ID: kill.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
Monte Carlo Minis
Box 369
Earl, NC 28038

Dear Mr. Cox:

We are replying further to your petition for temporary exemption of the Mini passenger car from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that it has taken some time to get back to you since my letter of November 4, 1996.

After considerable discussion within the agency, I am sorry to tell you that we have concluded that we cannot consider you a "manufacturer" within the meaning of the temporary exemption hardship regulations. This means that we cannot consider your petition.

As we understand the facts from the correspondence we have received from you since last summer, Monte Carlo Minis was established at the beginning of 1996, with you as the sole owner, for the purpose of importing and selling Rover Mini passenger cars that are not manufactured to conform to any motor vehicle regulations of the United States, including the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because Monte Carlo had neither income or expenses, you were unable to file with your petition any information on the financial status of the company. The manufacturer of the car is not willing to sell you any vehicles for your enterprise, or to cooperate with you by furnishing information that would assist you in determining the extent to which the Mini might or might not meet U.S. requirements. You propose to buy the cars from a Mini dealer in Belgium. You are willing to remove all items of motor vehicle equipment that do not meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards and to replace them with conforming parts. You have received an estimate from a Registered Importer of the expense to conform the noncomplying Minis. You state that this Registered Importer, J&K Imports, located in Maryland, will be the company that actually conforms the vehicles to those standards for which no exemption has been granted, and installs propane engines to meet EPA requirements.

In the 25 years that the exemption authority has been in effect, with the exception of Isis Imports and Cantab Ltd., the agency has accepted temporary exemption petitions based upon hardship only from the actual manufacturer of the motor vehicle for which exemption was sought. We have not accepted petitions from importers who have no legal or commercial relationship to the manufacturer. An exception was made for Isis and Cantab on the basis that they had been Morgan dealers, and were receiving Morgan cars without engines, completing their manufacture by installing U.S. Ford engines converted to propane. In general, these companies petitioned for exemption from only one or two of the safety standards, and certfied compliance with the rest partially on the basis of information furnished them by the British manufacturer. Both Isis and Cantab's petitions spoke of the cooperation shown by Morgan in assisting their attempts to furnish air bags and other safety equipment.

In contrast, you have no legal or commercial relationship to Rover. In fact, Rover has specifically advised you that it will not furnish you with cars, nor will it provide information as to the compliance status of the British Mini with respect to the U.S. standards, let alone compliance of a Mini manufactured for the Dutch market which you propose to import. Further, under our laws, a manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required to notify owners and remedy any safety related defect or noncompliance with a standard that occurs in its product. Isis and Cantab were existing enterprises with a demonstrated financial record. Whether Monte Carlo Minis has the financial resources necessary to initiate and complete a notification and remedy campaign cannot be determined on the basis of your representation that the company has no balance sheet or income statement. Even if such resources exist, the record does not provide any assurance that Rover would cooperate in furnishing you replacement parts so that a safety related defect or noncompliance could be corrected within a reasonable time.

We have reached this conclusion with regret because we appreciate your willingness to comply with Federal regulations while bringing to our attention those who may not be so publicly spirited. We have informed our enforcement staff of the other companies that may be selling Minis so that they may consider what action is appropriate under the circumstances.

Finally, in your FAX of March 13, 1997, you have asked whether you can upgrade to 12 inch tires and rims and add disc brakes to the pre-1973 Minis that you import, reporting that Customs officials in Port Elizabeth, New York, consider that Minis so equiped were manufactured in 1984 or later. Because vehicles more than 25 years old are exempt from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you are free to make these modifications without violating our regulations.

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:555
d:3/24/97

ID: 2790y

Mr. Danny Pugh
Engineering Manager
Utilimaster Corporation
65266 State Rd. 19
P.O. Box 585
Wakarusa, IN 46573

Dear Mr. Pugh:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). More specifically, you asked about the requirements for safety belts at the various seating positions in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating under 10,000 pounds that you called "van conversions."

You first asked whether a "van conversion" would be classified as a passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Vehicles commonly called "vans" may be classed in four different vehicle categories (set forth at 49 CFR 571.3) for the purposes of our safety standards, depending on the configuration of the particular "van." Most cargo vans are classified as "trucks" under our safety standards, because those vehicles are "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." Most passenger vans are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles," because they do not meet the definition of a "truck", but are "constructed on a truck chassis." Those vans that have eleven or more designated seating positions are classified as "buses," because they are "designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Finally, one minivan (the Nissan Axxess) was certified by its manufacturer as a "passenger car," because it was "designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

Additionally, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. If you are interested in the appropriate classification for a particular van conversion, we will offer our tentative opinion if you will provide us with detailed information on the van conversion in which you are interested.

You next asked on what date safety belts were required in "van conversions," what type of safety belts, and at what locations those belts were required. As explained above, we do not class vehicles as "van conversions" for the purposes of our safety standards. If the vans were classed as passenger cars, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the car. Beginning December 11, 1989, passenger cars were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. Since September l, l989, all passenger cars are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection for outboard front-seat occupants.

Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the vehicle. Beginning September 1, 1991, vans classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles or trucks (other than motor homes) must have lap/shoulder belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions. Motor homes manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 will continue to be required to have lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. In addition, effective September l, l99l vans must meet dynamic crash test injury criteria for the front outboard seating positions.

If the vans were classed as buses, buses manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder or a lap-only safety belt at the driver's seating position. Beginning September 1, 1991, buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less (except school buses) must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at all front and rear outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position.

Also, the agency has proposed extending the automatic crash protection requirements mentioned above to these other vehicle classifications.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208#571 d:12/13/90

ID: 2988yy

Mr. Stephen Mamakas
AIR Inc.
1517 West 9 Street
Brooklyn, NY 11204

Dear Mr. Mamakas:

This responds to your letter asking what Federal standards apply to the "repair" of deployed air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection, beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. The compliance testing of vehicles to the requirement of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria (as measured on a test dummy) when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars 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). Automatic crash protection will save thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of serious injuries each year.

Note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which repaired air bags must comply. The only Federal requirement that might affect your planned operation would be the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that, "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 ..." In this case, air bags are a "device or element of design" installed in passenger cars in compliance with Standard No. 208. Hence, your repair business would violate Federal law if it were to remove, deploy, disable, or otherwise "render inoperative" air bags installed in passenger cars.

However, your letter gives no indication that your company intends to perform repairs or other operations on air bags that have not yet deployed. Instead, your letter asks only about performing repairs on air bags that have already deployed. Deployed air bags have been "rendered inoperative" by the forces that caused deployment, not by anything a repair business does after that deployment. Thus, it seems unlikely that any repairs your company performs on deployed air bags would violate the "render inoperative" section of Federal law.

Although there is no Federal law prohibiting the sort of repairs you asked about, your planned "repair" of deployed air bags gives rise to a host of safety concerns. You will need to contact the manufacturer of each vehicle on which you repair an air bag to learn the exact formula and amount of gas generant in the inflator canister for each air bag. This would be necessary to ensure that the "repaired" air bag will inflate at the time and in the manner intended by the original manufacturer. Additionally, you will need to replace the crash sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Again, you will need to contact the vehicle manufacturer to obtain specifications for the performance of these electronic components. You will also need to refold and lubricate the fabric of the air bag in the same manner as the original air bag. If you fail to exactly duplicate the equipment and procedures used in the original air bag, your company could significantly reduce or even eliminate the protection that would have been provided by the original air bag. This, in turn, could expose your company to substantial liability under State laws for such repairs. You may wish to consult a private attorney for more information in this regard.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208#VSA d:5/l3/9l

ID: nht79-1.20

DATE: 09/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer, Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Friberg:

This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1979, and your telephone conversations with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) states that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. "Line" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type." "Series" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line,' denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes."

In Volvo's view, the only "line" it markets in the United States is the "200-series." Within this line, there are several models differentiated by body style and number of engine cylinders. Each model is offered in several different "sales versions," designated by a two- or three-letter suffix. Sales versions differ as to trim, upholstery, and other items which Volvo has designated as cosmetic. It is Volvo's desire not to encode the particular sales version of the vehicle in its VIN.

Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that each "sales version" could also be designated a "series" if Volvo desired. Nonetheless, the definition of "series" makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the "series" designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality of the differences between the potential series, the agency will not require such a designation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 5, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS No. 115

Dear Mr. Levin:

Section 4.5.2 of FMVSS No. 115 states that the second section (Vehicle Attributes section) of the VIN shall consist of five characters which shall uniquely identify attributes which, for passenger cars, must include line, series, body type, engine type, gross vehicle weight rating and restraint system type. Section 3 defines "series" as a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of a "line" denoting price, size or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes.

Currently, Volvo markets only one line of passenger cars in the United States, the "200-series" which includes 2-door and 4-door sedans, 2-door coupe, and station wagon body types. Except for the differences dictated by body type, U.S. Volvo car models share the same chassis, suspension and, to a great degree, body components. In fact it can be said that, except for minor cosmetic differences, all Volvo cars of a given model year and body type are basically the same in structure and appearance.

These minor differences are denoted by a "sales version" suffix which is a two or three-letter designation. The sales version's currently available in the U.S. are DL, GL, GLE, and GT. (A further designation, C, is used to designate the coupe, which is actually a different body type.) The cosmetic differences denoted by sales version may include such items as:

Grille Emblem Wheel Design Electric Mirrors Leather Upholstery Front Spoiler Rectangular Headlamps Tachometer Fog Lamps The distinction between sales version is further diluted by the fact that most of the components listed are available as options, and many Volvo owners select these options so that their car more closely resembles a higher priced version.

In future model Volvos, the sales version may also designate engine type (number of cylinders, gasoline or diesel). However, this information is coded elsewhere in the Vehicle Attributes section of the VIN.

While sales version may have some slight impact on retail price, this is determined to a far greater extent by body type, engine type, and the options chosen by the purchaser.

It is our interpretation that sales version, as described above, must not necessarily be decipherable from the VIN. Please advise as to whether you agree with this interpretation.

If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please feel free to call.

Sincerely yours,

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning and Development

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer, Regulatory Affairs

NF/EB

ID: nht90-4.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Danny Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 to Chief Counsel, NHTSA from Danny Pugh (OCC 5214)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). More specifically, you asked about the requirements for safety belts at the various seating positions in vehicles with a gross vehic le weight rating under 10,000 pounds that you called "van conversions."

You first asked whether a "van conversion" would be classified as a passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Vehicles commonly called "vans" may be classed in four different vehicle categories (set forth at 49 CFR S571.3) for the purpose s of our safety standards, depending on the configuration of the particular "van." Most cargo vans are classified as "trucks" under our safety standards, because those vehicles are "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpos e equipment." Most passenger vans are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles," because they do not meet the definition of a "truck" but are constructed on a truck chassis." Those vans that have eleven or more designated seating positions are cl assified as "buses" because they are "designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Finally, one minivan (the Nissan Axxess) was certified by its manufacturer as a "passenger car" because it was "designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

Additionally, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifica tion before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. If you are interested in the appropriate classification for a particular van conver sion, we will offer our tentative opinion if you will provide us with detailed information on the van conversion in which you are interested.

You next asked on what date safety belts were required in "van conversions," what type of safety belts, and at what locations those belts were required. As explained above, we do not class vehicles as "van conversions" for the purposes of our safety sta ndards. If the vans were classed as passenger cars, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the car. Beginning December 11, 1989, passenger cars were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating p osition. Since September

1, 1989, all passenger cars are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection for outboard front-seat occupants.

Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder o r lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the vehicle. Beginning September 1, 1991, vans classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles or trucks (other than motor homes) must have lap/shoulder belts at both front and rear outboard seati ng positions, with either lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions. Motor homes manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 will continue to be required to have lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulde r or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. In addition, effective September 1, 1991 vans must meet dynamic crash test injury criteria for the front outboard seating positions.

If the vans were classed as buses, buses manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder or a lap-only safety belt at the driver's seating position. Beginning September 1, 1991, buses with a gross vehicle we ight rating of 10,000 pounds or less (except school buses) must be equipped, with lap/shoulder belts at all front and rear outboard seating positions, and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position.

Also, the agency has proposed extending the automatic crash protection requirements mentioned above to these other vehicle classifications.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-3.50

DATE: May 13, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen Mamakas -- AIR Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 01/01/91 (EST) letter from Stephen Mamakas to Whom it May Concern (OCC 5875)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking what Federal standards apply to the "repair" of deployed air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection, beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. The compliance testing of vehicles to the requirement of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria (as measured on a test dummy) when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars 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). Automatic crash protection will save thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of serious injuries each year.

Note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which repaired air bags must comply.

The only Federal requirement that might affect your planned operation would be the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that, "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 ..." In this case, air bags are a "device or element of design" installed in passenger cars in

compliance with Standard No. 208. Hence, your repair business would violate Federal law if it were to remove, deploy, disable, or otherwise "render inoperative" air bags installed in passenger cars.

However, your letter gives no indication that your company intends to perform repairs or other operations on air bags that have not yet deployed. Instead, your letter asks only about performing repairs on air bags that have already deployed. Deployed air bags have been "rendered inoperative" by the forces that caused deployment, not by anything a repair business does after that deployment. Thus, it seems unlikely that any repairs your company performs on deployed air bags would violate the "render inoperative" section of Federal law.

Although there is no Federal law prohibiting the sort of repairs you asked about, your planned "repair" of deployed air bags gives rise to a host of safety concerns. You will need to contact the manufacturer of each vehicle on which you repair an air bag to learn the exact formula and amount of gas generant in the inflator canister for each air bag. This would be necessary to ensure that the "repaired" air bag will inflate at the time and in the manner intended by the original manufacturer. Additionally, you will need to replace the crash sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Again, you will need to contact the vehicle manufacturer to obtain specifications for the performance of these electronic components. You will also need to refold and lubricate the fabric of the air bag in the same manner as the original air bag. If you fail to exactly duplicate the equipment and procedures used in the original air bag, your company could significantly reduce or even eliminate the protection that would have been provided by the original air bag. This, in turn, could expose your company to substantial liability under State laws for such repairs. You may wish to consult a private attorney for more information in this regard.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht94-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Gianfranco Venturelli -- Director General, Automobile Lamborghini

TO: Christopher A Hart -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Standard Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to John E. Gillick (Std. 214 and Part 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini) hereby petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for the purpose of compliance with t he side impact standard's phase-in calculation. n1 In the alternative, Lamborghini petitions NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption from the side impact standard requirements until September 1, 1996, pursuant to its authority under 49 C.F.R. @ 555.

n1 Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., 40019 Sant'Agata Bolognese (BO)-via Modena, 12-Italy, is a joint stock company organized under the laws of Italy. Chrysler Corporation, on January 31, 1994, sold Lamborghini to a group of investors led by MegaTech Lt d., a Bermuda corporation.

Background

On October 30, 1990, NHTSA promulgated revisions to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 regarding side

2

impact protection. See 55 Fed. Reg. 45,722 (Oct. 30, 1990) (codified at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214). Standard 214 specified vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified streng th requirements for side doors. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214(b). The standard included the following phase-in schedule: (1) at least 10% of a manufacturer's passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1994, must comply; (2) at least 25% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1995, must comply; and (3) at least 40% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, and before September 1, 1996, must comply. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214 S8. In promulgating the rule, NHTSA recognized that it could take single-line manufacturers up to three years to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to comply with the standard. 55 Fed. Reg. at 45,749. Accordingly, Standard 214 provides an alternative to the phase-in option. The standard permits manufacturers to delay implementation of the side impact protection standard for one year (until September 1, 1994) if after that date all vehicles produced meet the standard's re quirements. 49 C.F.R. @ 5711.214 S1(d).

As noted supra, Lamborghini was sold by Chrysler on January 31, 1994. Chrysler, as the corporate parent of Lamborghini, had included Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for side impact protection compliance purposes. Due to the number of differe nt Chrysler models that required modifications to meet Standard 214, Chrysler elected to comply through the phase-in alternative. Lamborghini vehicles were scheduled to be modified during the last year of the phase-in period because

3

of the relatively low number of vehicles the subsidiary produced and the lead time necessary for engineering and tooling modifications.

Discussion

Chrysler's sale of Lamborghini has placed Lamborghini in a difficult position regarding compliance with the side impact safety standard. Prior to the sale, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing that it would not need to meet the requiremen ts of Standard 214 until the production year beginning September 1, 1996 due to its status as part of Chrysler's vehicle fleet. Now that Lamborghini is not part of the Chrysler fleet, the company cannot utilize this flexibility. While the first segment of the phase-in requirement (10% compliance for all passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993) has already passed, Lamborghini still could elect Standard 214's alternative compliance date that requires full compliance by September 1, 1994. However, Lamborghini does not now have sufficient lead time to complete the engineering analysis and implement the tooling changes to comply with the standard for the production year beginning either September 1, 1994 or September 1, 1995. In addition, since Lamborghini only produces one model, it cannot phase in compliance even if this were technically possible and the first year of the phase-in period had not already begun. Accordingly, Lamborghini respectfully requests NHTSA to grant this petition to enable Chrysler to count Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's fleet for purposes of side impact compliance, or in the alternative, grant Lamborghini a temporary exemption from the requirements of Standard 214. Granting either request would be in the

4

public interest as it will not affect overall motor vehicle safety because Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance, thereby ensuring that, consistent with the objectives of the Nati onal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the total number of vehicles meeting the side impact requirements will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its Lamborghini subsidiary.

I. FLEET AVERAGE CALCULATION.

As part of the contract with MegaTech, Ltd. for the sale of Lamborghini, Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance. This action will ensure that the overall number of vehicles com plying with the standard through the phase-in period will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its subsidiary. This approach gives Lamborghini, a single line manufacturer, the three-year lead time needed to develop and implement the engineering chang es necessary to satisfy the standard's requirement envisioned in the preamble to the final rule. All Lamborghini vehicles produced after September 1, 1996, will satisfy Standard 214.

II. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION.

In the alternative, Lamborghini requests NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption to Standard 214 through August 31, 1996, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. @ 555.6(a). In the meantime, as noted above, Chrysler will include, for purposes of production vo lume compliance, all Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's phase-in calculations. Beginning September 1, 1996, all Lamborghini vehicles produced will fully comply with the standard.

5

The application of Standard 214 to Lamborghini without adequate leadtime would subject the company to substantial economic hardship. In order to comply with this standard, Lamborghini must modify the door structure and redesign the aperture and door for its automobiles. In view of the extremely short lead time between now and the beginning of production for next year's model, it is simply not possible to complete the necessary engineering and related retooling necessary to meet the September 1, 199 4, target date in the regulations.

Lamborghini is confident, however, that it will be able to comply with the standard by September 1, 1996, but not sooner, in accordance with the following schedule:

1. May 1994 - 1995

- engineering, drawing and development of preliminary prototypes.

2. June 1995 - May 1996

- final tune-up tests, and modification of production tooling.

3. July 1996

- begin production of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

4. September 1996

- delivery of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

The estimated cost of the research and development and the tooling changes necessary to meet the new standards is estimated to be between

6

We would reiterate that the financial hardship this action would cause is primarily due to the absence of sufficient leadtime to implement this standard. Lamborghini had only recently begun analysis of the engineering changes necessary to meet the sta ndard and has not yet begun to implement the necessary tooling changes and purchasing because, until the sale occurred, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing it would not have to meet the standard until September 1, 1996.

* * *

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact Michael J. Grossman, our designated agent for U.S. certification and regulatory liaison (516-829-8694) or John Gillick of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, our legal counsel (202-775- 9870), if you have any questions about this petition.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-5.34

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Gianfranco Venturelli -- Director General, Automobile Lamborghini

TO: Christopher A Hart -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

COPYEE: J. Womack

TITLE: FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Standard Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to John E. Gillick (Std. 214 and Part 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini) hereby petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for the purpose of compliance with the side impact standard's phase-in calculation. n1 In the alternative, Lamborghini petitions NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption from the side impact standard requirements until September 1, 1996, pursuant to its authority under 49 C.F.R. @ 555.

n1 Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., 40019 Sant'Agata Bolognese (BO)-via Modena, 12-Italy, is a joint stock company organized under the laws of Italy. Chrysler Corporation, on January 31, 1994, sold Lamborghini to a group of investors led by MegaTech Ltd., a Bermuda corporation.

Background

On October 30, 1990, NHTSA promulgated revisions to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 regarding side

2

impact protection. See 55 Fed. Reg. 45,722 (Oct. 30, 1990) (codified at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214). Standard 214 specified vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified strength requirements for side doors. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214(b). The standard included the following phase-in schedule: (1) at least 10% of a manufacturer's passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1994, must comply; (2) at least 25% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1995, must comply; and (3) at least 40% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, and before September 1, 1996, must comply. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214 S8. In promulgating the rule, NHTSA recognized that it could take single-line manufacturers up to three years to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to comply with the standard. 55 Fed. Reg. at 45,749. Accordingly, Standard 214 provides an alternative to the phase-in option. The standard permits manufacturers to delay implementation of the side impact protection standard for one year (until September 1, 1994) if after that date all vehicles produced meet the standard's requirements. 49 C.F.R. @ 5711.214 S1(d).

As noted supra, Lamborghini was sold by Chrysler on January 31, 1994. Chrysler, as the corporate parent of Lamborghini, had included Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for side impact protection compliance purposes. Due to the number of different Chrysler models that required modifications to meet Standard 214, Chrysler elected to comply through the phase-in alternative. Lamborghini vehicles were scheduled to be modified during the last year of the phase-in period because

3

of the relatively low number of vehicles the subsidiary produced and the lead time necessary for engineering and tooling modifications.

Discussion

Chrysler's sale of Lamborghini has placed Lamborghini in a difficult position regarding compliance with the side impact safety standard. Prior to the sale, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing that it would not need to meet the requirements of Standard 214 until the production year beginning September 1, 1996 due to its status as part of Chrysler's vehicle fleet. Now that Lamborghini is not part of the Chrysler fleet, the company cannot utilize this flexibility. While the first segment of the phase-in requirement (10% compliance for all passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993) has already passed, Lamborghini still could elect Standard 214's alternative compliance date that requires full compliance by September 1, 1994. However, Lamborghini does not now have sufficient lead time to complete the engineering analysis and implement the tooling changes to comply with the standard for the production year beginning either September 1, 1994 or September 1, 1995. In addition, since Lamborghini only produces one model, it cannot phase in compliance even if this were technically possible and the first year of the phase-in period had not already begun. Accordingly, Lamborghini respectfully requests NHTSA to grant this petition to enable Chrysler to count Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's fleet for purposes of side impact compliance, or in the alternative, grant Lamborghini a temporary exemption from the requirements of Standard 214. Granting either request would be in the

4

public interest as it will not affect overall motor vehicle safety because Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance, thereby ensuring that, consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the total number of vehicles meeting the side impact requirements will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its Lamborghini subsidiary.

I. FLEET AVERAGE CALCULATION.

As part of the contract with MegaTech, Ltd. for the sale of Lamborghini, Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance. This action will ensure that the overall number of vehicles complying with the standard through the phase-in period will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its subsidiary. This approach gives Lamborghini, a single line manufacturer, the three-year lead time needed to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to satisfy the standard's requirement envisioned in the preamble to the final rule. All Lamborghini vehicles produced after September 1, 1996, will satisfy Standard 214.

II. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION.

In the alternative, Lamborghini requests NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption to Standard 214 through August 31, 1996, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. @ 555.6(a). In the meantime, as noted above, Chrysler will include, for purposes of production volume compliance, all Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's phase-in calculations. Beginning September 1, 1996, all Lamborghini vehicles produced will fully comply with the standard.

5

The application of Standard 214 to Lamborghini without adequate leadtime would subject the company to substantial economic hardship. In order to comply with this standard, Lamborghini must modify the door structure and redesign the aperture and door for its automobiles. In view of the extremely short lead time between now and the beginning of production for next year's model, it is simply not possible to complete the necessary engineering and related retooling necessary to meet the September 1, 1994, target date in the regulations.

Lamborghini is confident, however, that it will be able to comply with the standard by September 1, 1996, but not sooner, in accordance with the following schedule:

1. May 1994 - 1995

- engineering, drawing and development of preliminary prototypes.

2. June 1995 - May 1996

- final tune-up tests, and modification of production tooling.

3. July 1996

- begin production of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

4. September 1996

- delivery of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

The estimated cost of the research and development and the tooling changes necessary to meet the new standards is estimated to be between

6

We would reiterate that the financial hardship this action would cause is primarily due to the absence of sufficient leadtime to implement this standard. Lamborghini had only recently begun analysis of the engineering changes necessary to meet the standard and has not yet begun to implement the necessary tooling changes and purchasing because, until the sale occurred, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing it would not have to meet the standard until September 1, 1996.

* * *

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact Michael J. Grossman, our designated agent for U.S. certification and regulatory liaison (516-829-8694) or John Gillick of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, our legal counsel (202-775-9870), if you have any questions about this petition.

Enclosures

ID: nht93-2.15

DATE: March 12, 1993

FROM: Scott R. Dennison -- Vice President, Production, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TO: Robert Hellmuth -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-19-93 from John Womack to Scott R. Dennison (A41; Part 555)

TEXT: I am writing on behalf of the Specialty Car Industry in general and Excalibur in particular to offer my input and assistance regarding the alleged debate over the treatment of vehicles replicating pre-safety standard vehicle designs and their compliance with current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This has long been a difficult area for the industry to understand since most of the manufacturers of these vehicles are ultra low volume manufacturers. I was briefly involved with the limousine industry in 1989 when NHTSA began to work cooperatively with them to achieve practical compliance and would like to see the our industry and NHTSA do the same.

As you are aware, the Environmental Protection Agency has created a very specific set of guidelines for the specialty car industry to allow them to produce compliant automobiles without the need for "legitimate" FTP-testing. It is my opinion that the same type of policy is possible to bring the specialty cars up to an acceptable standard where there are those who now fall short. I also believe that we, as a $100 million plus industry, can internally weed out the undesirable, poor quality builders and manufacturers and essentially police ourselves, not unlike the limousine converters. The biggest hurdle this industry faces is a way to interpret and apply the "rules" in a cost effective manner which will allow us to remain in business.

I am aware that the "Hot Rod" industry is heavily engaged in the same type of effort at this time. However, they have an advantage that we do not have as most hot rods and muscle cars were produced by major "legitimate" manufacturers and were "real" cars at one time. Even though we may build a car replicating a 1934 Mercedes or a 1966 Cobra, we are still building a 1993 vehicle requiring 1993 compliance. In most cases, the original body style necessary for marketing reasons does not readily lend itself to current compliance regulations. Ergo, our dilemma.

I would like to hear your opinion and would look forward to participating in the decision making process wherever possible. Please let me know what I can do to assist. I am looking forward to your response.

ID: nht75-5.26

DATE: 09/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, in which you asked whether the uniform tire quality grading requirements for furnishing information to prospective purchasers of vehicles apply to prospective purchasers of vehicles other than passenger cars that may be equipped with passenger car tires. This was asked in light of the fact that the tire quality grading rule itself applies to tires manufactured for use on passenger cars

We do not consider that the requirements of @ 575.6(a) and (c), regarding the furnishing of consumer information to motor vehicle buyers and prospective purchasers, apply to the sale of trucks or other non-passenger-car vehicles where uniform tire quality grading information is concerned.

We recognize that the language of the regulation may not be entirely clear in this regard, and are considering an interpretive amendment to clarify it.

Sincerely,

July 30, 1975

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Re: Interpretation of Section (d)(1)(ii) of @ 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

Dear Dr. Gregory:

We are somewhat confused by certain of the requirements of @ 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, and would appreciate your clarification of them for us.

@ 575.104 (d)(1)(ii) specifies:

"In the case of information required in accordance with @ 575.6(c) to be furnished to prospective purchasers of motor vehicles and tires, each vehicle manufacturer and each tire manufacturer or brand name owner shall as part of that information list all possible grades for traction and temperature resistance, and restate verbatim the explanations for each performance area specified in Figure 2. . . ."

@ 575.104(c), Application, states that this section applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars after 1948.

Our question, therefore, is whether or not the requirements of @ 575.104(d)(1)(ii) apply to manufacturers of trucks for which passenger car tires are used.

Since this is an urgent matter, we would appreciate your response as soon as possible. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. -- Y. UEDA FOR

K. Nakajima -- Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office