Interpretation ID: aiam3159
Jr.
Director of Legal Compliance/Design
Cars & Concepts
Inc.
12500 E. Grand River
Brighton
MI 48116;
Dear Mr. Pare: In your letter of October 29, 1979, you commented on Mr. Taylo Vinson's opinion, expressed to you a week earlier, that the scope of the agency to grant exemptions under the Cost Savings Act is narrower than that which exists under the Traffic Safety Act. Your interpretation of the Cost Savings Act is that the authority is broader because the exemption can be based upon the fact that compliance with the bumper standard would 'unreasonably interfere with the special use of such vehicle' while the Traffic Safety Act set forth 'very exact' criteria for the granting of an exemption. You have asked for a further explanation.; To begin with, the exemption scheme varies greatly between the tw statutes. Under the Traffic Safety Act, exemptions are 'temporary' in nature, with the anticipation that at the end of the exemption period, three years at the most, the condition giving rise to the need for an exemption will have passed and the vehicle will comply. Four bases for application are provided. On the other hand, the Cost Savings Act appears to me narrower in scope though broader in effect (which may be what you had in mind). Since 'special use' refers directly to the functional characteristics of a vehicle, the manufacturer's need for an exemption will be 'permanent' as long as the configuration involved is required for the vehicle's 'special use.' Therefore, the Secretary, '*in promulgating any bumper standard*' (Sec. 102(c)(1)(B), emphasis supplied) is authorized to exempt special- use vehicles if compliance would interfere with the special use. I interpret this as meaning the standard itself would have to be amended to exclude a vehicle permanently from its applicability rather than an exemption granted as it is under the Traffic Safety Act. The concept that the exemption or exclusion from applicability of the bumper standard is permanent is also reflected in the provisions of the Cost Act regarding importation of non-complying used vehicles. The Traffic Safety Act authorizes the Secretary to permit 'temporary importation' (Sec. 108(B)(4)) while the Cost Savings Act does not modify the noun 'importation' (Sec. 106(b)(4)), indicating that vehicles may be admitted without the necessity of conformance.; While neither the Cost Savings Act nor NHTSA has defined 'special use, the statute is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: that it be manufactured for a special use, and that compliance would unreasonably interfere with that use. An example that I cite is a vehicle with a front power take-off (a special use) on which a full bumper might unreasonably interfere with that function. It is clear to us that passenger cars, exotic cars (such as the Lamborghini Countach), and replicars (such as the Model A) are not special use vehicles. Indeed, no manufacturer wishing an exemption from the bumper standard has tried to convince us to the contrary. Now I hope you understand our opinion that exemptions are more difficult to obtain under the Cost Savings Act than under the Traffic Safety Act.; Your impression that the Lamborghini Countach as been granted a exemption from the bumper standard in 1978 is indeed erroneous. The car was granted an exemption from the safety bumper standard No. 215, in 1975, to expire on November 1, 1978. But early in 1978 we notified it (and three other manufacturers whose exemptions from Standard No. 215 were stated to expire on October 1 and November 1, 1978) that Standard No. 215 was revoked effective September 1, 1978, and its exemption would expire on that date, and that we had no authority to provide it with an exemption under the Cost Savings Act.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel