NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam0093

Dear Mr. Luff: Mr. Bridwell has asked that I reply to your letters dated November 1 and July 3 which ask if Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 requires your company's 'Elan Convertible' to have sun visors.; The National Highway Safety Bureau recognizes that the requirements fo every passenger car to have two sun visors of energy-absorbing material with mountings that have no rigid material edge radius of less than 0.125 if statically contactable by a 6.5 inch diameter head form, aay(sic) create a problem for manufacturers of certain types of vehicles. However, the requirement will, on balance, contribute to the safety of the general public.; Compliance with the requirement can and should be made in a manner s as to increase occupant protection.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations

ID: 1984-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Mr. Noel M. Torres

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Noel M. Torres 2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, California 92704

Dear Mr. Torres:

This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1984 asking questions about the relationship of your "Panic-Stop Detection Brake-Lite System" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The photographs you enclosed show a segmented lamp mounted on the centerline of a passenger car directly below the rear window. Another picture shows the lamp installed on the rear of a motorcycle above the license plate. These pictures contain the notation "The harder you brake the faster the lite sweeping motion." Your questions are:

"(1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108?"

Section 108(a)(2) ((A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device, or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would appear to preclude removal of the mandated center high-mounted stop lamp on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and replacement of it with your lamp.

"(2) Is it legally all right to use it now on cars and motorcycles?"

Standard No. 108 was recently amended to permit manufacturers to install the center high-mounted lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and General Motors is already equipping some of its 1985 models with it. Thus, a center high-mounted stoplamp already installed on a passenger car in accordance with Standard No. 108 would be subject to the prohibition in Section 108(a) (2) (A) discussed above.

As for other passenger cars, we assume that you wish to make your lamp available as an aftermarket device. In this circumstance, where it is installed on a vehicle in use, its permissibility is to be determined under local law; Federal law does not apply.

Finally, as to motorcycles, your photograph, by depicting your lamp mounted above the license plate, indicates that it substitutes for the original equipment stop/taillamp. Inasmuch as the stop/taillamp was installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) apply to it as well.

We are returning your tape to you and appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, Ca 92704 September 25, 1984

Madam Diane K. Steed NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Madam Steed:

I hope you don't mind my taking the liberty of sending you this letter together with a 10-minute videotape of a brake-lite system for cars and motorcycles which I thought you might want to review and evaluate, if you have the time.

I have been thinking for a while now that it is amazing in this day and age of space shuttles, maze of freeways and fast driving, our cars are still equipped with the most out-dated brake-lite system that have been in use for hundreds of years, and when driving on the road, there's no way of telling if a car braking in front of you is trying to make a panic stop.

An idea came to mind which I developed. I call it "PANIC-STOP DETECTION BRAKE-LITE SYSTEM", applicable for cars and motorcycles. I honestly believe it is a very effective system that would reduce more than 90% of rear-end collisions. You'll see what I mean when you view the videotape enclosed.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me: 1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108? 2) Is it legally alright to use it now on cars and motorcycles?

Thank you so much for your kind consideration and I hope to hear from you.

Yours truly,

Noel M. Torres

P.S. If you think you might want to see the prototype samples, I'll be more than happy to ship them to you.

Encls./ 3-photos, 1-videotape

ID: nht95-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Sta ndard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a dete rmination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Enclosure

ACTION: Issuance of Federal Register Notice Granting Cantab's Petition for Temporary Exemption From Standards Nos. 208 and 214 John Womack (K. WEINSTEIN) Acting Chief Counsel

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards

Attached for your signature is a Federal Register notice granting the petition by Cantab Motors for a temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, and the side impact protection requirements of Standard No. 214. The basis of the grant is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to meet the standards.

Cantab imports shells of Morgan sports cars from England, and installs propane engines and drive trains in the US; for this reason, we consider Cantab rather than Morgan as the manufacturer. In the year preceding the filing of its exemption petition it produced only 9 such cars. It has cumulative net losses approaching $ 93,000 for the last three fiscal years. It has been working with Morgan to develop vehicles that will be equipped with airbags meeting Standard No. 208, and provide side impact prote ction meeting Standard No. 214.

Because the components that must be modified for conformance are under the control of Morgan rather than Cantab, the company is dependent upon Morgan's efforts. Cantab asked for only a 2-year exemption from Standard No. 208, indicating that it is optimi stic that its cars will conform in less than the 3 years it could have asked for. However, it appears to require the full 3 years for Standard No. 214.

Any threat to safety that would be presented by an exempted vehicle would be minimal because they are few in number, and are represented as conforming to earlier versions of the two standards.

No comments were received on the application.

Attachment

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Docket No. 95-53; Notice 2

Cantab Motors, Ltd.

Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and 214

Cantab Motors, Ltd., of Round Hill, Va., applied for a temporary exemption of two years from paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, and for three years from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No . 214 Side Impact Protection. The basis of the application was that compliance will cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application was published on July 14, 1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 36328).

The make and type of passenger car for which exemption was requested is the Morgan open car or convertible. Morgan Motor Company ("Morgan"), the British manufacturer of the Morgan, has not offered its vehicle for sale in the United States since the e arly days of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the nine years it has been in business, the applicant has bought 35 incomplete Morgan cars from the British manufacturer, and imported them as motor vehicle equipment, completing manufacture by the addition of engine and fuel system components. They differ from their British counterparts, not only in equipment items and modifications necessary for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but also in their fuel system compon ents and engines, which are propane fueled. As the party completing manufacture of the vehicle, Cantab certifies its conformance to all applicable Federal safety and bumper standards. The vehicle completed by Cantab in the U.S. is deemed sufficiently di fferent from the one produced in Britain that NHTSA considers Cantab the manufacturer, not a converter, even though the brand names are the same.

Morgan itself produced 478 cars in 1994, while in the year preceding the filing of its petition in June 1995, the applicant produced 9 cars for sale in the United States. Since the granting of its original exemption in 1990, Cantab has invested $ 38, 244 in research and development related to compliance with Federal safety and emissions standards. The applicant has experienced a net loss in each of its last three fiscal (calendar) years, with a cumulative net loss for this period of $ 92,594.

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 208

Cantab received NHTSA Exemption No. 90-3 from S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208, which expired May 1, 1993 (55 FR 21141). When this exemption was granted in 1990, the applicant had concluded that the most feasible way for it to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 was by means of an automatically deploying belt. In the period following the granting of the exemption, Morgan and the applicant created a mock-up of the Morgan passenger compartment with seat belt h ardware and motor drive assemblies. In time, it was determined that the belt track was likely to deform, making it inoperable. The program was abandoned, and Morgan and Cantab embarked upon research leading to a dual airbag system.

According to the applicant, Morgan tried without success to obtain a suitable airbag system from Mazda, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and Lotus. As a result, Morgan is now developing its own system for its cars, and "[as] many as twelve different sensors, of b oth the impact and deceleration (sic) type, have been tested and the system currently utilizes a steering wheel from a Jaguar and the Land Rover Discovery steering column." Redesign of the passenger compartment is underway, involving knee bolstering, a s upplementary seat belt system, antisubmarining devices, and the seats themselves. Morgan informed the applicant on May 2, 1995, that it had thus far completed 10 tests on the mechanical components involved "and are now carrying out a detailed assessment of air bag operating systems and columns before we will be in a position to undertake the full set of appropriate tests to approve the installation in our vehicles."

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 214

Concurrently, Morgan and the applicant have been working towards meeting the dynamic test and performance requirements for side impact protection, for which Standard No. 214 has established a phase-in schedule. Although Morgan fits its car with a dua l roll bar system specified by Cantab, and Cantab installs door bars and strengthens the door latch receptacle and striker plate, the system does not yet conform to the new requirements of Standard No. 214, and the applicant has asked for an exemption of three years. It does, however, meet the previous side door strength requirements of the standard. Were the phase-in requirement of S8 applied to it, calculated on the basis of its limited production, only very few cars would be required to meet the st andard.

Safety and Public Interest Arguments

Because of the small number of vehicles that the applicant produces and its belief that they are used for pleasure rather than daily for business commuting or on long trips, and because of the three-point restraints and side impact protection currentl y offered, the applicant argued that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with safety. It brought to the agency's attention two recent oblique front impact accidents at estimated speeds of 30 mph and 65 mph respectively in which t he restrained occupants "emerged unscathed."

Further, the availability "of this unique vehicle . . . will help maintain the existing diversity of motor vehicles available to the U.S. consumer." Finally, "the distribution of [this] propane-fueled vehicle has contributed to the national interest b y promoting the development of motor systems by using alternate fuels."

No comments were received on the application.

In adding only engine and fuel system components to incomplete vehicles, the applicant is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles in the conventional sense. It does not produce the front end structural components, instrument panel, or steering wheel, ar eas of the motor vehicle whose design is critical for compliance with the airbag requirements of Standard No. 208. These are manufactured by Morgan, and the applicant is necessarily dependent upon Morgan to devise designs that will enable conformance wi th Standard No. 208. The applicant has been monitoring Morgan's progress, and that company is engaging in testing and design activities necessary for eventual conformance. The fact that the applicant is requesting only a two-year exemption, rather than three, indicates its belief that complying operator and passenger airbags will at last be fitted to its cars by the end of this period.

Similarly, the applicant is dependent upon the structural design of its vehicle for compliance with Standard No. 214. As with Standard No. 208, Morgan and the applicant are working towards conformance, though apparently it will not be achieved within two years. In both instances, however, the applicant is conscious of the need to conform and has been taking steps to accomplish it. Although the company's total expenditure of $ 38,244 in the last five years to meet emission and safety requirements is low, the small number of cars produced for sale in the United States in the last year, nine, would not make available substantial funds to the company, and its cumulative net losses of $ 92,594 indicate an operation whose financial existence is precario us.

Applicant's cars are equipped with manual three-point restraint systems and comply with previous side impact intrusion requirements. Because applicant produces only one line of vehicles, it cannot take advantage of the phase-in requirement. Given th e existing level of safety of the vehicles and the comparatively small exposure of the small number of them that would be produced under an exemption, there would appear to be an insignificant risk to traffic safety by providing an exemption. The public interest is served by maintaining the existence of small businesses and by creating awareness of alternative power sources.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that to require immediate compliance with Standards Nos. 208 and 214 would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has in good faith attempted to meet the standards, and that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, the applicant is hereby granted NHTSA Exemption No. 95-2, from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, expiring September 1, 1997, and from 49 CFR 571.214 Motor Vehicle Safety St andard No. 214 Side Impact Protection, expiring September 1, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on SEP 7 1995

Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator

BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P

ID: nht95-7.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Standard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a determination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Enclosure

ACTION: Issuance of Federal Register Notice Granting Cantab's Petition for Temporary Exemption From Standards Nos. 208 and 214 John Womack (K. WEINSTEIN) Acting Chief Counsel

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards

Attached for your signature is a Federal Register notice granting the petition by Cantab Motors for a temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, and the side impact protection requirements of Standard No. 214. The basis of the grant is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to meet the standards.

Cantab imports shells of Morgan sports cars from England, and installs propane engines and drive trains in the US; for this reason, we consider Cantab rather than Morgan as the manufacturer. In the year preceding the filing of its exemption petition it produced only 9 such cars. It has cumulative net losses approaching $ 93,000 for the last three fiscal years. It has been working with Morgan to develop vehicles that will be equipped with airbags meeting Standard No. 208, and provide side impact protection meeting Standard No. 214.

Because the components that must be modified for conformance are under the control of Morgan rather than Cantab, the company is dependent upon Morgan's efforts. Cantab asked for only a 2-year exemption from Standard No. 208, indicating that it is optimistic that its cars will conform in less than the 3 years it could have asked for. However, it appears to require the full 3 years for Standard No. 214.

Any threat to safety that would be presented by an exempted vehicle would be minimal because they are few in number, and are represented as conforming to earlier versions of the two standards.

No comments were received on the application.

Attachment

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Docket No. 95-53; Notice 2

Cantab Motors, Ltd.

Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and 214

Cantab Motors, Ltd., of Round Hill, Va., applied for a temporary exemption of two years from paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, and for three years from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection. The basis of the application was that compliance will cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application was published on July 14, 1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 36328).

The make and type of passenger car for which exemption was requested is the Morgan open car or convertible. Morgan Motor Company ("Morgan"), the British manufacturer of the Morgan, has not offered its vehicle for sale in the United States since the early days of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the nine years it has been in business, the applicant has bought 35 incomplete Morgan cars from the British manufacturer, and imported them as motor vehicle equipment, completing manufacture by the addition of engine and fuel system components. They differ from their British counterparts, not only in equipment items and modifications necessary for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but also in their fuel system components and engines, which are propane fueled. As the party completing manufacture of the vehicle, Cantab certifies its conformance to all applicable Federal safety and bumper standards. The vehicle completed by Cantab in the U.S. is deemed sufficiently different from the one produced in Britain that NHTSA considers Cantab the manufacturer, not a converter, even though the brand names are the same.

Morgan itself produced 478 cars in 1994, while in the year preceding the filing of its petition in June 1995, the applicant produced 9 cars for sale in the United States. Since the granting of its original exemption in 1990, Cantab has invested $ 38,244 in research and development related to compliance with Federal safety and emissions standards. The applicant has experienced a net loss in each of its last three fiscal (calendar) years, with a cumulative net loss for this period of $ 92,594.

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 208

Cantab received NHTSA Exemption No. 90-3 from S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208, which expired May 1, 1993 (55 FR 21141). When this exemption was granted in 1990, the applicant had concluded that the most feasible way for it to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 was by means of an automatically deploying belt. In the period following the granting of the exemption, Morgan and the applicant created a mock-up of the Morgan passenger compartment with seat belt hardware and motor drive assemblies. In time, it was determined that the belt track was likely to deform, making it inoperable. The program was abandoned, and Morgan and Cantab embarked upon research leading to a dual airbag system.

According to the applicant, Morgan tried without success to obtain a suitable airbag system from Mazda, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and Lotus. As a result, Morgan is now developing its own system for its cars, and "[as] many as twelve different sensors, of both the impact and deceleration (sic) type, have been tested and the system currently utilizes a steering wheel from a Jaguar and the Land Rover Discovery steering column." Redesign of the passenger compartment is underway, involving knee bolstering, a supplementary seat belt system, antisubmarining devices, and the seats themselves. Morgan informed the applicant on May 2, 1995, that it had thus far completed 10 tests on the mechanical components involved "and are now carrying out a detailed assessment of air bag operating systems and columns before we will be in a position to undertake the full set of appropriate tests to approve the installation in our vehicles."

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 214

Concurrently, Morgan and the applicant have been working towards meeting the dynamic test and performance requirements for side impact protection, for which Standard No. 214 has established a phase-in schedule. Although Morgan fits its car with a dual roll bar system specified by Cantab, and Cantab installs door bars and strengthens the door latch receptacle and striker plate, the system does not yet conform to the new requirements of Standard No. 214, and the applicant has asked for an exemption of three years. It does, however, meet the previous side door strength requirements of the standard. Were the phase-in requirement of S8 applied to it, calculated on the basis of its limited production, only very few cars would be required to meet the standard.

Safety and Public Interest Arguments

Because of the small number of vehicles that the applicant produces and its belief that they are used for pleasure rather than daily for business commuting or on long trips, and because of the three-point restraints and side impact protection currently offered, the applicant argued that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with safety. It brought to the agency's attention two recent oblique front impact accidents at estimated speeds of 30 mph and 65 mph respectively in which the restrained occupants "emerged unscathed."

Further, the availability "of this unique vehicle . . . will help maintain the existing diversity of motor vehicles available to the U.S. consumer." Finally, "the distribution of [this] propane-fueled vehicle has contributed to the national interest by promoting the development of motor systems by using alternate fuels."

No comments were received on the application.

In adding only engine and fuel system components to incomplete vehicles, the applicant is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles in the conventional sense. It does not produce the front end structural components, instrument panel, or steering wheel, areas of the motor vehicle whose design is critical for compliance with the airbag requirements of Standard No. 208. These are manufactured by Morgan, and the applicant is necessarily dependent upon Morgan to devise designs that will enable conformance with Standard No. 208. The applicant has been monitoring Morgan's progress, and that company is engaging in testing and design activities necessary for eventual conformance. The fact that the applicant is requesting only a two-year exemption, rather than three, indicates its belief that complying operator and passenger airbags will at last be fitted to its cars by the end of this period.

Similarly, the applicant is dependent upon the structural design of its vehicle for compliance with Standard No. 214. As with Standard No. 208, Morgan and the applicant are working towards conformance, though apparently it will not be achieved within two years. In both instances, however, the applicant is conscious of the need to conform and has been taking steps to accomplish it. Although the company's total expenditure of $ 38,244 in the last five years to meet emission and safety requirements is low, the small number of cars produced for sale in the United States in the last year, nine, would not make available substantial funds to the company, and its cumulative net losses of $ 92,594 indicate an operation whose financial existence is precarious.

Applicant's cars are equipped with manual three-point restraint systems and comply with previous side impact intrusion requirements. Because applicant produces only one line of vehicles, it cannot take advantage of the phase-in requirement. Given the existing level of safety of the vehicles and the comparatively small exposure of the small number of them that would be produced under an exemption, there would appear to be an insignificant risk to traffic safety by providing an exemption. The public interest is served by maintaining the existence of small businesses and by creating awareness of alternative power sources.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that to require immediate compliance with Standards Nos. 208 and 214 would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has in good faith attempted to meet the standards, and that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, the applicant is hereby granted NHTSA Exemption No. 95-2, from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, expiring September 1, 1997, and from 49 CFR 571.214 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection, expiring September 1, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on SEP 7 1995

Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator

BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P

ID: aiam2591

Dear Mr. Niehaus: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1977, asking whethe Federal requirements specify that motor vehicle bumpers must be equipped with a rubber stripping.; Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, is a motor vehicle safet standard promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That standard requires that passenger cars be capable of undergoing 5 mph front and rear impacts without incurring damage to certain specified safety systems. Motor vehicle manufacturers are permitted to meet the performance level prescribed by Standard 215 in whatever manner they choose. Most, however, have elected to meet the requirements by improving the strength of the vehicle bumper system. Although a rubber bumper strip is not specifically required by the standard, a manufacturer may use such a component as a means of meeting the prescribed performance level.; All 1977 model year cars must be capable of meeting the requirements o Standard 215. This includes those which are equipped with an optional bumper system and those which are not.; If we can provide you with any further information, please let us know. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2846

Dear Mr. Abbott: This is in response to your letter dated June 27, 1978, asking whethe fog lamps mounted to the surface of a vehicle bumper are removed prior to testing for compliance with Part 581, *Bumper Standard*.; Vehicles subject to the requirements of Part 581 must comply with th protective criteria of section 581.5(c) (49 CFR 581.5(c)) when tested under the conditions stated in section 581.6 (49 CFR 581.6). The test conditions make no provision for removal of fog lamps prior to testing. As was the case under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 215, *Exterior Protection*, the Part 581 test procedures provide for removal only of trailer hitches before testing. With the added exception of license plate brackets, excluded from the requirements of Part 581 by interpretation (42 FR 24056, May 12, 1977), other equipment (including fog lamps) attached to the bumper system prior to sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser must meet the damage limitations of the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 2660y

Mr. William T. Mullen
Undersheriff of McHenry County, Illinois
2200 N. Seminary Ave.
Woodstock, IL 60098

Dear Mr. Mullen:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for safety belts in police cars. Specifically, you asked if your police department could legally remove the automatic belts that are installed and replace them with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. You stated that the reasons for making such a substitution would be to alleviate two problems your police officers have experienced with the automatic belts that were not present in older models that had manual lap/shoulder belts at the front seating positions. First, you said that the automatic belts result in a blind spot on the driver's left side. Second, you said that the automatic belts "prevent left arm movements" of your taller officers. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

I have enclosed copies of two previous letters we have written on the subject of removing or replacing occupant protection features from police cars. The first of these is a July 29, 1985 letter to Corporal Frank Browne and the other is a May 25, 1989 letter to Senator Harry Reid. These letters explain that new vehicles purchased by police departments must be certified as complying with the occupant crash protection standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208). All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must provide automatic crash protection for front seat occupants. To date, manufacturers have provided automatic crash protection either by installing air bags or automatic safety belts. General Motors, the manufacturer of the police cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing automatic safety belts in these cars.

Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from replacing the automatic belts in these police cars with manual lap/shoulder belts. Thus, none of these commercial entities could make such a replacement on behalf of the County without violating Federal law. However, Federal law does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from removing safety features from their own vehicles. Thus, McHenry County itself can replace the automatic belts in its own cars without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of McHenry County can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating any Federal laws. Such actions may, however, violate the laws of the State of Illinois.

I recommend that you carefully consider the effects of replacing the automatic belts in your police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the County itself from making these modifications to its own vehicles. The automatic belts in these cars help to assure safety belt use by police officers on the job. Particularly since the McHenry County police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe it is important that they use safety belts for effective protection in case of a crash. If you decide to replace the automatic belts in these vehicles with manual lap/shoulder belts, we would urge you to take some actions to assure that the police officers will use the manual lap/shoulder belts every time they ride in the police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208 d:9/l7/90

ID: nht94-2.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 09, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tunick, Lance -- Bugatti

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 11/8/93 From Federico Trombi To John Womack (OCC 9318)

TEXT: This responds to your letter n1 concerning low volume CAFE exemptions. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. (Bugatti) and Lotus Cars, Ltd. (Lotus), both of which are controlled by the same holding compa ny, may submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two separate alternative standards. As discussed below, the answer to this question is no. Since any alternative CAFE standard would apply to Bugatti and Lotus together, a single co mbined petition must be submitted for a single alternative standard.

n1 The letter was signed by Federico Trombi of Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. but requested that the response be directed to you.

According to your letter and a separate one received from Lotus, General Motors sold Lotus to Bugatti International Holding, SA, in August 1993. That holding company also controls Bugatti, which is planning to enter the U.S. market in the near future. Lotus and Bugatti intend to submit petitions for low volume CAFE exemptions. Moreover, the joint annual production of Bugatti and Lotus is far below the 10,000 vehicles per year eligibility threshold for low volume CAFE exemptions.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, you indicated that Lotus cars are imported by Lotus USA. You also indicated that Bugatti cars could be imported by Lotus USA, or could be imported by a new company that would be established by Bugatti, e.g., "Bugatti USA." Finally, you indicated that Lotus USA is not in a control relationship with any other auto manufacturers.

In addressing whether Bugatti and Lotus would be eligible for two separate standards, I will begin by identifying the statutory provisions which are relevant to determining who manufactures the vehicles at issue. Under section 501(8) of the Motor Vehicl e Information and Cost Savings Act, "(t)he term 'manufacturer' means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing automobiles." Under section 501(9), "(t)he term 'manufacture' (except for purposes of section 502(c)) means to produce in the customs territory of the United States, or to import." Under section 501(10), "(t)he term 'import' means to import into the customs territory of the United States."

Under these sections, the company which imports foreign-built cars into the United States is the manufacturer of those automobiles. Thus, if Lotus USA imported Lotus cars and Bugatti cars, Lotus USA, rather than Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. and Lotus Cars, Ltd., would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles for CAFE purposes.

Since Lotus USA would be the manufacturer of all the vehicles under this scenario, and CAFE standards apply to all passenger automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer, there would be no basis for Bugatti and Lotus to request two separate standards. Ins tead, a single alternative standard would need to be requested for Lotus USA, which would cover all automobiles imported by that company.

This result would not change if Bugatti established a new company, Bugatti USA, for importing cars into the U.S. This is because of the operation of the operation of section 503(c), which provides that any reference to "automobiles manufactured by a man ufacturer" is deemed to include all automobiles manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer. Since Lotus USA and Bugatti USA would presumably be under common control (traced back to Bugatti International Holding, SA), their fleets would be combined for CAFE purposes. Since many of the arguments you raise in your letter are relevant to this type of scenario, i.e., one in which Lotus and Bugatti cars would be considered to be manufactured b y manufacturers within a control relationship, I will assume it for the rest of this letter.

As you noted in your letter, NHTSA addressed the issue of how alternative CAFE standards apply to manufacturers within a control relationship in a July 1991 decision concerning low volume exemption petitions submitted by Ferrari. Ferrari and Alfa Romeo w ere under the common control of Fiat. We stated the following:

Because of the operation of section 503(c), Ferrari and Alfa Romeo are in essence the same manufacturer for purposes of CAFE standards. As discussed below, under section 502, the same CAFE standard should apply to both manufacturers together. This i s true for both generally applicable standards and alternative standards.

Section 502(a), in setting forth the generally applicable standard, specifies a standard for "passenger automobiles manufactured by any manufacturer." Section 502(c)(1), in setting forth requirements relating to low volume exemptions, specifies that s uch exemptions may not be granted unless the Secretary establishes, by rule, alternative average fuel economy standards for "passenger automobiles manufactured by manufacturers" which receive exemptions under this subsection. Under 503(c)(1), any refere nce to "automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer" is deemed to include all automobiles manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer. Thus, any CAFE standard which applies to Ferrari should apply to Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together. Therefore, granting Ferrari a low volume exemption in MY 1988 would create a paradox, since Alfa Romeo is indisputably not eligible (given its own worldwide production) for an exemption.

A similar paradox would arise in the context of determining compliance with the statute. Under section 503(a), neither manufacturer may have an independent CAFE value. Instead, by operation of section 503(c), they share a CAFE value that is based on the total volume of cars imported by both companies.

Thus, a decision to grant an exemption to Ferrari while applying the generally applicable standard to Alfa Romeo would cause compliance enforcement difficulties by compelling the agency to try to compare a combined CAFE value to separate CAFE standard s. 56 FR 31461, July 10, 1991.

You argued in your letter that, because of factual differences, the Ferrari/Alfa analysis should not be applied to the Bugatti/Lotus situation, and Bugatti and Lotus should be permitted to submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting tw o separate alternative standards.

While we agree that there are factual differences, e.g., Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together produced too many vehicles to meet the eligibility threshold while Bugatti and Lotus do not, the situations are identical with respect to the issue of how CAFE stand ards apply to manufacturers within a control relationship. In particular, since Lotus USA and Bugatti USA would be under common control and because of the operation of section 503(c), the two companies would in essence be the same manufacturer for purpo ses of CAFE standards. Any alternative standard issued under section 502 would apply to the two companies together. Moreover, neither manufacturer would have an independent CAFE value under section 503(a). Instead, by operation of section 503(c), they would share a CAFE value that is based on the total volume of cars imported by both companies. Therefore, the same CAFE standard would necessarily apply to the two companies together.

You raised several other objections in your letter. First, you stated that the CAFE statute provides that "a manufacturer" may submit a petition for a CAFE exemption, and a joint petition would not fall within this provision. In fact, any one of the re lated companies (Lotus, Lotus USA, Bugatti, the Bugatti U.S. subsidiary, or the holding company) could submit a petition on behalf of the combined companies. However, any such petition would apply to the combined fleet of both Bugatti USA and Lotus USA.

You also stated that combining two small companies together would muddy the question of the best fuel economy that each company is capable of achieving. However, NHTSA would simply assess the "maximum feasible average fuel economy level" that could be ac hieved by the combined Bugatti/Lotus fleet. We recognize that this level would be dependent on assumptions about the relative volumes of Bugatti USA and Lotus USA. However, the agency needs to take this factor into account in assessing the capability o f any manufacturer which produces vehicles with varying fuel economy values.

Finally, you stated that if a joint alternative standard was established, NHTSA would face a difficult enforcement situation in the event of a failure to comply with the standard. You asked how the agency would divide the civil penalties. It is our opin ion that Lotus USA and Bugatti USA would be jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the civil penalty, although we would permit the two companies to divide the penalty between themselves.

I would like to address two other issues that are raised by the factual situation described in your letter: (1) the immediate eligibility of Bugatti/Lotus given that Lotus was owned by General Motors until August 1993, and (2) the timing of petitions for low volume exemptions.

As you know, section 502(c)(1) specifies that low volume exemptions are only available for manufacturers "who manufactured . . . fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year preceding the model year for which the application is made. . . ." (Emphasis added.) During the time that Lotus was owned by General Motors, the combined companies manufactured far more than 10,000 vehicles. It is our opinion that Lotus does not have to wait two years from the date it ceased being in a control r elationship with General Motors to be eligible, given the circumstances described above. In particular, we believe that the requirement that a manufacturer have manufactured fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year preceding the model year for which the application is made was intended to address varying production levels (above and below 10,000) and not a situation where a small manufacturer such as Lotus is sold by a large manufacturer.

With respect to the timing of petitions, NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR @ 525.6, Requirements for petition, state that petitions from low volume manufacturers for alternative fuel economy standards must be "submitted not later than 24 months before the be ginning of the affected model year, unless good cause for later submission is shown." Clearly, the deadline for a timely submission for model years 1994-96 has passed. On the issue of "good cause" for a later submission, we note that Lotus was not sold by General Motors until August 1993, and both Lotus and Bugatti requested our opinion concerning submitting a petition within three months of that sale.

Under the circumstances, we conclude that, Lotus/Bugatti have, to date, taken reasonable measures to submit a petition in as timely a manner as possible. Therefore, if a petition that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 525 is submitted promptly after receipt of this letter, we will consider there to be good cause shown for submitting a late petition for model years 1994-96. I also note that a petition for model year 1997 would be due later this year.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-5.45

DATE: May 09, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tunick, Lance -- Bugatti

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 11/8/93 From Federico Trombi To John Womack (OCC 9318)

TEXT: This responds to your letter n1 concerning low volume CAFE exemptions. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. (Bugatti) and Lotus Cars, Ltd. (Lotus), both of which are controlled by the same holding company, may submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two separate alternative standards. As discussed below, the answer to this question is no. Since any alternative CAFE standard would apply to Bugatti and Lotus together, a single combined petition must be submitted for a single alternative standard.

n1 The letter was signed by Federico Trombi of Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. but requested that the response be directed to you.

According to your letter and a separate one received from Lotus, General Motors sold Lotus to Bugatti International Holding, SA, in August 1993. That holding company also controls Bugatti, which is planning to enter the U.S. market in the near future. Lotus and Bugatti intend to submit petitions for low volume CAFE exemptions. Moreover, the joint annual production of Bugatti and Lotus is far below the 10,000 vehicles per year eligibility threshold for low volume CAFE exemptions.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, you indicated that Lotus cars are imported by Lotus USA. You also indicated that Bugatti cars could be imported by Lotus USA, or could be imported by a new company that would be established by Bugatti, e.g., "Bugatti USA." Finally, you indicated that Lotus USA is not in a control relationship with any other auto manufacturers.

In addressing whether Bugatti and Lotus would be eligible for two separate standards, I will begin by identifying the statutory provisions which are relevant to determining who manufactures the vehicles at issue. Under section 501(8) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, "(t)he term 'manufacturer' means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing automobiles." Under section 501(9), "(t)he term 'manufacture' (except for purposes of section 502(c)) means to produce in the customs territory of the United States, or to import." Under section 501(10), "(t)he term 'import' means to import into the customs territory of the United States."

Under these sections, the company which imports foreign-built cars into the United States is the manufacturer of those automobiles. Thus, if Lotus USA imported Lotus cars and Bugatti cars, Lotus USA, rather than Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. and Lotus Cars, Ltd., would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles for CAFE purposes.

Since Lotus USA would be the manufacturer of all the vehicles under this scenario, and CAFE standards apply to all passenger automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer, there would be no basis for Bugatti and Lotus to request two separate standards. Instead, a single alternative standard would need to be requested for Lotus USA, which would cover all automobiles imported by that company.

This result would not change if Bugatti established a new company, Bugatti USA, for importing cars into the U.S. This is because of the operation of the operation of section 503(c), which provides that any reference to "automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer" is deemed to include all automobiles manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer. Since Lotus USA and Bugatti USA would presumably be under common control (traced back to Bugatti International Holding, SA), their fleets would be combined for CAFE purposes. Since many of the arguments you raise in your letter are relevant to this type of scenario, i.e., one in which Lotus and Bugatti cars would be considered to be manufactured by manufacturers within a control relationship, I will assume it for the rest of this letter.

As you noted in your letter, NHTSA addressed the issue of how alternative CAFE standards apply to manufacturers within a control relationship in a July 1991 decision concerning low volume exemption petitions submitted by Ferrari. Ferrari and Alfa Romeo were under the common control of Fiat. We stated the following:

Because of the operation of section 503(c), Ferrari and Alfa Romeo are in essence the same manufacturer for purposes of CAFE standards. As discussed below, under section 502, the same CAFE standard should apply to both manufacturers together. This is true for both generally applicable standards and alternative standards.

Section 502(a), in setting forth the generally applicable standard, specifies a standard for "passenger automobiles manufactured by any manufacturer." Section 502(c)(1), in setting forth requirements relating to low volume exemptions, specifies that such exemptions may not be granted unless the Secretary establishes, by rule, alternative average fuel economy standards for "passenger automobiles manufactured by manufacturers" which receive exemptions under this subsection. Under 503(c)(1), any reference to "automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer" is deemed to include all automobiles manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer. Thus, any CAFE standard which applies to Ferrari should apply to Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together. Therefore, granting Ferrari a low volume exemption in MY 1988 would create a paradox, since Alfa Romeo is indisputably not eligible (given its own worldwide production) for an exemption.

A similar paradox would arise in the context of determining compliance with the statute. Under section 503(a), neither manufacturer may have an independent CAFE value. Instead, by operation of section 503(c), they share a CAFE value that is based on the total volume of cars imported by both companies.

Thus, a decision to grant an exemption to Ferrari while applying the generally applicable standard to Alfa Romeo would cause compliance enforcement difficulties by compelling the agency to try to compare a combined CAFE value to separate CAFE standards. 56 FR 31461, July 10, 1991.

You argued in your letter that, because of factual differences, the Ferrari/Alfa analysis should not be applied to the Bugatti/Lotus situation, and Bugatti and Lotus should be permitted to submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two separate alternative standards.

While we agree that there are factual differences, e.g., Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together produced too many vehicles to meet the eligibility threshold while Bugatti and Lotus do not, the situations are identical with respect to the issue of how CAFE standards apply to manufacturers within a control relationship. In particular, since Lotus USA and Bugatti USA would be under common control and because of the operation of section 503(c), the two companies would in essence be the same manufacturer for purposes of CAFE standards. Any alternative standard issued under section 502 would apply to the two companies together. Moreover, neither manufacturer would have an independent CAFE value under section 503(a). Instead, by operation of section 503(c), they would share a CAFE value that is based on the total volume of cars imported by both companies. Therefore, the same CAFE standard would necessarily apply to the two companies together.

You raised several other objections in your letter. First, you stated that the CAFE statute provides that "a manufacturer" may submit a petition for a CAFE exemption, and a joint petition would not fall within this provision. In fact, any one of the related companies (Lotus, Lotus USA, Bugatti, the Bugatti U.S. subsidiary, or the holding company) could submit a petition on behalf of the combined companies. However, any such petition would apply to the combined fleet of both Bugatti USA and Lotus USA.

You also stated that combining two small companies together would muddy the question of the best fuel economy that each company is capable of achieving. However, NHTSA would simply assess the "maximum feasible average fuel economy level" that could be achieved by the combined Bugatti/Lotus fleet. We recognize that this level would be dependent on assumptions about the relative volumes of Bugatti USA and Lotus USA. However, the agency needs to take this factor into account in assessing the capability of any manufacturer which produces vehicles with varying fuel economy values.

Finally, you stated that if a joint alternative standard was established, NHTSA would face a difficult enforcement situation in the event of a failure to comply with the standard. You asked how the agency would divide the civil penalties. It is our opinion that Lotus USA and Bugatti USA would be jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the civil penalty, although we would permit the two companies to divide the penalty between themselves.

I would like to address two other issues that are raised by the factual situation described in your letter: (1) the immediate eligibility of Bugatti/Lotus given that Lotus was owned by General Motors until August 1993, and (2) the timing of petitions for low volume exemptions.

As you know, section 502(c)(1) specifies that low volume exemptions are only available for manufacturers "who manufactured . . . fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year preceding the model year for which the application is made. . . ." (Emphasis added.) During the time that Lotus was owned by General Motors, the combined companies manufactured far more than 10,000 vehicles. It is our opinion that Lotus does not have to wait two years from the date it ceased being in a control relationship with General Motors to be eligible, given the circumstances described above. In particular, we believe that the requirement that a manufacturer have manufactured fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year preceding the model year for which the application is made was intended to address varying production levels (above and below 10,000) and not a situation where a small manufacturer such as Lotus is sold by a large manufacturer.

With respect to the timing of petitions, NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR @ 525.6, Requirements for petition, state that petitions from low volume manufacturers for alternative fuel economy standards must be "submitted not later than 24 months before the beginning of the affected model year, unless good cause for later submission is shown." Clearly, the deadline for a timely submission for model years 1994-96 has passed. On the issue of "good cause" for a later submission, we note that Lotus was not sold by General Motors until August 1993, and both Lotus and Bugatti requested our opinion concerning submitting a petition within three months of that sale.

Under the circumstances, we conclude that, Lotus/Bugatti have, to date, taken reasonable measures to submit a petition in as timely a manner as possible. Therefore, if a petition that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 525 is submitted promptly after receipt of this letter, we will consider there to be good cause shown for submitting a late petition for model years 1994-96. I also note that a petition for model year 1997 would be due later this year.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9318-2

Lance Tunick, Esq.
Bugatti
1919 Mount Zion
Golden, CO 80401

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letterThe letter was signed by Federico Trombi of Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. but requested that the response be directed to you. concerning low volume CAFE exemptions. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. (Bugatti) and Lotus Cars, Ltd. (Lotus), both of which are controlled by the same holding company, may submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two separate alternative standards. As discussed below, the answer to this question is no. Since any alternative CAFE standard would apply to Bugatti and Lotus together, a single combined petition must be submitted for a single alternative standard.

According to your letter and a separate one received from Lotus, General Motors sold Lotus to Bugatti International Holding, SA, in August 1993. That holding company also controls Bugatti, which is planning to enter the U.S. market in the near future. Lotus and Bugatti intend to submit petitions for low volume CAFE exemptions. Moreover, the joint annual production of Bugatti and Lotus is far below the 10,000 vehicles per year eligibility threshold for low volume CAFE exemptions.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, you indicated that Lotus cars are imported by Lotus USA. You also indicated that Bugatti cars could be imported by Lotus USA, or could be imported by a new company that would be established by Bugatti, e.g., "Bugatti USA." Finally, you indicated that Lotus USA is not in a control relationship with any other auto manufacturers.

In addressing whether Bugatti and Lotus would be eligible for two separate standards, I will begin by identifying the statutory provisions which are relevant to determining who manufactures the vehicles at issue. Under section 501(8) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, "(t)he term 'manufacturer' means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing automobiles." Under section 501(9), "(t)he term 'manufacture' (except for purposes of section 502(c)) means to produce in the customs territory of the United States, or to import." Under section 501(10), "(t)he term 'import' means to import into the customs territory of the United States."

Under these sections, the company which imports foreign-built cars into the United States is the manufacturer of those automobiles. Thus, if Lotus USA imported Lotus cars and Bugatti cars, Lotus USA, rather than Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. and Lotus Cars, Ltd., would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles for CAFE purposes.

Since Lotus USA would be the manufacturer of all the vehicles under this scenario, and CAFE standards apply to all passenger automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer, there would be no basis for Bugatti and Lotus to request two separate standards. Instead, a single alternative standard would need to be requested for Lotus USA, which would cover all automobiles imported by that company.

This result would not change if Bugatti established a new company, Bugatti USA, for importing cars into the U.S. This is because of the operation of section 503(c), which provides that any reference to "automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer" is deemed to include all automobiles manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer. Since Lotus USA and Bugatti USA would presumably be under common control (traced back to Bugatti International Holding, SA), their fleets would be combined for CAFE purposes. Since many of the arguments you raise in your letter are relevant to this type of scenario, i.e., one in which Lotus and Bugatti cars would be considered to be manufactured by manufacturers within a control relationship, I will assume it for the rest of this letter.

As you noted in your letter, NHTSA addressed the issue of how alternative CAFE standards apply to manufacturers within a control relationship in a July 1991 decision concerning low volume exemption petitions submitted by Ferrari. Ferrari and Alfa Romeo were under the common control of Fiat. We stated the following:

Because of the operation of section 503(c), Ferrari and Alfa Romeo are in essence the same manufacturer for purposes of CAFE standards. As discussed below, under section 502, the same CAFE standard should apply to both manufacturers together. This is true for both generally applicable standards and alternative standards.

Section 502(a), in setting forth the generally applicable standard, specifies a standard for "passenger automobiles manufactured by any manufacturer." Section 502(c)(1), in setting forth requirements relating to low volume exemptions, specifies that such exemptions may not be granted unless the Secretary establishes, by rule, alternative average fuel economy standards for "passenger automobiles manufactured by manufacturers" which receive exemptions under this subsection. Under 503(c)(1), any reference to "automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer" is deemed to include all automobiles manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer. Thus, any CAFE standard which applies to Ferrari should apply to Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together. Therefore, granting Ferrari a low volume exemption in MY 1988 would create a paradox, since Alfa Romeo is indisputably not eligible (given its own worldwide production) for an exemption.

A similar paradox would arise in the context of determining compliance with the statute. Under section 503(a), neither manufacturer may have an independent CAFE value. Instead, by operation of section 503(c), they share a CAFE value that is based on the total volume of cars imported by both companies.

Thus, a decision to grant an exemption to Ferrari while applying the generally applicable standard to Alfa Romeo would cause compliance enforcement difficulties by compelling the agency to try to compare a combined CAFE value to separate CAFE standards. 56 FR 31461, July 10, 1991.

You argued in your letter that, because of factual differences, the Ferrari/Alfa analysis should not be applied to the Bugatti/Lotus situation, and Bugatti and Lotus should be permitted to submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two separate alternative standards.

While we agree that there are factual differences, e.g., Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together produced too many vehicles to meet the eligibility threshold while Bugatti and Lotus do not, the situations are identical with respect to the issue of how CAFE standards apply to manufacturers within a control relationship. In particular, since Lotus USA and Bugatti USA would be under common control and because of the operation of section 503(c), the two companies would in essence be the same manufacturer for purposes of CAFE standards. Any alternative standard issued under section 502 would apply to the two companies together. Moreover, neither manufacturer would have an independent CAFE value under section 503(a). Instead, by operation of section 503(c), they would share a CAFE value that is based on the total volume of cars imported by both companies. Therefore, the same CAFE standard would necessarily apply to the two companies together.

You raised several other objections in your letter. First, you stated that the CAFE statute provides that "a manufacturer" may submit a petition for a CAFE exemption, and a joint petition would not fall within this provision. In fact, any one of the related companies (Lotus, Lotus USA, Bugatti, the Bugatti U.S. subsidiary, or the holding company) could submit a petition on behalf of the combined companies. However, any such petition would apply to the combined fleet of both Bugatti USA and Lotus USA.

You also stated that combining two small companies together would muddy the question of the best fuel economy that each company is capable of achieving. However, NHTSA would simply assess the "maximum feasible average fuel economy level" that could be achieved by the combined Bugatti/Lotus fleet. We recognize that this level would be dependent on assumptions about the relative volumes of Bugatti USA and Lotus USA. However, the agency needs to take this factor into account in assessing the capability of any manufacturer which produces vehicles with varying fuel economy values.

Finally, you stated that if a joint alternative standard was established, NHTSA would face a difficult enforcement situation in the event of a failure to comply with the standard. You asked how the agency would divide the civil penalties. It is our opinion that Lotus USA and Bugatti USA would be jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the civil penalty, although we would permit the two companies to divide the penalty between themselves.

I would like to address two other issues that are raised by the factual situation described in your letter: (1) the immediate eligibility of Bugatti/Lotus given that Lotus was owned by General Motors until August 1993, and (2) the timing of petitions for low volume exemptions.

As you know, section 502(c)(1) specifies that low volume exemptions are only available for manufacturers "who manufactured ... fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year preceding the model year for which the application is made...." (Emphasis added.) During the time that Lotus was owned by General Motors, the combined companies manufactured far more than 10,000 vehicles. It is our opinion that Lotus does not have to wait two years from the date it ceased being in a control relationship with General Motors to be eligible, given the circumstances described above. In particular, we believe that the requirement that a manufacturer have manufactured fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year preceding the model year for which the application is made was intended to address varying production levels (above and below 10,000) and not a situation where a small manufacturer such as Lotus is sold by a large manufacturer.

With respect to the timing of petitions, NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 525.6, Requirements for petition, state that petitions from low volume manufacturers for alternative fuel economy standards must be "submitted not later than 24 months before the beginning of the affected model year, unless good cause for later submission is shown." Clearly, the deadline for a timely submission for model years 1994-96 has passed. On the issue of "good cause" for a later submission, we note that Lotus was not sold by General Motors until August 1993, and both Lotus and Bugatti requested our opinion concerning submitting a petition within three months of that sale.

Under the circumstances, we conclude that, Lotus/Bugatti have, to date, taken reasonable measures to submit a petition in as timely a manner as possible. Therefore, if a petition that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 525 is submitted promptly after receipt of this letter, we will consider there to be good cause shown for submitting a late petition for model years 1994-96. I also note that a petition for model year 1997 would be due later this year.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:525 d:5/9/94