ID: 2865yy

Mr. Robert H. Jones
President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 6066
Tamuning, Guam 96931

Dear Mr. Jones:

This responds to your letters of December 11, l990, and January 22, l99l, to Clive Van Orden of this agency, enclosing copies of your letters to Representative Blaz, dated July 6 and October 11, 1990, and to our Office of Enforcement dated July 5, l990. You have also enclosed a copy of a letter that Governor Guerrero of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) wrote on your behalf on October 11, l990, to Representative Blaz.

Your letter to us of July 5, l990, expresses your understanding that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply in the CNMI, and that you, as an importer, have imported only vehicles that are certified as conforming to the FMVSS; however, certain of your competitors have not. You asked "Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?" To similar effect is your letter of the next day to Representative Blaz. Governor Guerrero's letter to Mr. Blaz expresses his opinion that the FMVSS do not apply in the CNMI.

The Governor explains:

By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except [NHTSA believes he means "accept"] federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since l966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979 [sic]. It looks like we get the law. But that is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for self- government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI. These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal Commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands.

[I]t is our position that the FMVSS does [sic] apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

We cannot agree with the Governor's conclusion. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966 (l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), does apply in the CNMI, as do all regulations such as the FMVSS that are issued under the authority of that law.

The Governor believes that "automobile safety is an internal affair". For the most part we agree, but not with respect to the primacy of the FMVSS. We agree that vehicle registration, taxation, and use of the roads in the CNMI are matters properly under the jurisdiction of the CNMI. Further, the Act permits local jurisdictions to enact or continue in effect their own vehicle safety standards provided that they do not differ from the FMVSS (except as may apply to their own official vehicles). The FMVSS are manufacturing standards that apply when the vehicles are built, imported, and sold.

We are sorry that your observance of the law may have put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you have specific information regarding possible violations of the importation provisions of the Act in the CNMI including the names and addresses of specific businesses or individuals, please communicate that information to Mr. Van Orden. Our sources of information are kept confidential.

Although the FMVSS apply in the CNMI, it is obvious that enforcement of them by this agency is made more difficult by the absence of agency staff in the CNMI. If local government would "move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law", then they may be enforced locally. I cannot think of a single one of the FMVSS that would not be of benefit. Although speeds may be low on the roads of the CNMI, many of the FMVSS are intended to provide crash protection at 30 m.p.h. Obviously, FMVSS that pertain to vehicle lighting, windshield wiping and washing, etc. provide protection at any speed.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

cc: Thomas Rabago Highway Safety Coordinator /ref:VSA d:3/ll/9l

ID: 2866o

CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Alberto Negro Director Fiat Research & Development -- U.S.A. Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds both to your revised report, dated January 20, 1988, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 585, on behalf of Alfa Lancia Industriale S.p.A. (Alfa Romeo), covering compliance with the automatic restraint "phase-in" requirements during the 1987 production year, and to your February 4, 1988, letter to Stephen Wood, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Specifically, your question concerns whether Fiat may exclude automatic restraint-equipped convertibles from its determinations of annual production for the purpose of calculating the number of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraints requirements during the phase-in period.

Alfa Romeo, a subsidiary of Fiat, equipped some of its convertibles with automatic restraints during the 1987 model year, and Fiat counted those convertibles toward satisfying the requirement that 10 percent of 1987 production year cars be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated in your February 4 letter that you need clarification of whether Standard No. 208 permits you to exclude from your annual production calculations those convertibles that were equipped with automatic restraints and that were counted in determining whether the requisite percentage of production complied with the automatic restraint requirements. In other words, you wish to know whether Fiat may "count" Alfa Romeo convertibles equipped with automatic seat belts for the purpose of satisfying the 10% "phase-in" requirement for production year 1987, found at S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208, while excluding those same convertibles from the annual vehicle production calculations covering the 1987 production year.

The answer to your question is that Standard No. 208 does not allow Fiat to exclude from its annual production calculations any convertibles that comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in S4.1.2.1 of the standard. Section S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies the amount of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 shall be not less than 10 percent of either the manufacturer's average annual production between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, or the manufacturer's annual production between September 1, 1985, and August 31, 1986. Under these provisions, Fiat elected to use the average annual production from September 1, 1983, through August 31, 1986, for its 1987 production year report. The reference to production encompasses all passenger cars produced by the manufacturer during the relevant time period. Thus, absent an exception to S4.1.3.1.2, a manufacturer may not exclude any of its cars in determining either average annual production or annual production.

For the period of September 1, 1986, to August 31, 1987, section S4.1.3.1.3 of Standard No. 208 provides a single exception from the requirement to include all of a manufacturer's cars in determining annual production. Under that exception, a manufacturer has the following option in calculating annual production:

A manufacturer may exclude convertibles which do not comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1, when it is calculating its average annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(a) or its annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(b). (Emphasis added.)

The same single exception is set forth in section S4.1.3.2.3 for the September 1, 1987, to August 31, 1988 production year, and in section S4.1.3.3.3 for the September 1, 1988, to August 31, 1989 production year. This exception expressly permits manufacturers to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations. However, this language does not permit manufacturers to exclude convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations.

An old principle of legal interpretation is expressed in the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius"; literally, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Applying this principle to Standard No. 208, one would conclude that since the standard was drafted to provide one means of excluding convertibles from calculations of annual production, the standard does not allow any other means of excluding convertibles from those calculations. In other words, since the standard allows you to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 when calculating annual production, the absence of a similar provision for convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 means that complying convertibles cannot be excluded.

This interpretation does not raise any questions about the January 20 report's exclusion of all convertibles produced between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, since your letter states that none of those convertibles complied with S4.1.2.1. However, this interpretation does mean that Fiat cannot exclude the 803 Alfa Romeo convertibles it reported as complying with S4.1.2.1 when making its 1988 production year calculations, as required by S4.1.3.2, if Fiat again elects to base its calculations on the average annual production of passenger cars during the preceding three years, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(a). Similarly, if Fiat elects to base its calculations on the actual production between September 1, 1987, and August 31, 1988, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(b), Fiat cannot exclude convertibles that comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1.

In this letter, we have assumed that the Alfa Romeo convertibles that are equipped with automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint provisions of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. If this is not the case, then Fiat may not "count" those vehicles as complying with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208. See attached letter dated April 18, 1988 to Mr. Robert Munson of Ford Motor Company. Please notify Mr. George L. Parker, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, within 10 business days of your receipt of this letter, whether the Alfa Romeo automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208#585 d:5/4/88

ID: 2866yy

Mr. James W. Lawrence
Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation
Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation
7825 National Service Road
P.O. Box 26115
Greensboro, NC 27402-6115

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your letter of June 15, 1990 concerning replacement doors. I apologize for the delay in our response. You quote an April 9, l990 interpretation letter to Mr. Rowghani concerning Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength. You note that the letter states that "there is no requirement that the replacement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214." You requested a clarification of this statement as you believe that the "render inoperative" provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would require "installation of parts meeting the same performance requirements as OEM parts."

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) would prohibit any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from removing and replacing an undamaged side door, unless the vehicle continued to comply with Standard No. 214. However, that section does not require a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if it has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. The sentence you quote begins, "if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced." The interpretation was intended to be limited to situations where damage is so extensive that the vehicle would no longer comply with Standard No. 214.

I hope you find this clarification helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA108, 214 d:3/l3/9l

ID: 2867o

Terry K. Brock, National Sales Manager
Coons Manufacturing Inc.
2300 West Fourth Street/Box 489
Oswego, KS 67356

Dear Mr. Brock:

This is a response to your letter of last year seeking an interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you asked whether the front entrance door of a bus may be considered as an emergency exit under Standard 217. You stated that some of your company's buses have the front entrance door labeled as an emergency exit, and equipped with the emergency release mechanism required by Standard 217. You enclosed an August 28, 1987 letter from the New Jersey Department of Transportation referencing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that "require...emergency exits (to) comply with" Standard 217. The letter from New Jersey states that a "front entrance door cannot be considered (as an emergency exit) since the intent of the regulations is to provide emergency escape through push out windows and roof escape hatches."

You asked whether we interpret Standard 217 as precluding front entrance doors from also serving as emergency exits. The answer to your question is no. As long as the front door meets all applicable requirements for emergency exits under Standard 217, the door can be considered as an emergency exit. Contrary to the opinion stated in the New Jersey letter, it never has been this agency's position that only push-out window and roof exits may be used to satisfy Standard 217 requirements. (See 37 FR 9394, 9395, May 10, 1972; copy enclosed.)

The question of whether a front entrance door may be a required emergency exit under Standard 217 depends upon (1) the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR); and (2) whether the vehicle is a school bus, or a bus other than a school bus. I will address each of the possibilities separately.

Bus Other Than a School Bus, and With a GVWR of More Than 10,000 Lbs.

A front entrance door can serve as a required emergency exit under Standard 217 in a bus that is not a school bus, and that has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, paragraphs S5.2.1 and S5.2.1.1 of Standard 217 generally require the bus to have "side exits and at least one rear exit," or "one side door for each three passenger seating positions." If the bus configuration precludes installing an accessible rear exit, then a manufacturer may install a roof exit under the conditions set out in S5.2.1.

Bus Other Than a School Bus, and With a GVWR of 10,000 Lbs. or Less

A front entrance door can also serve as a required emergency exit for buses other than school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. For these buses, the vehicle must have windows or other emergency exits that meet the requirements set out in paragraphs S5.2.2, or S5.3 through 5.5 of the Standard. If the vehicle's emergency exits are standard, roll-down windows, or the vehicle's entrance and exit doors, then these exits must meet the specifications of S5.2.2(b). Under that provision, the windows and doors must be manually operable, and must open to a position that provides a specified area for getting out. Note that under S5.5.1, these exits do not have to meet Standard 217 marking requirements. The agency has determined that people who are old enough to read instructions generally are familiar with the operation of standard, roll-down windows and doors, and that there is little justification for requiring emergency exit markings for these exits. (40 FR 17266, April 18, 1975.)

If the vehicle's emergency exits are push-out windows or some other emergency exit, then the vehicle must comply with paragraphs S5.3 through S5.5. A manufacturer must label these exits under S5.5 because they are specially-installed emergency exits whose means of operation may not be obvious to the passengers.

School Buses

A front entrance door can not serve as a required emergency exit in a school bus, regardless of the vehicle's weight. Paragraph S5.2.3 of Standard 217 requires all school buses to have either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) "one emergency door on the vehicle's left side that is in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment and is hinged on its forward side, and one push-out window." A manufacturer who chooses to meet school bus emergency exit requirements under the second option could not use the front entrance door as a required emergency exit under Standard 217, since that door would not be in the rear half of the passenger compartment. However, if a manufacturer chose to install an "additional" emergency exit such as a front entrance door, NHTSA regulations would not prohibit installing this exit. As the agency long has held, any "extra" emergency exit installed in a school bus must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Please understand that this letter addresses only Standard 217, and does not address or interpret any Federal Motor Carrier regulations. If you have any questions about those regulations, you should contact the Federal Highway Administration.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:217 d:6/30/88

ID: 2867yy

The Honorable Bill McCollum
U.S. House of Representatives
1801 Lee Road, Suite 301
Winter Park, FL 32789

Dear Mr. McCollum:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Perry Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner requested a written interpretation about whether casings imported into this country are required to have the "DOT number." A "casing" means a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading. As explained more fully below, casings for retreaded passenger car tires must have the DOT symbol, but casings for tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars (referred to as "truck tires" in this letter) are not required to have the DOT symbol.

At the outset, I note that Mr. Faulkner's letter stated that the "DOT number" on a tire indicates that the Federal excise tax has been paid. That statement is inaccurate. The "DOT number" on a tire only represents the manufacturer's or retreader's certification of compliance with this agency's standards and regulations. If Mr. Faulkner wants further information about Federal excise taxes on tires, he may wish to contact the Internal Revenue Service, since that agency administers the Federal excise taxes.

Mr. Faulkner is mixing two different types of markings when he refers to a "DOT number." The first type of marking is the symbol "DOT." This marking by a tire manufacturer or retreader on a tire is a certification that the tire complies with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Federal safety standards applicable to tires include Standard No. 109 for new passenger car tires, Standard No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires, and Standard No. 119 for new truck tires.

Standard No. 117 (the retreaded passenger car tire safety standard) includes a requirement that all passenger car tire casings to be retreaded must include the symbol "DOT." See S5.2.3(a). Therefore, it is illegal to sell or import into this country any passenger car tire casings that are not marked with the symbol "DOT." However, none of our Federal safety standards set forth requirements for retreaded truck tires. Since there is no standard for retreaded truck tires, there is no requirement that casings for retreaded truck tires be marked with the DOT symbol. I have enclosed a June 18, 1981 letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield that offers a more detailed discussion of this issue.

The second type of marking to which Mr. Faulkner referred was the tire identification number specified in Part 574. This number identifies the manufacturer or retreader of the tire, along with the date of manufacture or retread and other attributes of the tire. A tire identification number is not required on any casing: Standard No. 117 does not require this marking on passenger car casings, and as explained above, there is no Standard for casings for truck tires. Please note, however, that Part 574 requires all finished retreads, including retreaded truck tires, to be marked with the retreader's identification number.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Jamie McLaughlin Fish Director, Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosure Ref: 117#119 d:3/l3/9l

ID: 2868o

Mr. James P. Nolan, Jr.
President
Nolan and Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc.
5 Laurel Avenue
Northport, NY 11768

Dear Mr. Nolan:

This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1988, enclosing a letter you have received from the Department of Motor Vehicles, New York State, advising you that your l987 Cadillac hearse requires a center high-mounted stop lamp. You have asked for the specifications of such a lamp.

The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars. A passenger car is defined as a motor vehicle "designed for carrying l0 persons or less." A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is one "designed for carrying l0 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off road operation." A "truck" is defined as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The agency recognizes chassis constructed for commercial use, such as a hearse, as the equivalent of a truck chassis. The determination of vehicle category is initially that of the manufacturer or final stage assembler who certifies compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the category of vehicle selected. In our opinion, a hearse could be properly certified as a either a "multipurpose passenger vehicle," or a "truck."

In a conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on April 29, you informed us that the first six characters of the VIN of your hearse are "lGED09", and that its final stage assembler, Superior, had certified it as an "MPV" (multipurpose passenger vehicle). The "G" in the VIN identifies it, according to internal documents of the initial stage manufacturer, General Motors, as "Cadillac Incomplete Coaches" (meaning, it would appear, funeral coaches), and the "9" as "Cadillac Commercial Body/Chassis." This chassis does not form the basis of any passenger car completed by Cadillac. The letter from New York State states "The manufacturer claims that funeral cars are classified as multipurpose vehicles and do not require the lights." This is correct, as you have told us that Superior has classified it as an MPV, and certified its compliance to all standards applicable to that vehicle category. As the center high-mounted stop lamp standard is not one of those applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles, there is no Federal requirement that your hearse be equipped with such a lamp.

We appreciate your interest in safety, and trust that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08#571 d:5/4/88

ID: 2869o

Mrs. Patricia Bicking
1132 Chestnut Avenue
Woodbury Heights, NJ 08097

Dear Mrs. Bicking:

This is a response to your letter of last fall in which you asked a number of questions concerning seat-belts and large school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your correspondence, you enclosed a letter of January 19, 1984, from this Office to Thomas Built Buses, Inc., (Thomas), and the incoming letter from Thomas that was the basis of our interpretation.

Your first question references the January 1984 letter, and asks why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decided that when school bus manufacturers install seat-belts or seat-belt anchorages on large school buses (over 10,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR]), the manufacturers do not have to certify that the belts or anchorages meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards 208, 209, and 210.

The answer to this question is that NHTSA does not require a school bus manufacturer to install seat-belts on large school buses. Our regulations require a motor vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance to all applicable standards. You ask whether this decision still stands. The answer to that question is "yes" for the reason just stated. The agency does not require large buses to have seat-belts because the "compartmentalization" concept (to which you allude in your letter) supplies adequate protection for passengers in large school buses.

Let me give you some background information on our school bus regulations that I think will help address your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses to have passenger crash protection through "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include high seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

You also asked whether there have been any improvements in school bus seating compartments since 1977, and whether the improvements are mandatory. The answer to your question is that there have been no major changes in the school bus safety standards since they became effective in April, 1977. However, the agency continuously reviews school bus safety standards to assess whether it is appropriate to add or amend a requirement.

You may be interested to know that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces); the drivers' training and experience; and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contace Joan Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:222 d:5/4/88

ID: 2870o

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

Dear Ms. Bakker:

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

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

You posed the following questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

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

ID: 2871o

CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Alberto Negro Director Fiat Research & Development -- U.S.A. Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds both to your revised report, dated January 20, 1988, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 585, on behalf of Alfa Lancia Industriale S.p.A. (Alfa Romeo), covering compliance with the automatic restraint "phase-in" requirements during the 1987 production year, and to your February 4, 1988, letter to Stephen Wood, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Specifically, your question concerns whether Fiat may exclude automatic restraint-equipped convertibles from its determinations of annual production for the purpose of calculating the number of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraints requirements during the phase-in period.

Alfa Romeo, a subsidiary of Fiat, equipped some of its convertibles with automatic restraints during the 1987 model year, and Fiat counted those convertibles toward satisfying the requirement that 10 percent of 1987 production year cars be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated in your February 4 letter that you need clarification of whether Standard No. 208 permits you to exclude from your annual production calculations those convertibles that were equipped with automatic restraints and that were counted in determining whether the requisite percentage of production complied with the automatic restraint requirements. In other words, you wish to know whether Fiat may "count" Alfa Romeo convertibles equipped with automatic seat belts for the purpose of satisfying the 10% "phase-in" requirement for production year 1987, found at S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208, while excluding those same convertibles from the annual vehicle production calculations covering the 1987 production year.

The answer to your question is that Standard No. 208 does not allow Fiat to exclude from its annual production calculations any convertibles that comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in S4.1.2.1 of the standard. Section S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies the amount of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 shall be not less than 10 percent of either the manufacturer's average annual production between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, or the manufacturer's annual production between September 1, 1985, and August 31, 1986. Under these provisions, Fiat elected to use the average annual production from September 1, 1983, through August 31, 1986, for its 1987 production year report. The reference to production encompasses all passenger cars produced by the manufacturer during the relevant time period. Thus, absent an exception to S4.1.3.1.2, a manufacturer may not exclude any of its cars in determining either average annual production or annual production.

For the period of September 1, 1986, to August 31, 1987, section S4.1.3.1.3 of Standard No. 208 provides a single exception from the requirement to include all of a manufacturer's cars in determining annual production. Under that exception, a manufacturer has the following option in calculating annual production:

A manufacturer may exclude convertibles which do not comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1, when it is calculating its average annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(a) or its annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(b). (Emphasis added.)

The same single exception is set forth in section S4.1.3.2.3 for the September 1, 1987, to August 31, 1988 production year, and in section S4.1.3.3.3 for the September 1, 1988, to August 31, 1989 production year. This exception expressly permits manufacturers to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations. However, this language does not permit manufacturers to exclude convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations.

An old principle of legal interpretation is expressed in the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius"; literally, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Applying this principle to Standard No. 208, one would conclude that since the standard was drafted to provide one means of excluding convertibles from calculations of annual production, the standard does not allow any other means of excluding convertibles from those calculations. In other words, since the standard allows you to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 when calculating annual production, the absence of a similar provision for convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 means that complying convertibles cannot be excluded.

This interpretation does not raise any questions about the January 20 report's exclusion of all convertibles produced between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, since your letter states that none of those convertibles complied with S4.1.2.1. However, this interpretation does mean that Fiat cannot exclude the 803 Alfa Romeo convertibles it reported as complying with S4.1.2.1 when making its 1988 production year calculations, as required by S4.1.3.2, if Fiat again elects to base its calculations on the average annual production of passenger cars during the preceding three years, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(a). Similarly, if Fiat elects to base its calculations on the actual production between September 1, 1987, and August 31, 1988, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(b), Fiat cannot exclude convertibles that comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1.

In this letter, we have assumed that the Alfa Romeo convertibles that are equipped with automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint provisions of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. If this is not the case, then Fiat may not "count" those vehicles as complying with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208. See attached letter dated April 18, 1988 to Mr. Robert Munson of Ford Motor Company. Please notify Mr. George L. Parker, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, within 10 business days of your receipt of this letter, whether the Alfa Romeo automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208#585 d:5/9/88

ID: 2872o

Mr. Dan Moore
Engineer - Car Design
Busch Transportation Services
5901 State Route 15
Belleville, IL 62223

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning a step-van design. You indicated that you propose to attach a step-van to a truck chassis with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds, and sought information about applicable Federal requirements. Specifically, you asked which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to the finished step-van, what other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations would apply, and which of the safety standards require actual testing of a prototype. While I apologize for the delay in responding to your requests, I hope that the following information is useful to you.

First, by way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act specifies that it is the manufacturer itself that must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacturer. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not "approve" any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.

In certifying compliance with the safety standards, the manufacturer must do so consistent with the agency's definitions of motor vehicle types, found in 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. From the information in your letter, it appears that your vehicle would be classified as a truck. (Our regulations define "truck" as a "motor vehicle, with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.") I am enclosing with this letter a table which lists each standard that applies to each basic vehicle type. From this list you should be able to determine which safety standards apply to your vehicle. In addition, I am enclosing a fact sheet for new manufacturers, which describes all pertinent areas of regulation of motor vehicles, as well as a booklet for complying with regulations on importing motor vehicles. While you are not importing vehicles, the booklet does contain summary statements for each of the standards, which may be helpful to you.

You indicate that you will be attaching a step-van to a truck chassis, and thus request information concerning your responsibilities as a final stage manufacturer. The agency's requirements for final stage manufacturers are set forth in Parts 567 and 568 of the agency's regulations. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations. Briefly, these requirements can be explained as follows.

Under 568.6, a final stage manufacturer must complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for the applicable vehicle type (in this case we presume a truck) in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle (in this case, the chassis), and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture (in this case, the attachment of the body to the chassis). In addition, you must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with the certification requirements set forth in 567.5, Requirements For Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

To reduce the certification burdens on final stage manufacturers, NHTSA has imposed some regulatory requirements on incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Under 568.4, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer must list by number each standard that applies to its vehicle at the time of manufacture, and make one of the following three statements for each standard:

1. That the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components; 2. That if the vehicle is completed under specific conditions of final manufacture set out in the compliance document, it will conform to the standard; or 3. That conformity with the standards is not substantially affected by the incomplete vehicle design, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. (49 CFR 568.4(a)(7))

I would like to point out one circumstance that may affect your certification as final stage manufacturer and reliance on representations made by the incomplete manufacturer. It is possible that, in the course of your attaching the step-van to the truck chassis, you will change the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. If this occurs, you much certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at this new GVWR. Some of the standards which are likely to be affected by an increase in the GVWR are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

With regard to your question about actual field testing, the agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests, or any tests at all. Instead, we only require that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care, as specified in the Safety Act. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the safety standards.

I hope the information in this letter is useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567#568 d:5/l3/88