose vehicles and buses than for trucks which may 
have more specialized and customized uses.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ On a related note, as to school buses, NTEA has recognized 
that these vehicles are produced in relatively large production runs 
of similarly configured vehicles, and that Ford and GM provide 
guidance. NTEA stated that it expressed no view as to the 
practicability of FMVSS No. 220 for currently affected 
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, these vehicles transport passengers, not property. While we 
are concerned about the safety of occupants in all kinds of vehicles, 
there is a greater safety concern about unnecessarily excluding 
passenger vehicles, such as 15-passenger vans and small shuttle buses 
from roof strength requirements, given the number of occupants.
    NTEA is correct that current IVDs do not provide a Type I or Type 
II statement regarding FMVSS No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection. 
The Type 3 statements for Ford and GM cutaway chassis used for school 
buses are reasonable given the fact that these incomplete vehicles do 
include occupant compartment structures. School bus manufacturers using 
these chassis provide their own occupant compartment structures, and 
have long certified their vehicles to FMVSS No. 220.
    As we noted in the NPRM, several states already require ``para-
transit'' vans and other buses, which are typically manufactured in 
multiple stages, to comply with the roof crush requirements of FMVSS 
No. 220. Moreover, the RVIA endorsed the agency's proposal. 
Recreational vehicles, including motorhomes, are used to transport 
passengers, not property, and are commonly built on stripped chassis. 
The RVIA stated that several thousand of the smallest motor homes 
produced each year would be subject to the proposed rule and that 
virtually all of the affected vehicles are manufactured in two or more 
stages. RVIA stated that NHTSA rightly acknowledged that the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 220 appear to offer a reasonable avenue to 
balance the desire to respond to the needs of multi-stage manufacturers 
and the need to increase safety in rollover crashes.
    While NTEA claimed that the cited State laws are not good evidence 
that final-stage manufacturers in fact are able to confirm compliance 
of vehicles with FMVSS No. 220, it did not provide reasons for us to 
doubt manufacturer claims that their vehicles meet these requirements. 
We also note that the Ambulance Manufacturers Association of NTEA 
adopted a standard, AMD Standard No. 001, with a test based on FMVSS 
No. 220. AMD Standard No. 001, Ambulance Body Structure Static Load 
Test, is issued by the Ambulance Manufacturers Association of NTEA. The 
purpose of that standard is to demonstrate the static strength of the 
patient compartment of an ambulance when subjected to a uniform load. 
NTEA stated that an ambulance manufacturer recently had three units 
tested at a cost of $40,000, i.e., an amount slightly over $13,000 
each. NTEA stated that ambulances are unlike most multi-stage vehicles 
in that most manufacturers produce a small number of models that 
require only limited alterations to meet specific customer needs and 
that, as a result, these testing costs, while still significant, can be 
allocated over multiple vehicle sales.
    A limited internet search reveals that many manufacturers, 
including alterers, advertise that various mobility, para-transit and 
other vehicles meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 220.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ In some cases, the manufacturer indicates that a vehicle is 
``certified'' to meet FMVSS No. 220. We note that unless an FMVSS 
applies to a vehicle, it cannot be certified to the FMVSS for 
purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example:
     National Van sells wheelchair vans/ambulettes with 
modified roofs that are said to be FMVSS No. 220 School Bus Rollover 
certified.\60\ These can be built on the Ford E-150 chassis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ http://www.nationalvans.com/models/wheelchair_vans.html 
(last accessed on January 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     New England Wheels sells a Municipal Transporter that has 
a 30 raised transporter roof with a FMVSS No. 220 certified 
roll cage. New England Wheels also sells a Ford E-250 Van with an 
18 Executive Raised Roof w/FMVSS 220 Certified Roll 
Cage.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ http://www.newenglandwheels.com/commercial-vans/municipal-
transporter.html (last accessed on January 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Accubilt sells a shuttle van with an 8,600 lbs GVWR that 
has an ``exclusive tubular steel roll cage (FMVSS certified).'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ http://www.accubuiltmobility.com/shuttle_specs.html (last 
accessed on January 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     MobilityWorks of Akron, Ohio advertises that ``[a]ll 
MobilityWorks vehicles meet or exceed the requirements set forth for 
vehicles of gross weight less than 10,000 lbs.'' for the FMVSS No. 220 
load test.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ http://www.mobilityworks.com/Commercial/Commercial-Van-
AboutUs.php (last accessed on January 17, 2010).

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

[[Page 17604]]

     Mid America Coach of Kansas City, MO, sells full-size 
wheelchair vans with a FMVSS No. 220 roll cage.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ http://www.midamericacoach.com/category/full-size-
wheelchair-vans (last accessed on January 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Safety Vans, LLC, of Hagerstown, MD, sells vans with 
reinforced roofs for which ``[r]oof load tests (FMVSS 220 compliant) 
demonstrate how the SafetyVan, under the weight of nearly 6 tons, is 
still capable of allowing access into and egress from the passenger 
area!'' \65\ According to the company, standard features for these vans 
include them being built on GM's Model CG 33706--Express/Savanna: Pass. 
Van Ext. 3500, 9,600 GVW.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ http://www.safetyvans.com/index.html (last accessed on 
January 17, 2010).
    \66\ http://www.safetyvans.com/specs.html (last accessed on 
January 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the agency conducted a FMVSS No. 220 roof strength 
test on a Roadtrek Class B MPV motorhome (Test No. 693) with a GVWR of 
3,901 kg (8,600 pounds). The motorhome was built on a General Motors 
incomplete vehicle van body where the multi-stage manufacturer added a 
raised fiberglass roof to the body. The results of the test showed the 
vehicle met the 1.5 SWR required under the standard within 130 mm 
(5.125 inches) of displacement of the load application plate. The test 
illustrated that it is practicable for multi-stage vehicles with a 
raised or altered roof and with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kg (6,000 
pounds) but less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), to conform to 
the requirements of FMVSS No. 220 as an option.

G. There Is Little Cost for Multi-Stage Manufacturers To Comply With 
FMVSS No. 216a

    NTEA commented that in proposing to upgrade FMVSS No. 216, the 
agency ignored more than 20 million dollars in compliance tests 
primarily placed on small businesses. That organization stated that 
there are at least 1,085 identifiable vehicle configurations in the 
affected weight category that would require separate testing. NTEA 
multiplied this figure by $5,000 per test plus a vehicle value loss of 
$15,000, resulting in a total of $21,700,000. The 1,085 vehicle 
configuration number included 798 that were based on chassis-cabs.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ NTEA stated that there are 42 chassis-cab models in the 
affected weight category that could accommodate 19 different body 
and/or equipment configurations. Multiplying 42 by 19 results in the 
798 number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These cost projections are grossly exaggerated. As indicated above, 
testing, as provided in a FMVSS, is not required as a matter of law to 
certify a vehicle. A manufacturer may choose any valid means of 
evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment 
will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency 
according to the procedures specified in the standard and to provide a 
basis for its certification of compliance.
    NTEA's projected costs assume, inaccurately, that pass-through 
certification is not available for any of its member's vehicles, and, 
that they, as final-stage manufacturers, will need to conduct testing 
for these vehicles. However, for the reasons discussed earlier, final-
stage manufacturers will be able to rely on the IVDs for vehicles built 
using chassis-cabs or incomplete vehicles with a full exterior van 
body. They will be able to certify their vehicles using pass-through 
and engineering judgment and will not need to incur testing costs for 
these vehicles.
    Moreover, the agency did not adopt the proposal in the NPRM to 
extend FMVSS No. 216 to multi-stage trucks with a GVWR greater than 
2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) not built on a chassis-cab and not built 
on an incomplete vehicle with a full exterior van body, e.g., those 
built using cutaways and stripped chassis. Therefore, there will not be 
any FMVSS No. 216 compliance costs for these vehicles.
    As to other multi-stage vehicles, final-stage manufacturers will 
have the option of certifying with the FMVSS No. 216 test or the FMVSS 
No. 220 test. The FMVSS No. 220 test option will minimize the costs of 
compliance for these vehicles. As noted above, these vehicles are used 
to transport passengers. Various mobility, para-transit and other 
vehicles were also being designed to meet the FMVSS No. 220 test prior 
to this rulemaking. Models are produced in sufficient quantities and do 
not vary such that compliance tests would be required for each 
variation. In light of the above, the requirements are reasonable. 
Also, RVIA supported this aspect of the proposal.
    We also observe that new procedures adopted by the agency in the 
2005 and 2006 certification rules for applying for temporary exemptions 
are available, although we are not aware of any specific situations in 
which they would be needed.

H. Conclusion

    While NTEA commented that the proposed upgrade of FMVSS No. 216 
would be impracticable for its members, the final rule we adopted is 
not impracticable for final-stage manufacturers.
    Final-stage manufacturers that build their vehicles using chassis-
cabs will be able to rely on pass-through certification. A reasonable 
reading of the provided IVDs demonstrates this, as does the fact of the 
number of multi-stage vehicles on the road today that are certified to 
comply with many FMVSSs. In extending FVMSS No. 216 to heavier light 
vehicles, we did not include trucks other than those built using a 
chassis-cab or incomplete vehicle with a full exterior van body--a 
change from the NPRM. Also, for multi-stage vehicles other than those 
built using chassis-cabs, NHTSA provided an alternative test procedure 
that is used for school buses and has also been used by a number of 
States for para-transit buses. Many manufacturers are already building 
vehicles to this alternative.

    Issued: April 2, 2010.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-7907 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P