ID: nht88-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/88

FROM: D. BRUCE HENDERSON -- RANGE ROVER

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO N. BOWYER; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, 209; UNDATED LETTER FROM N. BOWYER TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC 1909

TEXT: Dear Sir or Madam,

Enclosed is a request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards from Land Rover UK, Ltd., the manufacturer of Range Rover vehicles imported and sold in the U.S. by this company. We would appreciate your response to this request at the earliest possible time.

Thank you for your help and attention. Please contact me at the letterhead address and telephone number below if you need any further information about this request.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Derek Nash -- Artech Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/14/76 letter from Richard B. Dyson To Tom Welland

TEXT:

Mr. Derek Nash Artech Corporation 2901 Telestar Court Falls Church, VA 22042

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and follows up on the April 1, 1988 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff in which additional information augmenting your letter was provided. I apologiz e for the delay in responding.

In your letter, you said that you are refurbishing a type of passenger vehicle that has first produced 20 years ago. Your letter raises questions about Federal requirements for persons modifying used vehicles which I will address in the latter part of th is letter and about Federal requirements for the design of the vehicle's chassis.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA also has the authority to in vestigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that the manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not clear from the information which you have provided us whether the vehicle you are refurbishing would be treated as a new or used vehicle under the Safety Act. A vehicle with a new body and new chassis would be a new vehicle required to meet the standards in effect on the day that manufacture of the vehicle is completed. A vehicle with a new body and old chassis would be a used vehicle.

Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., persons holding themselves out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that any person in the above categories m odifying a new or used vehicle must do so in a manner that ensures the continued compliance of the vehicle with applicable safety standards. This prohibition affects vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the date on which the first Federal s afety standards became effective. For instance, a commercial business that installs a new fuel system in a passenger car manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of Standard No. 301) must ensure that the new system at least meets the level of safety performance required of the fuel system originally installed on the vehicle. Persons violating section 108 are subject to potential civil penalties of $1,000 per violation.

In instances in which a new vehicle body is installed on an old chassis, section 108(a) (2) (A) requires that the reassembled vehicle meet the Federal safety standards that had been in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle. I have enclosed a c opy of a January 14, 1976 letter to Mr. Tom Welland that describes generally the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to refurbished motor vehicles. Please note that the first situation referred to in the Welland letter addresses the m odification of a vehicle by its owner. The prohibition in section 108(a) (2) (A) does not apply to the modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I will now address the questions you expressly posed in your letter. Your first three questions asked:

What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of a passenger-carrying motor vehicle?

What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger-carrying motor vehicle chassis?

What form or test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

As Ms. Hom informed you, our safety standards apply to new vehicles and are performance-oriented. NHTSA has not issued any design specifications that directly establish minimum static or dynamic loads for vehicle chassis. These design parameters are esta blished by the manufacturer independently of specific criteria set by the agency and might be available from the original manufacturer of the vehicle you are refurbishing. However, manufacturers of new vehicles are required by NHTSA to determine and spec ify the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings of their vehicles in the manner set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 of our regulations. I have enclosed a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Chassis manufacturers must be aware, however, of the following two considerations relating to the static and dynamic load capacities of vehicles and NHTSA's regulations. First, because manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that their vehicles hill p erform to the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, manufacturers must ensure that chassis design is compatible with the vehicle' s ability to comply. Some of our safety standards specify that the performance of requisite vehicle safety systems will be evaluated in dynamic (i.e., crash) tests which enable the agency to evaluate the synergistic effect of a range of variables on a vehicle's compliance therewith. Manufacturers of new vehicles would therefore have to ensure that the design of the chassis will have no negative effect on their vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards.

Second, as mentioned above, NHTSA has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and to require manufacturers to recall and remedy such defects free of charge. Chassis manufacturers must therefore en sure that their products contain no safety related defects, which might well include a chassis member that is incapable of carrying loads for which it is intended.

Further, the vehicle manufacturer who provides the GVWR and GAWR information required by Part 567 must ensure that the information relating to the chassis static loads is correct.

On a separate matter, your letter also asked about the requirements manufacturers must meet when installing a plastic fuel tank in a motor vehicle. The standard we issued for vehicle fuel system integrity (No. 301) sets performance requirements for fuel systems in new motor vehicles. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) specifies the test that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the requisite safety system (e.g. the fuel system) on new vehicles selected for i nclusion in its compliance test program. Manufacturers are not bound, however, to use the tests specified in the safety standards for evaluating the compliance of their vehicles or equipment with our standards. Instead, a manufactures may test in any man ner it chooses, so long as it can show that it has exercised due care in ensuring that its vehicles or items of equipment comply with the applicable Federal requirements.

In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed information that provides an overview of Federal requirements applying to manufacturers of new motor vehicles and instructions on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures omitted.

Ref: Passenger vehicle design parameters

Dear Erika:

In accordance with our telephone conversation I have listed some specific questions the have a direct bearing on an ongoing project. Our purpose is to produce a specification for refurbishment of a type of passenger vehicle that was first produced twenty years ago. Our request is for either direct answers to the questions below and/or references to available publications or regulations that are the authorities for the answer.

The questions are as follows:

1. What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of passenger carrying motor vehicle?

2. What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger carrying motor vehicle chassis?

3. What form of test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2) September 3, 1987

4. What data on characteristics and/or tests of a plastic fuel tank are required for approval of its use in a passenger carrying vehicle?

I thank you for your time and effort in supplying this information and hope to hear from you shortly.

In appreciation

ARTECH CORP.

Derek Nash Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht88-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: PAUL ULTANS -- VICE PRESIDENT GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SUBARU OF AMERICA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/13/88 TO PAUL UTANS FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 STANDARD 208, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 08/18/78 TO D. BLACK FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN, STANDARD 210, RE NOA - 30

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Subaru of America, requests your interpretation of how the requirements of various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to a belt system Subaru would like to offer as standard equipment on its U.S. station wagon models, beginning in m id-model year 1989. This system is a manual, single-loop, 3-point (combination lap-shoulder) belt for use at the rear outboard seating positions.

Subaru currently offers a manual lap belt at the rear outboard positions of our station wagons. The belt system that we would like to offer is now used in European versions of these autos. It has a single-point buckle mechanism and is automatically adjustable. The upper anchorage for this European belt is located outside the FMVSS 210 "approved range", but within the ECE Regulation No. 14 "permitted area". (See enclosed Figures 1 and 2.) n1

n1 The vehicles in question have an additional upper anchorage located in the U.S. approved range, as required by FMVSS 210. However, the European belt system cannot directly be used with the U.S. anchorage, due to the need for additional bolt holes to accommodate the European belt and its retractor.

It is our view that the installation of the European-type belt in the ECE anchorage is permitted under the various FMVSSs. The European system qualifies as a "Type 2 belt assembly", as required in FMVSS 208. The European belt assembly is certified t o meet the requirements of FMVSS 209 by the belt manufacturer. The anchorages required under FMVSS 210 (including the current upper anchorage in the U.S. approved range) would continue to be provided. Therefore, we believe all the explicit requirements of these standards would continue to be met.

The minimum FMVSS seat belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions provide for lap belts and an additional upper anchorage (in a specified location). The upper anchorage is included to permit owner retrofit of a 3-point belt system, if desi red. Under our proposal, we would continue to provide these items. In addition, Subaru would voluntarily provide the shoulder portion of the belt and an additional anchorage. We believe the additional, voluntarily provided, items should not be subject to regulation, so long as they do not impair the functioning of any required safety equipment. We do not believe that the additional upper anchorage and shoulder belt section will in any way impair the operation of the lap belt section. To the contrar y, we believe that the additional items will provide further safety benefits. Permitting use of the European-type belt and anchorage would enable Subaru to provide U.S. vehicle purchasers with the benefits of three point restraint in an automatically adj ustable system at the earliest possible date. Requiring the use of an upper anchorage within the U.S. acceptable range would result in delay while anchorage and/or belt modifications are engineered and implemented.

In order for Subaru to begin offering the proposed belt system by mid-model year 1989 (e.g., to arrange for the necessary supplies of belt systems), we would need to receive your response to this letter no later than November 1, 1988. Therefore, we r equest your expeditious consideration of this proposal. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

FIGURE 1

1989 SUBARU STATION WAGON PROPOSED REAR SEAT THREE-POINT SEAT BELT INSTALLATION

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

FIGURE 2

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

1989 SUBARU STATION WAGON PROPOSED REAR SEAT THREE-POINT SEAT BELT INSTALLATION

ID: nht88-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 29, 1988

FROM: J. E. CARR -- PRODUCT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF TERMS FOR FMVSS 124

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 11-9-88 TO J. E. CARR, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, STD 124

TEXT: The increasingly restrictive emissions requirements being specified make it imperative that Diesel Truck Engines have electronic engine controls. On many Caterpillar Truck Engines the traditional mechanical governor is being replaced by an Electronic Co ntrol Module (ECM). Caterpillar is asking NHTSA for interpretation of how the terms used in FMVSS 124 would be applied to an electronic system.

Regulation FMVSS 124, paragraph S5.2, concerns the throttle going to idle if there is a severance or disconnect in the accelerator control system. The accelerator control system is defined as all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control. When the mechanical governor and linkage is replaced by electronics and electrical wires, the distinction of what is part of the accelerator control system and what is part of the fuel metering device requires interpretation.

Attached is a sketch showing 3 types of accelerator control systems either in use or planned by Caterpillar.

Type I is a mechanical linkage pedal to a mechanical governor which moves a fuel rack. This is the mechanical system that has been in production for several years and is shown here for reference only.

Type II is a mechanical linkage connected to an accelerator pedal position sensor which is electrically connected to an Engine Control Module (ECM) and a Brushless Torque Motor (BTM) controling fuel injection by moving the fuel rack. The Caterpillar acce lerator pedal position sensor can be located at the OEM's option but is generally mounted on the engine compartment side of the firewall. Both the ECM and BTM are mounted on the engine. The ECM has a function similar to the mechanical governor in Type I in that it senses pedal position and engine speed along with several other factors and signals the BTM as to the desired amount of fuel to be injected.

Type III is a mechanical linkage to an accelerator pedal position sensor which is electrically connected to an ECM and to individual unit injectors. The ECM is mounted on the engine. The ECM senses pedal position and engine speed along with several oth er factors and signals the individual injectors as to the desired amount of fuel to be injected.

It is Caterpillar's position that in Type II and Type III Systems the term "Driver-Operated Accelerator Control System" includes all linkage and wiring up to the ECM. All other components shown in the sketch (except the battery) are part of the "Fuel Me tering Device".

Caterpillar would like confirmation from NHTSA that our interpretation of the definitions used in FMVSS 124 is correct. We would appreciate a prompt response. If you have any questions, please contact me or Jim McCollum on 309-675-5377.

SYSTEM COMPARISON

TYPE I

GOV RACK

Accelerator pedal

linkage

TYPE II

Accelerator pedal position sensor

Accelerator pedal

Bat.

ECM

BTM

RACK

TYPE III

Accelerator pedal position sensor

Accelerator pedal

ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEM

ECM

Bat.

FUEL METERING DEVICE

ID: nht88-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 30, 1988

FROM: ROBERT W. STUCHELL

TO: MR. VINSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-13-88 EST., TO ROBERT W. STUCHELL, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A32, STD 108

TEXT: I was referred to you by Mr. Kevin Cavey at D.O.T. and would appreciate an official statement as to whether there are any Federal regulations governing sale and/or use of lighted signs of any shape placed on the inside of the rear window of aftermarket c ars. Such signs would not be connected with any new car purchase.

I would also appreciate any information you may have regarding individual State regulations in this area.

ID: nht88-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Durham & Associates, P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert R. Keatinge, Esq. Durham & Associates, P.C. Suite 1750 950 17th Street Denver, CO 80202

Dear Mr. Keatinge:

This is a response to your letter of December 1, 1987, making this agency to clarify your understanding of 49 CFR S571.7(e). That section reads in part as follows:

Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured ...unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

You referred to my August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Parmer, and expressed concern that my having discussed only one aspect of S571.7(e) in that letter has led to some confusion. My letter to Mr. Parmer states that 'a modified school bus or truck is n ot considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.' You stated that while my statement is 'correct,' my response did not address the first clause of this provision: 'When a new cab is used In the assembly of a truck...' you asserted that, a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis.' Your assertion is correct with respect to S5 71.7(e), but there is another regulation that specifies a vehicle is 'new' if an old body is combined with a new chassis.

By its own terms, S571.7(e) applies only in situations where a new body is combined with either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used components from different vehicles. You were correct, then, in asserting that 5571.7(e) applied only to situations involving a new body. For the purposes of the Parmer letter, it Has understood between Mr. Parmer and a member of my staff that the bus bodies in question were new, so that letter did not purport to address the question of combining an old bu s body with new and or/used chassis Components.

Many of our prior interpretations have stated that a person who adds a new or used body to a new chassis to produce a school bus is considered the manufacturer of a new school bus, and must certify that the new bus conforms with all applicable safety sta ndards, just as every other school bus manufacturer must. In this case, the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle. 'Incomplete vehicle' is defined in 19 CFR 5568.3 as:

an assemblies consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing o perations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis is used to produce a vehicle, the person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, within the meaning of 49 CFR 5568.3. Final-Stage manufacturers are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The date of manufacture for these buses cannot be earlier than the date on which the chassis manufacturer completed its work on the chassis and cannot be la ter than the date the final-stage manufacturer completed its manufacturing operations. See 49 CFR S567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Note that neither S571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to certify that a school bus complies with all applicable safety standards, if that person merely rebuilds or replaces an engine, drive axle, or transmission in a bus, or if that person plac es a used bus body on a used chassis.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel December 4, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation 700 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20890

Re: Your letter of August 11, 1987 to Ernest Farmer

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter is to confirm my understanding of 49 CFR S571.7(e) as interpreted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA'). In your letter of August 11, 1987 to Mr. Ernest Farmer, the Director of Pupil Transportation for the Tennessee Department of Education, you twice (at the top of page 2 and in the first paragraph of section 3 on page 3) make reference to the portion of 5571.7(e) which says that a bus will not be considered 'new' if the engine, transmission and drive train are not new and at least two of these components are from the same vehicle.

While this statement is a correct statement of part of the test under 5571.7(e) it does not address the part of the regulation which states that a truck (or, here, a bus) will be considered new only if the cab (or, here, a body? is replaced. The descrip tion of the regulation contained in your letter may have been in response to an Inquiry which assumed the replacement of the bus body (as did FR Docket No. 85-22646).

On Friday, December 4, 1987 I discussed this point with Joan Tilghman of your office. She confirmed what appears to be the clear reading of S571.7(e) to the effect that the replacement of the engine, transmission and/or rear axle only becomes an issue 'W hen a new cab (here, body) is used in the assembly of a truck (here, bus)...". In other words, a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis.

Unfortunately, there has been some confusion as a result of the letter indicates that the NHTSA is changing the regulation to provide in effect that whenever a new or rebuilt engine, transmission or rear axle is put in a bus the bus must be brought into conformity with current standards regardless of whether the body has been replaced. As discussed above, and as confirmed by Ms. Tilghman, I don't think that was your intention.

If the foregoing accurately describes the NHTSA's position, I would appreciate your confirming this to me so that we can correct the misunderstanding. Until this ambiguity is resolved, my client is in a difficult position inasmuch as the governmental age ncies are unsure how to proceed. Your prompt response would therefore be greatly appreciated.

If there are any questions in this regard or If I am incorrect in my understanding, I would appreciate your contacting me as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration in this regard.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Keatinge

ID: nht88-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager, Regulatory Affairs MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Ms. Bakker:

This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you asked about a situation in which a car line (the Mitsubishi Galant) was designated as a high theft lin e beginning in the 1987 model year, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 542. Mitsubishi applied for and received an exemption from the Parking requirements of the theft prevention standard because of a standard equipment antitheft device to be i nstalled in the Galant. This exemption, issued pursuant to Part 543, applied beginning in the 1987, model year.

For the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and a new nameplate was assigned to the line. It is now called the Galant Sigma. Additionally, Mitsubishi plans to introduce a new car line in the 1989 model year called the Galant. Thi s line is, according to your letter, completely redesigned from the 1987 line that was called the Galant, bears no resemblance to the Galant Sigma, and will cost less than either the Galant Sigma or the 1987 line called Galant.

You posed the following questions:

1. Should a new theft determination be made for both the Galant Sigma and the redesigned Galant?

ANSWER: No. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 198J Galant line and the Galant Sigma is a new model within the Galant line.

As a general matter, section 601(2) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021(2)) defines the term "line" as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design." As noted in your letter, the agency uses the same language to define the term "line" in 5541.4. This language treats groups of motor vehicles as a continuation of an existing line if the group s have the same name and are similar in construction or design. We have applied this language in the following manner.

With respect to the redesigned Galant, I addressed such a question in my March 6, 1987 letter to Mr. Jeffrey Link (copy enclosed) as follows:

The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles Here continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same n ame as previous groups of vehicles here nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the pre decessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles.

The redesigned Galant obviously has the same name as the 1987 model year Galant. Additionally, the redesigned Galant is similar in construction and design to the 1987 Galant, notwithstanding the new sheet metal and different drivetrains. Accordingly, we believe that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line. This means that the redesigned Galant is subject to the previous high theft determination for the Galant line.

With respect to the Galant Sigma, we conclude that this is a new model within the Galant line, not a new line. In our preamble to the insurer reporting requirements in 49 CFR Part 544, we discussed the application of the terms "model, make, and line" as follows:

"Make" refers to the general name used by the vehicle manufacturer. For example, Dodge, Ford, and Pontiac are makes of vehicles. "Line" refers to the nameplate assigned by the manufacturer to a group of vehicle models of the same make. For example, Dodge Charger, Ford Thunderbird, and Pontiac 6000 are lines of vehicles. "Model" refers to a specific grouping of similar vehicles within a line. For example, the Dodge Charger 2.2 2-door, Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and Pontiac 6000 LE 4-door are models. 5 2 PR 59, at 65; January 2, 1987.

In general, if a manufacturer calls a group of vehicles by the same general name as it applies to another group, but adds a further description to that name (e.g., Honda Civic CRX, Volkswagen Golf GTI, and Porsche 911 Carrera), we presume that the furthe r description indicates a unique model within that line. This presumption can be overcome only if the vehicle with the further description in its name is not "similar in construction or design." Thus, we have determined, for example, that the Honda Civic CRX is simply a model within the Civic line, notwithstanding the fact that its driveline and body styling are different from all other Honda Civic models. It is similar in construction or design (all are front-wheel drive passenger cars) and bears the s ame name as other Civics.

On the other hand, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is not considered a model within your Colt/Mirage line. The Station Wagon bears the same name as other Colt/Mirage models. However, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is classified as a multipurpose passenger v ehicle, while the other Colt/Mirage models are passenger cars. This difference is substantial enough that the vehicles are not "similar" in construction or design.

In the case of the Galant Sigma, we agree that it is not identical in construction or design to the other redesigned Galant models. However, it is similar in construction and design to the other Galant models, since all are front-wheel drive passenger ca rs. Hence, the Galant Sigma is simply a model within the Galant line.

2. If a new high theft determination should not be made for the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma, which of the vehicles is designated as high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the old Galant be used?

ANSWER: As explained above, the Galant Sigma is not a separate car line, but is simply a model within the Galant line. The redesigned Galant line is a continuation of the older Galant line. Thus, the previous high theft determination applies to all model s in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma.

The exemption that was granted to the older Galant line can be used for the redesigned Galant line if the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, includi ng the Galant Sigma. If the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is not installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, you would be required to mark all cars in the redesigned Galant line to conform t o Part 541.

3. If one or both the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma are newly designated as high theft lines, can the exemption granted for the Galant in the 1987 model year be used for either or both car lines, or would the exemption be invalidated because of the change in body style?

ANSWER: Because the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is just a model within the redesigned Galant line, as explained above, the exemption granted under Part 543 to the 1987 Galant line continues in full eff ect for the redesigned Galant line. Your company has the option of installing anti-theft devices as standard equipment in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma, in accordance with the 1987 exemption, or marking all major parts in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, in accordance with Part 541.

4. If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with Part 541, can installation of the anti-theft device be discontinued at any time?

ANSWER: Yes. Exemptions are granted only, among other things, after a determination has been made that the line in question is a high theft line that should be listed in Appendix A of Part 541. Section 541. 3 states that the parts marking requirements of Part 541 apply to all lines listed in Appendix A. Section 541. 5 requires each major part that is original equipment on a line designated as high theft to be marked with certain information. Section 541.6 requires each replacement major part for high th eft lines to be marked with certain information. Thus, each line listed in Appendix A must comply with the requirements of sections 541.5 and 541.6.

There is a single exception to this requirement. Part 543 sets forth procedures by which a line that has been determined to be a high theft line can be exempted from the marking requirements of Part 541. To be eligible for an exemption under Part 543, an antitheft device must be installed as standard equipment in all cars in the line. The lines that have been granted exemptions under Part 543 are listed in a special subset of Appendix A, Appendix A-1,. Men a manufacturer gets an exemption for a line und er Part 543, it is given two options to comply with the requirements of Part 541. First, the manufacturer can install the antitheft device that was the subject of the exemption proceeding under Part 543 as standard equipment on all cars in that line, in accordance with the terms of the exemption. However, the manufacturer is not required by Part 543 or any other provision to install standard equipment antitheft devices in that line. If the manufacturer chooses not to use the antitheft device exemption f or that line, the manufacturer must choose the second option - that is, marking the major parts of every car in the line, in accordance with 5541.5, and marking the replacement major parts for that line; in accordance with 5541.6. If a manufacturer has c omplied with both of these options in a particular model year, by marking every vehicle and every covered major replacement part for a line and by installing an antitheft device that was the subject of a Part 543 exemption proceeding in every marked vehi cle, as posted in your example the manufacturer is free to discontinue either, but not both of the courses of action at any point during the model year. When the manufacturer chooses to discontinue either course of action for even a single vehicle in the high theft line it is then required to follow the other course of action until the end of the model year in question.

Please note that this choice exists only if the manufacturer has complied fully with the requirements of Part 541.5 and Part 541.6 and with the terms of the exemption granted under Part 543. If some vehicles in a line or some of the replacement major par ts were not marked in accordance with Part 541, the manufacturer must install the antitheft device that was the subject of the Part 543 proceeding in all vehicles in that line for the rest of the model year. When the next model year for the subject line begins, the manufacturer is permitted to discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and to comply with the requirements of Part 541 for that line in the new model year. However, for any particular model year, each of a manufacturer's lines must fully comply with either the requirements of Part 541 or the exemption granted under Part 543.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, we would like to request an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.

A high theft determination was made for the Mitsubishi car line designated Galant beginning in the 1987 model year. Within this car line was one body style designated Galant. Subsequent to the high theft determination, an exemption from the parts making requirements was granted and an antitheft device was installed on the Galant for the 1987 model year. Additionally, after the exemption was granted, the vehicles were still labeled in accordance with the parts marking requirements.

Beginning with the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and given a new nameplate, Galant E. This model is equipped with an antitheft device and is also labeled. In addition to the Galant E introduced in the 1988 model year, a new model designated Galant will be introduced as a 1989 model year vehicle in early 1988. This model is completely redesigned from the original Galant model, hears no resemblance to the Galant E, and falls into a lower price class than either the original Galant or the Galant E. Enclosed are sales brochures which show the design differences between these models.

Under the provisions of 5414, definitions, the difference in body style between the Galant and Galant E would separate each model into separate car lines. Should a new theft determination be made for both car lines? If not, which vehicle would be designa ted high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the Galant be used?

If one or both car lines are newly designated as high theft, can the exemption granted for the Galant beginning in the 1987 model year be used for either/or both car lines or would the exemption be invalidated due to the change in body style 7.

If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with the parts marking requirements, can installation of the antitheft device be discontinued at any time?

We look forward to your expedited response. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager Regulatory Affairs

DB/nas Enclosure

cc: Ms. B. Kurtz, Office of Market Incentives

Ms. J. Schraff, Office of Market Incentives

ID: nht88-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Alberto Negro -- Director, Fiat Research & Development -- U.S.A. Branch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Alberto Negro Director Fiat Research & Development -- U.S.A. Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn, MI 48126

This responds both to your revised report, dated January 20, 1988, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 585, on behalf of Alfa Lancia Industriale S.p.A. (Alfa Romeo), covering compliance with the automatic restraint "phase-in" requirements during the 1987 producti on year, and to your February 4, 1988, letter to Stephen Wood, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571. 208). Specifically, your question concerns whether Fiat may exclude automatic restraint-equipped convertibles from its determinations of annual production for the purpose of calculating the number of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraints requirements during the phase-in period.

Alfa Romeo, a subsidiary of Fiat, equipped some of its convertibles with automatic restraints during the 1987 model year, and Fiat counted those convertibles toward satisfying the requirement that 10 percent of 1987 production year cars be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated in your February 4 letter that you need clarification of whether Standard No. 208 permits you to exclude from your annual production calculations those convertibles that were equipped with automatic restraints and that we re counted in determining whether the requisite percentage of production complied with the automatic restraint requirements. In other words, you wish to know whether Fiat may "count" Alfa Romeo convertibles equipped with automatic seat belts for the purp ose of satisfying the 108 "phase-in" requirement for production year 1987, found at @4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208, while excluding those same convertibles from the annual vehicle production calculations covering the 1987 production year.

The answer to your question is that Standard No. 208 does not allow Fiat to exclude from its annual production calculations any convertibles that comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in @4.1.2. 1 of the standard. Section @4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies that the amount of passenger cars that comply with the automatic restraint production. Under these provisions, Fiat elected to use the average annual production from September 1, 1983, through August 31, 1986, for its 1987 m odel year report.

For the period of September 1, 1986, to August 31, 1987 section @4.1.3.3.3 of Standard No. 208 provides a single exception from the requirement to include all of a manufacturer's cars in determining annual production. Under that exception, a manufacturer has the following option in calculating annual production:

A manufacturer may exclude convertibles which do not comply with the requirements of @4.1.2.1, when it is calculating its average annual production under @4.1.3.1.2(a) or its annual production under @4.1.3.1.2(b). (Emphasis added.)

The same single exception is set forth in section @4.1.3.2.3 for the September 1, 1987, to August 31, 1988 reporting period, and in section @4.1.3.3.3 for the September 1, 1988, to August 31, 1989 reporting period. This exception expressly permits manufa cturers to exclude convertibles that do not comply with @4.1.2.1 from such calculations . However, this language does not permit manufacturers to exclude convertibles that are certified as complying with @4.1.2.1 from such calculations.

An old principle of legal interpretation is expressed in the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius": literally, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Applying this principle to Standard No. 208, one would conclude that since the standard was drafted to provide one means of excluding convertibles from calculations of annual production, the standard does not allow any other means of excluding convertibles from those calculations. In other words, since the standard allows you to e xclude convertibles that do not comply with @4.1.2.1 when calculating annual production, the absence of a similar provision for convertibles that comply with @4.1.2.1 means that convertibles that are certified as complying cannot be excluded.

This interpretation does not raise any questions about the January 20 report's exclusion of all convertibles produced between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, since your letter states that none of those convertibles complied with @4.1.2.1. However , this interpretation does mean that Fiat cannot exclude the 803 convertibles you reported as complying with @4.1.2.1 when making your 1988 model year calculations, as required by @4.1.3.2, if Fiat again elects to base its calculations on the average ann ual production of passenger cars during the preceding three years, as permitted by @4.1.3.2.2(a). Similarly, if Fiat elects to base its calculations on the actual production between September 1, 1987, and August 31, 1988, as permitted by @4.1.3.2.2(b), F iat cannot exclude convertibles that comply with the requirements of @4.1.2.1. September 1, 1987, and August 31, 1988, as permitted by @4.1.3.2.2(b) , Fiat cannot exclude convertibles that comply with the requirements of @4.1.2.1.

In this letter, we have assumed that the Alfa Romeo convertibles that are equipped with automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint provisions of @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. If this is not the case, then fiat may not "c ount" those vehicles as complying with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of @4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208. See attached letter dated April 18, 1988 to Mr. Robert Munson of Ford Motor Company. Please notify Mr. George L. Parker, NHTSA's Assoc iate Administrator for Enforcement, within 10 business days of your receipt of this letter, whether the Alfa Romeo automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NCC-20, Room 5219 4007th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

We require clarification of the NHTSA regulation which allows certain vehicle types to be excluded from the set of vehicles which is used to determine passive restraint quotas.

In 49 CFR, Sections @4.l.3.l.3, @4.l.3.2.3, and @4.l.3.3.3 say that "convertibles which do not comply" with passive restraint requirements may be excluded from the set of vehicles which is used to determine the quota. We need to know whether convertibles which do comply with passive restraint requirements may also be excluded from the quota set.

On January 19, 1988 we presented this question by telephone to NHTSA and were told that convertibles which do comply could be excluded. Furthermore, we have reviewed the applicable Federal Register and found nothing within them that prohibited the exclus ion of convertibles which do comply.

Nevertheless, upon reviewing our passive restraint report (dated January 20, 1988) NHTSA expressed some doubt about whether convertibles which comply could be excluded. The doubt arose not because the report calculations were suspect, as all of the exclu ded convertibles in that report were without passive systems but rather because it was not clear whether we would be including complying convertibles in subsequent quota calculations.

We urgently need an official decision from NHTSA on this matter so that we may accurately forecast our future passive restraint liabilities. Hence, a prompt response will be most appropriate.

If you have any questions, please contact my office. Sincerely yours,

Alberto Negro Director

ID: nht88-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Patricia Bicking

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Patricia Bicking 1132 Chestnut Avenue Woodbury Heights, NJ 08097

This is a response to your letter of last fall in which you asked a number of questions concerning seat-belts and large school buses. apologize for the delay in responding. In your correspondence, you enclosed a letter of January 19, 1984, from this offi ce to Thomas Built Buses, Inc., (Thomas), and the incoming letter from Thomas that was the basis of our interpretation.

Your first question references the January 1989 letter, and asks why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decided that when school bus manufacturers install seat-belts or seat-belt anchorages on large school buses (over 10,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating the manufacturers do not have to certify that the belts or anchorages meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards 208, 209, and 210.

The answer to this question is that NHTSA does not require a school bus manufacturer to install seat-belts on large school buses. Our regulations require a motor vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance to allapplicable standards. You ask whether this decision stillstands. The answer to that question is "yes" for the reason just stated. The agency does not require large buses to have seat-belts because the "compartmentalization" concept (to which you allude in your letter) supplies adequate protection for passengers in large school buses.

Let me give you some background information on our school bus regulations that I think will help address your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 req uires large school buses to have passenger crash protection through "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include h igh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

You also asked whether there have been and improvements in school bus seating compartments since 1977, and whether the improvements are mandatory. The answer to your question is that there have been no major changes in the school bus safety standards sin ce they became effective in April, 1977. However, the agency continuously reviews school bus safety standards to assess whether it is appropriate to add or amend a requirement.

You may be interested to know that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant' s exposure to injury-threatening crash forces): the drivers' training and experience: and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Chief Counsel

I am writing to you in behalf of the compartmentalization concept for large school buses.

I have a copy of a letter written from the NHTSA and addressed to Mr. Ron Marion of Thomas Built Buses, dated 1-19-84.

This letter states it was decided that school bus manufacturers were allowed to install seat belts for passenger seats (without) having to certify that the belts and anchorages apply with (standards) #s 208, 209 and 210. Could you please explain why this decision was made? And does this decision still stand today?

I also have information from the National Transportation Safety Board Safety Recommendations; H-83-39 through 41.

In 1977 there were recommendations for large school buses to de designed in the way that they will support the installation and use of a seat belt.

The NHTSA response states, "Improving the seating compartments eliminates the need for seat belts and provides sufficient crash protection."

A truly excellent response but, could you please explain what, if any type improvements have been made since this date of 1977? Have any of these improvements become mandatory?

Could you also please explain what the FMVSS 222 is? And what are the major requirements for the FMVSS 222.

Thank you so much for your time.

Mrs. Patricia Bicking of Woodbury Hts. N.J.

ID: nht88-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 5, 1988

FROM: I. ROBERT EHRLICH -- ENGINEER

TO: RICHARD STROMBOTNE -- NHTSA OFFICE OF SAFETY STANDARDS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 12-19-88, TO I. ROBERT EHRLICH, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A33, PART 571.3, PART 567

TEXT: Would you please send me a copy of NHTSA Docket 88-06, Notice 1 and Docket 88-07, Notice 1 proposing to strengthen the side impact crash test procedures and performance requirement for passenger cars, as indicated in the attached clipping from Automotive Engineering, APRIL 1988.

What I am particularly interested in is whether or not the proposed new standards will include stretch limousines, which are frequently covered by light sheet steel to fill in the gap created by lengthening a conventional passenger car. This leaves a wide, unprotected gap in the center.

Side Impact Protection -- The January 27, 1988, Federal Register contained NHTSA Docket 88-06, Notice 1 (page 2239), and Docket 88-07, Notice 1 (page 2254), proposing to strengthen the side impact crash test procedures and performance requirements for pa ssenger cars, and specifying a new side impact test dummy. The amendments would require a test procedure to simulate a severe side crash, a barrier to represent a striking vehicle, a test dummy specially designed for side impacts, and maximum injury crit eria for the dummy. Ten percent of a manufacturer's production would be required to meet the standard during the first year, which would begin two years after publication of the final rule. The percentage would increase to 25% the next year, 40% the thi rd year and 100% thereafter. Comments on both Notices are due October 24, 1988. For further information contact Dr. Richard Strombotne, NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (202) 366-4916.