ID: 7289

Herr Tilghman Spingler
Robert Bosch GmbH
Dept K2/ELS 11
Postfach 13 42
D-4710 Reutlingen
Germany

FAX (49)7121-1792

Dear Herr Spingler:

This responds to your FAX of July 9, 1992, asking for a "quick answer" to your question regarding the aim of replaceable bulb headlamps.

Specifically, you ask whether the requirement of "a vertical aim range of +/-4 degrees and a horizontal aim range of +/- 2.5 degrees" means "that a headlamp has to meet both ranges in addition, i.e. 2.5 degrees horizontal at a full range of 4 degrees vertical and vice-versa?"

The requirements to which you refer are found in paragraphs S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S7.7.3 requires in pertinent part that "When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its vertical aim shall be not less than +/- 4 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application." Paragraph S7.7.4 requires that "When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its horizontal aim shall be not less than 2.5 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application."

We call your attention to paragraph S7.7.2.2. With respect to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa, the paragraph requires conformance with respect to the applicable photometrics "with the lens at any position relative to the reflector within the aim range limits of paragraph S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 or any combination." This clearly indicates that when a replaceable bulb headlamp that is aimable as provided in S7.7.2.2 is adjusted to the extreme of its range, and at all positions in between, it must continue to meet all applicable photometrics. We interpret this requirement as also applying to headlamp systems of replaceable bulbs subject to S7.7.3 and S7.7.4, but aimable in a manner outside S7.7.2 (such as movement of the entire headlamp, rather than its lens or reflector).

I hope that this answers your question. Please note that under recent amendments to Standard No. 108, paragraphs S7.7.2.2, S7.7.3, and S7.7.4 have been renumbered respectively S7.8.2.2, S7.8.3, and S7.8.4.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/3/92

ID: nht92-5.1

DATE: August 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tilghman (Tilman) Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/92 from Tilman (Tilghman) Spingler to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7502)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of July 9, 1992, asking for a "quick answer" to your question regarding the aim of replaceable bulb headlamps.

Specifically, you ask whether the requirement of "a vertical aim range of +/-4 degrees and a horizontal aim range of +/- 2.5 degrees" means "that a headlamp has to meet both ranges in addition, i.e. 2.5 degrees horizontal at a full range of 4 degrees vertical and vice-versa?"

The requirements to which you refer are found in paragraphs S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S7.7.3 requires in pertinent part that "When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its vertical aim shall be not less than +/- 4 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application." Paragraph S7.7.4 requires that "When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its horizontal aim shall be not less than 2.5 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application."

We call your attention to paragraph S7.7.2.2. With respect to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa, the paragraph requires conformance with respect to the applicable photometrics "with the lens at any position relative to the reflector within the aim range limits of paragraph S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 or any combination." This clearly indicates that when a replaceable bulb headlamp that is aimable as provided in S7.7.2.2 is adjusted to the extreme of its range, and at all positions in between, it must continue to meet all applicable photometrics. We interpret this requirement as also applying to headlamp systems of replaceable bulbs subject to S7.7.3 and S7.7.4, but aimable in a manner outside S7.7.2 (such as movement of the entire headlamp, rather than its lens or reflector).

I hope that this answers your question. Please note that under recent amendments to Standard No. 108, paragraphs S7.7.2.2, S7.7.3, and S7.7.4 have been renumbered respectively S7.8.2.2, S7.8.3, and S7.8.4.

ID: 86-6.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Bridget Ernst, regarding our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In her letter to you, Ms. Ernst enclosed materials issued by the National Coalition for Seat Belts on School Buses which explained why the Coalition believes safety belts should be required by Federal law on all school buses. You asked us to discuss the main counter-arguments against such a requirement, and asked also whether any Federal legislation has been introduced recently to increase the safety requirement on school buses. I am pleased to respond.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to improve school bus safety. Our school bus safety standards apply to various aspects of vehicle performance, including school bus windows and windshields, emergency exits, fuel systems and passenger seating and crash protection.

The safety belt issue your constituent raises involves the safety standard we issued for school bus passenger crash protection, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. Standard No. 222 requires that large school buses provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of the school bus be improved with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area during an accident. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of their actions to use safety belts. Standard No. 222 requires safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since belts are needed on those vehicles to provide adequate crash protection.

The information from the Coalition that Ms. Ernst enclosed in her letter to you states that safety belts are needed on all school buses to protect children and keep them within their seating compartment in the event of a collision or rollover. We believe that effective passenger crash protection and containment is already provided by compartmentalization and that it would be inappropriate to issue a Federal mandate for safety belts on all school buses. While the effects of compartmentalization are expected to be greater in crashes involving front or rear impacts, the standard also has potential in side impacts and rollovers by minimizing the "hostility" of the crash environment and by limiting the range of movement of an occupant in those two types of crashes.

For your information, I have enclosed a DOT report, "Seat Belts in School Buses" (June 1985),"which provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by your constituent. As explained in the report, school buses in this country have compiled an excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses incorporate more safety by virtue of their greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. Thus, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities is not the same as that for other vehicles, such as passenger cars. Because the safety record of large school buses is very good, we must conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts is not justified at this time.

The Coalition's material enclosed by Ms. Ernst included a statement indicating that NHTSA "supports local district seat belt programs." NHTSA permits the voluntary installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses if the purchaser wishes to have belts installed. We believe that such a decision should be made by individual schools and school districts that have made a reasoned assessment of their particular pupil transportation needs. However, because there are many effective ways to improve pupil transportation safety, such as improving driver training and school bus maintenance programs, it would be inappropriate for us to endorse local district programs for safety belts on school buses. Therefore, for purposes of clarification, we neither support nor discourage school districts' decisions to install safety belts on their large school buses.

You asked about any Federal legislation that had been recently introduced to increase the safety of school buses. The Administration has not proposed any legislation affecting school buses. However, two bills were introduced in the 99th Congress concerning school buses. H.R. 3129 contained a provision calling for a school bus safety study to determine the measures most effective in protecting the safety of school children. H.R. 719 proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. Neither H.R. 3129 nor H.R. 749 was enacted.

In addition, NHTSA has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 222 by setting performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed in large school buses. If adopted, this rule would require safety belts voluntarily installed on mew large school buses to meet Federal safety belt standards for strength and proper installation. We are evaluating the comments submitted on our proposal and a final decision on the rulemaking action is expected in the near future.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

September 24, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

One of my constituents, Ms. Bridget Ernst, has recently informed me of her support for seatbelt requirements on school buses. I have enclosed some information from the National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses which she has brought to my attention. I would appreciate your comments on the safety issues they raise.

Has any legislation been introduced recently on the federal level to increase the safety requirement on school buses? What are the main counter-arguments?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter of concern.

With best wishes,

Cordially,

TED STEVENS

Enclosure

Oct 22, 1986

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Bridget Ernst.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate you contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.,

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbit Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

ID: nht73-5.49

DATE: 04/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ralph L. Finley

COPYEE: WYSZPOLSKI

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 8, 1973, in which you request information regarding safety standards or restrictions pertaining to rumble seat installation. The installation you have made and contemplate merchandising falls into the aftermarket category.

Aftermarket seat assemblies installed in vehicles, after the sale of such vehicles is consummated, are not required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. However, it is reasonable to expect that those who manufacture, sell, and install aftermarket seats will make them at least as strong as required by the standard, and will install seat belt systems to help prevent ejection and other injuries.

I am enclosing a copy of our Summary Description of Standards and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 for your information and retention. I appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

2 ENCLS.

March 8, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Motor Vehicle Programs

Gentlemen:

I have a 1957 Thunderbird with a rumble seat in it. I am thinking of reproducing this rumble seat and merchandising it to T-Bird members in the United States. I have enclosed a picture for your review.

Are there any safety standards or vehicle restrictions that I would have to comply with? Please let me know.

Sincerely,

Ralph L. Finley 12476 Dover Court Saratoga, California 95070

enc:

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-4.30

DATE: June 26, 1991

FROM: Y. Endo -- Technical Manager, Hose Team, Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Inquiry for our Hydraulic brake hose assembly

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Y. Endo (A38; Std. 106)

TEXT:

Recently, we manufacture peculiar type of hose assemblies by our customer's request.

These hose assemblies are consisted of 2 or 3 pieces of cut hoses swaged permanetly with both ends fittings and intermediate metal fitting(s) which swaged and connected 2 pieces of cut hose at its both sides.

Please refer enclosed drawing and illustration. These assemblies are long in the whole length, but each cut hose is not loose in actual application, it is fixed by metal fitting to body side of vehicle. Please refer the illustration, the ones which be marked by red line is actually equipped example.

Concerning to the testing for these hose assemblies, there are diverse opinions in our company. FMVSS 106 specifies in its S 5.3.4 that "Tensile strength. A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall withstand a pull of 325 pound without separation of hose from its end fittings". While "Brake hose assembly" is specified that a brake hose, with or without armour, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system". Brake hose end fitting means a coupler, other than a clump, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose. SAE J 1401 also specifies, Brake Hose End Fitting - A coupling designed for permanent attachment to the ends of a brake hose by crimping or swaging.

Therefore, Imyself consider, Brake hose assembly shall be each one piece of hose with both ends fittings which be swaged permanently, that is 3 pieces hose multiple assembly shall be 3 Brake hose assembly.

In the Tensile strength test, multiple 3 pieces hose assembly shall be devided at each intermediate metal fitting, otherwise the test result comes to far from the real value, so I insist.

On the contrary, some one says, as far as 3 pieces hoses are connected as one assembly, the Tensile strength test shall be done as it is, only the both ends shall be fixed to the tester and pulled.

Imyself still insist, the Tensile strength test shall be done at each permanently swaged portion at the stand point of faithful interpretation to FMVSS and SAE specifications and to get accurate test result.

We can say, actual test operation is easy enough even the test of 3 devided tensile test.

Perhaps, these specifications are established without prediction of such multiple construction assembly at that time.

Then, we would like to ask your favour, please inform us your opinion or interpretation as soon as possible. This is suggested by Mr. George E. Walton, Director Safety Equipment Services of AAMVA , Arlington VA.

Thanking in advance and remain,

Attached to drawings of 2 and 3 piece hose assembly. (Graphics omitted)

ID: 12607.ztv

Larry Keith Evans, Esq.
Evans & Evans
113 West Taylor Street
Griffin, GA 30223

Re: Ox Bodies, Inc.; Fayette, Alabama

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of October 9, 1996, with reference to the lighting design on the rear of a dump truck manufactured by Ox Bodies, Inc. Although you did not ask for a reply, I assume that you are interested in our comments regarding several observations you have made.

Your understanding of the pertinent requirements of 49 CFR 571.108 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment is essentially correct. A truck whose overall width is 80 inches or more must have two red clearance lamps mounted on the rear. Rear side marker lamps and rear clearance lamps may be combined providing that the minimum photometric candela requirements for each are met. Compliance of rear clearance lamps, combination or otherwise, with the photometric minimum candela requirements of SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker and Identification Lamps, July 1972 (incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108) is determined with the H-V axis of the lamp taken as parallel with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Ox Bodies is correct insofar as it states that the lamp must meet the minimum requirements when tested in the laboratory, but incorrect when it states that "there is no requirement that the light meet any requirements as installed on the vehicle." While Section S5.3 Location of required equipment does not specifically state that photometric requirements must be met when the clearance lamp is installed on a vehicle, compliance upon installation is implicit in paragraph S5.3.1.1. This paragraph specifies that "no part of the vehicle shall prevent . . . any other lamp [e.g. a clearance lamp] from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE

Standard. . . ." However, the issue in this case is whether a clearance lamp has been supplied in the first instance.

The photographs you enclosed clearly show that the side marker lamps on the truck in question are recessed in a side panel and cannot be seen from the rear. In our opinion, the truck has not been equipped with clearance lamps as required by Standard No. 108.

I note that you have furnished a copy of this letter to one of our standards enforcement engineers. The agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will give this matter the consideration it deserves, and we thank you for calling it to our attention.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:11/18/96

ID: 06-000678drn-2

ID: nht95-4.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Bob Clement -- Member of Congress

TO: The Honorable Richardo Martinez, M.D. -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/14/95 Letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Bob Clement (VSA 11316; A43; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT: Dear Administrator Martinez:

I recently received the attached information from my constituent, Mr. Dale Allen Pommer, regarding the regulations governing a third seat belt in the back seat. According to Mr. Pommer, federal rules prohibit a third seat belt from being installed in his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer.

I would greatly appreciate your looking into this matter and providing me with a response so that I might properly reply to my constituent's inquiry.

If you require any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Jay Hansen of my staff at (202) 225-4311.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide. I look forward to hearing from you.

Attachment

Representative Bob Clement U.S. House of Representatives 2229 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 205-20515-4205

Representative Clement:

I am writing to you regarding my automobile and safety regulations. We recently had a new baby and I want to put a third seat belt in the back of my 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. I keep getting told that no one will do it because of safety laws. This strikes me as absurd! What is more dangerous? A post-factory-installed seat belt or no seat belt at all? Or two kids in one seat belt? My wife's Hyundai Excel which is considerably smaller than my Blazer has three seat belts in the rear. So my tiny foreign-made car is safe for five, but my much larger, American-made Blazer is not. Is that the conclusion?

I would like to know what, if anything you know about the safety laws and whether or not there is anything that can be done in a case like mine. I sure as Hell can't afford a new truck and don't want to get rid of mine anyway. I would also like to b e able to put my whole family in it.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dale Allen Pommer Nashville, TN 615/262-9736

ID: nht95-7.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Bob Clement -- Member of Congress

TO: The Honorable Richardo Martinez, M.D. -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/14/95 Letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Bob Clement (VSA 11316; A43; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT: Dear Administrator Martinez:

I recently received the attached information from my constituent, Mr. Dale Allen Pommer, regarding the regulations governing a third seat belt in the back seat. According to Mr. Pommer, federal rules prohibit a third seat belt from being installed in his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer.

I would greatly appreciate your looking into this matter and providing me with a response so that I might properly reply to my constituent's inquiry.

If you require any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Jay Hansen of my staff at (202) 225-4311.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide. I look forward to hearing from you.

Attachment

Representative Bob Clement U.S. House of Representatives 2229 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 205-20515-4205

Representative Clement:

I am writing to you regarding my automobile and safety regulations. We recently had a new baby and I want to put a third seat belt in the back of my 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. I keep getting told that no one will do it because of safety laws. This strikes me as absurd! What is more dangerous? A post-factory-installed seat belt or no seat belt at all? Or two kids in one seat belt? My wife's Hyundai Excel which is considerably smaller than my Blazer has three seat belts in the rear. So my tiny foreign-made car is safe for five, but my much larger, American-made Blazer is not. Is that the conclusion?

I would like to know what, if anything you know about the safety laws and whether or not there is anything that can be done in a case like mine. I sure as Hell can't afford a new truck and don't want to get rid of mine anyway. I would also like to be able to put my whole family in it.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dale Allen Pommer Nashville, TN 615/262-9736

ID: sponorship_rbm

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw
1909 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1101

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter responds to a recent request you made regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation of the term "motor vehicle manufacturer" as it relates to compliance with the phase-in requirements of various Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Your immediate concern is whether a vehicle may be deemed to be manufactured by more than one manufacturer if there is an agreement between two separate companies under which both companies provide financial and engineering resources for the development of a vehicle model that will be assembled by one company for the exclusive marketing by the other. If the answer to that question is yes, you ask whether either company could take credit for those vehicles for the purpose of complying with the phase-in requirements of a safety standard, as long as they filed a contract with NHTSA specifying who was taking such credit. I am pleased to provide an explanation of NHTSA's position on these issues, which we refer to as "sponsorship."

NHTSA first articulated its position on sponsorship in 1985 when it proposed to phase-in the new passive restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. See 50 Fed. Reg. 14589, 14596 (April 12, 1985). In that rulemaking, NHTSA allowed consensual attribution of a vehicle when there was more than one manufacturer of the vehicle. Specifically, NHTSA developed a regimen under which a passenger car produced by more than one manufacturer would be attributed for phase-in purposes to a single manufacturer, as specified by an express written contract provided to NHTSA. In the absence of a written contract, the attribution would go to the importer, in the case of an imported vehicle, or to the manufacturer that marketed the vehicle, in the case of a vehicle manufactured in the United States. See 49 CFR 571.208, S4.1.3.5. The same regimen has been adopted for subsequent phase-ins of other requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (S4.1.5.2, S4.2.5.6, S4.2.6.1.2, S14.3.1, and S14.3.3.1), as well as those of other safety standards (FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, at S6.1.6; FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, at S8.4; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems, at S14.2).

The term "manufacturer" is defined by statute as "a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." 49 U.S.C. 30102. The NHTSA regulations governing vehicle certification of a completed vehicle require the assembler of the vehicle to certify the vehicle as the manufacturer. Three exceptions apply to the general requirement: first, a non-assembling manufacturer may certify compliance when it controls the corporation assembling the vehicle and agrees to assume all legal responsibilities associated with certification; second, a manufacturer that fabricates and sends a vehicle in an unassembled form such that it can be assembled without any special machinery or tools may name itself as the vehicle manufacturer; and third, a trailer manufacturer may certify compliance for a trailer that it did not manufacture, but for which it accepts legal responsibility associated with certification. See 49 CFR 567.4(g). The manufacturer identified on the certification label generally bears full legal responsibility for any notifications and remedies resulting from a determination of a noncompliance with a FMVSS or a safety-related defect. See 49 CFR 573.3.

In the 1985 FMVSS No. 208 NPRM, the agency acknowledged that there were instances in which a vehicle could arguably have more than one manufacturer. One example of this situation could be when there was an existing parent/subsidiary relationship. However, there could also be instances where the relationship between the two possible manufacturers was not based on control of the company, but rather on control of the production of a specific vehicle model. We determined that, under certain circumstances, the definition of manufacturer in 49 U.S.C. 30102 was sufficiently broad to include this scenario. The example we gave in explaining our position was a company, which we refer to as a "sponsor," that contracts with another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor. However, the agency went on to state, "the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which is also a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles." See 50 Fed. Reg. 14589, 14596.

To date, NHTSA has examined the sponsorship question, based on particular sets of circumstances, only four times. In the first instance, the agency evaluated the relationship between General Motors and Lotus Cars Ltd. See August 15, 1987, letter from NHTSA to General Motors. We determined that since GM sponsored the importation, distribution, and marketing of the Lotus vehicles in the United States, it could be considered the manufacturer of the vehicles for the FMVSS No. 208 phase-in requirements. In making its decision, NHTSA noted that Lotus was a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM and the vehicles were marketed in the United States by another wholly-owned subsidiary of GM, providing sufficient indicia of GM's active role in bringing the vehicles to market.

Two years later, NHTSA concluded that a contractual relationship whereby one manufacturer contracts with another to assemble vehicles, without more, was insufficient to establish a sponsorship relationship. The agency noted that a contract to assemble may be nothing more than the purchase of vehicles for resale. Without more information as to the details of the contract, NHTSA was unable to determine whether the non-assembly manufacturer exercised sufficient control over the production of the vehicle to be considered a sponsor for phase-in purposes. See September 7, 1989, letter from NHTSA to LAFORZA Automobiles, Inc.

In 1991, NHTSA determined that a joint venture agreement, under which one party provides design and development support, as well as major components, and the other party assembles the vehicle, was sufficient to allow the non-assembler to be considered as the manufacturer of the vehicle and to attribute the vehicle to its fleet for phase-in purposes. See October 28, 1991, letter from NHTSA to Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

Finally, we recently clarified our position that vehicles of related manufacturers may be grouped together for the purposes of meeting safety standard phase-in requirements, and expanded it beyond the findings of control described in the GM/Lotus letter. In a letter to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, we noted that the manufacturer attribution provisions needed to be clear and easily applied. We stated that we believed there was sufficient interaction among related manufacturers, and direct involvement by parent corporations in the actions of their subsidiaries, that their fleets could be grouped together or treated as the vehicles of separate manufacturers, at the manufacturers' option. We also stated that if the fleets of motor vehicle manufacturers are considered to be within the same "control" relationship for the purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329, their vehicles could be grouped together or treated as the vehicles of separate manufacturers for phase-in purposes, again at the manufacturers' option. See October 24, 2002, letter from NHTSA to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Thus, under existing interpretations, sponsorship could be found with respect to a vehicle model in three instances: first, if the vehicle were designed from the beginning exclusively for another manufacturer; second, if the fleets of the two companies are combined under the CAFE statute during the model year at issue; and third, if the vehicle were designed and produced pursuant to a joint venture agreement that reflected joint participation. Sponsorship would not be found, however, if a contract merely directed one company to assemble an existing model for another manufacturer without other evidence of the non-assembling company's control over the design and production process.

I now turn to the fact scenario presently before the agency. In your letter, you state that Company A has agreed to supply Company B with a vehicle model developed, in part, pursuant to an engineering agreement between the two companies. The new model is based in large part on an existing model that was designed and engineered by Company A. Company A has also marketed the existing model in the United States. However, a subsidiary or affiliate of Company B will have sole distribution and marketing rights for the new model.

Under the engineering agreement, Company B has provided exterior and interior specifications and requirements, prepared and provided detailed designs of modified interior and exterior parts, and assigned employees to participate actively in the design and development process. Additionally, Company B has committed to pay Company A a net total of $30 million to cover engineering and tooling costs for the vehicle.

I have determined that this arrangement is sufficient to establish a sponsorship relationship between Company A and Company B with respect to the vehicle, regardless of whether such a relationship could be found generally, as was the case with GM and Lotus or with fleets of vehicles that are grouped together under the CAFE statute. I have also determined that it is not necessary for Company B to have been actively involved in the initial development of the vehicle, as was the case in the Nissan joint venture. Rather, my decision is based on the presence of three separate factors: the would-be sponsor's commitment of substantial design and engineering resources, the significant financial contribution by Company B to the development of the vehicle, and Company B's exclusive marketing rights to the vehicle. I note that the absence of any one of these factors, particularly the commitment of design and engineering resources, could create a situation more akin to the situation with LAFORZA, where NHTSA expressed concern that the contractual relationship may not have amounted to more than a mere purchase for resale.

Please note that in order for Company B to take credit for the vehicles in question during the phase-in, the companies must submit a written contract to that effect with NHTSA. Moreover, we note that the entire production for a given production year (i.e., from September 1 of one year through August 31 of the next year) must be attributed to one manufacturer. We would not allow a company to "sponsor" only a portion of a given year's production.

This approach to sponsorship for phase-in purposes is somewhat different from NHTSA's recently articulated position on the respective responsibilities of manufacturers under the early warning reporting rule. 67 Fed. Reg. 45833 (July 10, 2002). In that rule, we specifically addressed the obligations placed on manufacturers involved in joint ventures and production agreements. We noted that all manufacturers that are party to such ventures or agreements could assume responsibility for reporting consumer complaint and other relevant information to NHTSA. Under the early warning reporting rule, we described a production agreement as one in which one manufacturer agrees to produce vehicles for another under the second manufacturer's brand name. We did not premise our statement about the assumption of responsibility on whether the owner of the vehicle brand name had any control over the design or production of the vehicle, or whether the vehicle was designed exclusively for marketing by the brand name owner. We took this approach in the early warning reporting context because we believe the critical element is which company a consumer is more likely to notify in the event of a complaint or problem. We believe consumers would be most likely to notify the manufacturer whose name appears on the vehicle rather than the manufacturer whose name appears on the certification label. To that end, we also added a definition of "brand name owner" to mean "a person that markets a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment under its own trade name whether or not it is the fabricator or importer of the vehicle." This definition alone would be insufficient to establish sponsorship under the phase-in requirements of the various safety standards, because the mere branding of a vehicle does not demonstrate sufficient control or investment in the design and production of the vehicle.

I hope that this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me or Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at the address given above or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.12/10/02