17590 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Administrator shall next allocate funds SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 toward the requests for internal pounds), but not greater than 4,536 Table of Contents connections submitted by schools and kilograms (10,000 pounds). The rule libraries eligible for an 80 percent I. Background established a force requirement of 1.5 discount, then for a 70 percent discount, A. Final Rule Upgrading FMVSS No. 216 times the vehicle’s unloaded weight for and shall continue committing funds for B. Challenge by NTEA these newly included vehicles. internal connections in the same C. Consent Motion To Stay Briefing Third, the rule required all of the Schedule manner to the applicants at each II. Today’s Document and Related Actions above vehicles to meet the specified descending discount level until there III. Multi-Stage Vehicles and the Multi-Stage force requirements in a two-sided test, are no funds remaining. Certification Scheme instead of a single-sided test. For the * * * * * A. Multi-Stage Vehicles two-sided test, the same vehicle must ■ 5. Section 54.517 is amended by B. Safety Standards and Certification meet the force requirements when tested C. 2005 and 2006 Final Rules on revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: first on one side and then on the other Certification of Vehicles Built in Two or side of the vehicle. § 54.517 Services provided by non- More Stages Fourth, the rule established a new telecommunications carriers. IV. Multi-Stage Issues in the Rulemaking To Upgrade FMVSS No. 216 requirement for maintenance of * * * * * A. FMVSS No. 216 Prior to the Upgrade headroom, i.e., survival space, during (b) Supported services. Non- B. The Proposed Rule testing in addition to the existing limit telecommunications carriers shall be C. Public Comments on the amount of roof crush. The rule eligible for universal service support D. May 2009 Final Rule also included a number of special under this subpart for providing V. Further Response to Comments Regarding provisions, including ones related to interconnected voice over Internet Multi-Stage Vehicles leadtime, to address the needs of multi- protocol (VoIP), voice mail, Internet A. Introduction B. The Current Certification Scheme Is Not stage manufacturers, alterers, and small access, and installation and an Unlawful Delegation of Agency volume manufacturers. maintenance of internal connections. Authority B. Challenge by NTEA * * * * * C. Current IVDs Concerning FMVSS No. NTEA filed a petition for review of [FR Doc. 2010–7757 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am] 216 are Workable D. Final-Stage Manufacturers Can Certify the May 2009 final rule in the United BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Their Vehicles Built on Chassis-Cabs as States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Being Compliant With FMVSS No. 216a Circuit. That organization had E. In General, IVDs Are Workable submitted comments during the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION F. NHTSA Provided a Testing Alternative, rulemaking opposing the agency’s FMVSS No. 220 National Highway Traffic Safety G. There Is Little Cost for Multi-Stage proposed revisions with respect to Administration Manufacturers To Comply With FMVSS multi-stage vehicles. No. 216a C. Consent Motion To Stay Briefing H. Conclusion 49 CFR Part 571 Schedule [Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0093] I. Background NHTSA filed with the Court a motion RIN 2127–AG51 for a stay of the briefing schedule. The A. Final Rule Upgrading FMVSS No. agency stated that it believed the Court’s 216 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety consideration of the challenge by NTEA Standards; Roof Crush Resistance On May 12, 2009, as part of a would be facilitated by a fuller response comprehensive plan for reducing the to the comments that organization had AGENCY: National Highway Traffic serious risk of rollover crashes and the submitted during the rulemaking, which Safety Administration (NHTSA), risk of death and serious injury in those would permit both NTEA and the Court Department of Transportation. crashes, NHTSA published in the to more fully address the agency’s ACTION: Final rule; further response to Federal Register (74 FR 22348) a final rationale. NHTSA also noted that comments. rule substantially upgrading Federal petitions for reconsideration of the rule Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) were pending before the agency. NTEA SUMMARY: In May 2009, NHTSA No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. The published a final rule that upgraded the consented to the motion and the Court upgraded standard is designated FMVSS agency’s safety standard on roof crush granted a six-month stay of the briefing No. 216a. schedule on October 2, 2009. resistance. This document provides a First, for the vehicles previously further response to comments submitted subject to the standard, i.e., passenger II. Today’s Document and Related by the National Truck Equipment cars and multipurpose passenger Actions Association (NTEA) during that vehicles, trucks and buses with a Gross In this document, we provide a fuller rulemaking. Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 2,722 response to comments submitted by FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, the NTEA on our proposal to upgrade non-legal issues, you may call rule doubled the amount of force the FMVSS No. 216. Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of vehicle’s roof structure must withstand We are also publishing two separate Crashworthiness Standards, telephone in the specified test, from 1.5 times the documents related to the May 2009 final 202–366–4801. For legal issues, you vehicle’s unloaded weight to 3.0 times rule. One is a response to petitions for may call J. Edward Glancy, NHTSA the vehicle’s unloaded weight. We note reconsideration of that rule. The other is Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202– that this value is sometimes referred to a correcting rule. The correcting rule 366–2992. You may send mail to these as the strength-to-weight ratio (SWR), incorporates a provision that was officials at the National Highway Traffic e.g., a SWR of 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and so forth. discussed in the preamble but Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Second, the rule extended the inadvertently omitted from the Avenue, SE., West Building, applicability of the standard so that it regulatory text. As explained in the Washington, DC 20590. will also apply to vehicles with a GVWR preamble, the agency decided to

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 17591

exclude a narrow category of multi-stage manufacturer which adds work- meet applicable FMVSSs.6 NHTSA has vehicles from FMVSS No. 216 performing or cargo-carrying developed specific certification altogether, multi-stage trucks with a components to complete the vehicle. regulations for multi-stage vehicles. The GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms For example, the incomplete vehicle certification process is governed by 49 (6,000 pounds) not built on either a may be a chassis-cab, i.e., have a cab, CFR part 567 Certification. 49 CFR 567.5 chassis-cab or an incomplete vehicle but nothing built on the frame behind sets forth the certification requirements with a full exterior van body. The the cab. As completed, it may be a dry for manufacturers of vehicles regulatory text inadvertently omitted the freight van (box truck), dump truck, tow manufactured in two or more stages. reference to incomplete vehicles with a truck, or plumber’s truck. In some cases, Certification responsibilities for the full exterior van body. there may also be intermediate stage applicable FMVSSs are communicated manufacturers involved in the III. Multi-Stage Vehicles and the Multi- between manufacturers with the use of production of a multi-stage motor Stage Certification Scheme an incomplete vehicle document (IVD). vehicle. With limited exceptions, 7each A. Multi-Stage Vehicles B. Safety Standards and Certification manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle Multi-stage vehicles are motor and each intermediate manufacturer 8 NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle vehicles that are produced in two or assumes legal responsibility for all safety standards applicable to the more stages. These vehicles are not certification-related duties under the manufacture and sale of new motor produced by a single manufacturer on Vehicle Safety Act with respect to: vehicles and certain items of motor an assembly line as is the typical vehicle equipment under the authority (i) Components and systems it installs or passenger car or sport utility vehicle. supplies for installation on the incomplete of the National Traffic and Motor Instead, one manufacturer produces an vehicle, unless changed by a subsequent ‘‘incomplete vehicle’’ which requires Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, manufacturer; further manufacturing operations to codified as Chapter 301 of Title 49 of (ii) The vehicle as further manufactured or the United States Code, ‘‘Motor Vehicle completed by an intermediate or final-stage become a completed vehicle. As defined 3 in 49 CFR 567.3, an incomplete vehicle Safety’’ (Vehicle Safety Act). The manufacturer, to the extent that the vehicle is an assemblage consisting, at a agency does not provide approvals of is completed in accordance with the IVD; and motor vehicles or equipment. Instead, (iii) The accuracy of the information minimum, of chassis (including the contained in the IVD.9 frame) structure, power train, steering the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a system, suspension system, and braking ‘‘self-certification’’ process under which Final-stage manufacturers have system, in the state that those systems each manufacturer is responsible for complementary duties. Pursuant to 49 are to be part of the completed vehicle, certifying that its products meet all CFR 567.5(d), final-stage manufacturers 4 but requires further manufacturing applicable safety standards. assume operations to become a completed Each of NHTSA’s safety standards legal responsibility for all certification- vehicle.1 specifies the test conditions and related duties and liabilities under the Most incomplete vehicles are procedures that the agency will use to Vehicle Safety Act, except to the extent that manufactured by large manufacturers, evaluate the performance of the vehicle the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or an such as General Motors, Ford and or equipment being tested for intermediate manufacturer has provided Chrysler. Most final-stage manufacturers compliance with the particular safety equipment subject to a safety standard or 2 standard. NHTSA follows these expressly assumed responsibility for are small businesses. Multi-stage standards related to systems and components vehicles are aimed at a variety of niche specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. it supplied and except to the extent that the markets, most of which are too small to final-stage manufacturer completed the be serviced economically by single stage However, manufacturers are not vehicle in accordance with the prior manufacturers. required to test their products in the manufacturers’ IVD or any addendum In terms of degree of completeness, manner specified in the relevant safety furnished pursuant to 49 CFR part 568, as to the spectrum of incomplete vehicles standard, or even to test the product at the Federal motor vehicle safety standards ranges from a stripped chassis, i.e., an all, as their basis for certifying that the fully addressed therein.10 incomplete vehicle without an occupant product complies with all relevant Final-stage manufacturers also have compartment, to a chassis-cab. As standards. the duty to affix a certification label to defined in 49 CFR 567.3, a chassis-cab A manufacturer may evaluate its each vehicle in a manner that does not is an incomplete vehicle, with a products in various ways to determine obscure labels affixed by previous stage completed occupant compartment, that whether the vehicle or equipment will manufacturers and that, among other requires only the addition of cargo- comply with the safety standards when things, contains certification carrying, work-performing, or load- tested by the agency according to the statements.11 The final-stage bearing components to perform its procedures specified in the standard manufacturer may make one of the intended functions. A type of and to provide a basis for its following alternative certification incomplete vehicle that falls between certification of compliance. Depending statements: (1) The vehicle conforms to stripped chassis and chassis-cabs on on the circumstances, the manufacturer all applicable FMVSS; (2) the vehicle this spectrum is a chassis cutaway, may be able to base its certification on was completed in accordance with the which is an incomplete vehicle actual testing (according to the prior manufacturers’ IVD where delivered with a partial occupant procedure specified in the standard or applicable and conforms to all compartment that does not have a rear some other procedure), computer applicable FMVSS; or (3) the vehicle wall. simulation, engineering analysis, 5 In a typical situation, the incomplete engineering judgment or other means. 6 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) and 30115. vehicle is delivered to the final-stage All motor vehicles, whether single 7 See 70 FR at 7432–33, 49 CFR 567.5(b) and (c). stage or multi-stage, must be certified to 8 In the remainder of the preamble, NHTSA will 1 The definition of ‘‘incomplete vehicle’’ also not discuss intermediate manufacturers separately. includes incomplete trailers. 3 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. 9 49 CFR 567.5(b)(1). 2 As defined by The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 4 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) and 30115. 10 49 CFR 567.5(d)(1). 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 5 See 71 FR 28183–28184. 11 49 CFR 567.5(d)(2).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 17592 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

was completed in accordance with the which performs such operations on a In its petition for reconsideration of prior manufacturers’ IVD where completed vehicle is referred to as a the February 2005 certification final applicable except for certain listed vehicle ‘‘alterer.’’ An alterer must certify rule, NTEA challenged the regulatory exceptions by FMVSS and the vehicle that the vehicle remains in compliance scheme of certifying multi-stage conforms to all applicable FMVSS.12 with all applicable FMVSS affected by vehicles.14 It claimed, among other As reflected above, the incomplete the alteration. things, that the provided IVDs are vehicle manufacturer furnishes an IVD unworkable, insufficient, and that it is C. 2005 and 2006 Final Rules on for incomplete vehicles pursuant to 49 not possible for a final-stage Certification of Vehicles Built in Two or CFR 568.4. For each applicable FMVSS, manufacturer to comply with the More Stages the incomplete vehicle manufacturer agency’s multi-stage certification makes one of three affirmative On February 14, 2005, NHTSA regulations. Furthermore, NTEA argued statements in the IVD: (1) a Type 1 published in the Federal Register (70 that even if compliance were possible, statement that the vehicle when FR 7414) a final rule amending four it would be economically ruinous to completed will conform to the standard different parts of Title 49 to address NTEA’s members. if no alterations are made in identified various certification issues related to In denying most aspects of NTEA’s components (this representation is most vehicles built in two or more stages and, petition for reconsideration, NHTSA often made with respect to chassis-cabs to a lesser degree, to altered vehicles. provided specific and detailed since, as indicated earlier, they have a Among other things, the rule allowed responses to these and other relevant completed occupant compartment); (2) a the use of pass-through certification so arguments. We explained that Type 2 statement that sets forth the that it can be used not only for multi- certification is important for safety and specific conditions of final manufacture stage vehicles based on chassis-cabs, but that the certification scheme is under which the incomplete vehicle also for those based on other types of ‘‘workable.’’ manufacturer specifies that the incomplete vehicles. We stated that in recognition of the completed vehicle will conform to the In the preamble to the February 2005 fact that incomplete vehicle standard (e.g., the vehicle, when final rule, and in other documents in manufacturers do not control work completed, will meet the brake standard that rulemaking, NHTSA discussed the performed by final-stage manufacturers if it does not exceed gross axle weight history of issues related to the and can fairly anticipate only some ratings, the center of gravity at a specific certification of vehicles built in two or things, but not everything done by final- vehicle weight rating is not above a more stages, which have long been stage manufacturers, the regulatory certain height and no alterations are sources of contention within the system of ‘‘pass-through’’ certification is made to any brake system component affected industry and before the agency reasonable. The IVD provides the basis on the incomplete vehicle); or (3) a Type and the courts. for the final-stage manufacturer’s 3 statement that conformity to the Since 1977, NHTSA’s regulations for certification with enumerated FMVSS, standard cannot be determined based on on various conditions, including, for the incomplete vehicle as supplied, and certification of multi-stage vehicles have contained provisions for certification example, that the final-stage the incomplete vehicle manufacturer manufacturer does not exceed the makes no representation as to statements by chassis-cab 13 GVWR of the chassis or introduce conformity with the standard (e.g., manufacturers. In 1990, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth modifications to the incomplete vehicle when components and systems must be that interfere with compliance. As we added by the final-stage manufacturer Circuit ruled in National Truck and Equipment Ass’n v. NHTSA, 919 F.2d explained, the IVD is a general and compliance cannot be decided at document that accompanies the the time the incomplete vehicle leaves 1148 (6th Cir. 1990), that the requirements of a particular FMVSS incomplete vehicle. IVDs are typically the incomplete vehicle manufacturer). not limited to one application (one body When the IVD makes a Type 1 or were impracticable for final-stage or type of equipment), but contain limits Type 2 statement, there is ‘‘pass- manufacturers using vehicles other than and conditions in light of the nature and through’’ certification unless obviated by chassis-cabs for which the incomplete capacity of the chassis and potential a subsequent manufacturer. The final- vehicle manufacturer was not required problems resulting from completion of stage manufacturer can rely on the IVD to provide ‘‘pass-through’’ certification. an incomplete vehicle. Final-stage to certify the vehicle to a particular That decision led to rulemaking that manufacturers are informed, by the IVD, standard. ultimately resulted in the February 2005 Multi-stage vehicle manufacturers multi-stage certification final rule. of components and systems that should sometimes ‘‘alter’’ a vehicle to the end- NTEA petitioned for reconsideration not be altered, and, by following those users’ specifications. An altered vehicle of the February 2005 multi-stage instructions and other information from is one that is completed and certified in certification final rule. NHTSA the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, accordance with the agency’s responded to that organization’s petition they are able to certify. Overall, NTEA sought to remove the regulations and then altered before the in a final rule; response to petition for certification responsibility from final- first retail sale of the vehicle, in such a reconsideration published in the stage manufacturers and impose much manner as may affect the vehicle’s Federal Register (71 FR 28168) on May of that responsibility on incomplete compliance with one or more FMVSS or 15, 2006. While the agency made some vehicle manufacturers. NTEA’s petition the validity of the vehicle’s stated changes in the February 2005 final rule ignored the fact that incomplete vehicle weight ratings or vehicle type in response to the petition, it denied the classification. This definition does not remainder of the petition for 14 We note that NTEA submitted its comments on include the addition, substitution, or reconsideration that addressed issues NHTSA’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to removal of readily attachable regarding certification of multi-stage upgrade the roof crush resistance standard in components, such as mirrors or tire and vehicles and responsibility for recalls of November 2005. Those comments, which addressed rim assemblies, or by minor finishing multi-stage vehicles. a number of multi-stage issues, were thus submitted after the agency had published its February 2005 operations such as painting. The person final rule on certification of multi-stage vehicles but 13 49 CFR 567.5 (1977 and 1978). See 42 FR 37814 before NHTSA responded to NTEA’s petition for 12 49 CFR 567.5(d)(2)(v)(A). (July 25, 1977). reconsideration of the certification rule.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 17593

manufacturers do not control what final- Mounting; 219, Windshield Zone final rule was required on September 1, stage manufacturers do with the Intrusion; 214, Side Impact Protection; 1994. Therefore, FMVSS No. 216 has incomplete vehicles. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; 216, applied to some multi-stage vehicles, As we noted, a system of pass-through Roof Crush Resistance; and 301, Fuel e.g., certain small trucks and small certification has existed for more than System Integrity. In each instance, we recreation vehicles, since 1994.24 25 years, and in that time many multi- showed why the IVD was workable and B. The Proposed Rule stage vehicles have been built and why various limitations were certified by final-stage manufacturers. reasonable. 1. NPRM and SNPRM in General This fact alone indicates that the system We also explained that many On August 23, 2005, NHTSA is workable and operates as intended. resources are available to final-stage 20 published in the Federal Register (70 Moreover, as we pointed out, the manufacturers. As a group, final-stage FR 49223) a NPRM to upgrade FMVSS availability of multi-stage vehicles manufacturers do not operate in an 25 15 No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. The belies NTEA’s position, and, contrary informational vacuum. In addition to NPRM reflected comments received in to that petitioner’s position, market the IVDs, these resources include response to a Request for Comments 21 forces create business reasons for upfitter guides from incomplete (‘‘RFC’’) published in the Federal incomplete vehicle manufacturers to vehicle manufacturers, incomplete Register (66 FR 53376) on October 22, provide workable IVDs. We noted that vehicle manufacturer help lines, the 2001, and research and testing NTEA’s argument ignores the fact that final-stage manufacturers’ own conducted prior to the publication of the system is not broken—many types of experience and judgment, and the RFC. multi-stage vehicles are being commercially available software. To better address fatalities and manufactured and offered for sale, We also explained that issues injuries occurring in roof-involved including those manufactured by NTEA regarding impracticability should be rollover crashes, we proposed to extend members. These include ambulances, decided in the context of rulemaking for the application of the standard to service trucks, small school buses, mid- each FMVSS.22 vehicles with a GVWR of up to 4,536 size buses, tow trucks and vans.16 The IV. Multi-Stage Issues in the kilograms (10,000 pounds), and to fact that vehicles such as these are being strengthen the requirements of FMVSS made indicates that the IVDs are Rulemaking To Upgrade FMVSS No. 216 No. 216 by mandating that the vehicle workable. We also noted that NTEA roof structures withstand a force ignored the cooperative relationships A. FMVSS No. 216 Prior to the Upgrade equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded between incomplete and final-stage vehicle weight (‘‘SWR’’), and to 17 FMVSS No. 216 seeks to reduce manufacturers. deaths and serious injuries resulting eliminate the 22,240 Newton (5,000 In our May 2006 response to petitions, from the roof of a vehicle being crushed pound) force limit for passenger cars. we explained that certification serves an and pushed into the occupant We note that shortly before the NPRM important safety function in the multi- compartment when the roof strikes the was published, Congress enacted the stage vehicle business. Many multi-stage ground during rollover crashes. Prior to Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient vehicles carry people and important the upgrade, the standard required that Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for cargo—from schoolchildren on school when a large steel test plate (sometimes Users (SAFETEA–LU), which included buses to liquid fuel on propane and referred to as a platen) is placed in a specific requirement for us to upgrade gasoline trucks. The safety need for contact with either side of the forward FMVSS No. 216 relating to roof strength certification of compliance with FMVSS edge of the roof of a vehicle and then for driver and passenger sides for motor in these types of vehicles is pressed downward, simulating contact vehicles with a GVWR of not more than uncontroverted.18 of the roof with the ground during a 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). As part of responding to NTEA’s Further, in recognition of the fact that claim in its petition to the 2005 Rule rollover crash, with steadily increasing force until a force equivalent to 1.5 the pre-test distance between the that the existing IVD’s are not workable, interior surface of the roof and a given we carefully examined the certification times the unloaded weight of the vehicle is reached, the distance that the occupant’s head varies from vehicle statements included in an IVD that model to vehicle model, we proposed to NTEA appended to its petition.19 The test plate has moved from the point of contact must not exceed 127 mm (5 regulate roof strength by requiring that IVD was for the General Motors (GM) the crush not exceed the available CK chassis-cab. We analyzed inches). The criterion of the test plate not being permitted to move more than headroom. Under the proposal, this certification statements for FMVSS Nos. requirement would replace the current 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake a specified amount is sometimes referred to as the ‘‘platen travel’’ limit on platen travel. Systems; 135, Light Vehicle Brake We also proposed to: Systems; 204, Steering Control Rearward criterion. The application of force was • limited to 22,240 Newtons (5,000 Allow vehicles manufactured in Displacement; 201, Occupant Protection two or more stages, other than chassis- in Interior Impact; 212, Windshield pounds) for passenger cars, even if the unloaded weight of the car times 1.5 is cabs, to be certified to the roof crush requirements of FMVSS No. 220, School 15 71 FR at 28176 (section titled ‘‘The Availability greater than that amount. Since 1991, this standard applied to Bus Rollover Protection, instead of of Multi-stage Vehicles Belies NTEA’s Position’’) FMVSS No. 216. and at 28184–85 (section titled ‘‘NHTSA’s Market passenger cars, multipurpose passenger • Forces Argument Is Justified and Consistent With vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses with Clarify the definition and scope of the Multi-stage Vehicle Market’’). a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 exclusion for convertibles. 16 See, e.g., http://www.ntea.com/mr/ pounds) or less.23 Compliance with the divisions.asp. 24 GM has sold an incomplete vehicle chassis-cab, 17 We cited the example of General Motors’ the GMT–355, that has a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms relationships with final-stage manufacturers it 20 71 FR 28183–28184 (section titled ‘‘Additional (6,000 pounds) or less and is therefore subject to refers to as Special Vehicle Manufacturers. 71 FR Resources Available to Final-Stage Manufacturers’’). FMVSS No. 216. This chassis-cab is based on the at 28185. 21 Final-stage manufacturers are sometimes Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon. Final-stage 18 71 FR at 28176; See also 71 FR at 28175. referred to as upfitters in the trade. manufacturers can certify completed vehicles by 19 71 FR at 28177–28183 (section titled ‘‘The 22 71 FR 28186. using the IVD for the GMT 355. Existing IVDs Are Workable). 23 56 FR 15510. 25 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22143.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 17594 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

• Revise the vehicle tie-down We stated that in these circumstances, NMEDA expressed concern that the procedure to minimize variability in we believed that the requirements of FMVSS No. 220 option would only be testing. FMVSS No. 220 appeared to offer a available for multi-stage vehicles. It On January 30, 2008, NHTSA reasonable avenue to balance the desire asked that the FMVSS No. 220 option be published in the Federal Register (73 to respond to the needs of multi-stage extended to raised or altered roof FR 5484) a supplemental notice of manufacturers and the need to increase vehicles. To encompass the modifiers in proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) for our safety in rollover crashes. We noted that the proposed upgrade to FMVSS No. ongoing roof crush resistance several states already require ‘‘para- 216, NMEDA asked that a vehicle roof rulemaking.26 In that document, we transit’’ vans and other buses, which are that is altered after first retail sale be asked for public comment on a number typically manufactured in multiple considered in compliance if it meets the of issues that might affect the content of stages, to comply with the roof crush requirements of FMVSS No. 216 or the final rule, including possible requirements of FMVSS No. 220.28 We FMVSS No. 220. NMEDA also stated variations in the proposed requirements. tentatively concluded that these state that raising a roof increases the available We also announced the release of the requirements show the burden on multi- headroom and that the roof therefore results of various vehicle tests stage manufacturers for evaluating roof can crush more before there is any conducted since the proposal. strength in accordance with FMVSS No. contact with an occupant’s head. 2. Multi-Stage Issues 220 is not unreasonable, and applying NMEDA requested the agency account FMVSS No. 220 to these vehicles would for the additional headroom beyond the In our August 2005 NPRM to upgrade ensure that there are some requirements original vehicle’s headroom in FMVSS No. 216, we included a section for roof crush protection where none establishing any requirement. ‘‘ titled Vehicles Manufactured in Two or currently exist. RVIA supported our proposal to More Stages.’’ 27 For vehicles permit FMVSS No. 220 as an option for manufactured in two or more stages, C. Public Comments small motor homes as this would allow other than vehicles incorporating manufacturers to address the unique chassis-cabs, we proposed to give We received comments concerning requirements for multi-stage and altered issues concerning such specialized manufacturers the option of certifying to vehicles built in two or more stages. either the existing roof crush vehicles from Advocates for Highway ‘‘ ’’ requirements of FMVSS No. 220, School Safety ( Advocates ), NTEA, National 2. Detailed Summary of NTEA Bus Rollover Protection, or the new roof Mobility Equipment Dealers Association Comments crush requirements of FMVSS No. 216. (NMEDA) and Recreational Vehicle NTEA stated that NHTSA incorrectly FMVSS No. 220 uses a horizontal plate, Industry Association (RVIA). assumes that final-stage manufacturers instead of the angled plate of Standard 1. Overview of Comments on Multi- of vehicles built on chassis-cabs will be No. 216. Stage Issues able to use pass-through certification as In developing our proposal, we a means to comply with the rule. considered whether the proposed Advocates stated that it opposed According to NTEA, NHTSA standard would be appropriate for the permitting FMVSS No. 220 as an acknowledged certification problems type of motor vehicle for which it would alternative for multi-stage vehicles. It faced by final-stage manufacturers with be prescribed. We stated that we claimed that FMVSS No. 220 is a ‘‘weak’’ respect to safety standards that are believed it was appropriate to consider standard whose effects on roof strength based on the performance of a vehicle incomplete vehicles, other than those in actual rollover crashes are mostly in a dynamic test. NTEA stated that in incorporating chassis-cabs, as a vehicle unknown. the preamble to the proposed rule to type subject to different regulatory NTEA recommended that all multi- upgrade FMVSS No. 216, NHTSA made requirements. We anticipated that final- stage vehicles be excluded from roof several references to the compliance stage manufacturers using chassis-cabs crush resistance requirements. It stated difficulties and compliance issues faced to produce multi-stage vehicles would that manufacturers of non-chassis-cab by final-stage manufacturers, but be in position to take advantage of vehicles will not be able to conduct the without any explanation of the root ‘‘pass-through certification’’ of chassis- tests or perform engineering analysis to cause of those problems. NTEA said the cabs, and therefore did not believe the ensure conformance to FMVSS No. 220. proposed standard is a dynamic test option of alternative compliance with NTEA also disagreed with the standard. NTEA stated that in the FMVSS No. 220 was appropriate. assumption that the presence of State rulemaking revising certification We noted that while we believed that requirements for FMVSS No. 220 regulations for multi-stage vehicles, the requirements in FMVSS No. 220 compliance demonstrates that final- NHTSA concluded that the cost of have been effective for school buses, we stage manufacturers can actually dynamic vehicle testing is a legitimate were concerned that they may not be as comply. concern when relatively small numbers effective for other vehicle types. The NTEA also stated it is impractical for of similarly configured vehicles are FMVSS No. 216 test procedure results the agency to assume manufacturers of produced by a small manufacturer. in roof deformations that are consistent multi-stage vehicles built on chassis- NTEA stated that the agency also noted with the observed crush patterns in the cabs will be able to rely on IVDs to that alternative means of compliance real world for light vehicles. Because of provide pass-through certification for such as computer modeling are not this, we explained that our preference compliance as it relates to roof strength. appreciably more affordable for small would be to use the FMVSS No. 216 test It argued that the final-stage volume manufacturing. procedure for light vehicles. We manufacturer would therefore be According to NTEA, under these believed, however, that this approach responsible for conducting costly circumstances, no company could incur would fail to consider the practicability analyses and testing to verify the costs of performing the tests problems and special issues for multi- compliance with FMVSS No. 216. described in the proposed rule (or in stage manufacturers. any other dynamic test standard). NTEA 28 These states include Pennsylvania, Minnesota, stated that the multi-stage 26 Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0015. Wisconsin, Tennessee, Michigan, Utah, Alabama, manufacturers, for the most part, do not 27 70 FR 49234–49235. and California. produce any standard models. The

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 17595

overwhelming majority of multi-stage manufacturer. It stated that if the incomplete vehicle manufacturer’s vehicles are produced to end-user chassis-cab manufacturer provides a control over the type and text of its specifications on a custom-order basis Type 1 conformity statement—i.e., one conformity statements essentially gives reflecting specifications provided by the that states the vehicle will conform to it unfettered discretion to allocate to customer. the standard if no alterations are made itself or to the final-stage manufacturer NTEA argument that an FMVSS is not to identified components in the the legal responsibilities and liability for practicable if the only means of vehicle—or if the manufacturer provides compliance with the safety standard, compliance offered in the Standard is a Type 2 conformity statement—i.e., one and its decision is not subject to review the use of pass-through certification. that sets out specific conditions of final or challenge because the regulations do NTEA argued that an FMVSS is not manufacture under which the vehicle not require the incomplete vehicle practicable if the only means of would conform to the test—then the manufacturer to be reasonable or to act compliance offered in the Standard is final-stage manufacturer’s ability to rely in good faith in crafting its conformity the use of pass-through certification. It on (or ‘‘pass-through’’) the conformity statements. NTEA argued that this noted that the Vehicle Safety Act at 49 statement depends entirely on whether aspect of the certification scheme—the U.S.C. 30111(a) states that each FMVSS the vehicle can be completed by the ability of an interested private party to must ‘‘be practicable, meet the need for final-stage manufacturer within the determine the legal liability of another motor vehicle safety, and be stated in parameters and limitations contained in party with respect to a safety standard— objective terms.’’ NTEA cited the 1990 the conformity statement. NTEA stated amounts to an impermissible delegation NTEA case, and stated that the Sixth that if the parameters and limitations of NHTSA’s statutory authority to a Circuit ruled that ‘‘for a standard to be are reasonable, then there is some private party. It cited several cases.30 practicable, it must offer in the body of chance of pass-through, but if the NTEA argued that a safety standard the standard, a means for all subject to parameters and limitations are cannot meet the statutory requirement the standard to prove compliance.’’ 29 unreasonable (or if the stated conditions that it be practicable if the sole, NTEA stated that NHTSA anticipates of conformity are simply conservative as plausible means of compliance available that final-stage manufacturers will be an engineering matter), pass-through to affected manufacturers is the use of able to pass-through, and thereby rely will not be possible. pass-through certification. It said that on, the conformity statements provided NTEA also argued that incomplete this is the case because that means of by the chassis-cab manufacturers in vehicle manufacturers have strong compliance depends entirely on the IVDs. NTEA stated there is no incentive to provide very narrow actions of private parties (i.e., requirement in NHTSA’s regulations compliance envelopes, given incomplete vehicle manufacturers) that that compels an incomplete vehicle responsibilities set forth in the agency’s are free to provide Type 3 statements as manufacturer to provide the type of certification regulation. NTEA cited 49 to any standard, and that are free to conformity statement as to any safety CFR 567.5 and stated that the establish any parameters and conditions standard that would facilitate pass- certification regulations allocate to the they wish, reasonable or unreasonable, through opportunities for the final-stage incomplete vehicle manufacturer legal in any Type 1 or Type 2 conformity manufacturer. That organization said responsibility for all components statement. NTEA argued that the that the chassis-cab manufacturer has incorporated by a final-stage proposed rule thus fails to meet the absolute discretion whether to provide a manufacturer (other than defective requirement of the 1990 NTEA case that Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 statement. components and systems) to the extent a standard offer in the body of the NTEA said that NHTSA apparently the vehicle is completed in accordance standard a means for all subject to the believes market forces will cause with the instructions contained in the standard to prove compliance. NTEA chassis-cab manufacturers to provide IVD, while the regulations allocate to cited its petition for reconsideration of reasonable compliance envelopes when the final-stage manufacturer legal the multi-stage vehicle certification rule, making conformity statements. NTEA responsibility for any work done by the and claimed that it had demonstrated cited the agency’s multi-stage vehicle final-stage manufacturer to complete the that incomplete vehicle manufacturers certification rulemaking, and the vehicle that was not performed in routinely provide Type 1 and Type 2 petition for reconsideration it submitted accordance with instruction contained conformity statements with respect to on the May 2005 final rule which, at in the IVD. dynamic test standards that are so that time, had not yet been responded NTEA argued that in the context of restrictive as to effectively provide no to by NHTSA. NTEA claimed that it pass-through certification, a conformity pass-through opportunity whatsoever. demonstrated through the submission of statement in an IVD is a zero-sum game. NTEA argued that in the real world, i.e., IVDs with its petition that NHTSA’s It said that if the final-stage the reality defined by the IVDs that market forces theory is not supported by manufacturer can complete the vehicle chassis manufacturers provide with the IVDs that are provided by major within the parameters and conditions of their products, pass-through incomplete vehicle manufacturers. the incomplete vehicle manufacturer’s certification is not a viable option for NTEA stated that those IVDs show that Type 1 or Type 2 conformity statement, final-stage manufacturers. incomplete vehicle manufacturers the incomplete vehicle manufacturer NTEA argument that the conformity routinely provide Type 1 and Type 2 bears legal responsibility for compliance statements in existing IVDs make clear conformity statements that are so with the FMVSS in question; if the that final-stage manufacturers are not restrictive that they provide no final-stage manufacturer cannot likely to have pass-through opportunity whatsoever for pass- complete the vehicle within the opportunities for the proposed rule. through certification. parameters of the incomplete vehicle NTEA claimed that the inadequacy of NTEA stated that if a chassis-cab manufacturer’s Type 1 or Type 2 pass-through certification as the sole, manufacturer provides a Type 3 conformity statement, or if the plausible means of demonstrating conformity statement, there is nothing incomplete vehicle manufacturer compliance to the proposed rule is to pass-through to the final-stage provides a Type 3 conformity statement, plainly reflected in the IVDs that exist the final-stage manufacturer bears legal for chassis-cabs rated up to 2,722 29 NTEA comment to the NPRM at p. 5, quoting responsibility for compliance with the NTEA decision, 919 F.2d at 1153. subject FMVSS. NTEA stated that the 30 See NTEA comment at p. 8.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 17596 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 17597

final-stage manufacturers would have to manufacturers of non-chassis-cabs do 2. The Final Rule and Multi-Stage Issues incur substantial costs to transport their not have a completed occupant In the May 2009 final rule upgrading vehicles long distances to have them compartment, there will be no pass- FMVSS No. 216, we included a section tested. It also said that following the through certification opportunities for in the preamble titled ‘‘Requirements for testing, the vehicles could not be sold as multi-stage vehicles built on those Multi-Stage and Altered Vehicles.’’ 31 new and would need to be repaired chassis. NTEA argued that the option of We included a summary of the even to be sold as used, resulting in certifying to FMVSS No. 220 is no comments concerning requirements for additional costs to be absorbed by the option at all. multi-stage and altered vehicles from final-stage manufacturer. NTEA stated NTEA stated that as the NTEA, NMEDA, Advocates, and RVIA, that, given these costs, it would be demonstration of compliance with and a response to those comments. impracticable for manufacturers to neither FMVSS No. 220 nor the In addressing the issues raised by demonstrate compliance by performing proposed FMVSS No. 216 requirements NTEA, we stated that, as a general tests. will be possible for most final-stage matter, we believe that it is neither NTEA stated that NHTSA appeared to manufacturers building on chassis-cabs necessary nor would it be appropriate to recognize that the cost of testing would or non-chassis-cabs, it urged that all exclude all multi-stage vehicles from be prohibitive for both vehicles built on vehicles manufactured in two or more roof crush resistance requirements. We chassis-cabs and those built on non- stages be excluded from the rule. explained that the purpose of FMVSS chassis-cabs, and that it would also be No. 216 is to improve occupant safety in D. May 2009 Final Rule impracticable to demonstrate the event of a rollover. If a multi-stage compliance by computer simulation or 1. The Final Rule in General vehicle is involved in a rollover, the other engineering analysis. And, despite vehicle’s roof strength will be an that recognition, NTEA stated that As discussed earlier, on May 12, 2009, important factor in providing occupant NHTSA proposed to apply the standard. as part of a comprehensive plan for protection. We stated that, therefore, Based on discussions with one of the reducing the serious risk of rollover while we seek to address the special companies that conduct FMVSS crashes and the risk of death and serious needs and circumstances of multi-stage compliance tests, NTEA understands injury in those crashes, NHTSA manufacturers, we declined to provide that the average cost of conducting the published in the Federal Register (74 any blanket exclusion for all multi-stage existing test in FMVSS No. 216 is FR 22348) a final rule substantially vehicles. However, based on NTEA’s approximately $3,600 per vehicle upgrading FMVSS No. 216. The comments, we did not extend FMVSS configuration. It stated that NHTSA upgraded standard is designated FMVSS No. 216 to any trucks built on van estimates that tests to comply with the No. 216a. cutaways or other types of incomplete proposed regulation will cost First, for the vehicles currently vehicles without a completed roof approximately $5,000. NTEA stated that subject to the standard, i.e., passenger structure, a difference from the NPRM. a total test cost of $5,000 plus a vehicle cars and MPVs, trucks and buses with The upgraded FMVSS No. 216 rule value loss of $15,000 for 1,085 vehicle a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 does not apply to any vehicles with a configurations results in testing costs of pounds) or less, the rule doubled the GVWR greater than 4,536 kilograms $21,700,000. It stated that this figure amount of force the vehicle’s roof (10,000 pounds), including multi-stage does not include design or structural structure must withstand in the vehicles. A good number of multi-stage costs for compliance or certain other specified test, from 1.5 times the vehicles, such as tow-trucks, some costs. vehicle’s unloaded weight to 3.0 times airport shuttles, and customized farm NTEA concluded this portion of its the vehicle’s unloaded weight. trucks, have a GVWR greater than 4,536 comment by stating that the cost benefit Second, the rule extended the kilograms (10,000 pounds). Also, as analysis prepared by NHTSA ignores applicability of the standard so that it with the previous version of FMVSS No. more than 20 million dollars in will also apply to vehicles with a GVWR 216, the standard does not apply to compliance tests primarily placed on greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 school buses, which have been covered small businesses. pounds), but not greater than 4,536 by FMVSS No. 220. NTEA conclusion. In the final rule, we then addressed NTEA stated that, as demonstrated, kilograms (10,000 pounds). The rule the issues raised by NTEA and other final-stage manufacturers will face established a force requirement of 1.5 commenters separately for the different compliance burdens that are not times the vehicle’s unloaded weight for types of multi-stage vehicles. The reasonable under NHTSA’s proposed these newly included vehicles. requirements that apply to multi-stage rule, and that compliance with the Third, the rule required all of the vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 proposed requirements in FMVSS No. above vehicles to meet the specified kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less are 216 will not be possible for final-stage force requirements in a two-sided test, dependent on the GVWR and type of manufacturers. instead of a single-sided test, i.e., the That organization stated that while it same vehicle must meet the force vehicle, including whether the vehicle applauded NHTSA’s decision to requirements when tested first on one was built using a chassis-cab. Multi-stage vehicles built on chassis- propose an alternative to compliance side and then on the other side of the cab incomplete vehicles. with FMVSS No. 216, the option to vehicle. Fourth, the rule established a new If a vehicle is built on a chassis-cab, comply with FMVSS No. 220 would not and it has a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms provide any relief to manufacturers of requirement for maintenance of headroom, i.e., survival space, during (10,000 pounds) or less, it is required to multi-stage vehicles built on non- meet the same FMVSS No. 216 chassis-cabs. It stated that, due to costs, testing in addition to the existing limit on the amount of roof crush. requirements as single stage vehicles. those manufacturers will not be able to Therefore, these vehicles must meet the The rule also included a number of perform the dynamic tests set forth in requirements of FMVSS No. 216a and the proposed rule or in FMSVS No. 220, special provisions, including ones nor conduct engineering analyses to related to leadtime, to address the needs 31 74 FR at 22372–74. This section was part of a simulate the performance of vehicles in of multi-stage manufacturers, alterers, larger section titled ‘‘Agency Decision and Response those tests. It also stated that because and small volume manufacturers. to Comments.’’

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 17598 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

have a SWR of at least 3.0 if they have exterior van body. This was a change Multi-Stage Buses and MPVS Not Built a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 from the NPRM. First, to be excluded, on Chassis-Cabs pounds) or less and a SWR of 1.5 if they these multi-stage vehicles must be a have a GVWR above that level but not truck. A truck is defined in 49 CFR For other multi-stage vehicles not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 571.3 as being a ‘‘motor vehicle with built on chassis-cabs, we stated that we pounds). motive power * * * designed primarily continued to believe, for the reasons As background, we explained that a for the transportation of property or discussed in the NPRM, that permitting chassis-cab is an incomplete vehicle, special purpose equipment.’’ Second, to FMVSS No. 220 as an option is a with a completed occupant be excluded, these multi-stage trucks reasonable way to balance the desire to compartment, that requires only the cannot be built using a chassis-cab or respond to the needs of multi-stage addition of cargo-carrying, work- using an incomplete vehicle with a full manufacturers and the need to increase performing, or load-bearing components exterior van body. Both chassis-cabs and safety in rollover crashes. These to perform its intended functions. As incomplete vehicles built on a full vehicles would be classified as a bus or such, chassis-cabs have intact roof exterior van body contain a completed MPV. Under 49 CFR 571.3, a bus is a designs. Chassis-cabs are based on roof structure, but would need additions motor vehicle ‘‘* * * designed for vehicles that are sold as complete before a final-stage manufacturer could carrying more than ten persons,’’ and a vehicles by larger manufacturers, e.g., certify its compliance as a completed MPV is defined as a motor vehicle medium and full size pickup trucks, so vehicle. Incomplete vehicles with full ‘‘* * * designed to carry ten passengers their roof structure will be designed to exterior van bodies could include a van meet the upgraded requirements of that did not have any seats. An or less which is constructed on a truck FMVSS No. 216. A good example of a incomplete vehicle such as this could, chassis or with special features for chassis-cab vehicle is a moving truck. for example, be completed as a truck occasional off-road operation.’’ These The driver of a chassis-cab vehicle (cargo van) by adding front seats and buses and MPVs are built commonly would need to exit the vehicle to access interior shelves and partitions. Such a using a van cutaway and would include, the contents in the rear of the vehicle. vehicle would not be excluded from the e.g., transit shuttle vehicles, We stated that after considering the standard. ambulances, mobility vehicles and comments of NTEA, we believed that If a multi-stage truck within this recreation vehicles. The FMVSS No. 220 final-stage manufacturers can rely on weight range is not built on a chassis- test uses a single, horizontal platen and the incomplete vehicle documents (IVD) cab or on a full exterior van body, then requires a SWR of 1.5. for pass-through certification of the vehicle is excluded from FMVSS In responding to Advocates’ comment compliance with FMVSS No. 216 for No. 216 and the final-stage arguing against permitting FMVSS No. vehicles built using chassis-cabs. To do manufacturer would not need to certify 220 as an alternative for multi-stage this, final-stage manufacturers will need compliance with the standard. to remain within specifications Typically, these vehicles would be built vehicles because it believes that FMVSS contained in the IVD. We stated that on cutaways or on a stripped chassis. A No. 220 is not sufficiently stringent, we since the stringency of FMVSS No. 216 cutaway chassis is a van cab design noted that the organization did not (SWR requirement) is dependent on a whose occupant compartment is not provide analysis or data addressing the vehicle’s unloaded vehicle weight, the complete and ends immediately behind special circumstances faced by multi- final-stage manufacturer would need to the driver and front passenger seat, i.e. stage manufacturers, or explain why it remain within the specification for there is no wall behind the front seats. believed these manufacturers could unloaded vehicle weight. If they did A good example of this type of a multi- certify compliance of their vehicles to not, the roof would not likely have the stage truck is a parcel delivery vehicle. FMVSS No. 216. We stated, therefore, strength to comply with FMVSS No. These specialized vehicles are typically that the commenter had not provided a 216. We also explained that final-stage built on van cutaways because the basis for us to take a different position manufacturers will need to avoid driver or passenger may need access to than we had taken in the NPRM. We changes to the vehicle that would affect the contents in the rear of the vehicle. stated that, as we had discussed in the roof strength adversely.32 A stripped chassis is an incomplete NPRM, we believed the requirements in Multi-stage trucks with a GVWR vehicle that is less complete than a FMVSS No. 220 have been effective for greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 cutaway, and could be nothing more school buses, but we are concerned that pounds) not built using a chassis-cab than a rolling chassis consisting of only they may not be as effective for other and not built using an incomplete the engine, transmission, and ladder- vehicle types. We explained that our vehicle with a full exterior van body. type frame. preference would be to use the FMVSS We explained that, based on the The agency excluded these vehicles in comments received, we had decided to the final rule because there may be No. 216 test procedure for light vehicles, exclude from FMVSS No. 216 multi- practicability problems. These but that this approach would fail to stage trucks with a GVWR greater than incomplete vehicles will not have an consider the practicability problems and 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) not built intact roof. Because the strength of the special issues for multi-stage using a chassis cab and not built using roof may be dependent on the structure manufacturers. an incomplete vehicle with a full to be added by the final-stage We noted that RVIA supported our manufacturer, the incomplete vehicle proposal permitting testing to the 32 We also noted that some changes made by manufacturer may not provide IVD or FMVSS No. 220 standard, and that some final-stage manufacturers could affect the ability to similar information that would permit conduct an FMVSS No. 216 test, e.g., for a multi- of the vehicles in this category are stage truck, the addition of a cargo box structure pass-through certification. Moreover, already required to meet the higher than the occupant compartment could the design of the completed truck may requirements of FMVSS No. 220 as a interfere with the placement of the FMVSS No. 216 be such that it is not possible to test the result of State regulations. test device. To address this concern, we included vehicle to FMVSS No. 216 (due to a specification in the final rule that such structures are removed prior to testing. (However, the interference with the FMVSS test structures are still counted as part of a vehicle’s device) or inappropriate for testing with unloaded weight.) FMVSS No. 220.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 17599

Multi-Stage Vehicles and Complete available is invalid as evidenced by trucks, tanker trucks, work trucks, Vehicles With a GVWR Greater Than present IVDs; and (2) because NHTSA’s flatbed and stake trucks, tow trucks, 2,722 Kilograms (6,000 Pounds) Which pass-through certification scheme is dump trucks, and gasoline tank trucks Have Been Changed by Raising Their invalid, NHTSA’s analysis of the rule’s on the road. Original Roof impact and costs are flawed. The end Moreover, final-stage manufacturers result, according to NTEA, is that In the May 2009 final rule preamble, have certified multi-stage vehicles with NHTSA’s regulation on roof crush is we stated that, in response to the a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 impracticable for multi-stage vehicles, comments of NMEDA, we agreed that and, therefore, NHTSA’s roof crush pounds) or less to the current version of the FMVSS No. 220 option should be regulations should not include any FMVSS No. 216. As noted earlier, available to multi-stage and complete requirements for multi-stage vehicles. FMVSS No. 216 was extended to trucks, vehicles with a GVWR greater than To get to NTEA’s conclusion—FMVSS buses, and MPVs with a GVWR of 2,722 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) which No. 216 should not apply to multi-stage kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less in a have been changed by raising their vehicles—one has to believe that the final rule published in 1991. This is a original roof. certification scheme for multi-stage relatively low gross vehicle weight We stated that we believed that vehicles, which has been in place for rating for commercial vehicles, which practicability issues arise for vehicles several decades, is unworkable and results in limited offerings. But, with a GVWR greater than 2,722 invalid, at least as applied to FMVSS significantly, General Motors (GM) has kilograms (6,000 pounds) whose roofs No. 216. NTEA has been making this sold an incomplete vehicle chassis-cab, are raised. We also stated that we argument in various contexts for over 25 the GMT–355, that has a GVWR of 2,722 believe that the FMVSS No. 220 option years.33 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less and is is appropriate for the ‘‘para-transit’’ vans Generally, NTEA makes the argument therefore subject to FMVSS No. 216. GM and buses. We stated that the FMVSS that pass-through certification is an would not have offered the vehicle for No. 220 option will help ensure that impermissible delegation of NHTSA’s years if there was not a market for them, these occupants are afforded a level of statutory authority to a private party. protection that is currently not required. as completed by final-stage Specific to FMVSS No. 216, NTEA manufacturers. We stated that we were not providing believes NHTSA incorrectly assumes this option to vehicles with raised roofs that pass-through certification will be We note that under the May 2009 and a GVWR of less than or equal to available. NTEA argues that current final rule, FMVSS No. 216 will not be 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds). IVDs prepared by incomplete vehicle applicable to vehicles with a GVWR We stated that we believed that the manufacturers for FMVSS No. 216 and greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 practicability issues for vehicle alterers other standards are so restrictive that a pounds). Incomplete vehicle which raise roofs on the vehicles at final-stage manufacturer would violate manufacturers will not need to provide issue are comparable to those of final- the IVD by making a simple installation. an IVD regarding FMVSS No. 216 for stage manufacturers. An alterer may If that is so, NTEA argues, the final- these heavier vehicles. In our raise a roof on a vehicle that was stage manufacturers would be left to estimation, the largest number of multi- originally certified to FMVSS No. 216. conduct their own testing to certify stage vehicles are in this category. We also stated that we believe that compliance with FMVSS No. 216. In addition, final-stage manufacturers permitting alterers which raise roofs on According to that organization, neither are currently certifying the compliance these vehicles the option of certifying to the two-sided platen test in FMVSS No. of their vehicles with a number of FMVSS No. 220 balances potential 216 nor the horizontal platen school bus complex safety standards that include practicability issues with the need to test in FMVSS No. 220 is workable. crash testing as part of the agency’s increase safety in rollovers. Testing to either standard is, in NTEA’s compliance tests. These include, for Multi-Stage Vehicles With a GVWR of estimation, too burdensome and costly. example, FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact 2,722 Kilograms (6,000 Pounds) or Less According to NTEA, because NHTSA Protection, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant incorrectly assumes that pass-through Crash Protection (frontal air bag If a multi-stage vehicle has a GVWR certifications will be available, the technology), and FMVSS No. 301, Fuel of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or agency’s analysis of the costs of the rule System Integrity. These manufacturers less, it previously was subject to FMVSS is incorrect, and the rule is overly ordinarily rely on the IVD in making No. 216. If these vehicles are built using burdensome as to final-stage these certifications. a chassis-cab, they must comply with manufacturers. the upgraded roof crush resistance For the reasons discussed below, NTEA’s comments further standard, including the 3.0 SWR NHTSA rejects NTEA’s arguments and contemplate no assistance from the requirement. For these vehicles that are their conclusions. incomplete vehicle manufacturer. not built on a chassis-cab, the final-stage However, NHTSA has seen the converse A. Introduction manufacturer has the option of meeting to be true—there are IVDs, upfitter either the upgraded roof crush While NTEA has repeatedly claimed guides, best practices manuals and help resistance standard in FMVSS No. 216a, that the present certification scheme for lines provided by incomplete vehicle or can meet the standard in FMVSS No. multi-stage vehicles is invalid and manufacturers. Final-stage 220 (1.5 SWR). As previously discussed, unworkable, the availability of multi- manufacturers also have their own that test uses a single, horizontal platen. stage vehicles belies that claim. There technical expertise and engineering are many multi-stage vehicles on the V. Further Response to Comments judgment, and commercially available road that have been certified to a Regarding Multi-Stage Vehicles computer aided engineering software. number of standards, and the final-stage As a general matter, NTEA’s manufacturers are still in business. Final-stage manufacturers can use comments on the agency’s proposal to There are large numbers of multi-stage their judgment, including engineering or upgrade FMVSS No. 216 centered on vehicles, such as school buses, box technical judgment, to certify vehicles. two premises: (1) NHTSA’s assumption Testing, as provided in the FMVSS, is that pass-through certification is 33 See 71 FR 28169–28171. not required as a matter of law to certify

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 17600 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

a vehicle.34 Instead, sound judgment originally enacted, did not provide for In view of the foregoing, NHTSA does may be used. Many final-stage agency review and approval of the not accept NTEA’s argument that the manufacturers bring considerable manufacturer’s certification or for certification scheme in NHTSA’s judgment to bear. They have been agency allocation of responsibility of regulations delegates too much power to building and certifying vehicles for certification in the multi-stage vehicle a private entity. years. Final-stage manufacturers can context. and do use their base of experience in C. Current IVDs Concerning FMVSS No. NHTSA’s regulations do not provide 216 Are Workable certifying vehicles as complying with for the agency to allocate certification the FMVSS. responsibility between incomplete NTEA submitted with its comment In addition, NHTSA provided vehicle manufacturers and final-stage relevant portions of the IVDs with Type substantial leadtime. The rule becomes manufacturers. 1 conformity statements for the General effective for multi-stage vehicles with a In 2000, Congress enacted the Motors 2006 GMT–355 incomplete truck GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 Transportation Recall Enhancement, and also the IVD for the GM 2006 C/K pounds) or less, i.e., the vehicles already 43 Accountability, and Documentation full size incomplete truck. NTEA covered by FMVSS No. 216, on (TREAD) Act.38 Section 9 of the Act attached these documents to September 1, 2016, and for the other demonstrate that the simplest multi-stage vehicles with a GVWR of amended 49 U.S.C. 30115 to address certification labels.39 In general, the installation of a truck body likely 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less weighing several hundred pounds, plus on September 1, 2017. These dates are amendments required an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer to certify the means used by the final-stage one year after the requirements are fully manufacturer to mount that body (e.g., effective for single stage vehicles. with respect to each FMVSS either that it has followed the compliance by drilling holes into the frame of the B. The Current Certification Scheme Is documents provided by the incomplete chassis-cab and bolting the body to the Not an Unlawful Delegation of Agency vehicle manufacturer or that it has frame) will affect the physical Authority chosen to assume responsibility for properties, e.g., of the chassis frame and 40 numerous other structural components NTEA argued that under the current compliance with that standard. The of the chassis-cab. certification scheme the ability of an amendments further provided that if an interested private party to determine the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer GM’s IVD allows for additions to the legal responsibility of another party assumes responsibility for compliance chassis-cab. The GMT–355’s IVD states with respect to a safety standard, which with a standard covered by the that the incomplete vehicle will comply it contends is the result of the documentation, it must notify the with FMVSS No. 216 ‘‘providing no incomplete vehicle manufacturer incomplete vehicle manufacturer within alterations are made which affect the creating the IVD, amounts to an a reasonable time.41 Significantly, the function, physical, chemical, or impermissible delegation of NHTSA’s TREAD Act amendments did not alter mechanical properties, environment, statutory authority to a private party. the regulatory approach in 49 CFR 567.5 location, or vital spatial clearances of NTEA made the same argument in its and 49 CFR part 568. They did not the components, assemblies or systems petition for reconsideration of the require NHTSA to allocate certification including but not limited to those listed certification rule, and the agency responsibilities between the various below: antennae; body roof structure or addressed it in its May 2006 response to manufacturers in the chain of components/reinforcements; body sheet that petition.35 As we explained in that production of multi-stage vehicles. metal/reinforcements; body structural response, NTEA relied on a case In contrast to this regulatory components/reinforcements; front rear involving an unlawful delegation of an approach, Congress has enacted other and side glazing materials and agency’s authority to a private entity.36 regulatory schemes that require agency mounting; structural components and However, NTEA ignored the holding in review and approval of manufacturers’ door assemblies; windshield wipers; that case, that the relevant inquiry on a certifications. For example, the Clean and windshield wiper motor.’’ private delegation issue is to assess Air Act requires the Administrator of NTEA read the IVD and claimed that Congressional intent, based on the the Environmental Protection Agency adding a box to a chassis-cab frame pertinent statute(s) and its legislative (EPA) to test or require testing of motor would affect the physical, chemical, or history. vehicles or engines to determine mechanical properties of the body’s In the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress whether they comply with the structural components/reinforcements. imposed the responsibility to certify emissions requirements and, if they Based on this statement, NTEA compliance on manufacturers and conform, to issue a certificate of concluded that pass-through 37 distributors. The Safety Act created a conformity.42 In that context, EPA has a certification is not available. NHTSA self-certification scheme. Under this significant administrative role. In disagrees. statutory framework, the agency contrast, in the Vehicle Safety Act, Before turning to the specifics, we promulgates the FMVSSs, and it is then Congress did not provide for agency note that NTEA characterized the the manufacturer’s or distributor’s review or approval of a manufacturer’s FMVSS No. 216 test as a dynamic test. responsibility to comply with these certification before first sale. Moreover, As a technical matter, the test is standards and to furnish a certification the TREAD Act amendments considered a quasi-static test rather than to the distributor or dealer that the specifically addressed certification in a dynamic test. In a quasi-static test, the vehicle or equipment conforms to all the multi-stage vehicle context and did conditions vary slowly enough so that applicable FMVSSs. The statute, as not assign the agency an arbiter role in the certification process. 43 NTEA stated that GM included an identical 34 This has been recognized in interpretations by conformity statement for FMVSS No. 216 in its IVD NHTSA’s Chief Counsel. for the GM 2006 C/K full size incomplete truck, 35 38 Public Law 106–414. 71 FR at 28186–87. although, to NTEA’s knowledge, GM did not 39 36 Nat’l Park and Conservation Ass’n v. Stanton, 114 Stat. 1805. produce a C/K chassis rated 6,000 pounds GVW or 54 F.Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 1999). 40 Id. below. FMVSS No. 216 would have applied to the 37 See Section 114 of the Act, Public Law 89–563, 41 Id. vehicle only if it were rated with a GVWR of 2,722 80 Stat. 726 (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30115). 42 42 U.S.C. 7525(a). kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 17601

the dynamic effects are negligible.44 In Commonly, the attached unit is a box of recognized processes and procedures. developing our proposal to upgrade some form that goods or materials can NTEA has a ‘‘Body Practices FMVSS No. 216, we considered be carried in. The attached unit does not Subcommittee’’ that reviewed the potential dynamic tests, e.g., the Jordan attach to the cab. Pass-through mounting methods of several chassis Rollover System test and the Controlled certification is readily available for this manufacturers. NTEA approved four Rollover Impact System test, but vehicle. The conformity statement in the general mounting types. All mount to decided to focus on the quasi-static test IVD is written to allow modifications to the frame and are permissible under the procedure. This was an issue that was the incomplete vehicle, but not to the IVD for the GMT–355. None of the addressed in detail in the rulemaking. components that affect the vehicle’s roof mounting methods involve attachments The quasi-static test in this standard strength. to the A- and B-pillars. does, however, have some dynamic While pass-through certification is not A final-stage manufacturer is not characteristics.45 In any event, potential provided if vehicle components related limited to the IVD. If a final-stage compliance difficulties relate to the to roof strength are modified, NTEA has manufacturer wanted to make specific details of a test and relevant not provided an example where the modifications beyond the IVD, it could requirements based on that test rather addition of a truck body would modify still use the IVD as a starting point and than whether the test is called quasi- the structural members of the A- and B- then utilize technical judgment. This is static or dynamic. pillars, and NHTSA is unaware of one. We now turn to the GMT–355 NTEA did not provide other examples different from a vehicle built on a incomplete vehicle. This incomplete where roof modifications would be stripped chassis where the final-stage vehicle is classified as a body-on-frame, necessary. In the example of mounting manufacturer would be designing the as distinguished from unibody a box to the frame, there would be no complete occupant compartment construction used in making passenger modifications to the roof. structure. The final-stage manufacturer cars, which generally do not have is beginning with a vehicle with a frames. The cab is attached to the frame. D. Final-Stage Manufacturers Can completed occupant compartment Roof strength is dependent on structural Certify Their Vehicles Built on Chassis- structure, including the roof, that it members of the vehicle’s largely vertical cabs as Being Compliant With FMVSS knows already meets FMVSS No. 216, pillars, including the A pillar (between No. 216a and can use judgment to ensure that the the windshield and the front of the front FMVSS No. 216 has applied to multi- modifications it makes will not weaken door) and the B pillar (behind the front stage vehicles with a GVWR of 2,722 the roof. As such, a final-stage door), and the roof itself. kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less since manufacturer could complete the In completing an incomplete GMT– the early 1990s. Despite NTEA’s vehicle and certify it. 355, the final-stage manufacturer adds a articulated problems with the GMT–355 In the case of chassis-cabs, for unit behind the cab. That unit or truck IVD, final-stage manufacturers example, data are available on the body is attached to the frame. undoubtedly have made additions to strength of the roofs. Chassis-cabs have this incomplete vehicle and certified it intact roof designs and for the most part 44 That is the case with the lowering of the compliant. Otherwise, GM would not FMVSS No. 216 test device. In the FMVSS No. 216 are the same as vehicles that are sold as test procedure, a test device applies a force, based have offered it for sale for years. complete vehicles, such as large pickup on the vehicle’s unloaded weight, to the vehicle’s There are a number of resources trucks. The roof structures of those roof. The lower surface of the test device must not available for final-stage manufacturers. trucks will be designed to meet the move more than the specified distance. The May Many of these were mentioned in the upgraded requirements of FMVSS No. 2009 final rule maintained the fundamental nature 46 of the test. 2006 response to NTEA’s petition. 216. NHTSA tests vehicles, including 45 We believe the quasi-static test has sufficient These resources are still available. For pickup trucks, to FMVSS No. 216 and dynamic characteristics that we would consider the example, General Motors has makes the data available.48 Final-stage new procedures adopted by the agency in the 2005 relationships with final-stage manufacturers can readily refer to these and 2006 certification rules for applying for manufacturers, which it refers to as temporary exemptions to be available for FMVSS data for certification. No. 216, although we are not aware of any specific ‘‘Special Vehicle Manufacturers,’’ or situations in which they would be needed. In those SVMs. According to GM Upfitters’ Best NTEA also argued that Ford provided rules, NHTSA amended its regulations to establish Practices Manual, ‘‘[t]he success of the guidance for 10 safety standards in its a new process under which intermediate and final- 2006 Pickup Box Removal/Alterations stage manufacturers and alterers can obtain Upfitter Integration group depends on temporary exemptions from dynamic performance an atmosphere of communication, Design Recommendations for the pick- requirements of certain standards. While the 2005 cooperation and trust between SVMs up box removal for the Ford Ranger, but rule limited this process to dynamic crash test and GM. SVMs would therefore be not for FMVSS No. 216 (p. 8 of NTEA’s requirements, in response to NTEA’s petition, the comments, footnote 4). It said that, agency expanded the scope of the availability of the expected to use the Upfitter Integration new procedures in the 2006 rule so that resources available to them (i.e., therefore, in the alterer context, the manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles can petition telephone hotline, quality surveys, alterer is on its own as to the roof crush the agency for a temporary exemption from guideline manuals and Upfitter resistance standard. We note that Ford’s requirements that incorporate various dynamic tests 2006 Pickup Box Removal/Alterations generally, and not exclusively dynamic crash tests. Integration engineering expertise). NHTSA explained that a dynamic test is one that SVMs are expected to have documented Design Recommendations do not requires application of forces or energy to the processes which are understood and involve incomplete vehicles. The vehicle and the FMVSS include a variety of accepted by all.’’ (p. 4).47 Ranger is not sold as an incomplete dynamic tests in addition to those involving crash According to the GM Upfitters’ Best vehicle. Ford’s recommendations are for tests. The agency noted that in some circumstances, there may be considerable costs associated with Practices Manual, NTEA reviews and dynamic tests other than dynamic crash tests, and recommends Body-Mounting Practices 48 For example, there are data available on there may be significant damage to vehicles from in the GM Upfitters’ Best Practices NHTSA’s testing of pickup trucks. NHTSA’s testing such tests. Given the broad language used in Manual that identifies industry of completed trucks under 6,000 lbs shows the characterizing dynamic tests, we would consider following: (a) MY 2007 Chevy Colorado, GVWR = the procedures to be available for the quasi-static 4850 lbs, SWR 2.18 (Test 560), (b) MY 2007 Toyota test specified by FMVSS No. 216. The test does 46 71 FR 28185 Tacoma, GVWR = 5250 lbs, SWR 3.29, (Test 566), require application of forces or energy to the vehicle 47 http://www.gmupfitter.com/publicat/ (c) MY 2007 Toyota Tacoma, GVWR = 4550 lbs, and may result in significant damage to the vehicle. Best_Practices.pdf. SWR 4.4 (Test 530).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 17602 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

alterers 49 that remove a pick-up box situation where the final-stage 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, from a completed vehicle. Ford has manufacturer would have no pass- i.e., the vehicles already covered by already certified that vehicle. The through certification opportunity. FMVSS No. 216, on September 1, 2016, document cited in NTEA’s comment is NHTSA notes that the Freestar/ and to the other multi-stage vehicles guidance and is not required under 49 Monterey vans have not been produced with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 CFR 567.7 for certification. for years and NTEA did not demonstrate pounds) or less on September 1, 2017. Moreover, we have reviewed the Ford that the issue is likely to recur with These dates are one year after the document in question and believe that newer models. We note, however that requirements are fully effective for NTEA has not shown a real problem for Ford has a mobility vehicle program, for single stage vehicles. This is a seven- alterers. For pickup trucks such as the transporting handicapped people, and year leadtime for vehicles currently Ranger, the passenger compartment is NTEA has not demonstrated that there subject to the standard, and an eight- completely separate from the cargo box. are any problems with respect to year leadtime for the vehicles newly Each is separately secured to a common availability or certification of mobility subject to the standard. NHTSA frame. For this reason, simply replacing vehicles. We also note that NMEDA did anticipates that this leadtime will be the pickup box with an aftermarket not cite any such difficulties. In ample for incomplete vehicle body would not affect the strength of the addition, Ford has programs to assist manufacturers and final-stage roof.50 mobility manufacturers.54 manufacturers to work out any issues. In the FMVSS No. 216a test procedure FMVSS No. 216 is not, of course, adopted in the 2009 final rule, the body currently applicable to vehicles with a F. NHTSA Provided a Testing of the vehicle is securely mounted. In GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms Alternative, FMVSS No. 220 the case of a body-on-frame pickup (6,000 pounds). For that reason, the NTEA commented that final-stage truck, the occupant compartment cab IVDs for chassis-cabs currently used for manufacturers of vehicles built on would be rigidly mounted such that these heavier vehicles do not and incomplete vehicles other than chassis- only the roof strength of the occupant cannot be expected to address FMVSS cabs (cutaways, chassis cowls,56 or compartment of the vehicle is tested. In No. 216. However, as the upgraded stripped chassis) cannot rely on pass- support of the final rule, the agency standard will apply to these vehicles, through certification or perform the tests tested a number of pickup trucks in one- manufacturers will address it in the in FMVSS Nos. 216 or 220. It did not and two-sided test configurations.51 In future.55 addition, the agency also tested an agree with statements in the NPRM that incomplete 2008 Ford F–250 (NHTSA E. In General, IVDs Are Workable the existence of State operational Test No. 571) 52 chassis-cab pickup. The NTEA claimed that IVDs containing requirements for para-transit vans and F–250 was delivered and tested without conformity statements for standards other buses to comply with FMVSS No. a cargo bed. From our testing, the other than FMVSS No. 216 are overly 220 is good evidence that final-stage presence of the cargo box did not have restrictive. It cited the conformity manufacturers in fact are able to comply any impact on the strength of the roof.53 statements provided by GM for the C/K with that standard. It also said that the NTEA also stated that for the 2004 fullsize pickup truck IVD. It also cited fact that final-stage manufacturers are model year, Ford produced the Freestar/ the IVD provided by Ford for the E- able to comply with FMVSS No. 220 for Monterey van as an incomplete vehicle series incomplete vehicle with respect some vehicles merely reflects the to be used in the manufacturer of to FMVSS Nos. 212, 219 and 301. NTEA particular manufacturing of that vehicle, mobility vehicles. It stated that these stated that the conformity statements are and the fact that certain niche markets vehicles had a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms based on the performance of the vehicle can comply with FMVSS No. 220 does (6,000 pounds) or less, and were thus in the dynamic tests in those standards. not translate to final-stage subject to FMVSS No. 216. NTEA stated As noted earlier, in our May 2006 manufacturers that produce scores of that for reasons that are unclear, Ford response to NTEA’s petition for vehicles in small production runs. did not provide a conformity statement reconsideration of the certification rule, NTEA thus advocated a lowest common for FMVSS No. 216 in the IVD for this we addressed in detail NTEA’s denominator approach. vehicle. NTEA stated that this is a arguments in connection with the NHTSA sees no reason to exclude all certification statements in the GM IVD multi-stage vehicles from the 49 An alterer ‘‘means a person who alters by that NTEA identified as inadequate. In requirements of FMVSS No. 216. We do addition, substitution, or removal of components each case, the agency’s findings recognize, unlike vehicles derived from (other than readily attachable components) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the supported the conclusion that the chassis-cabs, there will not be an vehicle other than for resale.’’ 49 CFR 567.3. existing IVDs are workable. Moreover, opportunity for a pass-through 50 The weight of the aftermarket body could affect we demonstrated that the current multi- certification of FMVSS No. 216 for the unloaded weight of the vehicle and, therefore, stage certification is workable and vehicles without intact roofs such as the amount of force the vehicle would need to pointed out the errors in NTEA’s withstand in a FMVSS No. 216 test. If replacing the cutaways and stripped chassis. In light pickup box with an aftermarket body resulted in arguments. Among other things, we of this, in the 2009 final rule, for multi- greater unloaded vehicle weight, the alterer could noted that NTEA’s petition did not stage trucks, NHTSA decided not to consult with the manufacturer about implications identify any final-stage manufacturer extend the coverage of the upgraded for FMVSS No. 216 compliance. that has been unable to certify a vehicle 51 FMVSS No. 216 as proposed in the 74 FR 22391, Appendix B and C. under the existing framework. Since this 52 Test reports available at http:// NPRM. Multi-stage trucks not built on a www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/comdb/ rulemaking is about FMVSS No. 216, chassis-cab or a full exterior van body querytesttable.aspx. and given the above discussion, there is with a GVWR greater than 2,722 53 The F–250 chassis-cab’s roof resisted a no need to address other standards. kilograms (6,000 pounds) are not maximum force of just over 54,000 N when the first The final rule becomes effective for covered. This is discussed below. side of the roof was tested. In a test conducted with multi-stage vehicles with a GVWR of a 2003 Ford F–250 with the cargo bed attached, the roof resisted over 44,000 N on the first side. The 56 An incomplete vehicle which is similar to a difference in peak strength of the roof is attributed 54 See https://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/ stripped chassis but includes a portion of the body to the vehicles being different body styles for non-html/qpg/2004/mobilityguidelines04.pdf. bounded by the front fenders, hood and base of the different model year vehicles. 55 See 49 CFR 568.4. windshield.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 17603

Multi-stage trucks with a GVWR of relatively standardized exterior claims that their vehicles meet these 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less structures. Therefore, there are requirements. We also note that the have already been subject to FMVSS No. significantly fewer issues related to Ambulance Manufacturers Association 216, and no practicability issues have special structural issues potentially of NTEA adopted a standard, AMD been identified. While there are affecting roof configuration and roof Standard No. 001, with a test based on differences between the existing strength for multipurpose vehicles and FMVSS No. 220. AMD Standard No. requirements and those of the upgraded buses than for trucks which may have 001, Ambulance Body Structure Static standard, the basic nature of the FMVSS more specialized and customized Load Test, is issued by the Ambulance No. 216 test is the same, i.e., a quasi- uses.58 Manufacturers Association of NTEA. static test that applies a force to the roof. Second, these vehicles transport The purpose of that standard is to Moreover, the FMVSS No. 220 option passengers, not property. While we are demonstrate the static strength of the will also be available (other than for concerned about the safety of occupants patient compartment of an ambulance trucks built using chassis-cabs). Given in all kinds of vehicles, there is a greater when subjected to a uniform load. these considerations, we believe that safety concern about unnecessarily NTEA stated that an ambulance these vehicles do not raise practicability excluding passenger vehicles, such as manufacturer recently had three units concerns. We note that we are not aware 15-passenger vans and small shuttle tested at a cost of $40,000, i.e., an of any incomplete cutaway vehicles buses from roof strength requirements, amount slightly over $13,000 each. with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 given the number of occupants. NTEA stated that ambulances are unlike pounds) or less. NTEA is correct that current IVDs do most multi-stage vehicles in that most We decided not to extend the not provide a Type I or Type II manufacturers produce a small number standard to multi-stage trucks with a statement regarding FMVSS No. 220, of models that require only limited GVWR above 2,722 kilograms (6,000 School Bus Rollover Protection. The alterations to meet specific customer pounds) not built on a chassis-cab or a Type 3 statements for Ford and GM needs and that, as a result, these testing full exterior van body. The incomplete cutaway chassis used for school buses costs, while still significant, can be vehicles for these excluded multi-stage are reasonable given the fact that these allocated over multiple vehicle sales. trucks will not have an intact roof, and incomplete vehicles do include A limited internet search reveals that because the strength of the roof may be occupant compartment structures. many manufacturers, including alterers, dependent on the structure to be added School bus manufacturers using these advertise that various mobility, para- by the final-stage manufacturer in chassis provide their own occupant transit and other vehicles meet the completing the truck, the incomplete compartment structures, and have long requirements of FMVSS No. 220.59 vehicle manufacturer may not provide certified their vehicles to FMVSS No. For example: for pass-through certification. Moreover, 220. • National Van sells wheelchair vans/ As we noted in the NPRM, several the FMVSS No. 220 test was designed ambulettes with modified roofs that are states already require ‘‘para-transit’’ vans for school buses and uses a horizontal said to be FMVSS No. 220 School Bus and other buses, which are typically plate over the driver and passenger Rollover certified.60 These can be built manufactured in multiple stages, to compartment instead of the angled plate on the Ford E–150 chassis. comply with the roof crush of Standard No. 216. This test may not • New England Wheels sells a requirements of FMVSS No. 220. be appropriate for trucks with certain Municipal Transporter that has a 30″ Moreover, the RVIA endorsed the roof configurations. raised transporter roof with a FMVSS For the remaining multi-stage vehicles agency’s proposal. Recreational No. 220 certified roll cage. New England other than trucks, we believe that the vehicles, including motorhomes, are Wheels also sells a Ford E–250 Van with FMVSS No. 220 option is a reasonable used to transport passengers, not an 18″ Executive Raised Roof w/FMVSS way to balance the need to increase property, and are commonly built on 220 Certified Roll Cage.61 safety in rollover crashes of multi-stage stripped chassis. The RVIA stated that • Accubilt sells a shuttle van with an vehicles and the capabilities of multi- several thousand of the smallest motor 8,600 lbs GVWR that has an ‘‘exclusive stage manufacturers. Examples of homes produced each year would be tubular steel roll cage (FMVSS vehicles in this category include Type II subject to the proposed rule and that certified).’’ 62 ambulances,57 small recreation vehicles, virtually all of the affected vehicles are • MobilityWorks of Akron, Ohio and shuttle vans with a GVWR greater manufactured in two or more stages. advertises that ‘‘[a]ll MobilityWorks than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) but RVIA stated that NHTSA rightly vehicles meet or exceed the not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 acknowledged that the requirements of requirements set forth for vehicles of pounds). Some of these vehicles involve FMVSS No. 220 appear to offer a gross weight less than 10,000 lbs.’’ for vans with raised roofs. reasonable avenue to balance the desire the FMVSS No. 220 load test.63 First, NTEA’s argument, which to respond to the needs of multi-stage appears to be largely in the context of manufacturers and the need to increase work trucks, on relatively unique 59 In some cases, the manufacturer indicates that safety in rollover crashes. a vehicle is ‘‘certified’’ to meet FMVSS No. 220. We configurations and very limited While NTEA claimed that the cited note that unless an FMVSS applies to a vehicle, it production numbers, does not truly State laws are not good evidence that cannot be certified to the FMVSS for purposes of apply. There are companies that make final-stage manufacturers in fact are able the Vehicle Safety Act. ambulances, other companies that make 60 http://www.nationalvans.com/models/ to confirm compliance of vehicles with _ small RVs, and others that make shuttle wheelchair vans.html (last accessed on January 17, FMVSS No. 220, it did not provide 2010). vans. These vehicles are generally made reasons for us to doubt manufacturer 61 http://www.newenglandwheels.com/ in larger production runs and/or with commercial-vans/municipal-transporter.html (last 58 On a related note, as to school buses, NTEA has accessed on January 17, 2010). 57 See the Federal Specification for the Star-of- recognized that these vehicles are produced in 62 http://www.accubuiltmobility.com/ Life Ambulance (KKK–A–1822F), as promulgated relatively large production runs of similarly shuttle_specs.html (last accessed on January 17, by the General Services Administration. http:// configured vehicles, and that Ford and GM provide 2010). www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/ guidance. NTEA stated that it expressed no view as 63 http://www.mobilityworks.com/Commercial/ GSA_DOCUMENT/ambulanc_1_R2FI5H_0Z5RDZ- to the practicability of FMVSS No. 220 for currently Commercial-Van-AboutUs.php (last accessed on i34K-pR.pdf. affected manufacturers. January 17, 2010).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 17604 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

• Mid America Coach of Kansas City, A manufacturer may choose any valid Final-stage manufacturers that build MO, sells full-size wheelchair vans with means of evaluating its products to their vehicles using chassis-cabs will be a FMVSS No. 220 roll cage.64 determine whether the vehicle or able to rely on pass-through • Safety Vans, LLC, of Hagerstown, equipment will comply with the safety certification. A reasonable reading of the MD, sells vans with reinforced roofs for standards when tested by the agency provided IVDs demonstrates this, as which ‘‘[r]oof load tests (FMVSS 220 according to the procedures specified in does the fact of the number of multi- compliant) demonstrate how the the standard and to provide a basis for stage vehicles on the road today that are SafetyVan, under the weight of nearly 6 its certification of compliance. certified to comply with many FMVSSs. tons, is still capable of allowing access NTEA’s projected costs assume, In extending FVMSS No. 216 to heavier into and egress from the passenger inaccurately, that pass-through light vehicles, we did not include trucks area!’’ 65 According to the company, certification is not available for any of other than those built using a chassis- standard features for these vans include its member’s vehicles, and, that they, as cab or incomplete vehicle with a full them being built on GM’s Model CG final-stage manufacturers, will need to exterior van body—a change from the 33706—Express/Savanna: Pass. Van Ext. conduct testing for these vehicles. NPRM. Also, for multi-stage vehicles 3500, 9,600 GVW.66 However, for the reasons discussed other than those built using chassis- Furthermore, the agency conducted a earlier, final-stage manufacturers will be cabs, NHTSA provided an alternative FMVSS No. 220 roof strength test on a able to rely on the IVDs for vehicles test procedure that is used for school Roadtrek Class B MPV motorhome (Test built using chassis-cabs or incomplete buses and has also been used by a No. 693) with a GVWR of 3,901 kg vehicles with a full exterior van body. number of States for para-transit buses. (8,600 pounds). The motorhome was They will be able to certify their Many manufacturers are already built on a General Motors incomplete vehicles using pass-through and building vehicles to this alternative. vehicle van body where the multi-stage engineering judgment and will not need Issued: April 2, 2010. manufacturer added a raised fiberglass to incur testing costs for these vehicles. roof to the body. The results of the test David L. Strickland, Moreover, the agency did not adopt showed the vehicle met the 1.5 SWR Administrator. the proposal in the NPRM to extend required under the standard within 130 [FR Doc. 2010–7907 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am] FMVSS No. 216 to multi-stage trucks mm (5.125 inches) of displacement of BILLING CODE 4910–59–P with a GVWR greater than 2,722 the load application plate. The test kilograms (6,000 pounds) not built on a illustrated that it is practicable for chassis-cab and not built on an multi-stage vehicles with a raised or DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION altered roof and with a GVWR greater incomplete vehicle with a full exterior than 2,722 kg (6,000 pounds) but less van body, e.g., those built using National Highway Traffic Safety than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), cutaways and stripped chassis. Administration to conform to the requirements of Therefore, there will not be any FMVSS FMVSS No. 220 as an option. No. 216 compliance costs for these 49 CFR Part 571 vehicles. G. There Is Little Cost for Multi-Stage As to other multi-stage vehicles, final- [Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0093] Manufacturers To Comply With FMVSS stage manufacturers will have the No. 216a option of certifying with the FMVSS No. RIN 2127–AG51 NTEA commented that in proposing 216 test or the FMVSS No. 220 test. The to upgrade FMVSS No. 216, the agency FMVSS No. 220 test option will Federal Motor Vehicle Safety ignored more than 20 million dollars in minimize the costs of compliance for Standards; Roof Crush Resistance these vehicles. As noted above, these compliance tests primarily placed on AGENCY: National Highway Traffic vehicles are used to transport small businesses. That organization Safety Administration (NHTSA), passengers. Various mobility, para- stated that there are at least 1,085 Department of Transportation. identifiable vehicle configurations in transit and other vehicles were also the affected weight category that would being designed to meet the FMVSS No. ACTION: Final rule; correcting require separate testing. NTEA 220 test prior to this rulemaking. amendment. Models are produced in sufficient multiplied this figure by $5,000 per test SUMMARY: In May 2009 we published a plus a vehicle value loss of $15,000, quantities and do not vary such that final rule that upgraded the agency’s resulting in a total of $21,700,000. The compliance tests would be required for safety standard on roof crush resistance. 1,085 vehicle configuration number each variation. In light of the above, the In this document, we correct two errors included 798 that were based on requirements are reasonable. Also, RVIA in that rule. We also identify errors in 67 chassis-cabs. supported this aspect of the proposal. the preamble to that rule. These cost projections are grossly We also observe that new procedures DATES: exaggerated. As indicated above, testing, adopted by the agency in the 2005 and This rule is effective May 7, as provided in a FMVSS, is not required 2006 certification rules for applying for 2010. as a matter of law to certify a vehicle. temporary exemptions are available, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For although we are not aware of any non-legal issues, you may call 64 http://www.midamericacoach.com/category/ specific situations in which they would Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of full-size-wheelchair-vans (last accessed on January be needed. Crashworthiness Standards, telephone 17, 2010). 202–366–4801. For legal issues, you 65 http://www.safetyvans.com/index.html (last H. Conclusion accessed on January 17, 2010). may call J. Edward Glancy, NHTSA 66 http://www.safetyvans.com/specs.html (last While NTEA commented that the Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202– accessed on January 17, 2010). proposed upgrade of FMVSS No. 216 366–2992. You may send mail to these 67 NTEA stated that there are 42 chassis-cab would be impracticable for its members, officials at the National Highway Traffic models in the affected weight category that could accommodate 19 different body and/or equipment the final rule we adopted is not Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey configurations. Multiplying 42 by 19 results in the impracticable for final-stage Avenue, SE., West Building, 798 number. manufacturers. Washington, DC 20590.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:15 Apr 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM 07APR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES