Interpretation ID: 3109yy
Deputy General Manager
Regulation Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108
Dear Mr. Lee:
This responds to your letter of June 17, 1991 concerning an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that Hyundai would like to have the following percentage of its passenger cars meet the dynamic performance requirements of the standard in each applicable year:
1994 model year -- 20 percent 1995 model year -- 20 percent 1996 model year -- 50 percent 1997 model year -- 100 percent
You ask whether this compliance schedule is acceptable.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the requirements of Standard No. 214. The new dynamic test requirements of Standard No. 214 are phased in over a three-year period, beginning on September 1, 1993. The October 30, 1990 final rule established two alternative compliance schedules. Each manufacturer must comply with either alternative, at its discretion. Under the first schedule, each manufacturer will have to meet the new side impact performance requirements based on the following phase-in schedule:
10 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l993;
25 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l994;
40 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l995; and
All automobiles it manufactures on or after September l, l996. To accommodate variation in the numbers of vehicles manufactured each year, the standard also permits these percentages to be applied to a three-year average annual production rather than to a single year's production. See section S8 of Standard No. 214.
Under the second schedule, no compliance will be required during the production year beginning September 1, l993, but full implementation will be required effective September 1, l994.
The compliance schedule you suggest would not appear to comply with either alternative. Since your suggested schedule does not achieve full implementation until the 1997 model year, it clearly does not comply with the second schedule. Under the first schedule, for passenger cars manufactured between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995, the number of passenger cars complying with the dynamic performance requirements must not be less than 25 percent of (a) the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September l, l99l, and before September l, l994, by each manufacturer, or (b) the manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995. See sections S3(c) and S8.2 of Standard No. 214. However, under the compliance schedule you suggest, only 20 percent of Hyundai's vehicles would meet the requirements during the 1995 model year. (I assume that, by 1995 model year, you mean the period from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995. The rule refers to time periods, rather than to model years.)
The agency has received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule requesting that the agency allow use of "carry-forward credits" during the phase-in of the dynamic test requirements. Such an approach could allow a compliance schedule like the one you suggested. The agency response to the petition will address the issue raised in your letter. The agency response is expected to be published in the Federal Register later this summer.
Please review the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration when it is published. If you believe that you need further clarification, please contact us again.
I hope that this information has been useful. If there are any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.
Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref#: Std. 214 d:7/23/9l