Interpretation ID: aiam2060
Communications Department
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Watergate Six Hundred
Washington
DC 20037;
Dear Mr. Oesch: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1975, inquiring as t the legislative basis for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) May 13, 1975, amendment of Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, to delay for 1 year the application of the low-corner impact requirements to vehicles with wheelbases exceeding 120 inches (40 FR 20823).; The sections of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub L. 89-563) supporting the agency's May 13, 1975, action are sections 103(a) and 103(f) (15 U.S.C. 1392(a), 1392(f)). Section 103(a) directs the Secretary to establish appropriate motor vehicle safety standards which are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. The 1-year delay in application of the low-corner requirements to 'full-sized' cars was granted as a means of providing Chrysler with relief from the serious financial difficulties it was experiencing. Based upon the information presented by Chrysler to the agency, compliance with the low-corner requirements by its 'full-sized' cars would endanger its ability to continue functioning as an automobile manufacturer. Imposition of these pendulum requirements on Chrysler was therefore not considered practicable.; Granting the relief contained in the May notice meets the need fo motor vehicle safety in that jeopardizing the existence of Chrysler as one of the United States' major motor vehicle manufacturers would have a distinct impact on the technological advances fostered by competition among these members of the motor vehicle industry. In addition, loss of Chrysler as a viable competitor in the motor vehicle market would almost certainly have an unhealthy economic impact.; Section 103(f) of the Traffic Safety Act specifies factors to b considered in prescribing standards: that they be 'reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle.' On the basis of the information submitted by Chrysler explaining the effect of this requirement on it as a motor vehicle manufacturer, the agency determined that a delay of 1 year in the imposition of the low-corner hit to the type of vehicles in question would be reasonable, in light of these policy considerations.; The NHTSA did not follow the procedures prescribed in section 113 o the Traffic Safety Act relating to cost information in its handling of Chrysler's request to delay for one year the application of the low-corner impact requirements to vehicles with wheelbases exceeding 120 inches since the Chrysler request did not constitute an objection 'to an action of the Secretary.' The low-corner impact requirements were issued in 1971 and it was not that action of the Secretary which was opposed by Chrysler. Chrysler, in its petition, has requested that new action be taken to provide them with some relief from their existing financial burdens.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel