[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13209-13236]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04030]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 565, 566, 567, 586, and 591

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0006]
RIN 2127-AL77

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Requirements; Manufacturer
Identification; Certification; Replica Motor Vehicles; Importation of
Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal Safety, Bumper, and Theft
Prevention Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements an exemption program for replica
motor vehicles manufactured or imported by low-volume manufacturers, as
set forth in Section 24405 of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act). The FAST Act amended the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to direct the Secretary of
Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) to exempt annually 325 replica
motor vehicles manufactured or imported by low-volume manufacturers
from Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor
vehicles, but not standards that apply to motor vehicle equipment. To
implement the

exemption program and the procedural mandates of the FAST Act, this
final rule establishes a new part 586 and amends VIN requirements in
part 565, manufacturer identification requirements in part 566,
manufacturer certification requirements in part 567, and importation
requirements in part 591.

DATES:
    Effective Date: This rule is effective March 9, 2022.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received no later than April 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. To facilitate social
distancing due to COVID-19, please email a copy of the petition to
[email protected].
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). To
facilitate social distancing due to COVID-19, NHTSA is treating
electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting
confidential business information (CBI) to the Agency under 49 CFR part
512. https://www.nhtsa.gov/coronavirus.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For further information you may
contact Ms. Callie Roach, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected];
Mr. Daniel Koblenz, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Daniel.Koblen[email protected];
Office of the Chief Counsel. The mailing address of these officials is:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Final Rule Decisions--General
    a. Who qualifies for the exemption program as a low-volume
manufacturer?
    b. Number of Permitted Exempted Vehicles
    c. Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages
III. Definitions
    a. Low-Volume Manufacturer
    b. Replica Motor Vehicle
    1. Meaning of the Term ``Resemble''
    2. Meaning of the Term ``Body''
    3. Prototypes
    4. Requirement To Manufacture Under License Agreement for
Intellectual Property Rights
IV. Safety Requirements
    a. Equipment FMVSS
    b. Safety-Related Defects
V. Registration Requirements
    a. When and How To Register
    b. Required Information
    c. Time Periods
    d. Deemed Approved
VI. Other Administrative Requirements
    a. Manufacturer Identification Requirements (49 CFR Part 566)
    b. Manufacturer Identifier and VIN Requirements
    c. Declaration Form for Replica Motor Vehicles
VII. Labels and Other Consumer Disclosures
    a. Permanent Label
    b. Written Notice to Dealers and First Purchasers; Temporary
Label
VIII. Reporting
IX. Termination of Exemptions
    a. Revocation
    b. Expiration
X. List of Registrants
XI. Overview of Benefits and Costs
XII. Effective Date
XIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

I. Executive Summary

    This final rule establishes an exemption program for replica motor
vehicles manufactured or imported by low-volume manufacturers, as
directed by Section 24405 of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94). The
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) \1\ states
that ``a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale,
introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import
into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment''
unless the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in effect on the date of
manufacture, unless covered by a nonapplication provision or exempted
under the Safety Act.\2\ Section 24405 of the FAST Act, entitled,
``Treatment of Low-Volume Manufacturers,'' amended 49 U.S.C. 30114
(Special exemptions) by adding a new subsection (b) that mandated the
creation of a new exemption program for replica vehicles. Subsection
(b) requires the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) to
exempt ``325 replica motor vehicles per year that are manufactured or
imported by a low-volume manufacturer'' from 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)
regarding FMVSS ``applicable to motor vehicles and not motor vehicle
equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101
et seq.).
    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 30112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 30114(b) requires low-volume manufacturers seeking an
exemption to register with NHTSA and gives the agency a limited period
to review and either approve or deny an application for registration
before the application is deemed approved. It requires that NHTSA
require the manufacturers to affix permanent labels to the exempted
motor vehicles to identify the vehicle as a replica and provide other
information determined necessary by NHTSA. The provision also requires
annual reporting to NHTSA and directs NHTSA to maintain an up-to-date
list of registrants and a list of the makes and models of exempted
motor vehicles at least annually (and publish such list in the Federal
Register or on NHTSA's website). The FAST Act amendments direct that
the 325-vehicle production authorization is limited to the calendar
year in which the exception is granted, and that unused production
capacity (i.e., the difference between the 325-vehicle authorization
and actual vehicle production) does not accrue and carry forward into
subsequent calendar years, but expires at the end of the calendar year
in which it was granted. The provisions authorize NHTSA to revoke an
existing registration based on a failure to comply with applicable
requirements, or a finding by the agency of either a safety-related
defect or unlawful conduct that poses a significant safety risk.
    This final rule implements the replica motor vehicle exemption
program mandated under 24405 of the FAST Act. NHTSA published the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding this final rule on
January 7, 2020 (85 FR 792, Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0121).\3\ NHTSA
proposed to establish the replica motor vehicle exemption program in 49
CFR part 586, and proposed amendments to the agency's regulations for
VIN requirements (49 CFR part 565), manufacturer identification (part
566), and

certification (part 567), to accommodate the exemption program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For a detailed summary of the FAST Act provisions, see the
NPRM, 85 FR at 793-794.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed in the NPRM, 49 CFR part 586 included the FAST Act
definitions to define and adopt the exemption program, along with both
procedural and substantive requirements to implement the FAST Act's
mandates. The NPRM proposed to exempt low-volume manufacturers (that
qualified for the replica program and registered with NHTSA) from the
requirements of Sec.  30112(a), thereby allowing for the production of
up to 325 replica motor vehicles per year (hereafter ``covered replica
vehicles'') per replica manufacturer. This exemption was to be
conditioned on the replica manufacturer complying with all requirements
of the program.
    Under the NPRM, covered replica vehicles would be exempt from
complying with the ``vehicle'' standards in effect on the date of
manufacture of the replica vehicle that apply to new vehicles of the
replica's type (passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck,
or bus), but would not to be exempt from ``equipment'' standards.\4\
Thus, equipment would still be required to comply with any equipment-
level FMVSS performance requirement in effect on the equipment's date
of manufacture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Some of the FMVSS are ``vehicle'' standards that apply only
to new completed vehicles as a unit and not to aftermarket
components, some are ``equipment'' standards that apply to original
and aftermarket items of equipment, and a few are both vehicle and
equipment standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the comments to the NPRM, NHTSA has adopted the
majority of proposed provisions but has adjusted some aspects of the
program based on the feedback received. The discussion in this preamble
follows the overall outline of the NPRM and discusses, under each
section, the proposed requirement, comments received, and NHTSA's
decisions for this final rule.

Summary of Comments

    NHTSA received 20 comments on the NPRM. The commenters included
prospective replica vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, trade
associations, consultants and individuals.\5\ Commenters were generally
supportive of the proposed rule, but some suggested changes to specific
aspects of the NPRM. The significant comments are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NHTSA received three other comments, but they were either
not substantive or outside the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAST Act defines a replica vehicle as a vehicle ``intended to
resemble the body'' of another motor vehicle that was manufactured at
least 25 years before the replica. NHTSA proposed several requirements
to implement this ``resemblance'' requirement in an objective manner,
such as that a ``replica motor vehicle'' must have the same length,
width, and height as the vehicle being replicated (hereafter,
``original motor vehicle''). In response, commenters, including
potential replica motor vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, the Specialty
Equipment Market Association (SEMA), Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
(VSCI), and several individuals, urged NHTSA to provide more
flexibility in implementing the resemblance requirement. Many
commenters argued that NHTSA should allow the dimensions of the replica
motor and the original motor vehicle to deviate by up to 10 percent.
Commenters pointed to the definition of a ``specialty motor vehicle''
used by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which provides such
deviation. The NPRM also defined ``body'' as including any part of the
vehicle that is not part of the chassis or frame. Some potential
replica manufacturers suggested a vehicle's body should be limited to
the body's exterior design and appearance.
    Several commenters discussed the provisions of the NPRM that NHTSA
proposed for the purpose of ensuring intellectual property (IP) rights
and ownership were adequately protected. The NPRM proposed a
requirement that manufacturers submit documentation to support the
manufacturer's assertion that the replica vehicle is intended to
resemble the original. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation
(Alliance) supported the proposal, asserting that public disclosure of
the documentation ``will permit intellectual property owners to take
action to protect their rights if they believe that the applicant does
not have the necessary authorizations.'' Other commenters suggested
that NHTSA simply require that replica motor vehicle manufacturers
certify or declare that they have all necessary rights to produce a
replica motor vehicle, rather than require them to provide the
underlying documentation. NHTSA also received comments on whether
replica vehicles should be required to reproduce logos and emblems from
the original vehicle.
    Comments were mixed on whether manufacturers of incomplete vehicles
should be eligible for the replica program, and how NHTSA should apply
the FAST Act exemption to vehicles produced in multiple stages. While
commenters from industry, including SEMA, were supportive of allowing
the use of incomplete vehicles in the replica manufacturing process,
they also stated that replica manufacturers generally do not expect to
produce their vehicles in more than one stage.
    Several commenters questioned whether the procedural requirements
in the NPRM relating to the automatic approval of replica manufacturers
registrations were consistent with the FAST Act, which states that an
application should be ``deemed approved'' if NHTSA does not respond to
the application within 90 days.
    Regarding labeling and disclosure requirements, some commenters
believed it overly burdensome to require that the certification label
list all the standards from which the replica motor vehicle is
exempted. Some comments objected to the redundancy of having to provide
temporary labels in addition to the statutorily-mandated labeling.
    Several commenters addressed NHTSA's interpretation of the FAST
Act's provisions regarding preemption of State titling and registration
laws. Some commenters disagreed with NHTSA's interpretation that State
titling and registration laws could require vehicles to be equipped
with certain safety equipment.

Differences Between the NPRM and Final Rule

    This final rule adopts most of the proposal but has revised or
clarified several aspects in response to comments, as highlighted
below. All changes, and others of a more minor nature, are discussed in
the relevant sections of this final rule.
    The main changes are:
     Registrants will not be required to submit actual
documentation to demonstrate they own or have license to the
intellectual property (IP) necessary to manufacture a replica motor
vehicle. Instead, they must certify to this fact.
     A replica motor vehicle will not be required to maintain
the exact dimensions of the original motor vehicle to meet the
requirement that it ``resemble'' the original motor vehicle. A 10
percent leeway is provided. NHTSA is also not requiring that replica
motor vehicles resemble not only the original vehicle's exterior, but
also its interior.
     NHTSA has streamlined the regulatory text to clarify how
NHTSA will process registrations, and how the Agency will address
``deemed approved'' registrations.
     This final rule reduces the amount of information replica
manufacturers must disclose to members of the public, compared to the
NPRM's proposal.

    NHTSA has also reconsidered its view of 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(9),
which states that the replica program shall not be construed to
preempt, affect, or supersede State titling or registration laws or
regulations.

II. Final Rule Decisions--General

a. Who qualifies for the exemption program as a low-volume
manufacturer?

    49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(1) limits the exemption to not more than 325
replica motor vehicles per year ``that are manufactured or imported by
a low-volume manufacturer.'' NHTSA interpreted this provision in the
NPRM to mean that replica vehicles must be produced by a low-volume
manufacturer and that ``replica vehicles may only be imported by their
fabricating low-volume manufacturer.'' \6\ Further, NHTSA proposed that
each low-volume manufacturer would be limited to importing 325 replica
vehicles per year, regardless of the calendar year of manufacture.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, 85 FR 795. Interpreting the statute to allow replicas
to be produced by foreign manufacturers that do not qualify as low-
volume manufacturers and then imported by low-volume manufacturers
is contrary to Congress's intent to create an exemption program
designed to address the unique financial challenges small
manufacturers face.
    \7\ A low-volume manufacturer would not be permitted to import
more than 325 replica vehicles into the U.S. in a single calendar
year, regardless of whether those vehicles were fabricated over the
course of two calendar years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA stated that replica vehicles produced by a foreign low-volume
manufacturer may only be imported by that specific registered low-
volume manufacturer. NHTSA stated it interpreted the wording of the
FAST Act provision in the same way NHTSA has interpreted the hardship
exemption provision in 49 U.S.C. 30113, i.e., as not authorizing the
agency to grant hardship exemptions to entities that seek to import
vehicles they did not produce.\8\ NHTSA asserted that interpreting
Sec.  24405 of the FAST Act in the same manner is appropriate because
both provisions recognize that small manufacturers are faced with
unique financial challenges in meeting the FMVSS, and provide
exemptions to alleviate this burden. NHTSA argued that by prohibiting
an entity seeking to import replica motor vehicles from registering as
a low-volume manufacturer of replica vehicles unless it is also the
entity fabricating the replica vehicles would ensure that small
importers are not permitted to import replica vehicles manufactured by
large foreign manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See letter to Mr. Bill Cox (March 24, 1997) available at
https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/kill.ztv.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    NHTSA received differing views on its proposal to allow only a
fabricating manufacturer to register as a replica vehicle manufacturer
and to import replica vehicles. The American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the Alliance supported NHTSA's
proposal to ensure conformance to the 325 vehicles per manufacturer
limit. SEMA, Caterham Cars Ltd. (Caterham) and ElectroMeccanica
Vehicles Corp. (ElectroMeccanica) requested that NHTSA allow foreign
fabricating replica manufacturers the option to assign one subsidiary
or distributor to import and sell replica motor vehicles.
NHTSA Response
    NHTSA has reconsidered the discussion in the NPRM and agrees with
the commenters who argued that it is not necessary to limit the
eligibility for the replica program to importers who fabricate the
vehicles. There is no such prohibition in the FAST Act provisions \9\
and the agency believes that including such a prohibition is not
necessary to ensure conformance to the 325-vehicles per manufacturer
cap. NHTSA believes that the general statutory definition for
``manufacturer,'' which covers both entities that manufacture motor
vehicles and entities that import motor vehicles for resale, should
apply.\10\ This is to say, the definition does not stipulate that an
importer must only import the vehicles they fabricate; importers have
been permitted to import vehicles produced by other entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ However, 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2) provides that ``[NHTSA] shall
establish terms that ensure that no person may register as a low-
volume manufacturer if the person is registered as an importer under
section 30141 of this title.''
    \10\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA does not believe it is necessary to require a low-volume
foreign manufacturer to use a single low-volume entity to import its
replica motor vehicles, provided limits are in place on the
importation. The total production of that low-volume foreign
manufacturer may not exceed 5,000 vehicles annually (i.e., it must be a
low-volume manufacturer), its importers must all be ``low-volume''
(importing or producing fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually), and the
total number of replica motor vehicles imported into the U.S. by all of
its U.S.-based importers combined cannot exceed 325 vehicles.

b. Number of Permitted Exempted Vehicles

    The FAST Act exempts ``not more than 325 replica motor vehicles per
year that are manufactured or imported by a [registered] low-volume
manufacturer.'' \11\ NHTSA proposed provisions implementing this
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    Three comments concurred with the agency's statements about the
325-vehicle cap. VSCI asked NHTSA to clarify that the exemption limit
did not apply in two situations. First, VSCI suggested that the limit
did not apply to replica motor vehicles produced by a manufacturer for
sale outside the United States, if the total annual production for the
manufacturer did not exceed 5,000. Second, VSCI asked whether the
manufacturer could produce similar vehicles in excess of the 325-limit
if those vehicles were certified as complying with all applicable
FMVSS. The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) supported the
325-limit but cautioned that manufacturers should not be allowed to
evade this limit through multiple importers, shell corporations or
multi-stage manufacturing processes. An individual noted that, where
multiple manufacturers planned to produce replica motor vehicles based
on the same vehicle, the 325-limit should apply to the total vehicles
produced by all such manufacturers. The individual did not suggest how
NHTSA should allot the vehicles among the manufacturers in such a
scenario.
Agency Response
    Under 49 U.S.C. 30114(b), a replica motor vehicle manufacturer must
be a low-volume manufacturer. Under Sec.  30114(b)(7)(A), the term
``low volume manufacturer'' means a motor vehicle manufacturer, other
than a person who is a registered importer, whose annual worldwide
production, including by a parent or subsidiary of the manufacturer, if
applicable, is not more than 5,000 motor vehicles. Thus, following this
definition, NHTSA will count the vehicles produced by parent and
subsidiary companies of an entity claiming to be a low-volume
manufacturer to see if the entity qualifies as a low-volume
manufacturer. Under section 30114, individual low-volume manufacturers
are limited to not more than 325 replica motor vehicles per year. NHTSA
agrees that a replica motor vehicle manufacturer must not be permitted
to exceed the 325-vehicle production cap using affiliated parent or

subsidiary companies, as that would be contrary to the provisions of
the exemption. The annual production cap for replica motor vehicle
manufacturers applies to the registered entity as well as to
productions by parent or subsidiary companies and manufacturers under
common ownership. To be clear, a replica motor vehicle manufacturer
cannot exceed the production cap using affiliated parent or subsidiary
companies.
    A low-volume manufacturer is permitted to produce a variety of
replica motor vehicle models, so long as the cumulative production for
the manufacturer is not more than 325 replica motor vehicles per year.
In such a case, the low-volume manufacturer must state in all
applications how it has allocated the 325 vehicles it produced among
the different models.
    As noted above, the Safety Act treats U.S.-based importers that are
subsidiaries of foreign manufacturers as manufacturers. Thus, importers
that are subsidiaries of foreign manufacturers are limited to importing
up to a total of 325 replica motor vehicles across all connected
companies. This assumes, of course, that the importer and the foreign
manufacturer are both low-volume manufacturers.
    Finally, VSCI's understanding is correct that the cap does not
apply to replica motor vehicles produced by a low-volume manufacturer
that are sold outside the United States. Also, the 325 cap does not
include vehicles produced by a low-volume manufacturer that are
certified as compliant with all applicable FMVSS, since compliant
vehicles do not require an exemption to be sold in the United States.
(If the manufacturer produces more than 5,000 motor vehicles annually,
however, it would not be a low-volume manufacturer, and would not
qualify for this replica vehicles exemption program.)

c. Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages

    NHTSA requested comment on whether the replica vehicle program
should exclude vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. The agency
was concerned that some of the proposed requirements may be impossible
to meet unless the replica vehicle is manufactured in a single stage.
For instance, NHTSA identified a potential incompatibility between the
multistage manufacturing process and a requirement that the vehicle's
vehicle identification number (VIN) identify the vehicle as a replica.
NHTSA sought to ensure replica vehicles are properly identified as
replicas in their VINs, and that the VIN denote the make, model, and
model year of the original vehicle. NHTSA was concerned that those
requirements could not be met by vehicles produced in two or more
stages because, under NHTSA's VIN regulation, each vehicle manufactured
in two or more stages has a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer.\12\ NHTSA noted that it was unlikely an incomplete
vehicle manufacturer would know the make, model, and model year of the
vehicle being replicated, so the VIN would be missing this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 49 CFR 565.13(a). See also 49 CFR 567.3 for definitions of
``incomplete vehicle,'' ``incomplete vehicle manufacturer,''
``final-stage manufacturer,'' and other terms relevant to this
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also noted its belief that replica manufacturers would not,
as a practical matter, be able to take advantage of multistage
manufacturing, because NHTSA interpreted the FAST Act as requiring that
all manufacturers involved in the fabrication of a vehicle manufactured
in more than one stage would need to be low-volume manufacturers. As
incomplete vehicle manufacturers are typically not low-volume
manufacturers, producing a replica vehicle through the multistage
manufacturing process did not seem feasible. As an alternative to
excluding multistage manufacturing from the exemption program, NHTSA
sought comment on allowing joint registration submissions from two or
more manufacturers wishing to manufacture the replica vehicle. NHTSA
envisioned that, under a joint registration program, the incomplete
vehicle manufacturer would know at the onset of manufacturing the make,
model, and model year of the vehicle the replica resembles, and thus
would be able to code information about the finished replica vehicle
into the VIN. However, NHTSA did not propose any regulatory text that
would facilitate such a joint registration program.
Comments Received
    NHTSA received divergent views on whether replica motor vehicles
should be required to be manufactured in a single stage. The AAMVA, the
National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) and the Alliance supported
the proposal to exclude multistage manufacturing. AAMVA noted that it
is essential to tie the VIN to the manufacturer at each stage of
manufacturing if NHTSA decides to allow multi-stage manufacturing. NTEA
agreed that most multistage manufacturers would not qualify as low
volume manufacturers and that ensuring compliance across multiple
manufacturers would be difficult. VSCI supported NHTSA's alternative to
allow joint registrations for incomplete/intermediate vehicle
manufacturers wishing to produce or import replica motor vehicles.
    Calloway and SEMA noted that current replica vehicle manufacturing
practices typically do not involve producing vehicles in more than one
stage. These commenters describe a process where replica vehicle
manufacturers purchase a subassembly from a supplier consisting of an
assemblage of parts (referred to as a ``rolling chassis''). The
subassembly does not include an engine, and therefore does not meet
NHTSA's definition of an incomplete vehicle.\13\ The commenters asked
for clarification that the agency does not consider a vehicle
manufactured from a rolling chassis to be a vehicle produced in more
than one stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 49 CFR 567.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, other commenters, while agreeing that multistage
manufacturing of replica vehicles is not currently the norm, urged
NHTSA to allow multistage manufacturing as an option. MOKE USA (MOKE)
specifically discussed the economic benefits that large-scale
manufacturing offered and indicated that replica vehicle manufacturers
could not benefit from these economies if multistage manufacturing were
not a possibility. Edelbrock LLC also commented that the regulation
should not require incomplete vehicle manufacturers supplying
components to replica vehicle manufacturers to be small manufacturers.
Agency Response
    After considering the comments, NHTSA has decided to establish
terms that make available the replica vehicle exemption only to replica
motor vehicles produced in a single stage. As explained above, NHTSA
originally raised for comment a prohibition on the multistage
manufacturing of replica vehicles out of a concern that it would not be
feasible for incomplete vehicle manufacturers to code information
identifying a vehicle as a replica into the vehicle's VIN. Incomplete
vehicle manufacturers are required to encode the vehicle type into the
VIN, and NHTSA did not think it probable that the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer would know, when it assigned the VIN, that the final-stage
manufacturer would be producing a replica vehicle. NHTSA has strong
interests in having the VIN show that the vehicle is a replica to
enable the agency to enforce the 325-vehicle annual production cap, and
to examine State and police crash data

files in the future (which identify vehicles by VINs) to ascertain the
involvement of replica vehicles in crashes and in crashes involving
injury or fatality (and, possibly, the circumstances involving the
crash and the mechanisms involved in injury outcome).
    The comments NHTSA received did not alleviate the agency's concern
about the ability of incomplete vehicle manufacturers to encode replica
vehicle VINs properly. Commenters validated the notion that such a
system could work if there were a complex and reliable coordination
between a final-stage replica manufacturer and the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer to ensure the VIN properly indicates a replica vehicle
when the final-stage manufacturer obtains the incomplete vehicle. (This
coordination concept was somewhat similar to the ``joint registration''
arrangements NHTSA envisioned in the NPRM when the agency discussed
allowing joint registrations of incomplete/intermediate/final vehicle
manufacturers wishing to produce replica motor vehicles.) However,
commenters did not provide information on how such a system could be
enforced by NHTSA, given the complex administrative and recordkeeping
problems it would create for both NHTSA and the replica industry.
Moreover, as we noted above, the commenters' reception to allowing
multistage-manufactured replica vehicles was lukewarm, with industry
groups and potential manufacturers not opposed to the idea, but not
strongly supportive either. Apparently, as evident from the comments,
this was because prospective replica manufacturers plan not to
manufacture vehicles (in multiple stages) using incomplete vehicles but
instead plan to manufacture the vehicles using ``rolling chasses,''
where they assemble the vehicle out of parts not involving an
incomplete vehicle.\14\ Given that replicas will likely be produced
other than in a multistage manufacturing process, and given NHTSA's
concerns that the manufacture of replica vehicles in more than one
stage might not produce crucial information the agency needs to oversee
the safety of replica vehicles, we have decided, at this stage of the
exemption program, that replica vehicles must be produced in a single
stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NHTSA does not consider a vehicle manufactured from a
rolling chassis to be a vehicle produced in more than one stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, NHTSA believes that, as a practical matter, there is an
inherent inconsistency between the multistage manufacturing process and
the FAST Act exemption. As discussed in the NPRM, the agency
interpreted the FAST Act to require all manufacturers involved in the
manufacture of a replica vehicle to be low-volume manufacturers. As
incomplete vehicle manufacturers are usually large manufacturers, we do
not believe replica vehicles using incomplete vehicles would qualify
for the replica vehicle exemption. Further, from a safety standpoint it
did not make sense to exempt replica vehicles that use incomplete
vehicles produced by large manufacturers, as the large manufacturers
have the resources to produce incomplete vehicles that could be made
into vehicles that could conform to braking and other vehicle safety
standards. While some commenters argued that NHTSA should permit the
multistage manufacture of replica vehicles, they supported the
multistage manufacturing of the vehicles primarily for the potential
economic benefits of doing so, and did not explain how the multistage
manufacturing process is consistent with the Safety Act. Given the
difficulty in administering VIN requirements for incomplete replica
vehicles, the plans of the replica industry to use rolling chasses and
not incomplete vehicles to produce replica vehicles, and the fact that
incomplete vehicle manufacturers are not low-volume manufacturers,
NHTSA has decided to require that replica vehicles must be manufactured
in a single stage. NHTSA has adopted a definition of ``replica motor
vehicle'' to reflect this decision.

III. Definitions

    The provisions in the FAST Act directing this exemption program
define the terms ``low-volume manufacturer'' and ``replica motor
vehicle.'' To facilitate implementation of the program, NHTSA proposed
to define the term ``replica motor vehicle manufacturer'' as ``a low-
volume manufacturer that is registered as a replica motor vehicle
manufacturer pursuant to the requirements in this part.''

a. Low-Volume Manufacturer

    Section 30114(b)(7)(A) defines ``low-volume manufacturer'' as: ``a
motor vehicle manufacturer, other than a person who is registered as an
importer under section 30141 of this title, whose annual worldwide
production, including by a parent or subsidiary of the manufacturer, if
applicable, is not more than 5,000 motor vehicles.'' Since several of
NHTSA's existing regulations already use the term ``low-volume
manufacturer,'' and, in some cases, define the term differently than
the FAST Act provision, NHTSA proposed that part 586 define ``low-
volume manufacturer'' by simply referring to 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(7).
Thus, the proposed definition \15\ stated: ``Low-volume manufacturer is
defined in 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(7).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 85 FR 819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    NHTSA received several comments suggesting that we clarify aspects
of the ``low-volume manufacturer'' term. (We addressed related issues
in the section above titled, ``Who qualifies for the exemption program
as a low-volume manufacturer.'') Some commenters believed that the
regulatory text of part 586 should communicate the production limits
set by the FAST Act so that the meaning of the term would be clearer on
the face of the regulation. Some commenters believed the regulatory
text should specify that the limit of 325 vehicles per year cannot be
evaded through multiple subsidiaries. VSCI suggested NHTSA should
clarify that low-volume manufacturers can produce or import up to 325
replica motor vehicles per year, regardless of how many replica
vehicles the manufacturer produces outside of the U.S., as long as the
total number of vehicles produced worldwide is less than 5,000. Some
commenters believed the regulatory text should be clarified as it
applies to foreign manufacturers who could have more than one U.S.-
based subsidiary, or to domestic manufacturers who own multiple
subsidiaries. Edelbrock suggested that NHTSA clarify that suppliers to
low-volume manufacturers are not limited to supporting only 325 replica
vehicles per year. SEMA, VSCI, and Caterham commented that U.S.-based
subsidiaries of foreign manufacturers should be permitted to import
replica motor vehicles, in addition to the foreign manufacturer itself.
NHTSA Response
    After considering the comments, NHTSA has included regulatory text
defining ``low-volume manufacturer'' and clarifying aspects of the
term. NHTSA has responded to several of the comments in the above-
mentioned section. The final rule regulatory text specifies that the
325-vehicle limit, or ``cap,'' applies across all subsidiaries owned by
a single manufacturer. That is, as long as the total global production
of the connected subsidiary manufacturers does not exceed 5,000

vehicles annually, the connected manufacturers that wish to register as
replica vehicle manufacturers may all do so, so long as their
registrations note the connections and allocate (and identify to NHTSA)
the 325-cap between the manufacturers. All connected subsidiary
manufacturers must be low-volume manufacturers and must, cumulatively,
produce no more than 325 replica vehicles annually. A foreign low-
volume manufacturer seeking to have its replica motor vehicles imported
into the United States is only permitted to have up to 325 replica
motor vehicles imported in total. U.S.-based subsidiaries of foreign
low-volume manufacturers are treated the same as replica vehicle
manufacturers sharing common ownership, i.e., they must be low-volume,
must register with NHTSA and must explain to the agency the connections
to each other and allocate (and identify to NHTSA) the 325-cap among
themselves. NHTSA emphasizes that the statute prohibits an entity from
being a registered importer under 49 U.S.C. 30141 and registering as a
replica motor vehicle manufacturer.
    For purposes of this final rule, NHTSA will use the terms ``replica
motor vehicle manufacturer,'' ``replica manufacturer,'' ``applicant''
and ``registrant'' interchangeably to mean a low-volume manufacturer
that is or seeks to be registered under part 586.

b. Replica Motor Vehicle

    The FAST Act defines a ``replica motor vehicle'' as a motor vehicle
produced by a low-volume manufacturer that (i) is intended to resemble
the body of another motor vehicle that was manufactured not less than
25 years before the manufacture of the replica motor vehicle; and (ii)
is manufactured under a license for the product configuration, trade
dress, trademark, or patent, for the motor vehicle that is intended to
be replicated from the original manufacturer, its successors or
assignees, or current owner of such product configuration, trade dress,
trademark, or patent rights.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(7)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's proposed definition for ``replica motor vehicle'' largely
tracked the statutory definition, but included a few minor
modifications to emphasize that replica motor vehicles must be
manufactured by a replica manufacturer and that production is limited
to 325 replica motor vehicles in that calendar year.\17\ NHTSA also
proposed requirements to ensure that a replica vehicle meets the
requirement that it be intended to resemble the original motor
vehicle.\18\ In addition, NHTSA addressed the provision relating to IP
rights associated with the original motor vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 85 FR 819.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Meaning of the Term ``Resemble''
    The FAST Act provides that a replica vehicle is one ``intended to
resemble the body'' of another motor vehicle that was manufactured at
least 25 years before the replica. NHTSA proposed requirements to give
objective meaning to ``intended to resemble.'' NHTSA explained in the
NPRM \19\ that the agency would interpret the term ``resemble'' as
requiring the same height, width, and length of the original motor
vehicle. NHTSA incorporated this interpretation of the term
``resemble'' into the proposed registration requirements to require
manufacturers to submit documentation to support that the replica
vehicle is ``intended to resemble'' the original vehicle by
demonstrating that the replica vehicle has the same length, width, and
height as the original, including images of the original vehicle and
design plans for the replica vehicle. The NPRM did not specify that the
replica vehicle must incorporate the original motor vehicle's logos and
emblems to ``resemble'' the underlying vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 85 FR 796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    Thirteen commenters argued that NHTSA's view that a replica motor
vehicle must have the same length, width and height as the original
vehicle was overly restrictive and burdensome. In addition to making
arguments about the plain language meaning of the word ``resemble,''
some were concerned that requiring a replica motor vehicle to have the
same dimensions as the original motor vehicle would make it more
difficult for replica vehicle manufacturers to incorporate new safety
features, use off-the-shelf components and/or components that comply
with equipment FMVSS, or make replica motor vehicles more fuel
efficient. Some potential replica motor vehicle manufacturers claimed
that they had made significant business investments premised on the
assumption that NHTSA would permit some leeway in the dimensions of
replica motor vehicles. Most commenters suggested that part 586 should
be consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) definition
for a ``specialty produced motor vehicle'' (SPMV). The SPMV definition
used by CARB states that a SPMV resembles another motor vehicle ``on an
overall 1:1 scale (10 percent) of original body lines,
excluding roof configuration, ride height, trim attached to the body,
fenders, running boards, grille, hood or hood lines, windows, and axle
location.'' The commenters argued that adopting a 10 percent leeway
would address the various safety and economic concerns they raised.
NHTSA Response
    After considering the comments, NHTSA agrees that the proposed
interpretation of ``resemble'' (requiring a replica motor vehicle
maintain the exact dimensions of the original motor vehicle) was too
restrictive. While objectivity is crucial, NHTSA agrees that the
statute's use of the word ``resemble,'' as opposed to a more stringent
term (e.g., ``identical''), indicates Congress's intent to allow some
leeway in the appearance of a replica motor vehicle. Providing replica
motor vehicles with a 10 percent margin recognizes the practical
difficulties of manufacturing vehicles on a low-volume basis to
specified physical dimensions in light of technological developments
and equipment requirements.
    While NHTSA is allowing for some variation in the dimensions of
replica vehicles as compared to the original vehicle, the agency is not
strictly adopting a 10 percent cutoff as the accepted
tolerance. This is because there may be instances where variation
greater than 10 percent may be warranted (e.g., to allow for modern
safety features). NHTSA seeks to avoid a cutoff that necessitates the
agency's having to deny an application or find a noncompliance
automatically when seeing a difference slightly outside of the 10
percent margin. Thus, the final rule allows a 10 percent tolerance in
the dimensional differences between the original vehicle and the
replica vehicle without need for further justification. The final rule
also provides a means by which replica manufacturers may seek approval
for dimensional differences that exceed10 percent, but such proposed
designs will be critically examined by NHTSA. Differences deemed
unwarranted will be grounds for NHTSA's denying the registration on the
finding the vehicle does not qualify as a replica vehicle.
    Whether a replica motor vehicle sufficiently ``resembles'' an
original motor vehicle is a matter NHTSA will decide on an
individualized basis and in its discretion, taking into account the
overall appearance of the vehicle. The closer a replica motor vehicle
tracks the original dimensions, the more likely it is that NHTSA will
determine the

vehicle is eligible for, or has been produced in conformance with, an
exemption under 49 CFR part 586. To be clear, the FAST Act creates an
exemption program designed to allow historic models to be replicated in
a less costly way by low-volume manufacturers. NHTSA does not interpret
``resemble'' in a manner in that would allow vehicles that are merely
inspired by older vehicles to be built, or otherwise allow for artistic
license to create vehicles that merely remind the public of past
automotive heritage.
2. Meaning of the Term ``Body''
    NHTSA also discussed in the NPRM \20\ its tentative determination
that the term ``body'' meant any part of the vehicle that is not part
of the chassis or frame, which would include, but would not be limited
to, a vehicle's exterior sheet metal and trim, the passenger
compartment, trunk, bumpers, fenders, grill, hood, interior trim,
lights and glazing. NHTSA based this interpretation on the agency's
definition of ``body type'' in 49 CFR 565.12, which is defined as the
general configuration or shape of a vehicle distinguished by such
characteristics as the number of doors or windows, cargo-carrying
features and the roofline (e.g., sedan fastback, hatchback). Because
this definition references both exterior and interior features, NHTSA
interpreted ``body'' as including both exterior and interior features
as well, such that merely replicating the exterior features of the
vehicle may not be sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 85 FR 796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    Five commenters (SEMA, VSCI, and three potential replica motor
vehicle manufacturers) believed NHTSA incorrectly interpreted the term
``body'' in the NPRM. According to these commenters, ``body'' is a term
of art in the automotive industry, which refers only to a vehicle's
exterior design and appearance and does not include interior features.
They believe NHTSA should align its interpretation of ``body'' with the
definition used by industry.
NHTSA Response
    NHTSA agrees with the commenters that the agency's tentative
interpretation of ``body'' in the NPRM was too broad. Given that the
intent of the replica vehicle statute is to permit the sale of vehicles
with an outward appearance that looks like a motor vehicle sold at
least 25 years ago, the only aspects of the vehicle that would be
covered by the term ``body'' should be those that affect the outside
appearance of the replica motor vehicle. This would not cover the
interior portions of the replica motor vehicle, such as the passenger
compartment, except to the extent that their design affects the outside
appearance of the vehicle. NHTSA makes this decision also to facilitate
replica vehicle manufacturers' efforts to incorporate new safety
features into the body of their vehicles, and to use off-the-shelf
components and/or components that comply with the equipment FMVSS.
3. Prototypes
    The NPRM proposed the replica vehicle must resemble the body of
another motor vehicle that was manufactured ``for consumer sale'' not
less than 25 years before the manufacture of the replica motor vehicle.
NHTSA asserted its belief \21\ that the provision ``for consumer sale''
indicates that the replica vehicle exemption program was not to apply
to prototype, concept or show vehicles that were never sold to
consumers. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle driven
or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on
public streets, roads, and highways.\22\ NHTSA stated that, since
prototypes or concepts are not intended for sale to the public, they
are not motor vehicles for these purposes. Accordingly, since the FAST
Act provision requires that the replica vehicle resemble another motor
vehicle manufactured for consumer sale, a vehicle replicating a
prototype would not qualify for the exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 85 FR 797.
    \22\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received and NHTSA Response
    All commenters responding to this issue agreed with NHTSA's
proposal. This final rule adopts the provision for the reasons
discussed in the NPRM.
4. Requirement To Manufacture Under License Agreement for Intellectual
Property Rights
    The FAST Act definition of a replica motor vehicle provides that
such vehicles are ``manufactured under a license for the product
configuration, trade dress, trademark, or patent, for the motor vehicle
that is intended to be replicated from the original manufacturer, its
successors or assignees, or current owner of such product
configuration, trade dress, trademark, or patent rights.'' The NPRM
proposed that this provision required replica vehicles to be licensed
products,\23\ meaning that the replica manufacturer must obtain all
legal rights necessary to produce the replica vehicle from the original
manufacturer, its successes or assignees, or current owner of such
intellectual property rights. NHTSA proposed that, when submitting its
registration, manufacturers must provide a binding certification that
attests that they can legally produce each replica vehicle model they
propose to make. This proposed requirement meant that manufacturers
would have to certify that they have determined the legal rights
required and that they have obtained all licenses or permissions
necessary to produce the replica vehicle.\24\ Applications that contain
a missing or incomplete certification would be disapproved. NHTSA also
proposed that manufacturers must provide supporting documentation that
sets forth a description of the types of IP necessary to produce the
replica vehicle, describing the status of each of those rights. If the
manufacturer had a license for particular rights, the agency proposed
it should provide documentation to that effect. NHTSA sought comment on
whether the replica vehicle manufacturer should be required to obtain a
license to use the original vehicle's make and model names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 85 FR 797.
    \24\ In the NPRM, NHTSA stated it viewed its role as ensuring
that the manufacturers who register under part 586 meet the
statutory requirements set forth in the FAST Act; manufacturers
would be responsible for performing the due diligence necessary to
determine what intellectual property rights are needed, and to
obtain relevant rights. 85 FR 798.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    Many of the commenters addressed NHTSA's proposed requirements
regarding intellectual property (IP) rights. VSCI, SEMA, Edelbrock,
NADA, and potential replica vehicle manufacturers believed that NHTSA
should require a certified statement that the replica vehicle owner
either is the owner of all relevant IP rights, or has obtained the IP
rights from the owner(s). These commenters disagreed with NHTSA's
requiring the submission of documentation, stating that NHTSA was not
the proper entity to address the issue of IP rights. Some commenters
noted that NHTSA can revoke a license if such a statement was
determined to be invalid. In contrast, two commenters, Tom Scarpello
and the Alliance, supported a requirement that the potential replica
vehicle manufacturer demonstrate that it has the IP rights. The
Alliance argued that NHTSA should attend to the rights of IP holders,
and

stated that the documentation accompanying an application should be in
the public domain to help an IP holder who needed to assert its rights.
The Alliance asked NHTSA to place the documentation in the public
domain as soon as possible.
NHTSA Response
    After considering the comments, NHTSA has decided not to require
the submission of documentation showing ownership of IP or a license to
use that IP. NHTSA's domain of expertise is automotive safety, not
intellectual property; NHTSA does not have the expertise to access the
validity or sufficiency of documentation submitted to show IP rights.
Disputes over IP rights and ownership are best resolved through
adjudicatory processes set up by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
and the Federal courts. Given NHTSA's limited role in such processes, a
requirement to submit the documentation to NHTSA is a paperwork burden
that the agency cannot justify.
    Accordingly, this final rule requires a low-volume manufacturer
registering as a replica manufacturer to certify that the vehicle will
be manufactured under a license for the product configuration, trade
dress, trademark, or patent. This requirement is necessary pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(7)(B)(ii). It helps ensure that the vehicle is a
``replica motor vehicle'' as defined by Sec.  30114(b)(7)(B), and thus
qualifies for the FAST Act special exemption for replica vehicles.
However, NHTSA is also requiring the registrant to certify it has
obtained all IP necessary to produce the replica vehicle, not only the
IP rights pertaining to the exterior of the vehicle, but also any IP
implicated by designs elsewhere in the vehicle, such as the interior.
Congress provided a special exemption for replica vehicles but clearly
did so intending that all IP is to be respected in producing the
vehicles.
    The commenters did not support NHTSA's requiring a replica motor
vehicle to include the make/model or badging on the vehicle. Commenters
stated that this could create confusion between the replica vehicle and
the original vehicle. Commenters also argued that NHTSA should not
require the make/model of the replicated vehicle to be disclosed on the
certification label and/or application, but merely the model year,
asserting that such a disclosure could create a copyright violation.
NHTSA has decided that it will not require any make/model or badging
for the vehicle being replicated on the exterior of the vehicle.
However, NHTSA will require replica vehicle manufacturers to include
the make/model and model year of the vehicle they intend to replicate
as part of their registration applications. Similarly, NHTSA will make
available on NHTSA's website the information of make, model, and model
year of the original vehicle the vehicle replicates. This information
facilitates NHTSA's oversight of the program by helping the agency
determine whether the registrant is manufacturing vehicles consistent
with the information in its registration, and verify whether they are
correctly labeling the vehicles with the information required by
section 30114(b)(3)(A).
    Making this information public also increases the transparency of
the program, better informing the public as to which vehicles are
replicated, and IP rights asserted by registrants. Publishing this
information on NHTSA's website reasonably facilitates the public's role
in overseeing the IP aspect of the program. IP rights are most
effectively protected through a transparent registration process in
which IP owners can protect their own rights. For those processes to
work, owners and holders of IP rights must know when a replica motor
vehicle manufacturer claims to hold the IP rights to the original
vehicle. NHTSA will make public on its website certain other aspects of
the vehicle that implicate IP rights, such as whether the replica
vehicle is of a limited edition or customized model. Members of the
public will be able to review this information and inform NHTSA of
apparent improprieties or concerns that may disqualify a registration
in the program.

IV. Safety Requirements

a. Equipment FMVSS

    NHTSA explained in the NPRM that the FAST Act exempts replica motor
vehicles from complying with the ``vehicle'' Federal motor vehicle
safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the replica.
The vehicle standards are those that apply to new vehicles of the
replica's type (e.g., passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle,
see 49 CFR 571.3). The FAST Act is clear that replica vehicles are not
exempt from the FMVSS that apply to ``equipment'' on or in the
vehicle.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    A few commenters argued that there were some situations in which
NHTSA should exempt replica vehicles from equipment standards. SEMA and
Callaway argued that replica vehicle manufacturers should be permitted
to use seat belts that do not fully comply with FMVSS No. 209 (which is
an equipment standard) if the replica motor vehicle's design is
inconsistent with the standard (e.g., if the use of retractors is not
possible due to the vehicle's design). SEMA, Edelbrock, and Callaway
argued that, because compliance with the new vehicle equipment
requirements in FMVSS No. 108 may not be technically or financially
possible for replica motor vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA should permit
compliance with replacement equipment requirements. Similarly, SEMA and
Edelbrock argued that replica motor vehicle manufacturers should be
permitted to use glazing that meets the ``aftermarket requirement'' in
FMVSS No. 205, which allows the use of glazing that complies with 49
CFR 571.205a.
NHTSA Response
    The FAST Act does not provide NHTSA with discretion to exempt
replica vehicles from equipment standards. Accordingly, replica vehicle
manufacturers must ensure that their vehicles comply with equipment
standards such as FMVSS No. 209. However, we note that this final rule
permits manufacturers a 10 percent leeway to vary from the dimensions
of the original vehicle designs. As commenters suggested in the
discussion as to dimensional flexibility, this flexibility should
enable the installation of modern safety features, such as FMVSS No.
209-compliant retractors. That fact is one of the agency's primary
reasons for permitting such flexibility. Accordingly, this leeway
should satisfactorily accommodate the installation of compliant
equipment.
    NHTSA concurs that the lighting and glazing standards (FMVSS Nos.
108 and 205, respectively) have provisions that apply to vehicles
(constituting a ``vehicle standard'') and provisions that apply to
replacement equipment (which constitute an equipment standard).\26\ We
concur with the commenters' suggestion that this final rule should
permit replica vehicles to meet the requirements for replacement
equipment in the lighting and glazing standards. A reasonable reading
of the FAST Act provision leads to this outcome, since FMVSS Nos. 108
and 205a include equipment-specific provisions, and because the only
source of relevant equipment may be in the aftermarket replacement
equipment market. NHTSA therefore agrees that,

while lighting equipment and glazing must be FMVSS-compliant, replica
motor vehicle manufacturers must meet the replacement equipment
requirements of those standards, and not the vehicle-specific
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NHTSA explained in the NPRM that some FMVSSs are both
vehicle and equipment standards. 85 FR 793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Safety-Related Defects

    NHTSA explained in the NPRM that obtaining an exemption from the
FMVSS applicable to vehicles would have no effect on a replica vehicle
manufacturer's obligation under the Safety Act to recall and remedy its
vehicles found by the manufacturer or NHTSA to contain a defect that
creates an unreasonable risk to safety. Further, manufacturers of
replica vehicles must comply with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30116
through 30120A relating to defect reporting and notification. In
addition, the FAST Act specifies that a low-volume manufacturer's
registration in the program may be revoked if the manufacturer fails to
comply with requirements, if its vehicles are found to contain a
safety-related defect, or if the manufacturer engages in unlawful
conduct that poses a significant safety risk. NHTSA did not receive any
significant comments on this issue. This final rule adopts these
provisions as they were proposed in the NPRM.

V. Registration Requirements

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2), low-volume manufacturers must be
registered ``[t]o qualify for an exemption.'' The NPRM proposed
requirements to implement the registration requirements, discussed
below.

a. When and How To Register

    NHTSA proposed that each manufacturer wishing to manufacture
replica motor vehicles under this program must register as a replica
motor vehicle manufacturer for the calendar year in which the replica
motor vehicle is manufactured. NHTSA would determine whether a
manufacturer is eligible to manufacture replica motor vehicles based on
the information the manufacturer provides in its registration
documents. The agency proposed that manufacturers must register using
the NHTSA Product Information Catalog and Vehicle Listing (vPIC)
platform (https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov/). Comments were requested on
whether to allow submissions by mail as well.
Comments Received and NHTSA Response
    VSCI agreed that prospective replica manufacturers should only
register through vPIC. NHTSA received no comments relating to whether
written submissions should also be permitted. This final rule requires
the vPIC platform to be used to register for and submit information to
the replica exemption program. This computerized platform facilitates
NHTSA's oversight and administration of the program, better allowing
the agency to keep track of registrations and assess submissions. The
vPIC platform also increases the transparency of registrations,
enabling members of the public to examine registrations and learn about
replica vehicle manufacturers and the vehicles they produce. Requiring
that all applicants register via vPIC also better enables NHTSA to meet
the time limits provided by the FAST Act for decisions on the
submissions.

b. Required Information

    NHTSA proposed that persons seeking to register must submit
information sufficient to establish that their annual world-wide
production, including by a parent or subsidiary of the manufacturer, if
applicable, does not exceed 5,000 motor vehicles, and a statement
certifying to that effect, including the total number of motor vehicles
produced by or on behalf of the registrant in the 12 months prior to
filing the registration.
    The NPRM proposed that each registrant must provide information
about the replica vehicle(s) it intends to manufacture, including a
statement identifying the original vehicle(s) the manufacturer intends
to replicate by make, model, and model year. The NPRM proposed that
registrants must submit images of the front, rear, and side views of
the original vehicle's exterior. The manufacturer would also need to
provide documents showing that it obtained the intellectual property
rights necessary to produce the replica vehicle, documents to support
that it has done so, and a statement certifying to that effect. The
NPRM stated that proof of such rights could be shown by furnishing a
license for the product configuration, trade dress, trademark, or
patent, for the intended replica motor vehicle from the original
manufacturer, its successors or assignees, or the current owner of such
product configuration, trade dress, trademark, or patent. This
documentation could also include a statement as to why obtaining
licenses for certain intellectual property is not required.
    NHTSA proposed that the replica vehicle manufacturer would need to
certify that it would not manufacture more than 325 replica motor
vehicles in a calendar year. NHTSA interpreted the 325-vehicle limit in
the FAST Act to mean that a manufacturer would be limited to 325
replica vehicles, regardless of whether it is manufacturing replicas of
different makes and models of vehicles.
Comments Received and NHTSA Response
    No significant comments were received on this issue. This final
rule adopts the provisions as discussed in the NPRM.

c. Time Periods

    49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(5) specifies that NHTSA has 90 days to review
and approve or deny a registration, plus an additional 30 days if the
registration is determined to be incomplete. NHTSA anticipated setting
up the program so that registration under part 586 on the vPIC portal
provides an acknowledgment of receipt of the registration to the
manufacturer when the registration is submitted. The NPRM proposed
that, since some of the information would be provided by the
manufacturer in attachments, NHTSA would review the submission,
including attachments, within 90 days of acknowledging receipt to
ensure that the registration is complete.
    NHTSA proposed procedures to provide for registrants submitting an
incomplete application. Rather than denying the incomplete application
immediately and outright, the proposed procedures would permit NHTSA to
inform the manufacturer that the registration is incomplete via email.
NHTSA proposed to give registrants 60 days from the date of NHTSA's
email to submit the necessary information to complete the registration.
If the necessary information were not submitted within 60 days, the
registration would be denied.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The manufacturer may resubmit the registration (presumably,
the resubmitted registration will include the information that was
missing from the prior application) but doing so would restart the
90-day clock. The NPRM proposed to deny repetitious, incomplete, or
inadequate registrations. For example, if a manufacturer resubmitted
a previously denied registration in identical form, NHTSA could deny
the application without requesting additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, once a manufacturer submitted missing
information within 60 days of being informed of the incomplete status,
NHTSA would have 30 additional days to review the amended registration.
That is, these 30 days would be added to any remaining days from the
initial 90-day review period. If the submission was still incomplete,
NHTSA would deny the registration. If a registrant submitted
information on its own initiative (without being notified by NHTSA that

its registration is incomplete), NHTSA would have the same 30
additional days added to any remaining days from the initial 90-day
period to review the amended registration. These additional days to
review would provide NHTSA the ability to manage its resources to
accommodate and account for incomplete registrations.
Comments Received and NHTSA Response
    The only comment on this issue was from SEMA, which concurred with
the proposal to allow 60 days to reply to a request for additional
information. Aside from clarifying changes made to the regulatory text,
this final rule adopts the provisions relating to the timing of
incomplete registrations as discussed in the NPRM.

d. Deemed Approved

    49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(5) states that any registration not approved or
denied within 90 days after initial submission, or 120 days if the
registration submitted is incomplete, shall be deemed approved. The
NPRM proposed that a manufacturer would not be considered registered
with NHTSA unless the manufacturer received confirmation from NHTSA
that it is registered. The NPRM proposed that a manufacturer whose
registration was not approved or denied within the allotted time, and
who believed its registration was deemed approved, should still be
required to receive confirmation of the approval from NHTSA. NHTSA
would add the manufacturer to the up-to-date list of registrants once
approval was confirmed.
    NHTSA explained that this proposal for confirmation of approvals
was to safeguard the integrity of the exemption program against
confusion and fraud. The agency sought to avoid situations in which a
manufacturer might assume its registration was deemed approved when, in
fact, it was never received. The proposal explained the confirmation
process would better-establish a means of communication between the
agency and the manufacturer, and better ensure the list of replica
manufacturers on NHTSA's website is complete and accurate. A complete
and accurate list is important for the public to determine whether a
manufacturer qualifies for an exemption, and which vehicles are covered
by the exemption. The list also provides NHTSA with a strong
enforcement mechanism to monitor which manufacturers are lawfully
presenting themselves as registrants, and which vehicles are
appropriately offered for sale.
    If a registration were deemed approved but had not met part 586
requirements originally, the NPRM proposed a means by which NHTSA could
request additional information from the ``deemed approved''
manufacturer to rectify the registration. NHTSA proposed that, when
notified of the submission's shortcomings, the manufacturer would have
60 days to submit information to correct and/or complete the
registration.
Comments Received
    Calloway, Caterham, DeLorean Motor Company (DeLorean), Edelbrock,
VSCI and SEMA all disagreed with NHTSA's proposal to require
manufacturers to confirm that their application had been ``deemed
approved.'' Commenters stated that this requirement was contrary to the
FAST Act, with Calloway adding that this requirement would essentially
allow NHTSA unlimited time to process applications. Edelbrock, VSCI and
SEMA also noted that NHTSA retains the authority to revoke a ``deemed
approved'' application that it later determined was improper.
NHTSA Response
    NHTSA agrees that the proposed ``deemed approved'' procedure could
have been less burdensome on registrants, but believes that many of the
concerns of the commenters arose from a misunderstanding of the
proposal and can be addressed with the following explanation of the
registration process and clarifying changes to the regulatory text.
NHTSA developed the vPIC platform to accommodate the replica vehicles
exemption program. The platform is designed so that, when NHTSA
receives an application through its vPIC portal, the vPIC system will
acknowledge the application, provide the registrant with a key number
to track its application, and automatically start a 90-day timer. At
the end of 90 days, if NHTSA has taken no action on the application,
vPIC will automatically add the applicant to the list of approved
replica motor vehicle manufacturers (albeit, with a note that their
application was ``deemed approved'' rather than affirmatively approved
by the agency). An application that has not been affirmatively approved
and does not show up on the list of approved replica manufacturers,
would occur only because (1) NHTSA determined the application was
incomplete, or (2) NHTSA denied the application.
    In both of the above two scenarios, the vPIC system is programmed
to notify the applicant of NHTSA's determination. If, for some reason,
such notice was not received, it was because the application was
determined to be incomplete or was denied--and that a technical issue
(e.g., the email was blocked by the applicant's ``spam filter'')
prevented receipt of the notification. Because a determination that an
application was incomplete or denied would automatically generate an
email communication from NHTSA to the applicant, the agency emphasizes
that it is in the interest of potential applicants that they enquire
with NHTSA as to why their application has not been ``deemed
approved,'' and their name listed, after 90 days.
    NHTSA designed vPIC and the registration system to provide for open
email communications between applicants and the agency. An applicant
could have overlooked the notice or had an email address configured
such that the email was not delivered (perhaps it was mistakenly
identified as ``spam''). NHTSA sought to prevent a situation where an
applicant assumes it is approved and commences operations after 90
days, when the application was incomplete, denied, or never received.
Such an applicant would be at risk of potentially violating 49 U.S.C.
30112(a) for manufacturing for sale or selling nonconforming vehicles.
Accordingly, NHTSA drafted this final rule with text encouraging
applicants to check the list of approved registrants after 90 days, and
to inquire with the agency if their name is missing. Applicants can
easily check the status of their application themselves on the vPIC
website using the key number that NHTSA sends in the confirmation email
generated at the time the application is submitted. They can also
contact the NHTSA Manufacturer Helpdesk at [email protected] or
1-888-399-3277.
    NHTSA also reiterates that, while the agency, by statute, will deem
approved registrants if the agency does not respond to the application
within the statutory timeframe, the agency can review the ``deemed
approved'' application later in the process to determine whether it
meets the requirements of the FAST Act and part 586. It is NHTSA's
understanding that the purpose of the provision is to ensure that
replica motor vehicle manufacturers are not burdened by procedural
delays beyond their control. To ensure the provision does not become a
means by which nonconforming replica vehicles not meeting requirements
can be produced and sold, the agency makes clear that NHTSA can
determine later, based on the contents of the application, that the
application should be denied, and at such time may take steps to remove
the manufacturer from the list of registrants.

In its comments, SEMA supported this position and noted that NHTSA has
authority to revoke a ``deemed approved'' registration later found not
to meet the requirements of part 586.
    Given commenter confusion over NHTSA's procedures for ``deemed
approved'' registrants, NHTSA is finalizing clarified regulatory text
describing the procedures for processing and approving or denying
registrations.

VI. Other Administrative Requirements

a. Manufacturer Identification Requirements (49 CFR Part 566)

    NHTSA proposed amending part 566 to list replica motor vehicles
among the types of vehicles that must be identified to the agency. Low-
volume manufacturers who wish to manufacture replica motor vehicles and
who have already submitted information under part 566 would be required
to update their information before manufacturing the replica vehicles.
NHTSA intended the addition of ``replica motor vehicles'' to the types
of vehicles listed in part 566 to identify the manufacturer as a
replica vehicle manufacturer. The manufacturer of a replica vehicle
would determine the standards from which the replica vehicle is exempt
by examining the ``application'' sections of the standards. We proposed
that the vehicle's vehicle identification number (VIN) and
certification labels would reflect that the vehicle is a replica of a
specific vehicle type defined in 571.3 (e.g., replica passenger car,
replica multipurpose passenger vehicle, etc.).
    Currently, Sec.  566.5 requires manufacturers to ``furnish the
information'' to the Administrator and provides a street address to do
so. NHTSA proposed to update Sec.  566.5 to indicate that
manufacturers, other than manufacturers of replica vehicles, could
submit the part 566 information via the vPIC portal or via mail to the
agency's address. However, the NPRM proposed that replica motor vehicle
manufacturers, specifically, must submit the information via vPIC
because of administrative requisites. Because of the short time limits
under which NHTSA must decide on the registrations, electronic vPIC
records (versus paper copies) would expedite NHTSA's review of the
applications. (The agency notes that most, if not all part 566
manufacturer identification entries are currently submitted on vPIC.)
Comments Received and NHTSA Response
    No significant comments were received on this aspect of the
program. Thus, NHTSA is requiring the use of the vPIC website to reduce
the administrative costs and complications that are associated with
processing hard-copy replica vehicle manufacturer applications, and in
recognition that a large portion of the information submitted to
register as a replica motor vehicle manufacturer would need to be
uploaded to vPIC so that it can be made available to the public.
Moreover, the use of the vPIC system ensures that an applicantt that is
later ``deemed approved'' will be reliably added to the list of
approved registrants. Because most, if not all, part 566 manufacturer
identification entries are currently submitted on vPIC, NHTSA believes
requiring replica manufacturers to use vPIC will not be burdensome.

b. Manufacturer Identifier and VIN Requirements

    Manufacturers intending to manufacture motor vehicles for sale or
introduction into interstate commerce in the United States must obtain
a manufacturer identifier, which is incorporated into the vehicle's VIN
(see section below). NHTSA has a contract with SAE International to
assign manufacturer identifiers to manufacturers in the United States.
Manufacturers located outside of the U.S. must obtain a manufacturer
identifier from the WMI-issuing entity in the country in which they are
located.\28\ U.S. manufacturers should contact SAE International
directly (and not NHTSA) to request the assignment of a manufacturer
identifier. They would do so by telephoning<PHONE_NUMBER> or by writing
to: SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Avenue, Warrendale, PA 15096,
Attention: WMI Coordinator. The NPRM proposed that replica motor
vehicle manufacturers also must obtain unique manufacturer identifiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ If a country does not have a WMI-issuing entity, the
manufacturer may request a WMI from SAE. This service is separate
from SAE's issuance of WMIs for U.S. manufacturers under contract
with NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 565 require, among other things,
a motor vehicle manufacturer to assign each motor vehicle manufactured
for sale in the United States a 17-character VIN that uniquely
identifies the vehicle. Under part 565, a vehicle identification number
is ``a series of Arabic numbers and Roman letters that is assigned to a
motor vehicle for identification purposes.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 49 CFR 565.12(r).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VINs deter vehicle theft and serve a variety of public safety
purposes. VINs serve ``to increase the accuracy and efficiency of
vehicle recall campaigns'' \30\ and are the key identifier in data
systems that track such things as compliance with Federal importation
regulations, vehicle registrations, insurance coverage, and motor
vehicle crashes. Entities that today utilize VINs in data systems
include NHTSA, vehicle manufacturers, State motor vehicle departments,
law enforcement agencies, insurance companies, and organizations and
individuals involved in motor vehicle safety research.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 49 CFR 565.10.
    \31\ 73 FR 23367-01, September 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA proposed several administrative changes to the VIN
requirements to account for replica vehicles. The changes are discussed
in detail in the NPRM (85 FR at 801).
Comments Received
    AAMVA asked for clarification that NHTSA is not changing current
coding, and expressed concern that many other State data systems would
require changes if this were the case. One individual stated that the
make, model and model year of the replicated vehicle should be coded in
the VIN. NTEA recommended putting all requirements in part 586 as was
done in part 595, ``Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People with
Disabilities,'' rather than amending parts 567 and 568.
NHTSA Response
    This final rule does not change how VINs are coded for non-replica
motor vehicles. The primary change it makes is to add requirements
unique to replica motor vehicles--most notably the requirement that, in
addition to the information required for the replica motor vehicle's
type classification, the manufacturer must code the make, model, and
year of the original motor vehicle being replicated into the ``vehicle
attributes'' section of the VIN (positions four through eight). NHTSA
does not anticipate that States must change their VIN coding system
because of the replica vehicle VIN requirements.
    NHTSA is not adopting NTEA's suggestion that the labeling
requirements for replica vehicles should be moved from the
certification regulation (49 CFR part 567) to part 586. The commenter
would like part 586 to contain all the requirements for replica
vehicles, in a manner similar to that of 49 CFR part 595 subpart C,
which sets forth an exemption from the Safety Act's ``make
inoperative'' provision.\32\ We

have decided not to use the approach of subpart C because the scope of
the replica vehicle regulation is much broader, and more comprehensive,
than the make inoperative exemption program of part 595 subpart C. The
replica vehicle regulation pertains to the manufacture of new vehicles
and involves exempting the vehicles from the Safety Act's directive to
meet Federal crashavoidance and crashworthiness standards. The
regulation setting forth an exemption from the make inoperative
requirement is narrow and could be self-contained in a single subpart.
In addition, regarding the labeling requirement at issue, we believe it
makes sense to establish the requirement in part 567 because the label
for replica vehicles serves to replace the certification label required
by part 567 for nonexempt vehicles. It is fitting to place the
requirement in part 567, since that is NHTSA's designated location for
permanent label requirements relating to a manufacturer's certification
of compliance with, or exemption from, the FMVSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Under section 30122, a vehicle manufacturer, distributor,
dealer, rental company or repair business, may not knowingly make
inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in
or on a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with an
applicable FMVSS. NHTSA has the authority to issue regulations that
exempt regulated entities from the make inoperative provision (49
U.S.C. 30122(c)). The agency has used that authority to adopt 49 CFR
part 595, ``Make Inoperative Exemptions.'' Part 595 subpart C sets
forth an exemption permitting persons in certain circumstances to
modify vehicles after first sale to accommodate persons with
disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we have made a slight revision to part 586 in response to
NTEA's comment. The agency emphasizes that each replica vehicle
manufacturer is responsible for knowing and meeting all NHTSA
requirements applying to the manufacture and sale of its vehicles;
NHTSA had included text on that basic tenet in proposed Sec.  586.5(c).
After considering NTEA's comment, we added a clause to paragraph (c) to
refer to part 567. New Sec.  586.5(c) states that each replica motor
vehicle manufacturer shall meet all statutory and regulatory
requirements, including requirements at 49 CFR part 567.\33\ NHTSA
believes this addition will make it more convenient for replica vehicle
manufacturers to locate the labeling requirements in part 567 and will
illustrate there are Safety Act requirements of which they must be
aware contained other than in part 586.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ As NHTSA is not permitting replica vehicles to be
manufactured in more than one stage, NHTSA has not included a
reference to part 568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Declaration Form for Replica Motor Vehicles

    NHTSA proposed that imported replica vehicles would be subject to
requirements in 49 CFR part 591, Importation of Vehicles and Equipment
Subject to Federal Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards.
Section 591.5, Declarations required for importation, requires
importers to file declarations and documentations with the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection at the time vehicles or items of motor vehicle
equipment are imported. Consistent with NHTSA's treatment of vehicles
that are subject to exemptions under 49 CFR part 555, Temporary
Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, NHTSA
expected that replica vehicles could be imported pursuant to 49 CFR
591.5(b). This is to say, importers would mark box ``2A'' on NHTSA's
HS-7 declaration form, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle
Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety, Bumper Standards,
when importing a replica motor vehicle. NHTSA requested comment on
whether the agency should amend 49 CFR 591.5 to provide clarity and
include specific language that states that replica vehicles may be
imported pursuant to a declaration under 49 CFR 591.5(b).
Comments Received
    SEMA and others supported NHTSA's proposal to allow replica vehicle
manufacturers to check box 2A on the importer form (Form HS-7).
Conversely, AAMVA requested a separate listing on the importer form for
clarity.
NHTSA Response
    As explained in the NPRM, NHTSA believes that replica motor
vehicles should be treated similarly to vehicles exempted under NHTSA's
general exemption authority (49 U.S.C. 30113), since they are not being
imported for a specified purpose other than resale. NHTSA therefore
does not believe it is necessary to amend the HS-7 declaration form at
this time. Importers of replica motor vehicles should mark box 2A on
the form.
    We note that this final rule includes a minor change to the
regulatory text to 49 CFR part 591.5(b) so that the regulation
specifically includes replica motor vehicles as a category of imported
vehicles. Although NHTSA proposed making this change in the preamble to
the NPRM and specifically took comment on it, due to a clerical error,
the changes to part 591.5(b) were inadvertently omitted from the
proposed regulatory text. NHTSA has also added clarifying language to
49 CFR part 591.5(b) to explicitly specify that an importer of a
replica motor vehicle must be a ``low-volume manufacturer'' as that
term is defined under the replica program.

VII. Labels and Other Consumer Disclosures

    49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(3)(A) directs NHTSA to require low-volume
manufacturers to affix a permanent label to motor vehicles produced
pursuant to a replica vehicle exemption. The label ``identifies the
specified standards and regulations for which the vehicle is exempt
from section 30112(a), states that the vehicle is a replica, and
designates the model year such vehicle replicates.'' Id. Section
30114(b)(3)(B) states that NHTSA may require a low-volume manufacturer
of a replica vehicle to deliver written notice of the exemption to the
dealer and the first consumer purchaser of the vehicle.

a. Permanent Label

    NHTSA proposed that the requirement for permanent labeling be
incorporated into the requirements for certification labels under 49
CFR part 567 because part 567 includes permanent labeling requirements
pertaining to FMVSS certification. NHTSA proposed added statements for
replica vehicles. For replicas, NHTSA proposed that the label state
that the vehicle is a replica, state the make, model, and model year of
the vehicle it replicates, state that the vehicle is exempt from FMVSS
that apply to a vehicle of its type, and include a list of all vehicle
FMVSS and regulations the vehicle does not meet.
Comments Received
    Several commenters expressed concerns about the requirement to list
all the FMVSS from which the replica motor vehicle was exempt on the
permanent label, stating that such a requirement would be unwieldy and
unfeasible. As an alternative, ElectroMeccanic and an individual
suggested a simpler label that directed the reader elsewhere for more
information, such as to the owner's manual, the manufacturer's website,
or a location like the underside of the vehicle hood. Morgan Motor
Company (Morgan), VSCI and SEMA suggested an option of an alternative
statement indicating that the vehicle is exempt from all FMVSS except
those specifically identified by the manufacturer.
NHTSA Response
    49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(3)(A) specifically states that a replica motor
vehicle must be permanently affixed with a label ``that identifies the
specified standards and regulations for which such vehicle is exempt
from section 30112(a).'' Since NHTSA is not provided with discretion to
avoid this disclosure, the agency is

adopting the permanent labeling requirement as proposed, with minor
revisions. Identifying the standards and regulations from which the
vehicle is exempt is consistent with the statute, whereas allowing
replica manufacturers to list only the standards with which a replica
motor vehicle complies is not. The former makes clear to the
prospective purchaser the universe of FMVSSs with which the replica
vehicle does not comply, as required by the FAST Act. NHTSA does not
believe that allowing the label to direct customers to the
manufacturer's website is consistent with the statutory language,
since: (a) Such information would not be permanently affixed on a
label; and, (b) a website might not be maintained, or may have service
interruptions. Referring readers to an owner's manual also does not
meet the FAST Act requirement that the information be disclosed on a
permanent label. A label on the underside of the hood is unacceptable
because such a disclosure is not prominently placed and is unlikely to
be noticed.
    That said, NHTSA agrees that this final rule should permit the
label to be separate from the certification label. While the
information described in 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(3)(A) must be permanently
affixed on a single label (``a label''), it need not be combined with
the certification label. Accordingly, NHTSA has revised the labelling
requirement in this final rule to allow replica motor vehicles to
permanently affix the information in 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(3)(A) to either
the certification label, or a separate label located adjacent to or
near the certification label.

b. Written Notice to Dealers and First Purchasers; Temporary Label

    The FAST Act specifies that NHTSA may require registrants to
provide ``written notice of the exemption'' to dealers and first
purchasers of replica vehicles.\34\ NHTSA proposed to require a written
disclosure to dealers and first purchasers of the vehicles consisting
of a list of the FMVSS and regulations from which the vehicle is
exempt. The written notice was to be in the owner's manual or in a
separate document. The written disclosure was to include a ``purpose
statement'' for each standard and regulation from which the vehicle is
exempt. Such statements were intended to assist consumers in
understanding the safety implications of the exemptions. The agency
proposed the purpose statements be in a Table 1 to part 586. In
addition, NHTSA proposed replica vehicles must have a temporary label
attached to a location on the dashboard or the steering wheel hub
warning prospective purchasers that the replica vehicle is exempt from
the vehicle FMVSSs, theft prevention and bumper standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    NADA supports the idea of providing information to purchasers, but
believes that manufacturers should have the option of providing the
information in Table 1 or in the temporary label, provided the label
also points to a reference website where consumers can find more
information on the exemptions. SEMA and Edelbrock disagree with
requiring manufacturers to provide consumers with the information in
Table 1. SEMA compared potential purchasers to kit car owners--i.e., as
SEMA described them, car enthusiasts who know what they are purchasing.
SEMA also claimed that new car purchasers rely on the agency's New Car
Assessment Program website to understand the value of the FMVSS.
    NHTSA sought comment on whether information warning prospective
purchasers about the replica vehicles' nonconformance with applicable
standards should be provided in advertisements and other marketing
materials for the vehicles. Morgan stated this would be unnecessary
since such warnings would be seen at the point of sale when the vehicle
is viewed.
NHTSA Response
    NHTSA concurs with the commenters' arguments about the redundancy
of the proposed requirements and has decided against adopting some
aspects of the proposed disclosures. NHTSA believes that a temporary
label in the passenger compartment would be sufficient to meet the
purpose of the proposed requirements for written disclosure to the
dealer and the first purchaser \35\ and that providing both the
temporary label and a written disclosure is unnecessary. NHTSA
concludes that a temporary label is a more effective way of
communicating that the vehicle is exempt from the FMVSS because it
would be in a prominent visible location and the consumer would need to
affirmatively handle and remove the label. NHTSA agrees not to require
that purpose statements be disclosed to consumers. Listing the specific
standards and regulations from which the replica vehicle is exempt
should be sufficient to convey to the consumer the extent to which the
standards do not apply to the FMVSSs, and NHTSA does not have reason to
believe that a disclosure of the purpose behind each standard would
affect the purchasing decisions of prospective replica vehicle
purchasers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(3)(B)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Reporting

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(3)(C), NHTSA must require replica
manufacturers to submit an annual report providing the number and
description of motor vehicles exempted as replica motor vehicles,
including a list of the exemptions included on the mandatory label
described in the above section. NHTSA proposed that annual reports must
be submitted within 60 days of the end of the calendar year. Because
these vehicles would be produced in limited quantities, NHTSA believed
that the information for the report could be entered after each vehicle
is manufactured, and that a 60-day deadline for submitting the report
at the end of the calendar year is therefore reasonable.
    NHTSA proposed that annual reports include: The manufacturer's
legal name; the manufacturer's address, phone number and email address;
the calendar year for which the annual report is submitted (replica
model year), and the total number of replica vehicles manufactured
during that year; a list of the different versions of replica motor
vehicles produced by make, model, and original model year of replicated
vehicle; a list of the FMVSS and regulations from which each version of
replica vehicle (by make, model, and original model year of replicated
vehicle) is exempt; images of the front, rear, and side views of the
original vehicle(s) replicated, of both the vehicle's exterior, and
images of the same views of a representative replica manufactured to
resemble each original vehicle; and a full complete package of
descriptive information, views, and arguments sufficient to establish
that the replica motor vehicles, as manufactured, resemble the body of
the original vehicle. The reports would also be required to include: A
statement of whether the registrant will be manufacturing the same
replica motor vehicle(s) in the next calendar year, and, if so, an
estimate of the number of vehicles that would be manufactured. NHTSA
proposed the annual report include a list of the complete VINs of all
replica vehicles included in the annual report. These requirements
would assist NHTSA in enforcing the annual limit of 325 replica
vehicles per manufacturer. NHTSA believed that, as manufacturers
already maintain lists of all VINs

manufactured in a given year, the burden should be minimal.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Although manufacturers keep lists for business purposes, it
is also required by 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Non-Compliance
Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM proposed that manufacturers intending to continue to
manufacture replica motor vehicle(s) must also submit information
sufficient to establish that their annual world-wide production,
including by a parent or subsidiary of the manufacturer, if applicable,
is not more than 5,000 motor vehicles, and a statement certifying to
that effect, including the total number of motor vehicles produced by
or on behalf of the registrant in the 12-month prior to filing the
registration. The reports would also include a statement as to whether
the replica vehicle contains any of the following vehicle safety
features--air bags, seat belts, advanced safety systems/passive safety
systems (listed with locations), electronic stability control, rear
visibility camera system, and ejection mitigation air bags.
    NHTSA proposed that the annual report must be submitted using vPIC.
NHTSA believed that the use of the online portal would be less
burdensome than requiring manufacturers to submit their annual reports
by mail. Online submission of the annual reports would also assist
NHTSA in complying with the FAST Act requirement that NHTSA maintain a
list of manufacturers on its website of replica motor vehicles and the
make and model of exempted vehicles being produced.
Comments Received and NHTSA Response
    No significant comments were received on this issue. NHTSA adopts
the proposal for the reasons discussed above and in the NPRM.

IX. Termination of Exemptions

a. Revocation

    49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(5) specifies that NHTSA has the authority to
revoke a registration based on a failure to comply with requirements or
a finding of a safety-related defect or unlawful conduct. NHTSA
proposed that NHTSA may require registrants to provide information at
any time demonstrating compliance with the requirements of part 586,
and that the agency may revoke an existing registration, or deny a
registration, based on a failure to comply with part 586, or on a
finding of either a safety-related defect or unlawful conduct under the
Safety Act that poses a significant safety risk. The proposed section
provided that NHTSA would provide a registrant a reasonable opportunity
to correct deficiencies, if such are correctable, based on the sole
discretion of NHTSA.
Comments Received and NHTSA Response
    The only views received on this issue supported the agency's
position and noted that NHTSA has authority to revoke a ``deemed
approved'' registration later found not to meet requirements. NHTSA
adopts the proposal for the reasons discussed above and in the NPRM.

b. Expiration

    49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(5) provides that an exemption granted to a low-
volume manufacturer may not be transferred to any other person, and
that the 325-vehicle production authorization is limited to the
calendar year in which the exception is granted, and unused production
capacity (i.e., the difference between the 325-vehicle authorization
and actual vehicle production) does not accrue and carry forward into
subsequent calendar years, but expires at the end of the calendar year
in which it was granted. NHTSA interpreted 49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(5) as
referring to unused production capacity under an exemption in a
calendar year, and not as requiring that manufacturers must re-register
(renew their registrations) annually. NHTSA proposed that registrants
may carry forward their registration by informing NHTSA in an annual
report (discussed above) of their intent to continue manufacturing the
vehicles covered by the approved registration, and need not formally
re-register annually at the end of the calendar year concerning those
covered vehicles.
Comments Received and NHTSA Response
    No significant comments were received on this issue. NHTSA adopts
the proposal for the reasons discussed in the NPRM.

X. List of Registrants

    49 U.S.C. 30114(b)(5) specifies that NHTSA must maintain an up-to-
date list of registrants and a list of the make and model of exempted
motor vehicles on at least an annual basis and publish such list in the
Federal Register or on a website operated by NHTSA. NHTSA proposed it
would post such a list on NHTSA's website where it can be easily
accessed and updated.

Comments Received and NHTSA Response

    No significant comments were received on this issue. NHTSA adopts
the proposal for the reasons discussed in the NPRM.

XI. Overview of Benefits and Costs

    NHTSA prepared a preliminary regulatory evaluation for the NPRM
that requested comment on the framework for the benefit cost analysis
and preliminary estimates included in the analysis. No significant
comments were received on the evaluation.
    For this final rule, NHTSA has developed a Final Regulatory
Evaluation (FRE) that discusses the potential costs, benefits and other
impacts of this regulatory action. The FRE is available in the docket
for this final rule and may be obtained by downloading it or by
contacting Docket Management at the address or telephone number
provided at the beginning of this document.
    The table below provides a summary of the various benefits and
costs that may accrue from this rule, as well as the various factors
that define the range of possible outcomes.

       Table 1--Ranges of Outcomes for Benefit and Cost Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Element                  Low case              High case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental consumer surplus  Not estimated:        Not estimated: If
                               Incremental           replicas
                               consumer surplus      manufactured under
                               would be low if       the rule differ
                               substitutes such as   greatly in price
                               luxury sports cars    and/or transaction
                               and kit cars are      cost from luxury
                               viable alternatives   sports cars and kit
                               for consumers.        cars--thus behaving
                                                     more like a unique
                                                     product--incrementa
                                                     l consumer surplus
                                                     could be high.

Incremental fatalities,       Estimated:            Estimated:
 injuries and property         Fatalities would be   Fatalities would be
 damage.                       lower if: Voluntary   higher if:
                               compliance with       Voluntary
                               safety standards is   compliance is low;
                               high; production of   production is high;
                               replicas is on the    and if VMT is high.
                               low end; and VMT by   Not Estimated:
                               replicas is also      Fatalities would be
                               low. Not Estimated:   higher if replicas
                               Fatalities will be    function as a new
                               lower if replicas     market that
                               primarily function    attracts new
                               as a substitute for   consumers--implying
                               kit cars.             substitution from
                                                     more compliant
                                                     vehicles--or, if
                                                     replica vehicle
                                                     drivers choose to
                                                     increase their VMT
                                                     specifically to
                                                     enjoy the replica
                                                     vehicle, rather
                                                     than as a
                                                     substitute for
                                                     mileage driven in
                                                     substitute
                                                     vehicles.
Incremental fuel use........  Not Estimated:        Not Estimated:
                               Reflects low VMT.     Reflects high VMT.
Innovation..................  Not Estimated: The    Not Estimated:
                               rule is primarily     Manufacturers
                               used to replicate     producing under the
                               old designs.          rule seek to
                                                     incorporate some
                                                     newer technologies
                                                     into replica
                                                     vehicles. Could
                                                     lead to innovation
                                                     to make technology
                                                     fit into older
                                                     designs. (e.g.,
                                                     miniaturization).
Incremental employment        Not Estimated: Job    Not Estimated: If
 impacts.                      losses from           kit car production
                               contractors and       remains relatively
                               small businesses      stable and replica
                               that assemble kit     car production
                               cars are around or    increases
                               equal to the job      significantly
                               gains for small       (consistent with
                               replica               case where replicas
                               manufacturers.        are a new and
                                                     separate product
                                                     category),
                                                     employment effects
                                                     would be greater.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced compliance costs....  Estimated: Captures   Not Estimated: Would
                               the cost of           consider the
                               installing required   avoided costs of
                               safety technologies   forcing required
                               on an average         safety technologies
                               modern car.           into older vehicle
                                                     designs.
Reporting costs.............  Estimated: Reflects   Estimated: Reflects
                               low bound of          high bound of
                               production.           production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA calculated the impact of the final rule on benefits by
analyzing the change in safety impacts related to increased fatalities,
injuries and property costs due to eliminating compliance with vehicle
FMVSS and bumper standards. The primary impact on benefits of this
final rule would be an expected increase in fatalities and injuries for
drivers and occupants in both replica vehicles and some portion of
their crash partners due to reducing FMVSS requirements. Per-vehicle
benefit and cost impacts are presented by vehicle type and discount
rate in Table 2:

                                  Table 2--Summary of Benefit and Cost Impacts
                                           [Per vehicle, 2017 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Impact                             Passenger cars                            LTVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits--3% Discount Rate............  -$8,449 to -$1,068.................  -$9,514 to -$744.
Benefits--7% Discount Rate............  -$6,314 to -$794...................  -$7,039 to -$548.
Costs--3% Discount Rate...............  -$2,215 to -$827...................  -$1,935 to -$664.
Costs--7% Discount Rate...............  -$2,174 to -$812...................  -$1,899 to -$652.
Net Benefits--3% Discount Rate........  -$6,233 to -$241...................  -$7,579 to $80.
Net Benefits--7% Discount Rate........  -$4,139 to $18.....................  -$5,140 to $104.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is considerable uncertainty in the degree of regulatory
relief replica vehicle manufacturers would incorporate into the vehicle
manufacturing process under the final rule. That is, although the final
rule would eliminate compliance requirements with all vehicle FMVSS and
bumper standards, at least some replica vehicle manufacturers may
comply voluntarily with at least some vehicle FMVSS and bumper
standards.
    At a minimum, NHTSA believes it is reasonable to assume that
replica vehicle manufacturers will provide at least three-point seat
belts voluntarily. The agency notes that, in the NPRM, this assumption
was based, at least in part, on NHTSA's view that States could still
require vehicle safety features as part of the registration and titling
requirements. As discussed further below, NHTSA has reconsidered this
view in part, as the Agency is now not taking a position on what types
of State laws would or would not be preempted. However, regardless of
this question, NHTSA continues to believe that it is reasonable that
belts will be installed in at least many replica vehicles because, at a
minimum, consumers will demand seat belts or insurance companies would
likely either require them in replica vehicles or charge prohibitively
high premiums for replica vehicles without seat belts. Thus, NHTSA
believes it would be unrealistic to expect replica vehicle
manufacturers to sell replica vehicles that would be manufactured
without belts. In this analysis, NHTSA investigates the implications of
seat belt requirements by presenting benefit and cost impacts under a
baseline in which all replica vehicle manufacturers provide three-point
seat belts voluntarily (referred to as the Voluntary Seat Belts
scenario).
    NHTSA believes it is also possible that at least some replica
vehicle manufacturers will design vehicles that voluntarily comply with
all standards except those that would impair the resemblance of replica
vehicles to the corresponding original vehicles. NHTSA represents the
implications of appearance constraints by presenting benefit and cost
impacts under a baseline in which all replica vehicle manufacturers
comply with all relevant standards except for those assumed to have the
strongest effect on vehicle appearance: All air bags (affecting the
appearance of steering wheels, dashboards, and the lining of the
interior), roof crush resistance (affecting the appearance of pillars),
and bumper standards. This scenario is referred to as the Appearance
Constraint scenario). However, though NHTSA believes the same factors
that would encourage the Voluntary Seat Belts scenario would be present
here, the Agency believes that these factors, particularly consumer
demand, are likely weaker here, and

thus that this scenario may be less likely than the above scenario.
    The FRE also presents per-vehicle estimates under a scenario in
which replica vehicle manufacturers relax compliance with all standards
affected by the final rule (referred to as the Full Exemption
scenario). However, NHTSA does not expect this scenario to be a
realistic outcome under the final rule, due to consumer demand,
insurance-related factors, and possible litigation concerns, and the
uncertainty regarding the effect of various State laws, and thus only
presents this information as a sensitivity case.
    We, thus, present estimates under the Voluntary Seat Belts and
Appearance Constraint scenarios as upper and lower bounds,
respectively, of the scope of impacts that would likely be observed
under the final rule. NHTSA estimates that involvement in the part 586
exemption program established by this final rule will save low-volume
manufacturers of replica passenger cars and light trucks and vans
(LTVs) between $3.4 million and $17.2 million at a three-percent
discount rate (between $3.3 million and $16.9 million at a 7% discount
rate) annually, resulting from the elimination of the requirement to
certify compliance of their vehicles with the vehicle FMVSS, fuel
economy standards, bumper standards, and labeling requirements. NHTSA
estimates that the annual impact on benefits associated with the final
rule will be between -$68.4 million and -$4.1 million at a 3% discount
(between -$51.1 million and -$3.1 million at a 7% discount rate)
annually, resulting from incremental property damage, injury, and
fatality costs.

                                                     Table 21--Total Annual Discounted Net Benefits
                                                      [Millions of 2017 dollars, 3% discount rate]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total benefit    Total cost
                 Scenario                        Annual production                     VMT                    impact          impact       Net benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance Constraint....................  3,600 Cars, 400 LTVs........  Low Case.......................           -$4.1           -$3.4           -$0.8
Appearance Constraint....................  3,600 Cars, 400 LTVs........  High Case......................            -9.6            -3.4            -6.2
Appearance Constraint....................  7,200 Cars, 800 LTVs........  Low Case.......................            -8.3            -6.5            -1.8
Appearance Constraint....................  7,200 Cars, 800 LTVs........  High Case......................           -19.3            -6.5           -12.8
Voluntary Seat Belts.....................  3,600 Cars, 400 LTVs........  Low Case.......................           -14.6            -8.7            -5.8
Voluntary Seat Belts.....................  3,600 Cars, 400 LTVs........  High Case......................           -34.2            -8.7           -25.5
Voluntary Seat Belts.....................  7,200 Cars, 800 LTVs........  Low Case.......................           -29.2           -17.2           -12.0
Voluntary Seat Belts.....................  7,200 Cars, 800 LTVs........  High Case......................           -68.4           -17.2           -51.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                     Table 22--Total Annual Discounted Net Benefits
                                                      [Millions of 2017 dollars, 7% discount rate]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total benefit    Total cost
                 Scenario                        Annual production                     VMT                    impact          impact       Net benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance Constraint....................  3,600 Cars, 400 LTVs........  Low Case.......................           -$3.1           -$3.3            $0.3
Appearance Constraint....................  3,600 Cars, 400 LTVs........  High Case......................            -7.2            -3.3            -3.8
Appearance Constraint....................  7,200 Cars, 800 LTVs........  Low Case.......................            -6.2            -6.4            $0.2
Appearance Constraint....................  7,200 Cars, 800 LTVs........  High Case......................           -14.3            -6.4            -8.0
Voluntary Seat Belts.....................  3,600 Cars, 400 LTVs........  Low Case.......................           -10.9            -8.6            -2.3
Voluntary Seat Belts.....................  3,600 Cars, 400 LTVs........  High Case......................           -25.5            -8.6           -17.0
Voluntary Seat Belts.....................  7,200 Cars, 800 LTVs........  Low Case.......................           -21.8           -16.9            -4.9
Voluntary Seat Belts.....................  7,200 Cars, 800 LTVs........  High Case......................           -51.1           -16.9           -34.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated net benefits for replica passenger cars under the
final rule are negative in all cases except in the Appearance
Constraint scenario under the low VMT assumption at a seven-percent
discount rate, in which case net benefits are positive but very close
to zero ($0.2 to $0.3 million). At a three-percent discount rate, net
benefits are negative but near zero (-$1.8 million to -$0.8 million) in
the Appearance Constraint scenario under the low VMT assumption. Net
benefits are negative in the Voluntary Seat Belts scenario under the
high VMT assumption at both discount rates (-$51.2 million to -$2.3
million). These results indicate that the final rule is expected to:
(1) Generate negative safety impacts exceeding the corresponding
production cost savings across most combinations of key assumptions in
the analysis; or (2) generate negative safety impacts similar in
magnitude to the corresponding production cost savings under the most
conservative assumptions in the analysis.

XII. Effective Date

    This final rule is effective immediately upon publication in the
Federal Register. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) states that a
rule cannot be made effective less than 30 days after publication
unless the rule falls under one of three exceptions. One of these
exceptions is for a rule that ``grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction.'' \37\ This rule would fall under this
exception because it would create a process through which manufacturers
could obtain exemptions to manufacture replica vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The only comment on the agency's proposed immediate effective date
was from SEMA, which concurred with the proposal. NHTSA adopts the
effective date as proposed.

XIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's
administrative

rulemaking procedures. This rulemaking is not considered significant
and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O.
12866. This rule is considered ``of special note to the Department''
under DOT Order 2100.6A, Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures, and has
been reviewed by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The
amendments adopted by this final rule implement an exemption program
mandated by Sec.  24405 of the FAST Act for low-volume manufacturers,
and involve a relatively small number of motor vehicles. There will be
costs avoided by low-volume manufacturers when producing replica
vehicles because the vehicles will not be required to meet all the
Federal regulations and FMVSS applicable to new motor vehicles.
Potential benefits could also include increased consumer surplus and
increased incremental employment impacts among small manufacturers.
Safety disbenefits could result from crashes if replica vehicles do not
meet the vehicle safety standards, but NHTSA believes the vehicles will
be used only occasionally due to their unique designs. NHTSA assumes
that 40 low-volume manufacturers will produce between 4,000 and 8,000
replica vehicles annually, and the vehicles are expected to be driven,
on average, no more than 2,280 miles per year. Further, NHTSA believes
the vehicles will likely be equipped with critical safety equipment
such as seat belts for reasons that include meeting conditions of
insurance carriers and consumer demand. The program will not have a
significant effect on the national economy, in part because of the
small number of vehicles affected by this program.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321-4347) requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental
impacts of major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment, as well as the impacts of alternatives to the
action.\38\ The FAST Act requires NHTSA to establish an exemption
program for replica vehicles, and this action implements that exemption
program and the procedural mandates in the Act. The aspects of the
program under the jurisdiction of NHTSA that could have environmental
impacts include the exemption from the FMVSS (including those that
affect the weight of the vehicle and thereby influence motor vehicle
fuel economy) and the exemption from average fuel economy standards,
both of which are specifically prescribed by statute. Although the FRE
considers the impacts of this rule, NHTSA does not have the authority