ID: 7200

Mr. Neil Friedkin
Attorney at Law
325 Exterior Street
Bronx, NY 10451

Dear Mr. Friedkin:

This responds to your follow-up letter to the agency requesting that the agency provide "the applicable 1986 standard for convertible passenger cars." In an earlier letter, you had asked about our regulations with respect to converting a vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your inquiry.

To begin, there is no single standard applicable to convertible passenger cars, or any other motor vehicles. Instead, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish many standards that apply to passenger cars, including convertible passenger cars. These standards, which are collectively called the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. They cover many different vehicle systems, including controls and displays, vehicle lighting, braking, occupant crash protection, and fuel system integrity.

As you review the safety standards in Part 571 to see which aspects of performance are of particular interest to you, you will see that the standards are generally identical for passenger cars and convertible passenger cars. There are some differences, however, including the permissible location for the center high mounted stop lamp (S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) and the inapplicability of the roof crush standard to convertibles (S3 of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance). Additionally, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required the front outboard seating positions of 1986 passenger cars that were not equipped with automatic crash protection (either air bags or automatic belts) to be equipped with a lap/shoulder belt and all other seating positions to be equipped with either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt (S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208). However, convertible passenger cars were permitted to offer either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every designated seating position, including the front outboard positions (S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref:108#208#216 d:6/l5/92

ID: nht92-6.7

DATE: June 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Neil Friedkin -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/16/92 from Neil Friedkin to Marvin Shaw (OCC 7200)

TEXT:

This responds to your follow-up letter to the agency requesting that the agency provide "the applicable 1986 standard for convertible passenger cars." In an earlier letter, you had asked about our regulations with respect to converting a vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your inquiry.

To begin, there is no single standard applicable to convertible passenger cars, or any other motor vehicles. Instead, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish many standards that apply to passenger cars, including convertible passenger cars. These standards, which are collectively called the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. They cover many different vehicle systems, including controls and displays, vehicle lighting, braking, occupant crash protection, and fuel system integrity.

As you review the safety standards in Part 571 to see which aspects of performance are of particular interest to you, you will see that the standards are generally identical for passenger cars and convertible passenger cars. There are some differences, however, including the permissible location for the center high mounted stop lamp (S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) and the inapplicability of the roof crush standard to convertibles (S3 of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance). Additionally, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required the front outboard seating positions of 1986 passenger cars that were not equipped with automatic crash protection (either air bags or automatic belts) to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder belt and all other seating positions to be equipped with either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt (S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208). However, convertible passenger cars were permitted to offer either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every designated seating position, including the front outboard positions (S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at

(202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam4597

"Dear Mr. Panetta: This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf o your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements. The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are: 1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror. 2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive. 3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion. 4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object. Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam1642

Dear Mr. Gerth: This responds to your September 18, 1974, request for clarification o the vehicle requirements set out in S4. and S6. of a recent proposal to amend Standards Nos. 207, *Seating systems*, and 202, *Head restraints*. As published March 19, 1974 (39 FR 10268), S5. provides:; >>>S5. *Requirements*. Each vehicle shall be capable of meeting any o the requirements set forth under this heading, when tested in accordance with the procedures of S6. and the conditions of S7., except that any vehicle which is capable of meeting the requirements of S5.3(e) is not required to be capable of meeting S5.3(b), S5.5.1(b), or S5.3(c) as applied to forward-facing seats. However, a particular vehicle (i.e., a test specimen) need not meet further requirements after having been subjected to any one of the following groups of requirements:; Group I: S5.2, 5.3(a), S5.3(b), S5.3(d), S5.5.1(b), and S5.5.1(a). Group II: S5.2, S5.3(c), and S5.3(e). Group III: S5.2 and all S5.4 requirements.<<< The first statement in S5. is that each vehicle must be capable o meeting any of the requirements listed, with certain exceptions. The second statement in S5. does not modify the first statement, but only makes clear that, for test purposes, a particular test specimen is not required to successfully undergo each of the destructive tests without a failure. To accomplish this end, the destructive tests of the standard are separated into three separate groups, each of which is calculated as appropriate for sequential testing of one vehicle.; The first statement in S5. can be interpreted as offering an option t the manufacturer between compliance with S5.3(e) or compliance with S5.3(b), S5.5.1(b), and S5.3(c). In fact, all passenger cars and all multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV) and trucks having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less would be required to meet S5.3(e). A review of comments on the proposal demonstrates that manufacturers and other commenters did not misinterpret these requirements as an option. Therefore, the NHTSA concludes that the language, while it could be made more clear, adequately notified interested persons of the NHTSA's intent to apply the rear barrier crash requirement to all passenger cars and to all light MPV's and trucks subject to the standard.; Because a particular vehicle is only required to meet either S5.3(c) o S5.3(e), we agree that the Group II series of tests applicable to any one vehicle would be better expressed as 'Group II: S5.2, and S5.3(c) or S5.3(e).' Such a wording change would appear in any final rule issued in this format.; Section S6. is a statement of test procedures and, as such, it does no state further or conflicting requirements. In the case of Group II testing, it reflects the requirements of S5. that a vehicle meet either S5.3(c) or S5.3(e), but not both.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5154

"Dear Mr. Thomas: This responds to your letter of March 16, 1993 addressed to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter that several of your dealers want to buy trailers from you without tires and wheels. You expressed doubt that those dealers have that many customers desiring to mount their own tires and wheels, and asked whether you can legally sell trailers to your dealers without tires and wheels and if so, whether you need them to sign a waiver or form to that effect. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed), provides that each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway use must be equipped with tires that, in the case of trailers, meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed). Rims mounted on new trailers must meet the requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120. There is, however, no specific requirement in Standard 120 that vehicles be equipped with tires and wheels. In fact, this agency's definition of a 'completed vehicle' envisions the situation where a vehicle is sold without tires and wheels. That definition is set forth at 49 CFR Part 568.3, which defines a 'completed vehicle' as 'a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting' (emphasis added). The trailer dealers to whom you ship your trailers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S. Code 1381 - 1431 (Safety Act) to sell vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard 120. Therefore, if they sell the trailers with tires and wheels installed, those tires and wheels must meet the requirements for tires and wheels set forth in Standard 120. In the event a new trailer sold by one of your dealers has tires and wheels that do not meet the applicable requirements of Standard 120, from a compliance standpoint it would be important to determine who equipped that vehicle with the noncomplying tires and wheels. Therefore, although not required by this agency, you might consider obtaining written statements or acknowledgements from the dealers concerned that you provided the trailers without tires and wheels, and retain those documents for your records. You might also consider consulting your attorney regarding any potential liability on your part for the actions of your dealers. Finally, we recommend that you inform any dealer whom you know to be considering installing noncomplying tires and wheels on your trailers to contact this agency for information about their responsibility under the Safety Act to sell trailers that meet the requirements of Standard 120. I hope this information will clarify this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4593

"Dear Mr. Panetta: This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf o your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements. The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are: 1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror. 2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive. 3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion. 4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object. Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3979

Dear Ms. Samuelson: Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1985, to Mr. Gary Butler of ou Region V office, which was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Federal law requires safety belts to be installed and used in several types of vehicles. I understand from conversations between my staff and Mr. Butler that your question is related to the provision of Illinois' belt use law which exempts a person operating 'a motor vehicle which is not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law' from the safety belt use requirement. I hope the following discussion is of assistance to you in your effort to ensure that the City of Champaign is in compliance with Illinois' safety belt use requirement. I believe that Illinois' law and your efforts can have an immediate and beneficial safety impact on the citizens of Champaign. I would encourage you to have all occupants of municipal vehicles wear their safety belts regardless of whether they are covered by your State's belt use requirement.; The agency has issued, under the authority of the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, which requires the installation of occupant restraints, such as safety belts, in vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires only the installation of the restraints, it does not require their use. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. I hope the following discussion explains how Standard No. 208 applies to each of the vehicles you mentioned.; You asked about fire trucks and public work trucks. Those vehicle would be governed by S4.2 or 4.3 of the standard, depending upon the gross vehicle weight rating of the truck. Police cars would be classified as passenger cars under our standard and currently would have to comply with the requirement of S4.1.2 of our standard.; The application of the standard to the remaining category of vehicle you asked about would depend upon their construction and use. All of our standards apply only to motor vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)); In interpreting this definition, the agency has said that a vehicl which cannot exceed 20 mph and has an unusual configuration which sets it apart from the rest of the traffic is not a motor vehicle and thus does not have to comply with our standards, even if it uses the public roads. These vehicles, typically, are highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers and other similar vehicles. Thus, if the snow plows, road graders and other specialized types of public work vehicles you asked about have a top speed that does not exceed 20 mph and have an unusual configuration, they would not be covered by Standard No. 208. However, if these vehicles are conventional trucks that use the public roads and have specialized work equipment mounted on them, then they would have to meet the occupant crash protection requirements set in Standard No. 208 for trucks.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5193

"Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your letter of March 31, 1993. You letter refers to vehicle designs which have locations which meet the definition of 'designated seating position,' as defined at 49 CFR 571.3(b), at certain times but not at others. 'For example, a seat with a folding seat back may be a seating position with the seat back in the up position and not with the seat back folded over the seat base. Another example of this could be if a platform or other device has several positions, one of which covers the seat so as to remove the necessary room to meet the designated seating position criteria.' You asked for verification of the following two statements which you believe are a correct interpretation of such a situation: When the seat meets the criteria, then seat belts must be provided according to the requirements of 571.208. In addition, those belts, since required by 571.208, must also meet the requirements of 571.209 and 571.210. When the seat does not meet the criteria, then seat belts are no longer required by 571.208. Any seat belts provided in this situation must no longer meet requirements of 571.208, 209 or 210. As explained below, NHTSA disagrees with your suggested interpretation. The term 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. In both of the examples you provide, the position would be a 'plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female.' Therefore, these positions would be considered 'designated seating positions' at all times. Even though some adjustment may be necessary before the seat can be used, the seat is available at any time if needed. Your statements also raise the question of whether a vehicle must comply with all requirements related to a specific 'designated seating position' when that position is not usable for seating. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. NHTSA would only test a 'designated seating position' for compliance with applicable safety standards when testing can be done according with the test conditions and procedures specified in the standard. While the examples you provide are not specific enough to explain how testing would be done in those instances, if a 'designated seating position' was completely blocked under certain circumstances, NHTSA would not test under those circumstances. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht76-4.46

DATE: 04/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 15, 1976, question whether a passenger car is considered a convertible for purposes of compliance with motor vehicle safety standards if its roof includes a "sun roof" or has two removable sections fitted into the roof over the outboard front designated seating positions in such a fashion that they do not join each other (Hurst Hatch Roof). You also request confirmation that convertibles are excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and are required to meet S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

The answer to your first question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Passenger cars equipped with a "sun roof" or a "Hurst Hatch Roof" do not qualify as convertible, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location.

With regard to your other question, passenger cars manufactured from September 1, 1973, to August 31, 1976, inclusive, are required to meet one of three options specified in Standard No. 208. If a manufacturer chooses to meet the third option listed (S4.1.2.3), separate requirements are specified for convertibles in S4.1.2.3.2. Convertibles are excluded from Standard No. 216, although a manufacturer may choose to meet the standard in place of certain requirements of Standard No. 208 that are not presently mandatory.

YOURS TRULY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

March 15, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Hurst Hatch Roof and FMVSS No. 216

I would like to take this opportunity to ask you a few questions regarding your interpretation of the word "Convertible", which can be seen in FMVSS No. 216, S3.

In the recent model cars, there have been passenger cars equipped with a new type of roof called "Hurst Hatch Roof", which is shown in the picture in the attachment to this letter (No.1). The structure of the Hurst Hatch Roof Body is completely different from the conventional sun roof, which is also shown in the attachment (No.2). It seems to show a different performance if tested to FMVSS No. 216.

My questions are as follows:

1) Is the Hurst Hatch Roof car defined as a convertible?

2) Is the conventional sun roof car defined as a convertible?

3) If the convertibles are manufactured in the production line, those cars do not have to comply with FMVSS No. 216. However, they have to meet the requirement of S4.1.2.3.2 of FMVSS No.208. Is my understanding correct?

It would be greatly appreciated if your clear interpretation would be given to me by letter as soon as possible.

Naoyoshi Suzuki Staff, Safety

ATTACHMENT

(NO.1)

(NO. 2)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 2870o

Ms. Deborah M. Bakker
Assistant Manager, Regulatory Affairs
MMC Services, Inc.
3000 Town Center
Suite 1960
Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Ms. Bakker:

This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you asked about a situation in which a car line (the Mitsubishi Galant) was designated as a high theft line beginning in the 1987 model year, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 542. Mitsubishi applied for and received an exemption from the marking requirements of the theft prevention standard because of a standard equipment antitheft device to be installed in the Galant. This exemption, issued pursuant to Part 543, applied beginning in the 1987 model year.

For the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and a new nameplate was assigned to the line. It is now called the Galant Sigma. Additionally, Mitsubishi plans to introduce a new car line in the 1989 model year called the Galant. This line is, according to your letter, completely redesigned from the 1987 line that was called the Galant, bears no resemblance to the Galant Sigma, and will cost less than either the Galant Sigma or the 1987 line called Galant.

You posed the following questions:

1. Should a new theft determination be made for both the Galant Sigma and the redesigned Galant?

ANSWER: No. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is a new model within the Galant line.

As a general matter, section 601(2) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021(2)) defines the term "line" as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design." As noted in your letter, the agency uses the same language to define the term "line" in 541.4. This language treats groups of motor vehicles as a continuation of an existing line if the groups have the same name and are similar in construction or design. We have applied this language in the following manner.

With respect to the redesigned Galant, I addressed such a question in my March 6, 1987 letter to Mr. Jeffrey Link (copy enclosed) as follows:

The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the predecessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles.

The redesigned Galant obviously has the same name as the 1987 model year Galant. Additionally, the redesigned Galant is similar in construction and design to the 1987 Galant, notwithstanding the new sheet metal and different drivetrains. Accordingly, we believe that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line. This means that the redesigned Galant is subject to the previous high theft determination for the Galant line.

With respect to the Galant Sigma, we conclude that this is a new model within the Galant line, not a new line. In our preamble to the insurer reporting requirements in 49 CFR Part 544, we discussed the application of the terms "model, make, and line" as follows:

"Make" refers to the general name used by the vehicle manufacturer. For example, Dodge, Ford, and Pontiac are makes of vehicles. "Line" refers to the nameplate assigned by the manufacturer to a group of vehicle models of the same make. For example, Dodge Charger, Ford Thunderbird, and Pontiac 6000 are lines of vehicles. "Model" refers to a specific grouping of similar vehicles within a line. For example, the Dodge Charger 2.2 2-door, Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and Pontiac 6000 LE 4-door are models. 52 FR 59, at 65; January 2, 1987.

In general, if a manufacturer calls a group of vehicles by the same general name as it applies to another group, but adds a further description to that name (e.g., Honda Civic CRX, Volkswagen Golf GTI, and Porsche 911 Carrera), we presume that the further description indicates a unique model within that line. This presumption can be overcome only if the vehicle with the further description in its name is not "similar in construction or design." Thus, we have determined, for example, that the Honda Civic CRX is simply a model within the Civic line, notwithstanding the fact that its driveline and body styling are different from all other Honda Civic models. It is similar in construction or design (all are front-wheel drive passenger cars) and bears the same name as other Civics.

On the other hand, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is not considered a model within your Colt/Mirage line. The Station Wagon bears the same name as other Colt/Mirage models. However, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, while the other Colt/Mirage models are passenger cars. This difference is substantial enough that the vehicles are not "similar" in construction or design.

In the case of the Galant Sigma, we agree that it is not identical in construction or design to the other redesigned Galant models. However, it is similar in construction and design to the other Galant models, since all are front-wheel drive passenger cars. Hence, the Galant Sigma is simply a model within the Galant line.

2. If a new high theft determination should not be made for the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma, which of the vehicles is designated as high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the old Galant be used?

ANSWER: As explained above, the Galant Sigma is not a separate car line, but is simply a model within the Galant line. The redesigned Galant line is a continuation of the older Galant line. Thus, the previous high theft determination applies to all models in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma.

The exemption that was granted to the older Galant line can be used for the redesigned Galant line if the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma. If the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is not installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, you would be required to mark all cars in the redesigned Galant line to conform to Part 541.

3. If one or both the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma are newly designated as high theft lines, can the exemption granted for the Galant in the 1987 model year be used for either or both car lines, or would the exemption be invalidated because of the change in body style?

ANSWER: Because the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is just a model within the redesigned Galant line, as explained above, the exemption granted under Part 543 to the 1987 Galant line continues in full effect for the redesigned Galant line. Your company has the option of installing anti-theft devices as standard equipment in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma, in accordance with the 1987 exemption, or marking all major parts in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, in accordance with Part 541. 4. If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with Part 541, can installation of the anti-theft device be discontinued at any time?

ANSWER: Yes. Exemptions are granted only, among other things, after a determination has been made that the line in question is a high theft line that should be listed in Appendix A of Part 541. Section 541.3 states that the parts marking requirements of Part 541 apply to all lines listed in Appendix A. Section 541.5 requires each major part that is original equipment on a line designated as high theft to be marked with certain information. Section 541.6 requires each replacement major part for high theft lines to be marked with certain information. Thus, each line listed in Appendix A must comply with the requirements of sections 541.5 and 541.6.

There is a single exception to this requirement. Part 543 sets forth procedures by which a line that has been determined to be a high theft line can be exempted from the marking requirements of Part 541. To be eligible for an exemption under Part 543, an antitheft device must be installed as standard equipment in all cars in the line. The lines that have been granted exemptions under Part 543 are listed in a special subset of Appendix A, Appendix A-I. When a manufacturer gets an exemption for a line under Part 543, it is given two options to comply with the requirements of Part 541. First, the manufacturer can install the antitheft device that was the subject of the exemption proceeding under Part 543 as standard equipment on all cars in that line, in accordance with the terms of the exemption. However, the manufacturer is not required by Part 543 or any other provision to install standard equipment antitheft devices in that line. If the manufacturer chooses not to use the antitheft device exemption for that line, the manufacturer must choose the second option -- that is, marking the major parts of every car in the line, in accordance with 541.5, and marking the replacement major parts for that line, in accordance with 541.6. If a manufacturer has complied with both of these options in a particular model year, by marking every vehicle and every covered major replacement part for a line and by installing an antitheft device that was the subject of a Part 543 exemption proceeding in every marked vehicle, as posited in your example, the manufacturer is free to discontinue either, but not both, of the courses of action at any point during the model year. When the manufacturer chooses to discontinue either course of action for even a single vehicle in the high theft line, it is then required to follow the other course of action until the end of the model year in question.

Please note that this choice exists only if the manufacturer has complied fully with the requirements of Part 541.5 and Part 541.6 and with the terms of the exemption granted under Part 543. If some vehicles in a line or some of the replacement major parts were not marked in accordance with Part 541, the manufacturer must install the antitheft device that was the subject of the Part 543 proceeding in all vehicles in that line for the rest of the model year. When the next model year for the subject line begins, the manufacturer is permitted to discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and to comply with the requirements of Part 541 for that line in the new model year. However, for any particular model year, each of a manufacturer's lines must fully comply with either the requirements of Part 541 or the exemption granted under Part 543.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:54l#542#543 d:5/4/88