NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam3119

Dear Mr. Stennis: This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1979, concerning th interests of your constituent, Mr. Ronald Ashley, in Department of Transportation regulations affecting the sale of 'kit' cars. Mr. Ashley requests copies of bumper standards promulgated under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) (15 U.S.C. 1901, *et seq*.), and the name and address of a government official able to answer questions concerning such regulations. He also asks whether 'kit' vehicles, sold unassembled without engines or transmissions, must comply with Federal bumper standards.; I am enclosing a copy of Part 581, *Bumper Standard* (49 CFR 581), th only bumper standard issued under the authority of the Cost Savings Act. This standard replaced Federal motor vehicle safety standard 215, *Exterior Protection*, as of September 1, 1978. Requests for interpretation of standards should be made in writing and directed to me at the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; With regard to Mr. Ashley's plan to sell 'kit' cars, certain items o motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses) which may be included in a kit are directly covered by Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, *et seq*.) and responsibility for their compliance would be shared by the kit manufacturer. However, Federal bumper regulations and most Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to vehicles after they are finally assembled for sale or use. Thus, the sale of unassembled 'kit' cars would, for the most part, be affected by Federal standards indirectly, through the standards' impact on purchasers.; For example, the Part 581 bumper standard applies to passenger moto vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles (49 CFR 581.3). An unassembled set of body, chassis, and suspension components is not considered a passenger motor vehicle for purposes of the Part 581 standard and, therefore, that regulation does not restrict the manufacture, importation, or sale of such kits.; However, section 106(a)(1) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C 1916(a)(1)) prohibits the introduction in commerce of any passenger motor vehicle not in conformity with Federal bumper standards. Therefore, a purchaser who completes a kit by the addition of all new equipment would be regarded as the manufacturer of a new passenger motor vehicle and would have to assure that the vehicle complied with Federal standards. Since bumper standards established under the Cost Savings Act do not apply in the case of vehicles after their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Part 581 standard would not apply to the addition of a new 'kit' body to the chassis of a used vehicle. Other hybrid vehicles consisting of a mixture of both new and used parts would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. 'Kit' cars are treated in a like manner with regard to Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the Safety Act.; In view of this discussion, Mr. Ashley may wish to structure his kit in such a manner that they may be assembled on used vehicle chassis. Further, apart form considerations of Federal law, Mr. Ashley's commercial relationships may give rise to a responsibility to caution his customers that their vehicles when finally assembled may not comply with Federal safety standards.; Please contact me again if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5235

"Dear Mr. Longo: This responds to your letter concerning possibl liability involved with marketing a product you manufacture, particularly with respect to installation of the product on vehicles equipped with Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS), also known as air bags. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. In a June 16, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, Troy Wood explained that the products are aftermarket decorative sheet metal accessories that attached to the exterior of vehicles. Your company also makes replacement bumpers for vehicles. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, this letter will discuss Federal laws which might be affected by the addition of your products on vehicles equipped with air bags. Potential liability questions should be addressed to a private attorney who is familiar with tort law. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles, therefore, if your products are installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with your product installed. However, as explained in the phone conversation with Ms. Versailles of my staff, we understand your products are intended as items of after-market equipment. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing your product on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. For example, the installer would have to be careful not to activate a sensor while attaching your product, causing the air bag to deploy. Please note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your product on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5601

"Dear Mr. Meurer: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995 responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process. You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally made to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c). 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j)) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency 'decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events.' Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an importer such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain 'a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation.' The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purpose for which it was imported. The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Management District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project. Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point, when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessary to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs. Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must 'at all times retain title to and possession of' vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and 'shall not lease' them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bees to BART for the duration of the demonstration project. I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes 'on terms NHTSA decides are necessary.' Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is not required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers. The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the proposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, NHTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest. If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5092

"Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your request that NHTSA determine tha a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the Porsche 911 car line constitutes a de minimis change to the device. The change is proposed to be made on only one model in the 911 line and to be effective beginning with the 1994 model year (MY). As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device is not a de minimis change. As you are aware, in a Federal Register notice of June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device, to be placed as standard equipment on the MY 1990 Porsche 911 car line, was likely to be as effective as parts marking. Subsequently, by letter dated May 31, 1990, the agency concluded that proposed changes to the antitheft device in the MY 1991 Porsche 911 car line were de minimis changes. The primary change for the 1991 model year was that the interior light control units were to be integrated with the alarm control unit and central locking system. The latter two components were already integrated. For the following reasons, NHTSA concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device for the 1994 model year is not de minimis. In reaching this conclusion, we looked primarily at the anti-theft system on which the exemption was originally based. Under the original system, locking one door would automatically lock all doors, as well as arm the alarm system. Under the proposed change, locking one door with the key would no longer automatically lock all doors, but would still arm the alarm system. This is not an insignificant change like the substitution of new components for old components, each serving the same function. Nor does the change involve adding a feature making an exempted antitheft device even more effective. The change in question lessens the likelihood that all doors of a car will be locked, thus easing a thief's access to the passenger compartment. A thief may easily open the unlocked door, providing an opportunity to attempt to shut off the alarm system (since both the alarm control unit and the power lines from the battery to the alarm system are inside the vehicle) and to circumvent the engine disabling system. If the thief successfully overcomes these systems, theft of the entire vehicle or its parts is facilitated. Once inside the vehicle, a thief may open the hood by a release in the vehicle interior, thereby gaining access to the storage space under the hood. Since the battery for the Porsche 911 is also located in the front hood compartment of the vehicle, access to the battery also makes it easier for a thief to attempt to shut off the alarm system and engine disabling system, again facilitating theft of the entire vehicle or its parts. Because the same aspects of performance (i.e., the central door locking system that automatically locked all doors, making access to the vehicle interior and hood release more difficult), are not provided in the proposed device, resulting in the possibility of the vehicle's increased vulnerability to being stolen in whole, or to have its parts stolen, this agency concludes that Porsche's proposed modification to the antitheft device in one model in the MY 1994 911 car line is not a de minimis change. If Porsche wishes to place its proposed antitheft device on the 911 car line, it must formally file a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for a modification must provide the same information for the modified device as is required under 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all cars in the line for which an exemption is sought. Since the modification planned by Porsche would result in one model within the car line lacking a feature found on the anti-theft systems of other models, the agency would determine in the following manner whether the car line continued to merit exemption. It would regard the system of the one model as the system of the car line as a whole and assess whether that system would be as effective in preventing theft as parts marking. The additional feature on the other models within the car line, i.e., the central locking system, would be regarded as an addition to the standard equipment system and would not have any bearing upon the exemptability of the car line. NHTSA notes that this same approach would not be taken if the system to be installed on a single model within a car line could not be regarded as a stripped down version of the system on the other models. In that case, there would be no standard equipment version of the system and the car line would not be eligible for an exemption. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Barbara A. Gray, Chief, Motor Vehicle Theft Division, Office of Market Incentives, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-1740. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking";

ID: aiam5602

"Dear Mr. Meurer: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995 responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process. You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally made to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c). 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j)) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency 'decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events.' Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an importer such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain 'a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation.' The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purpose for which it was imported. The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Management District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project. Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point, when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessary to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs. Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must 'at all times retain title to and possession of' vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and 'shall not lease' them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bees to BART for the duration of the demonstration project. I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes 'on terms NHTSA decides are necessary.' Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is not required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers. The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the proposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, NHTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest. If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4876

"Dear Ms. Haudler: This responds to your letter seeking furthe information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: 'If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect .' You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no. Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars. I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: lotus.ztv

Mr. Arnold Johnson
CEO Lotus Cars USA, Inc.
500 Marathon Parkway
Lawrenceville, Ga. 30045

Dear Mr. Johnson:

We have received the "Petition of Lotus Cars" for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, dated April 30, 1999, accompanied by a letter of the same date to Assistant Chief Counsel Coleman requesting confidential treatment of certain information in the petition.

The manufacturer of the vehicle is Lotus Cars Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. It has a wholly-owned subsidiary, Lotus Cars USA, Inc., which imports and distributes Lotus vehicles in the United States. The petition states that it is being submitted by both the British and the American corporations. You have signed the petition as CEO of Lotus Cars USA, Inc., and provided financial data relating to your company.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i), we may grant a temporary exemption upon a finding that compliance with a standard "would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith." It seems clear that Congress intended that we grant temporary relief under this provision to the fabricating manufacturer. Accordingly, as a general rule, we accept hardship petitions only from the fabricating manufacturer of the vehicle and the person who certifies compliance of the vehicle pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30115.

As the wholly-owned subsidiary of Lotus Cars, Ltd., Lotus Cars USA Inc. may submit a petition on behalf of its parent. However, an exemption would only be granted to Lotus Cars, Ltd. as the actual manufacturer of the vehicle. This means that we must assess the hardship that compliance and denial would create for the parent, not just for its wholly-owned American subsidiary. Your petition is incomplete in this regard as it does not contain the required financial information for Lotus Cars Ltd. for its past three fiscal years. When we have this information we shall be pleased to give further consideration to the Lotus petition.

With respect to confidentiality requests, please be advised that the public must have access to the same financial information that we use in determining the existence of hardship. In the usual hardship case, cumulative net loss figures are sufficient such as are shown by Lotus Cars USA Inc. in its profit and loss figures for 1993-1997 (i.e., we would have granted your confidentiality request for all financial information except for these bottom-line figures). If Lotus Cars, Ltd. has cumulative net profits, we may need to consider and make available additional financial information in order to assess its hardship arguments.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:555
d.6/3/99

ID: nht79-3.41

DATE: 08/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter about Chrysler's general need for relief from Federal regulations and the denial of its petition for a one-year exemption from the automatic restraint requirements for Chrysler 1982-model full-size cars. There are several statements by Chrysler regarding the petition denial that you wish placed in the public record. Accordingly, your letter has been placed in the public docket on occupant crash protection (74-14; General Reference).

This agency is fully appreciative of the significance of Chrysler's circumstances and needs. Where relief can be considered consistent with the spirit and provisions of the laws we administer, we will do so. This willingness was amply demonstrated by my recent action in reducing the 1981 fuel economy standard for light trucks. Chrysler's automatic restraint petition presented us with a substantially different situation. Under our statutory authority, the only way we could have exempted Chrysler's large-size 1982 model from compliance with the automatic restraint requirements would have been to classify that vehicle as a unique type of car under our exisiting authority. Clearly, such a classification would have been challenged in court, and we believe it would not have been sustained. Indeed, such an action would severely strain our credibility with the court which just recently reviewed that very issued.

Regarding your statements about the safety issues associated with the denial, the agency agrees that some safety belt reminder systems can be effective in encouraging belt use. We do not believe, however, that most simple warning systems can equal the life-saving potential of automatic restraints. Further, the NHTSA has no authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require ignition interlock systems, which are probably the most effective systems for encouraging use of manual belts.

In this particular matter, the law precludes us from granting the relief you seek. I regret that we are unable to assist you under these circumstances.

SINCERELY,

July 12, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

We have reviewed the NHTSA denial of our petition for a one-year exemption from MVSS 208 for Chrysler 1982 model year full-size cars. We are revising our product and capital plans accordingly; nonetheless, we are convinced that the reasons set forth by NHTSA in its denial of our petition are in error. There are three basic arguments in the statement of denial: that there will be a significant reduction in safety if these cars do not have passive restraints, that Chrysler can produce cars with passive restraints at a competitive price, and that the economic risks to Chrysler would be "slight." We cannot agree with these conclusions and believe that the public record should include the following comments:

Safety

The NHTSA estimates that an average of fifteen lives per year would be lost if 1982 Chrysler full-size cars were not equipped with passive restraints. Although the calculations were not made public, presumably they are based in part on the historical NHTSA overestimation of passive restraint benefits. In addition, Chrysler and NHTSA staff had discussed informally improved safety belt reminder systems for the cars in question. NHTSA researchers have found that improved reminders increase belt use sharply, and cars so equipped could equal or exceed the performance of passive restraint cars at a small fraction of the cost. The NHTSA did not even mention this approach in its denial.

Consumer Cost of Passive Restraints

The NHTSA contends that Chrysler can build full-size cars with passive restraints in 1982 at a cost comparable to its competitors. It cannot. A major part of the price of any car or component is amortization of capital expenses necessary to bring it to production. The basic reason for our petition was the short life and low volume of cars over which we could amortize costs. Our competitors can spread costs over more years of production, and over more cars per year. Without question our costs per vehicle would be much higher than the corresponding ones from Ford and General Motors.

A corollary NHTSA argument is that a passive restraint exemption would give Chrysler a competitive advantage. It is widely understood that Chrysler already is at a serious competitive disadvantage because the costs of compliance with federal regulations are much higher, per unit, than for Ford and General Motors, and that this disadvantage will continue into the foreseeable future. The passive restraint exemption would do no more than reduce this price disadvantage -- a little.

Capital Expenses

The costs of meeting a multiplicity of federal regulations is causing an enormous financial strain on Chrysler Corporation. This is not only our contention, but also the conclusion of every researcher who has examined the automobile industry recently. All studies found that because of federal regulation Chrysler will suffer in comparison to Ford and General Motors. All of these studies are known to NHTSA and some were done specifically for the agency. In saying that the cost to provide passive restraints for one year "can be borne by Chrysler without significant difficulty," the agency simply ignores facts. Chrysler is already at its limit and can bear not additional capital costs without extreme difficulty.

We did not expect our petition to be denied. Over the past several months federal officials have gained increased understanding of the crushing burden federal regulations have placed on Chrysler Corporation, and the competitive disadvantages they have created. These officials have recognized that some measure of relief is necessary for Chrysler and have pledged that future government action would not damage the corporation further. This NHTSA denial is the first important decision since the need for revised government policy became apparent; instead of providing the expected relief, it makes an already difficult financial picture even worse.

JOHN J. RICCARDO -- CHAIRMAN

ID: aiam1084

Dear Mr. Feldmann: Thank you for your letter of March 23, 1973, concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection.; Your first concern is the fact that bumpers which comply with Standar No. 215 still permit damage to occur to the vehicle during low- speed impacts. This situation occurs because Standard No. 215, which initially became effective on September 1, 1972, was developed in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. This Act provided the authority to develop standards to improve vehicle safety during collisions, not solely to reduce property damage. The authority to develop bumper standards primarily to reduce property damage, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, became law on October 20, 1972. As the result of this new Act, we are in the process of developing standards which limit automobile damage in low-speed bumper impacts.; Secondly, you cite the mismatch problems that continue to exist amon passenger car bumpers. Commencing with 1974 model cars, Standard No. 215 specifies requirements directed at correcting the mismatch problems that cause damage to safety-related components during low-speed, car-to-car collisions. It establishes a uniform interfacing surface among all cars that reduces the likelihood of override, underride, and interlock, all of which are quite prevalent with existing bumper designs.; Thirdly, you express concern over the numerous collisions involvin damage to corners of vehicles. Standard No. 215 also specifies requirements for 1974 model cars that will provide improved corner protection. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your use.; Lastly, you indicate the availability of inexpensive energy absorbin devices that could be used to manage the low-speed crash forces. We are aware of these and other devices of this type, however, as you will note, Standard No. 215 specifies minimum performance only without specifying the equipment or configuration to be used. We feel that this approach encourages competitive innovation and promotes technological progress to achieve the desired performance at minimum cost to the consumer.; We appreciate receiving your comments and your interest in improvin motor vehicle safety.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam3937

Dear Mr. Hart: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1985, to former Chie Counsel Frank Berndt asking for an interpretation that a combination stop lamp-rear view mirror you have invented would be permissible under paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108.; That paragraphs precludes combining a center high-mounted stop lam with any other lamp or reflective device. You have concluded that the prohibition applies only to passenger cars manufactured after September 1, 1985, 'and does not prohibit application of my device to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of the mandate.'; Actually, S4.4.1 does not apply to your device at all. The lam established by the standard is one that is mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, at or near the rear window with no relationship to the forward left side of the vehicle where your combination lamp-mirror would be located. Standard No. 108 does contain in paragraph S4.1.3 a prohibition against additional lighting devices that impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. But on the basis of the facts as you have presented them to us, we cannot say that impairment would exist. We therefore conclude that your device is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 as either original or replacement equipment on any motor vehicle.; However, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors* does relate to your device. Passenger cars are required to be equipped with an outside rear view mirror on the driver's side, under paragraph S5.2.2 '...neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1.' Some of your designs show the lamp portion at the left end of the device's housing resulting in a wider unit than one incorporating a mirror alone. We recommend that you re-examine these designs with paragraph S5.2.2 in mind, relocating the lamp to the area either above or below that of the mirror surface if you conclude that the combination mounting would not comply with Standard No. 111.; There is no similar mounting requirement for driver's side mirrors o vehicles other than passenger cars, and your designs for mirrors on these vehicles would appear permissible under Standard No. 111.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel