ID: 18237.ztv

Mr. Guy Wilkins, P.E.
Owner
Wilkins Golf Specialties
1719 Binford Street
Ogden, UT 84401

Dear Mr. Wilkins:

Thank you for your letter of June 17, 1998, and accompanying video, telling us of your product, a hitch that allows passenger cars or pickup trucks to haul golf cars on the public roads.

As you note, your hitch affords an alternative to either driving a golf car on the public roads or hauling it on a trailer. The proposed regulation to which you refer was made final on June 17, and is called Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500 Low-Speed Vehicles. Standard No. 500 applies to vehicles with a maximum speed of more than 20 miles per hour and not more than 25 miles per hour.

The final rule preserves the right of the individual states to regulate the use of golf cars on their public streets. It would appear that your hitch affords a viable alternative to trailering a golf car in those states that do not permit golf cars on the public roads, even for the limited purpose of going to and from the golf course, and to those owners who may not want to drive on the public roads even if they are permitted to do so.

We consider your hitch to be motor vehicle equipment under the laws that we administer. This means that if either you or we determine that a safety related defect exists in your hitch, you must notify and remedy according to statutory requirements. I enclose some information on our laws and programs that apply to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment.

We are returning your video, and appreciate your writing us.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:500
d.7/24/98

ID: 86-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Michael Love

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager Porsche Cars North America. Inc. 200 South Virginia Street Reno, NV 89501

Dear Mr. Love:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, with respect to an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp kit that Porsche wishes to offer through its dealer network.

You initially reference the preamble of August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34488) in which NHTSA stated that it would study the request of General Motors to supply an aftermarket kit "and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use". You ask the following questions:

"1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?"

NHTSA has not proceeded to the study referenced because it subsequently decided such a study was unnecessary for the reasons set forth in our answer to your second question.

"2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?"

NHTSA does not consider that any Federal impediments exist to the sale, installation, and use of such aftermarket devices, and further is not aware at this time of any State impediments to such sale, installation and use. However, we strongly recommend that these devices be designed to comply as closely as possible with those meeting Federal requirements. For example, a State may have a law prohibiting interior-mounted lamps that cause reflections on the rear window; Standard No. 108 requires original equipment center high-mounted stop lamps to be provided with means to minimize such reflections, and aftermarket lamps should also be so designed to minimize reflections in order to comply with the State requirement.

"3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?"

NHTSA believes that retrofitting passenger cars with a center high-mounted stop lamp meeting original equipment specifications will prove to be as beneficial in reducing the incidence of low speed rear end collisions as in the population of passenger cars on which it has been installed as original equipment, and NHTSA encourages such retrofit. However, NHTSA's research study did not include other types of motor vehicles such as buses, trucks, and trailers though intuitively the concept would appear to have some merit.

(4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any States passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights?"

No.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

Z. Taylor Vinson Office of Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

Due to customer demand, Porsche AG is considering offering through Porsche Cars North America, Inc., a Center High Mounted Stop Light (CHMSL) aftermarket kit for sale and installation by its Dealer network.

This kit would be intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985 and not originally equipped with a CHMSL. Porsche has several questions regarding the language in the supplementary information for the August 31, 1984 final rule on FMVSS 108, 49 FR 34488. It states:

"GM further commented that the proposal did not address the after market package which General Motors had intended to make available through our dealers, since it only speaks of passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1989 and September 1, 1985".

Also,

"The agency was not aware that GM had intended to offer an aftermarket package until receiving its comment. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of the proposal, and accordingly, was not considered. Under paragraph S4.7.1, the standard covers the aftermarket only to the extent that GM (or any manufacturer) offers a lamp intended as replacement for an original equipment center high-mounted stop lamp. However, to encourage retrofit in the aftermarket, NHTSA will study GM's request and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use".

Specifically,

1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?

2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?

3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?

4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any states passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights:

Respectfully,

Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager

cc: Kurt Meier

ML/ma

ID: nht93-5.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray M. Miyamoto

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/19/93 from Ray M. Miyamoto to Public Community Strategy, NHTSA (OCC 8840)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter on June 19, 1993, requesting permission to retrofit older cars with air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection, beginning with the 1995 model year. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used.) A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all new cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

After the first purchase of a vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This "render inoperative" provision would prohibit you, as a commercial repair business, from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with any applicable safety standard. This provision does not require you to ensure that the vehicle would have complied with Standard No. 208 if the air bag had been installed in the vehicle as original equipment, it only requires you to ensure that the installation does not "render inoperative" any of the devices or design elements which were installed as original equipment. You do not need to receive permission from NHTSA prior to opening your business, however, any violations of the "render inoperative" prohibition would subject you to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, you may wish to consult state law concerning liability if you retrofit vehicles with air bags.

Given the safety benefits that air bags are now providing, we understand that many persons desire that air bags be made available to be retrofitted in vehicles which were not originally equipped with this life-saving device. However, this concept poses enormous engineering challenges. New car manufacturers design air bag systems for the car in which it is installed. In designing the air bag system, air bag size, shape, venting and inflator gas generation characteristics are predicated on the specific car interior, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering-column crush stroke force resistance, gage array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes.

It is highly unlikely that a retrofit system for older cars can be devised that could provide the safety and functional characteristics of current new car systems which are integrated into car design from inception. Moreover, unless an air bag system was designed in light of the specific characteristics of the vehicle for which it was intended, it is possible that the air bag might not provide any safety benefits in a crash, or even create a safety problem (e.g., if it activated under inappropriate circumstances). I am enclosing a copy of an article from the April 29, 1993, Washington Post which also discusses the difficulties in installing air bags in used cars.

NHTSA is aware, however, that at least one major air bag manufacturer, Breed Automotive, is attempting to develop retrofit air bag systems for certain popular cars, trucks, and vans which were produced without driver air bags in the last few years. If you desire further information about this program at that company, Mr. William Textores (201) 299-6500 may be willing to provide you with such information. I must emphasize, however, that NHTSA does not endorse any commercial products.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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.

ID: 8840

Mr. Ray M. Miyamoto
Apt. B-407
95-2055 Waikalani Pl.
Mililani, HI 96789

Dear Mr. Miyamoto:

This responds to your letter on June 19, 1993, requesting permission to retrofit older cars with air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection, beginning with the 1995 model year. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used.) A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all new cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

After the first purchase of a vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This "render inoperative" provision would prohibit you, as a commercial repair business, from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with any applicable safety standard. This provision does not require you to ensure that the vehicle would have complied with Standard No. 208 if the air bag had been installed in the vehicle as original equipment, it only requires you to ensure that the installation does not "render inoperative" any of the devices or design elements which were installed as original equipment. You do not need to receive permission from NHTSA prior to opening your business, however, any violations of the "render inoperative" prohibition would subject you to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, you may wish to consult state law concerning liability if you retrofit vehicles with air bags.

Given the safety benefits that air bags are now providing, we understand that many persons desire that air bags be made available to be retrofitted in vehicles which were not originally equipped with this life-saving device. However, this concept poses enormous engineering challenges. New car manufacturers design air bag systems for the car in which it is installed. In designing the air bag system, air bag size, shape, venting and inflator gas generation characteristics are predicated on the specific car interior, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gage array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes.

It is highly unlikely that a retrofit system for older cars can be devised that could provide the safety and functional characteristics of current new car systems which are integrated into car design from inception. Moreover, unless an air bag system was designed in light of the specific characteristics of the vehicle for which it was intended, it is possible that the air bag might not provide any safety benefits in a crash, or even create a safety problem (e.g., if it activated under inappropriate circumstances). I am enclosing a copy of an article from the April 29, 1993, Washington Post which also discusses the difficulties in installing air bags in used cars.

NHTSA is aware, however, that at least one major air bag manufacturer, Breed Automotive, is attempting to develop retrofit air bag systems for certain popular cars, trucks, and vans which were produced without driver air bags in the last few years. If you desire further information about this program at that company, Mr. William Textores (201) 299-6500 may be willing to provide you with such information. I must emphasize, however, that NHTSA does not endorse any commercial products.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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

Enclosures

ref:208 d:7/29/93

ID: nht93-4.39

DATE: June 19, 1993

FROM: Ray M. Miyamoto

TO: Public Community Strategy, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/93 from John Womack to Ray M. Miyamoto (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I would like to know if I can have my own business retrofitting older cars with air bags. I would like to be subject to the same rules and regulations as men who service brakes. I would emphasize in my advertising and all literature that seat belts should also be worn (just as the NHTSA emphasizes).

I would optionally retrofit cars of the same make and model, but would consider others if the retrofitting was not to complex or costly. There should be a way (and I'm sure there is) to pre-test each retrofit by deploying and (restuffing) or refitting the air bag and retrofitted equipment for about 20 to 50 deployments. That is, to trigger the sensors without any damage to the vehicle. Possibly I could test each retrofit by applying the same PSI that it would take to deploy it. (There is body and fender and/or construction equipment that can apply the same PSI as in a crash to test air bags.) Liability should be limited to replacement. Only in cases of poor workmanship, and/or gross incompatibility between the retrofit and the car, and/or negligence should I or any other retrofit serviceman be subject to liability.

Such retrofits would be a boon to the drivers of many older vehicles who don't have the funds or means to afford newer air bag equipped cars.

Also, in regard to testing, the bumper of the newer air bag equipped car could be retrofitted to the older vehicle if this would ease the deployment of the air bag in a normal manner (through the sensors) if the older car's bumper was found to block the sensors in any way or make it more difficult for air bag deployment.

There should be room for some compromise here. I don't think it is technically impossible to retrofit older cars with air bags. (And it is technically feasible.) Moreover, to deny people with older cars the right to have air bags, would mean injury and more needless deaths on our highways.

There should be a way for retrofit business (once government approval is given) to be tested by state or local auto safety inspection stations. It is not technically impossible to refit an air bag after a crash by replacing any or all of the following:

1) the air bag 2) sensors 3) wires and terminals 4) deployment canisters or cylinders 4) steering column 5) bumper 6) any other parts, such as a computer, and/or a motor(s).

If brakes can be tested, why not air bags? If an ABS can be tested, why not air bags? To give approval to retrofit businesses would break the monopoly new car manufacturers have on air bags and would lower prices on air bags, not to mention the thousands of lives saved as a result of the greater availability of air bags.

The opposition I have encountered regarding retrofitting of air bags has been without any logical basis. But I am open to any factual, logical and safe argument.

PS J.C. Whitney has a retrofit kit for anti-lock braking systems. So why not a kit for air bags? (as long as they're tested and inspected the ways I mentioned earlier). Moreover, how do you, the NHTSA and the new car manufacturers know that every air bag installed in a new car is safe? By pre-testing and/or inspecting, right? Retrofitting could be done in the SAME way.

ID: 07-004354--4 Oct 07--sa

ID: 23082.jeg

Granta Y. Nakayama, Esq.
Kirkland & Ellis
655 Fifteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005





Dear Mr. Nakayama:

This responds to your letter of July 23, 2001, concerning whether Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. qualify for the small volume manufacturer (SVM) implementation schedule in the final rule for advanced air bags. You provided information with that letter, and in a previous meeting, to supplement information provided in a letter sent by Mr. Mark A. Recchia of Fiat Auto R&D, U.S.A. You asked about this matter in light of the ownership relationships between these companies and with Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors. As discussed below, it is our opinion that Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. would be considered separately, both with respect to each other and with respect to Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors, for purposes of qualification for the SVM implementation schedule.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's new requirements for advanced air bags are included as part of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Paragraph S14.1(d) of that standard, as amended by the final rule we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) on May 12, 2000, provides that "(v)ehicles that are manufactured by a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 vehicles worldwide annually" are subject to a special implementation schedule. (Emphasis added.)

I note that the Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM) submitted a petition for reconsideration asking us to expand that definition to manufacturers of no more than 10,000 vehicles per year. Alternatively, it petitioned that the 5,000 vehicle cap be limited to vehicles sold in the United States per year or that the 5,000 vehicle cap be averaged over the phase-in period. Under the averaged proposal, if a manufacturer produced more than 5,000 vehicles in a single year, it could still take advantage of the exclusion as long as the average of production during the phase-in was not more than 5,000 vehicles per year.

We will respond to the COSVAM petition as part of our general response to petitions for reconsideration of the May 2000 final rule for advanced air bags. We expect to issue a response in the near future. I observe that, however we respond to the requests of COSVAM, it will not affect the primary issue raised by your letter: whether Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. would be considered separately, with respect to each other and with respect to Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors, for purposes of qualification for the SVM implementation schedule

According to the information provided by Mr. Recchia, the annual worldwide production of Ferrari cars themselves is and will remain well within 5,000 units. However, the annual worldwide production of Maserati S.p.A., which is wholly owned by Ferrari S.p.A., may exceed 5,000 units in the next few years. Mr. Recchia also indicated that Ferrari S.p.A. is 87 percent owned by Fiat S.p.A., which owns 80 percent of Fiat Auto S.p.A. and 5.1 percent of General Motors. Both Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors are very large auto manufacturers. Mr. Recchia also noted in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office that it is possible that Ferrari cars and Maserati cars could be imported into the United States by the same importer during the time period in question.

You provided information showing that, notwithstanding the fact that Maserati S.p.A. is wholly owned by Ferrari S.p.A., they are two operationally independent companies with different products. In an Annex to your letter, you indicated that the separate nature of the two companies is exhibited by the different and dedicated products, development location and resources, production location and resources, and headquarter location and resources.

After considering the materials provided by Mr. Recchia and by you, it is our opinion, for purposes of considering whether a company qualifies for the SVM implementation schedule under paragraph S14.1(d) of Standard No. 208, that Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. are separate manufacturers, both with respect to each other and with respect to Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors. This opinion reflects several considerations.

First, Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. are separate corporations, are operationally independent and are separate manufacturers for most purposes.

Second, the vehicles of related manufacturers are not ordinarily grouped together for purposes of determining compliance with phase-ins of new safety standards. We note that this is in contrast to determinations of compliance with fuel economy standards, where vehicles of related manufacturers are grouped together. However, the grouping of vehicles of related manufacturers for purposes of fuel economy standards is done pursuant to an explicit statutory provision.

Third, while it is possible that Ferrari cars and Maserati cars could be imported into the United States by the same importer, we established the special provision in paragraph S14.1(d) for SVMs in light of the technical challenges faced by these manufacturers given the complexity of the new advanced air bag requirements. Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. are separate European manufacturers, and the use of a common importer would not affect the challenges these companies face in meeting the requirements for advanced air bags.

Finally, the ownership relationships between these companies and with Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors are longstanding and do not represent any "gamesmanship" to avoid the phase-in requirements.

We would caution that this interpretation reflects specific consideration of the factors underlying paragraph S14.1(d) of Standard No. 208 and should not be viewed as providing guidance for interpreting any other regulatory provisions.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/22/01

ID: nht91-7.2

DATE: November 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marc M. Baldwin -- Parker, McCay & Criscuolo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-25-91 from Marc M. Baldwin to NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your September 25, 1991, letter in which you asked "the specific date when 2-point seatbelts were outlawed." Lap, or 2-point, belts have never been outlawed by this agency. Rather, 3-point, or lap/shoulder belts have been required at certain seating positions in certain vehicles. Lap belts are still permitted as the only occupant restraint at a seating position in all vehicles at some seating positions. Such seating positions include all seating positions that are not outboard seating positions and all seating positions that are not forward-facing. Your letter mentioned that you are specifically interested in this information for pending litigation regarding a 1984 passenger car convertible. Passenger car convertibles manufactured in 1984 were permitted to have lap belts installed at all seating positions. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts.

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in passenger cars. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts.

Beginning on September 1, 1986, manufacturers were required to begin phasing-in the installation of automatic restraint systems, such as automatic belts and airbag systems, in their passenger cars. For example, S4.1.3.1 of Standard No. 208 required manufacturers to certify that at Bleast ten percent of their passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987, complied with S4.1.2.1. S4.1.3.2 required 25 percent of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1987, and before September 1, 1988, to comply with S4.1.2.1, and S4.1.3.3 required 40 percent of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1988, and before September 1, 1989, to comply with S4.1.2.1.

However, the agency temporarily excluded convertibles from the automatic restraint requirement during the phase-in period. This exclusion meant that convertibles did not have to be counted in the total passenger car production to determine the percentage of total passenger car production equipped with automatic restraints. Instead of automatic restraints, convertibles manufactured prior to September 1, 1989, were allowed to have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt at each seating position. All passenger cars, including convertibles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, must be certified as complying with S4.1.2.1.

There are also currently requirements for lap/shoulder belts in some rear seating positions in convertibles. Again, however, these requirements would not have applied to the 1984 convertible involved in your litigation. For your information, S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 includes additional requirements for forward-facing rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars. All passenger cars, except convertibles, manufactured on or after December 11, 1989, were required to have lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions. All convertibles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, are required to have lap/shoulder belts at these positions.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2999.

ID: nht87-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/02/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Douglas C. Fairhurst -- Townley and Update

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Douglas C. Fairhurst, Esq. Townley & Update 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174

Thank you for your letter concerning how the requirements of Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to an arrangement Jaguar has made for having its XJS hard-top model imported into the United States altered to become a convertible. You hav e raised a number of issues in your letter, which are addressed below.

You explained that "Jaguar has entered into a contractual arrangement with a company that specializes in converting hard-top vehicles into convertible models, the essential provisions of which obligate Jaguar to cooperate with and assist the converter in the latter's effort to secure orders from Jaguar's retail dealers for converting Jaguar XJS models imported into the United States into convertibles." You further explained that "The retail dealers to whom Jaguar sells the XJS will be encouraged to have any conversion work they desire to have done on the vehicles performed by this particular converter, although of course, they remain free to have conversion work done by anyone else if they so wish. Essentially Jaguar will facilitate the arrangement wit h its converter by making shipments of vehicles designated for conversion work by dealers directly to the converter's facilities. Under the contract, the converter has the responsibility of certifying that the vehicles on which it performs this work rema in in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety and emissions standards . . . ."

The first issue you raised is the application of S4.1.3.1.1 of the standard to this arrangement. That section requires each vehicle manufacturer to install automatic restraints in at least 10 percent of the passenger cars it produces during the time peri od, September 1, 1986 to August 31, 1987. You stated that Jaguar intends to meet the 10 percent requirement by installing automatic safety belts in its XJS models. You asked whether, assuming all the XJS models imported into the United States have automa tic safety belts and the total number of XJS models far exceeds the number of vehicles jaguar must equip with automatic restraints to meet the 10 percent requirement, it would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehic le Safety Act for Jaguar's dealers and Jaguar's authorized converter to remove the automatic safety belt in the "excess" vehicles and install manual Safety belts that comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and 209 in those vehicles.

It would not be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(n) for Jaguar's dealers and the converter to alter the "excess" XJS hard-top models into convertibles and reinstall manual rather than automatic safety belts into the altered vehicle. Under our certificati on regulation, a person that alters a certified vehicle must certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable safety standards. The agency has previously said, such as in a January 11, 1979 letter to James Brown, that when a vehicle is altered from one vehicle type to another, the alterer must certify that the vehicle conforms to the safety standards that apply to the new vehicle type, in this case a convertible. Convertibles are temporarily exempt from the automatic restraint requirem ents of Standard No. 208 during the phase-in period, and may instead have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt.

Please note that the agency's final decision in the ongoing rulemaking on applying the automatic restraint requirement to convertibles may affect the conversion of hard-top cars into convertibles. If the agency does not exempt convertibles permanently fr om the automatic restraint requirement, then a vehicle alterer would have to ensure that the altered cars still complied with the automatic restraint requirement. Likewise, if the agency applied a dynamic test requirement to the manual safety belts used in convertibles, a vehicle alterer would have to equip an altered vehicle with either manual safety belts meeting the dynamic test requirements or with an automatic restraint system.

Having addressed the issue of the alterer's responsibility, I would like to explain how these conversions affect Jaguar. It is Jaguar's responsibility under section 4.1.3.1.1 to produce 10 percent of its passenger cars equipped with automatic restraints during the first stage of the phase-in period. In the factual situation you have described, jaguar has entered into a contract to facilitate the conversion of some of its automatic restraint-equipped hard-top models into manual belt-equipped convertibles before the cars are first sold to a consumer. Since Jaguar has consented to the conversion, and in fact will be encouraging its dealers to use a particular "authorized" converter, jaguar cannot count a vehicle that has undergone an authorized conversion in determining whether it has produced sufficient vehicles equipped with automatic restraints. These conversions would reduce both the number of cars that would have to be equipped with automatic restraints, and the number that are equipped with such re straints. Thus, Jaguar should carefully monitor the number of conversions to ensure that there will still be a sufficient number of automatic restraint-equipped vehicles to still be a sufficient number of automatic restraint-equipped vehicles to meet S4. 1.3.1.1.

I also want to address one further issue concerning the altered vehicles. S4.1.3.1 of the standard provides a carryforward credit to manufacturers for the automatic restraint equipped vehicles they produce in excess of the required phase-in percentages. Since, as explained above, Jaguar cannot count vehicles that have undergone an authorized conversion in determining whether Jaguar has met the phase-in requirements, Jaguar also cannot use those vehicles for the purpose of the carryforward credit.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 2, 1986

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This follows up our discussion last Thursday regarding the post-September 1, 1986 passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 as they would apply to the arrangement jaguar has made in the United States for having XJS hard-top models made into convertible s. At the conclusion of our meeting, I said I would frame the specific question on which Jaguar sought an advisory opinion from NHTSA and relate to you the material facts.

The salient facts are these. Jaguar has entered into a contractual arrangement with a company that specializes in converting hard-top vehicles into convertible models, the essential provisions of which obligate Jaguar to cooperate with and assist the con verter in the latter's efforts to secure orders from Jaguar's retail dealers for converting Jaguar XJS models imported into the United States into convertibles. The XJS, as I explained, is the 12 cylinder, two-door sports model which Jaguar offers to its dealers in two versions, the XJS-HE, which is the, hard-top coupe and the XJ-SC Cabriolet, the latter having the open-top feature of a convertible, but with the "B post" intact and a removable top consisting of interlocking targa panels. The retail deal ers to whom Jaguar sells the XJS will be encouraged to have any conversion work they desire to have done on the vehicles performed by this particular converter, although, of course, they remain free to have conversion work done by anyone else if they so wish. Essentially Jaguar will facilitate the arrangement with this converter by making shipments of vehicles designated for conversion work by dealers directly to the converter's facilities. Under the contract, the converter has the responsibility of cer tifying that the vehicles on which it performs this work remain in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety and emissions standards, and, as I explained, there are provisions under which Jaguar will be providing the converter with financial as sistance.

The issue I raised respecting the applicability or Regulation S4.1.3.1.1 (49 C.F.R. 571.208, S4.1.1.3.2) to this project arises by virtue of the intention of Jaguar to meet its obligation to fit passive restraint systems in no less than 108 of the vehicl es Imported into the country between September 1, 1986 and September 1, 1987 by installing automatic seat belts in the XJS models I have just described. The specific question Jaguar poses to NHTSA is whether, if all of the aforementioned XJS models impor ted into the United States were equipped with automatic seat belts (this being a number far exceeding the actual number of vehicles that need be fitted with such belts in order for Jaguar to meet the 108 requirement), it would be lawful under the Safety Act for Jaguar's dealers and the converter with which Jaguar has made this contract to remove the automatic belts in the "excess" vehicles and refit these vehicles with manual seat belts that comply with the requirements of FMVSS 208 and 209 as these app ly to convertibles? This removal and refitment operation is necessary because the process of converting the vehicle entails removal of the "B post" to which part of the assembly mechanism used in the automatic seat belt is affixed. As I say, the converte r will be recertifying that each converted vehicle conforms to all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards and Jaguar will be selling to its dealers sufficient numbers of XJS models equipped with automatic seat belts to meet its 108 obligation.

Since the converted vehicles would continue to meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 and 209, it was and remains my view that under these circumstances the removal of automatic belts installed by the factory on an "optional" basis would not "impair" or rend er inoperative any device installed to meet a safety standard and hence would not constitute a violation of 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(a).

We would appreciate confirmation of this view and any other comments you feel are appropriate.

Very truly yours,

DOUGLAS C. FAIRHURST

ID: nht78-1.9

DATE: 12/26/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Marque Motors

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 26 1978

Mr. Sheldon C. Brooks Marque Motors 8711 Lyndale Ave., So. Bloomington, Minnesota 55420

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This is in response to your letter of December 4, 1978, requesting an exemption from the requirements of Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR 581), for ten Lamborghini Countach vehicles currently under construction. You state that the Lamborghini Company's small size and difficult economic situation preclude immediate redesign of the Countach model to bring it into compliance with the bumper regulation.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 215, Exterior Protection (49 CFR 571.215), from which Lamborghini had been granted an exemption, was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act). Section 123 of the Safety Act permits the exemption of motor vehicles from safety standards when compliance would cause a manufacturer substantial economic hardship and the manufacturer has attempted in good faith to comply (15 U.S.C. 1410). Standard No. 215 was revoked effective September 1, 1978.

The present bumper regulation, Part 581, effective September 1, 1978, was issued under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) (15 U.S.C. 1901), which permits exemptions only for passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. In view of the narrowness of this statutory provision, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to grant an exemption from Part 581 on the basis of economic hardship or limited production.

Part 581 applies to passenger motor vehicles, other than multipurpose vehicles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1978 (49 CFR 581.5(a)). Therefore, vehicles manufactured by Lamborghini which are completed after August 31, 1978, must meet the requirements of the regulation, if they are imported into or sold in the United States.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 4, 1978

Richard Hipolit NASSIS Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

With regard to our telephone conversation of December 1st regarding the Lamborghini Company, I would like to state that I am an associate of the company and I have been asked by them to work with the proper authorities here in the United States in order to extend the bumper exemption on the Lamborghini Countach.

In speaking with Joe Levin he suggested that I take the matter up with you, and that if you were in a position to interpret the law that something could be done if it fell within the interpretation of that law. Speaking with you, you stated that you could call me back today, Monday, regarding the possibility of accepting approximately 10 cars that are under construction to be exported to the United States. As the Lamborghini factory is undergoing extensive reorganization it would take us approximately 18 months to design the automobile in a fashion that would meet the present bumper requirements. As you know, the company is very small and its production is extremely limited. Especially limited are those cars that find their way to the United States. I would estimate that a maximum of 25 cars enter the United States, cars of the Countach variety, in any given year.

I would appreciate hearing from you as to whether it is possible to extend the bumper exemption for 18 months or so on these 10 cars. This would relieve the company of a great deal of pressure and might make the difference between its existence and nonexistence. As this company is one that produces one of the hallmark type of automobiles of the Italian people, it would be a good bit of public relations for all to extend the exemption. I'm at your disposal at any time to be in Washington to explain the case personally or to help in any way that I possibly can. I appreciate your interest and cooperation and do hope that we can get affirmative results.

Kind regards,

Sheldon C. Brooks President

SCB:dlw