ID: 1983-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/06/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fiat Motors of America Inc. -- Alberto Negro, Fiat Research and Development

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Alberto Negro Fiat Research & Development - USA Branch Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. Parklane Towers West, Suite 1210 Dearborn, Michigan 48126

Dear Mr. Negro:

This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of my staff with respect to conformance of a planned stop lamp design with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

The design comprises two compartments separated by a reflex reflector. One of the compartments will meet the photometric requirements for a stop lamp, in your judgement. The other will not, but in conjunction with the first compartment "the requirements can be met." You have asked if this arrangement is acceptable pursuant to paragraph S4.1.1.6 which allows photometric requirements to be met by a combination of compartments or lamps.

Paragraph S4.1.1.6 is intended to cover replacement stop lamps for vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1973, and September 1, 1978, when the SAE J586b, September 1966. As such, its requirements are not relevant to your concerns.

However, SAE J586c, August 1970, whose requirements do apply to stop lamps, appears to permit your design. Under paragraph 3.1, where the distance between filament centers of two stop lamps does not exceed 22 inches (presumably your design) the photometric readings of both lamps must be combined to meet the photometric requirements of Table 1 of J586c applicable to two lighted sections. However, the combined candela must not exceed the specified total of 360 for two lighted sections.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 9, 1983

Mr. Taylor Vincent Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: FMVSS 108 Combination Tail Light Assembly

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Please find enclosed a drawing of a combination rear taillamp assembly that Ferrari would like to use on a model to be imported into the United States beginning with model year 1985 or 1986. Since this assembly is a departure from the round light assemblies customarily seen on the rear of the Ferrari vehicles, there is some minor concerns regarding the stop light portion of this assembly.

The lower left compartment of the assembly which is labeled "Sector II" and outlined in red is a stop light with a 32 candle power lamp. This sector by itself will meet the photometric requirements for a stoplamp. The lower right compartment which is labeled "Sector I" and having a 4 candlepower lamp while the second lamp is a dual filament lamp used as a parking/stop light. The parking light has a 32 candlepower rating. This sector of the assembly will not meet the photometric requirements by itself but in conjunction with "Sector II" the requirements can be met.

We have reviewed paragraph S4.1.1.6 of FMVSS 108 which states impart "the photometric requirements may be met by a combination of compartments or lamps" (emphasis added) and, therefore, we have concluded that Ferrari would be in compliance with the stop light requirements of Standard 108.

We are kindly requesting that NHTSA review the drawing and our interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.6 and notify us if our conclusions that Ferrari would be in compliance with the stop light requirements of Standard 108.

We are kindly requesting that NHTSA review the drawing and our interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.6 and notify us if our conclusion that Ferrari would be in compliance with Standard 108 is correct.

Sincerely yours, Alberto Negro

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

ID: nht89-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GARRY O. MCCABE --

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/25/89 FROM GARY O. MCCABE TO MIKE TRENTACOSTE; LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM MICHAEL F. TRENTACOSTE TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FHWA AND NHTSA REGULATIONS

TEXT: Dear Mr. McCabe:

Earlier this year you wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) asking for information concerning your plans to field test a "rapid fueling system" on an existing truck fleet. The FHWA has asked us to review your letter with regard to the regul ations we administer. I expect that FHWA will contact you directly with information concerning their regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle e quipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. (A general information sheet describing manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.)

There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to parts of the fuel system retrofitted to a used motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed), applies only to completed new motor vehicles. (The standard applies to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.) If the rapid fueling system were installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire fuel system, with your product installed, sati sfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 301. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who adds the system would be an alterer of a previously certified motor continues to comply with all of the safety standards a ffected by the alteration.

If the rapid fueling system is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage or repair shop, the installer would not be required to

2 attach a certification label. However, the installer would have to make sure that he or she did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by S 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The prohibitation of S 108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to rapid fueling systems installed on used vehicles, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which would include your product, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-1 59 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle ma nufacturer in cases in which the system is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions requirements that might affect the manufacture and installation of the rapid fueling system. The general telephone number for the EPA is (20 2) 382-2090.

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

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/12/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (Confidential)

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of December 3, 1987, January 19, 1988, and April 4, 1988 (to Taylor Vinson of this Office), asking whether a device of your invention complies with all applicable Federal regulations. You have also requested information on how to petition for adoption of this device as mandated equipment on new motor vehicles. We regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You have requested confidentiality of this matter to the extent permissible. As Mr. Donaldson of this Office explained to you by phone on January 14, our practice is to make available for public perusal copies of all agency interpretations, but not nece ssarily the correspondence that occasioned the interpretation, and, upon request, to delete from the interpretation the name and address and other data that might identify the person requesting the interpretation. You have assented to the withholding of your name and address in your letter of January 19. In that letter you requested withholding the drawings you enclosed on December 3. We shall not attach them to the copy of this letter made publicly available (although they will be subject to review by agency personnel who review this letter before I have signed it, and may be subject to eventual disclosure under a Freedom of Information Act request). However, the device must be described to the extent necessary to allow a reader to understand just what the opinion covers.

Your device is a horizontal bar of lamps mounted inside the rear window of a passenger car consisting of the center highmounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by back up lamps, which are themselves flanked by left and right turn lamps. Each of the fiv e lamps would have a lens area approximately 6" wide and 1 1/2 inches high.

The applicable Federal law and regulation is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to acceptability of your device as an ite m of original equipment, for purposes of this interpretation we assume that the device is intended to replace the standard center highmounted stoplamp, but only to supplement

2 the backup and turn signal lamps. Your device appears permissible as an item of original equipment under Standard No. 108 provided that all requirements for the center highmounted stoplamp continue to be met. We call your specific attention to the fa ct that means must be provided to minimize reflections from the center lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver, either directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. Supplementary original lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. The certification by a manufacturer that its vehicle complies with Standard No. 108 would encompass a certification that there is no i mpairment by any supplemental lighting equipment. The vehicle manufacturer must also consider whether any device installed in a rear window affects compliance with the interior rearview mirror field of view requirements specified by Standard No. 111 Rea rview Mirrors, and if affirmative to provide a passenger side exterior mirror.

The Vehicle Safety Act covers safety related defects as well as motor vehicle safety standards, requiring notification of purchasers and remedy of safety related defects when they occur. Spillage of light upon the rear glazing could be considered as a s afety related defect, and, for this reason, means should be provided to minimize reflections upon the rear glazing from all lamps in the array, and not just the center lamp.

The applicable Federal law for aftermarket equipment is also the Vehicle Safety Act. It prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to vehicle if those modifications render inoperative in whole or in part equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. Center highmounted lamps have been required as original equipment on new cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Because of the potential for interfering with the effectiveness of the center lamp, we would regard removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device including its center lamp as rendering the center lamp partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. However, if the modific ation is such that it can be done by the vehicle owner, the Act does not prohibit an owner from it. Further, the Act would not prohibit in any way the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, supplem entary lighting devices sold in the aftermarket are regulated by each State in which the device would be sold and used. Although we are not conversant with those laws, you may consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 for an opinion.

You have also asked how this device could be mandated as original equipment on new passenger cars. Any interested person may petition the Administrator for an amendment of Standard No. 108. However, the Vehicle Safety Act requires the safety standards to be standards for motor vehicle performance, and, to the extent possible, the agency attempts to minimize standards expressed in terms of design. For the same reason, the agency does not normally propose adoption of proprietary designs. As one of the requirements of a petition for rulemaking is that it contain the name and address of the petitioner, it might not be possible

3 to afford the same degree of confidentiality to a petition that it is to a request for an interpretation.

Your letter of April 4 asks a slightly different question on the subject of what is allowed to be viewed by other motorists in or around the rear window, with specific reference to turn signals, backup lamps, and hazard warning signals. The relevant port ions of Standard No. 108 are those relating to mounting height. The maximum mounting height of 83 inches allowed for turn signals (which commonly also serve as hazard warning signals) is unlikely to be exceeded by turn signals mounted in the rear window area. There is no maximum restriction on the mounting height of backup lamps but we do have performance criteria which must be met in order to ensure that they can satisfy their intended function of providing illumination behind the vehicle. Finally, y ou should realize that it is incorrect to refer to your device as a "third tail light assembly." A taillamp is a specific rear lamp required by Standard No. 108, and one which you have not incorporated into your assembly.

I hope that this answers your questions. As you requested in a phone call to Taylor Vinson the other day, we are returning the originals of your correspondence.

Enclosures

Sincerely,

ID: 2797o

Mr. Kent B. Robinson
18230 Kingsdale Ave., Apt. D
Redondo Beach, CA 90278

Dear Mr. Robinson:

This is in reply to your letters of December 3, l987, January 19, 1988, and April 4, l988 (to Taylor Vinson of this Office), asking whether a device of your invention complies with all applicable Federal regulations. You have also requested information on how to petition for adoption of this device as mandated equipment on new motor vehicles. We regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You have requested confidentiality of this matter to the extent permissible. As Mr. Donaldson of this Office explained to you by phone on January 14, our practice is to make available for public perusal copies of all agency interpretations, but not necessarily the correspondence that occasioned the interpretation, and, upon request, to delete from the interpretation the name and address and other data that might identify the person requesting the interpretation. You have assented to the withholding of your name and address in your letter of January 19. In that letter you requested withholding the drawings you enclosed on December 3. We shall not attach them to the copy of this letter made publicly available (although they will be subject to review by agency personnel who review this letter before I have signed it, and may be subject to eventual disclosure under a Freedom of Information Act request). However, the device must be described to the extent necessary to allow a reader to understand just what the opinion covers.

Your device is a horizontal bar of lamps mounted inside the rear window of a passenger car consisting of the center highmounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by back up lamps, which are themselves flanked by left and right turn signal lamps. Each of the five lamps would have a lens area approximately 6" wide and 1 1/2 inches high.

The applicable Federal law and regulation is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to acceptability of your device as an item of original equipment, for purposes of this interpretation we assume that the device is intended to replace the standard center highmounted stoplamp, but only to supplement the backup and turn signal lamps. Your device appears permissible as an item of original equipment under Standard No. l08 provided that all requirements for the center highmounted stoplamp continue to be met. We call your specific attention to the fact that means must be provided to minimize reflections from the center lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver, either directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. Supplementary original lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. l08 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. The certification by a manufacturer that its vehicle complies with Standard No. l08 would encompass a certification that there is no impairment by any supplemental lighting equipment. The vehicle manufacturer must also consider whether any device installed in a rear window affects compliance with the interior rearview mirror field of view requirements specified by Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors, and if affirmative to provide a passenger side exterior mirror.

The Vehicle Safety Act covers safety related defects as well as motor vehicle safety standards, requiring notification of purchasers and remedy of safety related defects when they occur. Spillage of light upon the rear glazing could be considered as a safety related defect, and, for this reason, means should be provided to minimize reflections upon the rear glazing from all lamps in the array, and not just the center lamp.

The applicable Federal law for aftermarket equipment is also the Vehicle Safety Act. It prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to vehicles if those modifications render inoperative in whole or in part equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. Center highmounted lamps have been required as original equipment on new cars manufactured on or after September l, l985. Because of the potential for interfering with the effectiveness of the center lamp, we would regard removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device including its center lamp as rendering the center lamp partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. However, if the modification is such that it can be done by the vehicle owner, the Act does not prohibit an owner from it. Further, the Act would not prohibit in any way the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September l, 1985. However, supplementary lighting devices sold in the aftermarket are regulated by each State in which the device would be sold and used. Although we are not conversant with those laws, you may consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 for an opinion.

You have also asked how this device could be mandated as original equipment on new passenger cars. Any interested person may petition the Administrator for an amendment of Standard No. l08. However, the Vehicle Safety Act requires the safety standards to be standards for motor vehicle performance, and, to the extent possible, the agency attempts to minimize standards expressed in terms of design. For the same reason, the agency does not normally propose adoption of proprietary designs. As one of the requirements of a petition for rulemaking is that it contain the name and address of the petitioner, it might not be possible to afford the same degree of confidentiality to a petition that it is to a request for an interpretation.

Your letter of April 4 asks a slightly different question on the subject of what is allowed to be viewed by other motorists in or around the rear window, with specific reference to turn signals, backup lamps, and hazard warning signals. The relevant portions of Standard No. l08 are those relating to mounting height. The maximum mounting height of 83 inches allowed for turn signals (which commonly also serve as hazard warning signals) is unlikely to be exceeded by turn signals mounted in the rear window area. There is no maximum restriction on the mounting height of backup lamps but we do have performance criteria which must be met in order to ensure that they can satisfy their intended function of providing illumination behind the vehicle. Finally, you should realize that it is incorrect to refer to your device as a "third tail light assembly." A taillamp is a specific rear lamp required by Standard No. l08, and one which you have not incorporated into your assembly.

I hope that this answers your questions. As you requested in a phone call to Taylor Vinson the other day, we are returning the originals of your correspondence.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:552#108 d:8/l2/88

ID: 1867y

Mr. Garry O. McCabe
37 E. Cotton Hill Rd.
New Hartford, CT 06057

Dear Mr. McCabe:

Earlier this year you wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) asking for information concerning your plans to field test a "rapid fueling system" on an existing truck fleet. The FHWA has asked us to review your letter with regard to the regulations we administer. I expect that the FHWA will contact you directly with information concerning their regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. (A general information sheet describing manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.)

There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to parts of the fuel system retrofitted to a used motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed), applies only to completed new motor vehicles. (The standard applies to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.) If the rapid fueling system were installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire fuel system, with your product installed, satisfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 301. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who adds the system would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the rapid fueling system is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage or repair shop, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, the installer would have to make sure that he or she did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The prohibition of /108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to rapid fueling systems installed on used vehicles, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which would include your product, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the system is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions requirements that might affect the manufacture and installation of the rapid fueling system. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:301 d:6/l9/89

ID: 13434.ztv

Mr. Binh Nguyen
Product Manager
Customer Satisfaction
AutoZone
P.O. Box 2198
Memphis, TN 38101-9842

Dear Mr. Nguyen:

This responds to your letter of December 16, 1996. You informed us that AutoZone "does sell auxiliary driving lights that are either SAE/DOT Approved or For Off Road Use Only." You have asked us several questions about such driving lamps, and we are pleased to respond.

"1. Who regulates auxiliary driving lights - the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) or the Department of Transportation (DOT)?"

DOT has not established specifications for auxiliary lamps such as driving, fog, etc., and does not directly regulate them. Unlike headlamps, for example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment does not require auxiliary driving lamps to be original equipment on motor vehicles. However, they must not be installed on a motor vehicle, either as original or aftermarket equipment, in a manner that impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment (e.g., mounted so close to a turn signal lamp as to mask its signal), and they should not be used as substitutes for headlamps. In addition, DOT has broad jurisdiction over "motor vehicle equipment"; thus, if auxiliary lamps are determined to have a safety related defect, their manufacturer must notify customers and remedy the defect.

The SAE is not a regulatory body and compliance with its standards and recommended practices is voluntary and of no legal significance, unless those standards have been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 and/or a State's motor vehicle laws. As stated above, SAE provisions on auxiliary driving, fog, and other such lamps have not been incorporated as Federal requirements.

"2. If no one currently regulates these automotive parts, are there plans at the Federal level to regulate these lights in the future? Who will regulate them and what will be the requirements?"

We have no plans at this time to regulate auxiliary driving or auxiliary lower beam headlamps in the future, but we have publicly stated our intent to regulate front and rear fog lamps. Whether

this will actually occur we cannot say at this time, but it is likely that any regulations will be based on both SAE and European standards.

"3. Do individual states have different restrictions regarding auxiliary driving lights?

4. If the answer is yes, would you please provide me with information on these different restrictions and with contact names for the various state agencies?"

In the absence of Federal regulations, each State may regulate any and all auxiliary lamps under State laws. There may be States with restrictions. However, we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, and I regret that we are unable to provide you with contact names in the office of the Motor Vehicle Administrator of each State.

"5. What does it mean when a light manufacturer says "This light is DOT/SAE approved?" or "This light is AAMVA approved?"

The phrase "DOT/SAE approved" should never be used. DOT does not have the authority to "approve" or "disapprove" motor vehicle equipment. To the best of our knowledge, SAE does not approve lamps either. Sometimes a manufacturer will use the phrase to imply that the lamp has been manufactured to SAE specifications that have been incorporated into Standard No. 108 as Federal requirements. If this is the case, the manufacturer may simply mark the lamp "DOT" as its certification that the lamp has been manufactured to conform to all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108. Otherwise, the manufacturer must certify compliance by means of a label on the lamp or on the container in which it is equipped. In cases where "DOT/SAE approved" appears on auxiliary lamps and their packages, the marking is meaningless. We shall answer your question on AAMVA under Question 7. below

"6. Who is the AAMVA?"

"AAMVA" is the abbreviation for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, an organization whose members are the motor vehicle administrators of the individual States. It is located at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

"7. What role does the AAMVA play in regulating auxiliary driving lights or any automotive lighting.?"

Some States require registration of manufacturers doing business within their borders. Because auxiliary lamps are not required lighting equipment under Standard No. 108, a State may set its own standard for these lamps, and require manufacturers to obtain a certificate of conformance with the State standard as a condition for selling the auxiliary lamps in the State. We understand that AAMVA previously performed the service of obtaining these certificates. However, another organization appears to have assumed that role. This new organization is the Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. (AMECA), Suite 605, 1101 15th St. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005. I am not familiar with the phrase "This lamp is AAMVA approved" but it may mean that AAMVA had obtained the necessary clearances for sale of the lamp in those States which permit AAMVA-approved lamps.

"8. How does a light manufacturer get his/her lights approved for sale at the federal and state levels?"

As I explained earlier, DOT has no authority to "approve" lighting equipment. All that is required under Federal law for a lamp to be sold is that it comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and bear its manufacturer's certification of compliance in the form indicated in response to Question 5. Since no Federal requirements apply to driving lamps, no permission to sell or certify is required under Federal law. The individual States may require State approval before sale, and we recommend that you consult AMECA as to its recommendations for sale in the individual States.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:/8/97

ID: 1984-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Public Instruction; State of Iowa

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dwight R. Carlson, Director School Transportation & Safety Education Division Department of Public Instruction State of Iowa Grimes State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319

Dear Mr. Carlson:

This responds to your May 7, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the remanufacture of school buses. You asked several questions regarding the replacement of new and used school bus bodies on new and used chassis, and the certification requirements for school buses remanufactured in this way.

Your first question concerned an automobile salvage yard that is remanufacturing school buses to sell to schools. If the body of the vehicle is damaged beyond repair, the salvage yard removes it and mounts a different used school bus body on the old chassis. You asked whether this procedure is appropriate. The answer to your question is that there is no prohibiton against remanufacturing school buses in this way.

This agency does not consider the mounting of a used vehic1e body on an old chassis to be the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Such a remanufactured vehicle need comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis.

You described a specific situation where a used school bus body was mounted on a 1980 model year chassis. In this situation the school bus should comply with the school bus safety standards, even though the vehicle is not considered newly manufactured. This is because the earliest date of manufacture that could be assigned to the remanufactured school bus is the date of manufacture of the chassis. Since the chassis was manufactured after Apri1 1, 1977, the bus would be required to comply with all the Federal school bus safety standards that became effective on April 1, 1977.

You asked whether this remanufactured school bus would have to be recertified.

A remanufactured school bus which uses a used chassis does not have to be recertified. The remanufactured school bus is considered to be the same vehicle as originally manufactured, and the original certification label should have been transferred to the new body at the time of the modification.

In your letter you asked two additional questions dealing with the remanufacture of school buses. The first question asked: "May a new school bus body be mounted on a used chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?"

As discussed earlier, the answer to this question is that manufacturers are not prohibited from mounting a new school bus body used chassis. Vehicles remanufactured in this way are not considered to be new vehicles. This school bus would only have to comply with the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis. On the other hand, if the chassis was manufactured after April 1, 1977, the new school bus body would have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards since the date of manufacture of the school bus would be after the effective date of the safety standards.

The agency does not have any regulation placing limits on who can remanufacture a school bus. A school bus remanufactured by placing a new bus body on a used chassis is not required to be recertified since our regulations prescribe certification requirements for new motor vehicles only. If the remanufacturing of the bus is done by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair shop, then section 108( a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that those persons may not knowingly render inoperative any component or element of design installed in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to a vehicle owner, such as a school or a State. Thus, one of your schools could mount the bus body on the used chassis and would not have to assure that the remanufactured school bus complies with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, as I am sure you are aware, the school could incur substantial liability in the event of an accident involving a noncomplying school bus. Also, the school may find it difficult to obtain insurance for such a vehicle. This matter should be discussed between the school and its insurance company and attorney.

Your final question asked: "May a used school bus body be mounted on a new chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?"

The answer to your question is yes, a used school bus body may be mounted on a new chassis. In this situation the agency considers the mounting of an old school bus body on a new chassis to result in the manufacture of a new school bus. Since the earliest date of manufacture which could be assigned to the vehicle is the date of manufacture of the chassis (which we assume is after April 1, 1977) the school bus is subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. The remanufacture of the school bus can be performed by anyone. The manufacturer, however, must certify the school bus as conforming to the safety standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 7, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of The Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is intended to formalize a telephone conversation we had with Ms. Deirdre Hom of your staff.

We have been notified that an automobile salvage yard in our state is purchasing used and in some cases damaged school buses. If the body is damaged beyond repair, they are removing the damaged body and mounting a different used school bus body on the used chassis. The reverse may be true where they are replacing the chassis with another used chassis. Recently, we inspected a school bus owned by a nonpublic school that had purchased the vehicle from the salvage yard. The chassis was a 1980 Chevrolet, but the Vehicle Identification Plate had been removed from the body, thus it was not possible to determine the date of manufacture or other information on the body. Our question is this, is the procedure described above appropriate in view of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school buses? Further, if the procedure is appropriate, should there be a certification or recertification by the person(s) performing the procedure, and if there must be a certification process, who may perform this function?

In view of the current undesirable economic situation many of our schools find themselves, we present two additional questions unrelated to the situation described above.

1. May a new school bus body be mounted on a used chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?

2. May a used school bus body be mounted on a new chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?

We appreciate your efforts in responding to our concerns. If you need additional information, please contact me at 515/281-5811 or at the above address.

Sincerely,

Dwight R. Carlson, Director School Transportation & Safety Education Division DRC/mjr