NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 2481 - 2490 of 16514

Interpretations	Date
search results table
ID: aiam1065 Open Mr. Bill Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Bill Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1973, requesting a interpretation of the words ...unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount in total square inches...' in S5.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release'.; We believe your paragraph stating, The area credited to an emergenc exit must be the clear opening less the projected area of any obstruction in front of the exit', to be an appropriate interpretation of the phrase. We do not believe that the existence of some obstruction prevents an otherwise unobstructed opening from being used to fulfill the requirements of paragraph S5.2. You are correct in stating that whether such a window is unobstructed can be determined by utilizing the ellipsoid specified in paragraph S5.4.; You indicate in your letter you believe that if your interpretatio were applied to school buses it would result in a significant loss of seating capacity. It does not appear to us, however, that the reduction of the area of the unobstructed opening by the projected area of the obstruction, as shown in your photograph, will be significant.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3058 Open Mr. D. K. Haenchen, Volkswagen of America, 7111 E. Eleven Mile Road, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. D. K. Haenchen Volkswagen of America 7111 E. Eleven Mile Road Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1979, regarding th photographic procedures, announced in Docket 73-19, Notice 24 (43 FR 40229, September 11, 1978), to be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in evaluating shielding panel damage in compliance testing for the Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581). You ask where the camera is located when taking the 45 degree angle photograph specified in Notice 24 under the heading Camera Position. You also ask where the three photoflood lamps specified in Notice 24 under the heading Illumination are positioned.; Where the plan of the shielding panel area under examination i nominally horizontal, NHTSA positions the camera and lamps relative to the vertical reference line running through the center of the suspect area. Where the plane of the shielding panel area is nominally vertical and perpendicular to the longitudinal center line of the vehicle, the camera and lamps will be positioned relative to the horizontal reference line running through the center of the suspect area, parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal center line. Where the plane of the suspect area is nominally vertical and parallel to the longitudinal center line of the vehicle, the camera and lamps are positioned relative to the horizontal reference line running through the center of the suspect area, perpendicular to the vehicle's longitudinal center line.; In taking the 90 degree angle photograph, NHTSA positions the camera o the reference line so that the foremost point of the camera lens is six feet from the point at which the reference line intersects the surface of the suspect area (point S). In taking the 45 degree angle photograph, NHTSA positions the camera on a line which intersects the reference line at a 45 degree angle at point S, and which lies in a vertical plane containing the reference line. Where the reference line is vertical, the camera is positioned on a line which lies in a plane parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal center line. The camera is positioned so that the foremost point of the camera lens is six feet from point S. A camera position is chosen which provides an unobstructed view of the suspect area.; The two main photoflood lamps are positioned facing the exterio surface of the suspect area with the filament of each lamp ten feet from point S. Except where the reference line is vertical, the two main lamps are positioned in the horizontal plane containing point S, on opposite sides of the vertical plane containing the reference line, so that the lines connecting the lamp filaments with point S form a 45 degree angle with the reference line.; Where the reference line is vertical, the two main lamps are positione in the vertical plane containing point S which is perpendicular to the vehicle's longitudinal center line. The lamps are positioned on opposite sides of the vertical plane containing point S which is parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal center line, so that the lines connecting the lamp filaments with point S form 45 degree angles with the reference line.; NHTSA has determined that the third photoflood lamp described in Notic 24, to be employed for fill-in lighting, is unnecessary and this lamp is not used by the agency.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4267 Open Janet Cunningham, Executive Vice President, Washington State Auto Dealers Association, P.O. Box 58170, Seattle, WA 98188; Janet Cunningham Executive Vice President Washington State Auto Dealers Association P.O. Box 58170 Seattle WA 98188; Dear Ms. Cunningham: This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1986, concerning th new Federal odometer law and the Washington Attorney General's proposed legislation.; As you know, on October 28, 1986, President Reagan signed into law th Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, P.L. 99-579, which amends Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1981 et seq. Beginning April 29, 1989, a motor vehicle may not be licensed in a State unless the transferee includes with the application for title the transferor's title. If the transferor's title contains the space for the transferor to disclose the mileage as required by Federal regulation, the mileage disclosure must be included on the title and it must be signed and dated by the transferor. If the transferor's title does not contain a space for the transferor to disclose the mileage, the transferor must issue a separate odometer disclosure statement. In addition, the law provides that, beginning April 29, 1989, all motor vehicle titles issued must meet the following requirements.; >>>1. Titles must be set forth by means of a secure printing process o other secure process.; 2. Titles must indicate required mileage disclosure information. 3. Titles must contain space for the transferee to disclose, in th event of future transfer, the mileage at the time of such future transfer and to sign and date such disclosure.<<<; A copy of the Act is enclosed for your reference. We are aware that the titling and disclosure provision of the new Ac will require changes in many state motor vehicle titling laws and title forms. For that reason, the Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to provide assistance to any State in revising its laws to meet the new Federal criteria. It is our desire to cooperate with the states to the maximum extent possible, to assure a smooth and timely transition to the new Act.; NHTSA intends to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to implement the ne Act and resolve technical issues. Because that process will take several months, we recommended to the States through the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators that they may wish to defer changes to their vehicle title forms and titling procedures until the rulemaking has been completed. In that way, they will be in a better position to assure full compliance with the new Act and implementing regulations.; We have been advised by the Washington Attorney General's Office however, that the State law which local prosecutors currently enforce is a relatively weak statute and that strong State odometer laws are needed as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, in an effort to assist the State in combatting odometer fraud, I offer the following comments to point out inconsistencies between portions of the proposed State legislation and the new Federal law.; Section 3 of the proposed legislation concerns the issuance of odomete disclosure statements by owners, lessees and lessors. While Section 3 does not apply to vehicles leased for a period of less than six months, Section 2(e) of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 defines a leased motor vehicles as 'any motor vehicle which is leased to a person for a term of at least 4 months by a lessor who has leased 5 or more motor vehicles in the past 12 months.' Furthermore, under Section 2(e) of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, lessors are required to provide lessees written notice regarding mileage disclosure requirements and penalties for failure to comply with them. The proposed legislation includes no analogous provision.; In addition to the above comments that pertain to the new Federal law I also offer the following comments regarding differences between the proposed State law and the Federal law and regulations now in effect.; Section 7 of the proposed legislation states as follows: >>>(1) The department shall adopt an odometer disclosure statement tha complies with the federal motor vehicle information and cost savings act of 1972, P.L. No. 12-513, as amended.<<<; However, the minimum requirements contained in Section 7 of th proposed legislation vary from the requirements of the regulation promulgated under the statute. Federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. S 580.4(a)(3), requires the disclosure of the transferor's current address. In addition, 49 C.F.R. S580.4(b) requires that the odometer disclosure statement refer to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and shall state that incorrect information may result in civil liability and civil or criminal penalties. (Reference to State law is acceptable in lieu of a reference to Federal law.) Furthermore, 49 C.F.R. S580.4(e) states that 'The transferee shall acknowledge receipt of the disclosure statement by signing it.' Neither the transferor's current address nor a penalty notice and signature are required by the proposed legislation.; Section 7(k) of the proposed legislation requires the disclosure o both miles and kilometers when the odometer is 'altered to reflect miles instead of 'kilometers.' This Agency has not required any similar type of disclosure. We have determined that 15 U.S.C. S1987 could be relied upon to lawfully replace odometers which register kilometers travelled with those that register miles travelled. (To convert the odometer reading from kilometers to miles, multiple (sic) the kilometer reading by .62.) It is NHTSA's position that transferors who convert the odometers from kilometers to miles should check the first box of the first set of certifications which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odomete reading as stated above reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle described below.<<<; Furthermore, these transferors should check the second box in th second set of certifications which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer was altered for repair o replacement purposes while in my possession, and that the mileage registered on the repaired or replacement odometer was identical to that before such service.<<<; With regard to Section 4 and the question you raised in your letter, understand that the Section has been amended so that the dealer's disclosure will be included on the assignment and title.; I hope these comments assist you in your efforts to ensure th coordination of Federal and State odometer laws so that no undue burden is placed upon your members.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4549 Open Spencer A. Darby State-Lite Mfg. Co. 6220-30 Gross Point Rd Niles, IL 60648; Spencer A. Darby State-Lite Mfg. Co. 6220-30 Gross Point Rd Niles IL 60648; "Dear Mr. Darby: This is a response to your letter asking for a interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR /571.125). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particularly interested in learning how Standard 125 affects the use of warning devices for vehicles that are 80 inches wide, and that travel in interstate commerce. Before I answer your specific questions, I would like to present some background information about the authority of this agency which may help you better to understand my answers. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency authority to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. When a standard is established for items of motor vehicle equipment, such as Standard 125 is with respect to warning devices, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that 'no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction, or import into the United States' any warning device manufactured after the effective date of Standard 125 that does not comply with Standard 125. Accordingly, Standard 125 regulates the manufacture, distribution, and sale of warning devices. Note that Standard 125 does not regulate the use of warning devices, because the Safety Act does not give this agency any authority to regulate the operator or operation of any vehicle. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does have authority to regulate some motor vehicle operators and operations. Thus, to the extent that you have any questions about possible Federal regulations regarding the use of warning devices, you should address those questions to the Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway Administration, located in Room 4213, 400 7th Street, Washington DC 20590. I can only answer questions about how Standard 125 affects your company as a manufacturer of warning devices. Your questions involve the correct interpretation of S5.1.5 of Standard 125, which reads as follows: S5.1.5. Each warning device shall have instructions for its erection and display. (a) The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed. (b) Instructions for each warning device shall include a recommendation that the driver activate the vehicular hazard warning signal lamps before leaving the vehicle to erect the warning device. (c) Instructions shall include the illustration depicted in Figure 3 indicating recommended positioning. Figure 3, to which S5.1.5(c) refers, shows a disabled vehicle on the side of the road with the warning device positioned one hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle. Your first question was why Figure 3 in Standard 125 shows a vehicle with only one warning device behind the disabled vehicle, since the FHWA requires vehicles over 80 inches wide to carry three warning devices. The answer is that Standard 125 applies to warning devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, not just those that are over 80 inches wide. Thus, the postioning shown for the warning device in Figure 3 is a recommendation for the proper positioning of a single warning device carried in any vehicle. I note that NHTSA originally proposed to require seven different Figures showing recommended positioning of warning devices for different vehicle types on various highway configurations. In the final rule establishing Standard 125, NHTSA decided that a single figure was sufficient to show the user how to position an erected warning device behind any vehicle type on any highway configuration. See 37 FR 5038, March 9, 1972. As a part of your first question, you stated that your company includes figures showing how to position three warning devices for a disabled truck on a divided highway and on a non-divided highway in addition to Figure 3. You asked if these additional figures are permitted by Standard 125. The answer to this question is yes. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to provide additional information, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. In this case, we have no reason to believe that vehicle operators would be confused or misled by information about how to position three warning devices if they have them. Therefore, Standard 125 does not prohibit the inclusion of these additional figures in your instructions. Your second question was whether you are required to attach the instructions to the warning device itself, on warning devices sold for use with vehicles under 80 inches wide. The answer to your question is yes. S5.1.5(a) explicitly states: 'The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed.' This requirement applies to all warning devices, not just to those for use by vehicles more than 80 inches wide. Thus, if the instructions were located on the inside cover of the container, as suggested in your letter, the warning device would not comply with Standard 125. Your third question was whether NHTSA should amend Standard 125 to include additional illustrative figures showing recommended positioning for warning devices used in vehicles over 80 inches wide. We do not believe there is any reason to do so. As noted above, NHTSA proposed adopting seven figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices, but determined in the final rule that the single figure provided sufficient information to show users how to position the warning device in relation to any disabled vehicle. As also noted above, manufacturers of warning devices are permitted to include additional illustrative figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices with particular vehicle types on particular highways. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam0859 Open Mr. R. C. Rittersporn, Sales Manager, Sealy of the Carolinas, Inc., P.O. Box 1009, Lexington, NC, 27292; Mr. R. C. Rittersporn Sales Manager Sealy of the Carolinas Inc. P.O. Box 1009 Lexington NC 27292; Dear Mr. Rittersporn: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'.; You ask whether the Standard applies to slide-in campers. The answer i that it does not. You also ask about the effective date of the Standard. Standard No. 302 was issued on December 9, 1970, and became effective with respect to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1972.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2864 Open Mr. Alberto Negro, Fiat, Research & Development - U.S.A. Branch, Parklane Towers West Suite 1210, Dearborn, MI 48126; Mr. Alberto Negro Fiat Research & Development - U.S.A. Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn MI 48126; Dear Mr. Negro: This responds to your June 16, 1978, letter asking whether manufacturer is permitted to list on the certification label required by Part 567, Certification, the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) in kilograms as well as pounds. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has permitted the use of kilograms on the certification label as long as the label continues to list the GAWR in pounds also.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3776 Open Mr. Duane W. Duvall, 901 North Beach Road, Bow, WA 98232; Mr. Duane W. Duvall 901 North Beach Road Bow WA 98232; Dear Mr. Duvall: We have received your letter of October 27, 1983, informing us of you plans to provide a front-end replacement kit for 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas. You have asked whether incorporating a 1973 bumper mounting hardware will meet safety regulations. You have also asked for a copy of front lighting requirements, and for information on how you may certify your kit for national distribution.; As you have not provided us with a description of all equipment item in the kit, I can offer only general guidance. There are very few requirements for fabricators of kits intended to modify used vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are of two types: those that apply to vehicle systems, and those that apply to individual equipment items. The so-called 'bumper standard' is an example of a systems standard. Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, which applied to passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1972, and September 1, 1978, did not directly apply to the bumper itself but established a level of damage resistance to be met by the vehicle in low-speed frontal impacts.; On the other hand, the vehicle lighting standard applies to bot lighting systems and replacement lighting equipment. The primary statutory obligation of a kit supplier lies in this area--to determine if any item of equipment in the kit is covered by an equipment standard, and then to insure that the item meets the standard. For example, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, required 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas to be equipped with sealed beam headlamps. Were unsealed European headlamps to be furnished as part of the kit, that sale would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Other equipment standards cover brake hoses, tires, brake fluids, glazing, and seat belts. Usually the manufacturer of equipment items covered by standards will certify compliance with Federal requirements by marking them with the symbol 'DOT'. In that event, no recertification by the kit supplier is required.; A further important obligation of a kit supplier is to insure tha safety-related defects are absent, or do not develop, in any motor vehicle equipment that he fabricates. If such occur, he is required to notify purchasers and remedy the defects.; There is also a provision of the Safety Act that has some relevance t your operation. Although a vehicle owner may modify his car in any manner he chooses, a restriction is established on modifications by others. That restriction is that 'no device or element of design' added to a vehicle enabling it to comply with a safety standard shall be 'rendered inoperative in whole or in part.' Thus, were a repair shop to remove the Vega front end and replace it with yours, the shop must insure that the Vega upon reassembly remains in compliance with the standards that originally applied to it. Although the kit supplier is not required under the Safety Act to insure that the Vega continues to comply with Standard No. 215, such insurance obviously assists the modifier in meeting its Federal responsibilities, and your incorporation of a 1973 bumper and attachments is helpful. The modified Vega must also continue to meet Federal lighting requirements, such as being equipped with front side marker lamps, and having no cover or other object over the headlamps when they are in use.; To assist you, I enclose copies of Standards Nos. 108 and 215 as the were in effect on October 1, 1977, the requirements were substantially the same for the other years in which you are interested. There is no charge and I am returning your check. If you have further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4119 Open Michael A. Doherty, Esq., Kassel, Neuwirth & Geiger, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022; Michael A. Doherty Esq. Kassel Neuwirth & Geiger 845 Third Avenue New York NY 10022; Dear Mr. Doherty: This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in whic you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you stated that your firm is the registered agent for a foreign tire manufacturer and that you would like a clarification of what information the manufacturer is required to provide to this agency under the UTQGS.; Before responding specifically to the statements in your letter, would like to point out that the requirements for tire manufacturers to furnish UTQGS information to this agency are set forth in three different regulatory provisions. The first of these is 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2), which provides: 'Each brand name owner of tires and each manufacturer of tires for which there is no brand name owner shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to the ... tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before it is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.' This language makes clear that the only information the tire manufacturers must provide to this agency is information that will be provided for examination by prospective purchasers in accordance with 49 CFR S575.6(c).; The second regulatory provision addressing information to be provide by tire manufacturers is 49 CFR S575.6(c). That section provides that the tire manufacturer shall provide each of its dealers with a brochure setting forth the UTQGS information for each of its tires offered for sale by that dealer. The third regulatory provision is 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii), which requires that the information required by S575.6(c) shall list all possible grades for tires and restate verbatim the explanation for each performance area in which the tires are graded, as specified in Figure 2 of S575.104, although not necessarily in the same format as Figure 2. This section also requires that the information clearly and unambiguously indicate the grade in each performance area assigned to each of the manufacturer's tires sold by the dealer.; With this background, I will now address each of your statements, i the order they were presented in your letter. Each of my explanations will cite the applicable regulatory provision that is the authority for that explanation.; 1. To register each new tire design, or each change in the applicabl UTQG information with respect to an already registered tire design, the tire manufacturer must submit to DOT ten (10) copies of a brochure containing the tire design and UTQG information for the tire including the information set forth in the three paragraphs of 49 CFR S575.104, Figure 2, Parts I and II of the Regulations.; Response: Tire manufacturers are not required to 'register' tir designs with the agency. The manufacturers are only required to provide this agency with advance copies of the UTQGS information that will be furnished to their dealers. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2). If the tire manufacturer wishes to add a new tire design to the UTQGS information previously supplied to the agency, or to change some of the previously supplied information, the tire manufacturer must furnish this agency with 10 copies of a brochure showing all of the manufacturer's tire designs, including those designs for which the previously submitted information is unchanged, and the grades assigned to those tire designs. 49 CFR S575.6(c). This brochure must also include the explanations for the various possible grades set forth in Figure 2 of S575.104. 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a typical brochure furnished to this agency by a tire manufacturer.; 2. Such brochures must be sent to all U.S. dealers of th manufacturer's tires and be delivered to purchasers when they examine and/or buy the manufacturer's tires. The brochures must be sent to the dealers with the first lot of each new design.; Response: The brochures must be sent to all dealers of th manufacturer's tires and furnished to all prospective and actual purchasers of those tires upon request. Brochures incorporating information on new tire designs must be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires not later than the first day on which the manufacturer authorizes the tires to be put on general public display and sold to consumers. 49 CFR S575.6(c).; 3. The ten (10) copies of the UTQG brochure (sic) must be submitted t DOT at least 30 days before such brochure is first provided to tire purchasers for examination.; Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2). 4. Photographs of tires are not required to be submitted to DOT. Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requiremen that photographs of tires be provided to this agency.; 5. UTQG labels are not required to be submitted to DOT. Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requiremen that UTQGS labels be provided to this agency.; 6. If a tire manufacturer intends to market a tire that is alread registered under a new or private brand name, all that is required is a letter to DOT setting forth the pattern code, tire size(s) and UTQG characteristics of the tire already registered and indicating that the tire will be sold under the additional brand name.; Response: This statement is inaccurate. If changed marketing practice by the tire manufacturer cause the UTQGS brochures submitted to its dealers and this agency to be either incomplete or incorrect, the tire manufacturer must revise its brochure. Ten copies of the revised brochure must be submitted to this agency 30 days before the marketing change takes effect, and revised brochures must be provided to each of the manufacturer's dealers not later than the day on which the marketing change takes effect. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2). The tire manufacturer may enclose a letter with its brochure explaining the change, but such a letter is not required.; 7. If a private brand tire made by the tire manufacturer gets a ne tire design, the manufacturer does not have to provide the updated UTQG information to DOT -- the brand name owner for the tire design would be required to provide the information.; Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2). Should you have any further questions or need more information in thi area, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3326 Open Mr. Patrick J. O'Connor, P.O. Box 905, 10 East Court Street, Doylestown, PA 18901; Mr. Patrick J. O'Connor P.O. Box 905 10 East Court Street Doylestown PA 18901; Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your letter of July 2, 1980, requesting informatio regarding manufacturing standards for front bucket seats on passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if there are any standards that were applicable to 1969-model Mustangs, particularly with respect to the pivot pin brackets on seats in these vehicles.; The initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were issued in 196 and became effective January 1, 1968. Included in these initial standards was Standard No. 207, Anchorages of Seats--Passenger Cars (copy enclosed). Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements in terms of overall seat strength. You will note that there are no requirements for specific components of the seat, however, such as pivot pin brackets. The Federal safety standards are generally specified in terms of performance requirements which allow manufacturers to use any designs they choose. If the Mustang with which you are concerned was manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the manufacturer would have had to certify that the vehicle was in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 207.; I am also enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 as it i currently written, since the standard has been amended several times since it was first issued. I hope you will find this information helpful.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5358 Open Lance Tunick, Esq. Bugatti 1919 Mount Zion Golden, CO 80401; Lance Tunick Esq. Bugatti 1919 Mount Zion Golden CO 80401; "Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your letter concerning low volum 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";