ID: 2677y

Mr. Stephen R. Darling
Presvac Systems (Burlington) Ltd.
4131 Morris Drive
Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7L 5L5

Dear Mr. Darling:

This responds to your inquiry about an amendment to 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations, requiring vehicle manufacturers to include information in the owner's manual (or on a one-page document if there is no owner's manual) about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Auto Safety Hotline and its defect investigation and remedy and recall authority. (54 FR 48745, November 27, 1989; copy enclosed). I apologize for the delay in our response.

You explained that you are involved in three types of activities: the manufacture of liquid cargo vessel trailers; the fabrication of liquid cargo tanks; and the installation of these tanks onto existing or modified truck chassis. While you acknowledged your obligation to furnish the consumer information for the trailers you manufacture, you were uncertain about your responsibilities to furnish this information for the liquid cargo tanks you fabricate and install. You asked whether you are required to supply the specified consumer information in these instances. Your questions are responded to below.

Section 575.6(a)(2)(i), as amended, provides that "At the time a motor vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the manufacturer shall provide to the purchaser" a specified statement about this agency's activities related to motor vehicle defects. Among other things, the specified statement indicates that if an owner believes the vehicle has a defect which could cause a crash or an injury or death, the owner should inform NHTSA in addition to notifying the manufacturer. The manufacturer's name must be indicated in the statement.

In responding to your questions, I note that section 575.6(a)(2)(i) applies to manufacturers of new motor vehicles. As a manufacturer of trailers, you are, of course, responsible for providing the specified consumer information to the first purchaser of such trailers (for purposes other than resale). On the other hand, in situations where you are not a vehicle manufacturer, e.g., where you may be installing tanks on used motor vehicles, the requirements would not apply.

Your letter also raises the issue of how section 575.6(a)(2)(i) applies in situations where there is more than one manufacturer of a motor vehicle, i.e., where vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages. While it is not clear from your letter, it is possible that you may be a final stage manufacturer under 49 CFR Part 568. (The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined in 49 CFR Part 568.3.)

As indicated above, section 575.6(a)(2)(i) specifies that, at the time a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, "the manufacturer" must provide specified consumer information to the purchaser. Since the regulation requires information to be provided at the time of first consumer sale, we construe it to require the manufacturer of the completed vehicle, i.e., the final stage manufacturer, to meet this requirement. As a general rule, the final stage manufacturer is the manufacturer that has the closest relationship to the dealer which sells the vehicle to the consumer. It is also the manufacturer that the consumer will typically contact first in the event of problems.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:568#575 d:l0/l/90

ID: 2678y

Mr. Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr.
Vice President, Public Affairs,
General Counsel and Secretary
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
P.O. Box 3951
Troy, MI 48007-3951

Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry inquiring about the status of Volkswagen's exemption from certain provisions relating to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. The Administrator has asked me to respond. Your letter requested NHTSA's position on the status of Volkswagen's exemption from the provisions of section 503(b)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C 1901 et seq.), and indicated that Volkswagen considers the exemption moot and terminated. As explained below, NHTSA considers the exemption terminated as of the beginning of model year (MY) 1989.

In 1981 (46 FR 54453, November 2, 1981), NHTSA granted Volkswagen's petition seeking an exemption from the general statutory provision that a manufacturer's domestically manufactured passenger automobiles and non-domestically manufactured passenger automobiles be placed in separate fleets for purposes of determining compliance with CAFE standards. Such an exemption is authorized under section 503(b)(3)(A) of the statute. The statute prohibits a manufacturer so exempted from earning CAFE credits during the period of the exemption.

At Volkswagen's request, NHTSA granted the exemption for the indefinite future, reserving the agency's right to reconsider its action if it appeared that the exemption was no longer consistent with the purposes of the Act.

Your letter indicates that Volkswagen terminated the production of "domestically manufactured" vehicles (i.e., vehicles whose domestic content exceeds 75 percent) on June 30, 1987, and that Volkswagen's U.S. production was terminated entirely effective July 14, 1988. You believe the exemption (including its prohibition on the accumulation of CAFE credits) should have ended on June 30, 1987, but in no event later than July 14, 1988. The primary legal issue raised by your letter is how exemptions can be terminated. Although the agency expects that exemptions will normally terminate only after affirmative agency action, automatic terminations are not precluded. However, we do not believe that an exemption terminates "automatically" merely because a manufacturer terminates its production of vehicles with more than 75 percent domestic content or halts all U.S. production. To conclude otherwise could create confusion and result in exemptions being terminated in instances in which the exempted manufacturer wanted its exemption to continue. The possibility of such problems may be seen in a number of circumstances, e.g., if a manufacturer temporarily halts U.S. production and then resumes it, or if it permits domestic content to fall below 75 percent temporarily and then raises it. We note that, in situations in which a manufacturer allows the percent domestic content to fall below 75 percent and continues to produce vehicles in the U.S. with that level of domestic content, it is likely to be relatively easy for the manufacturer to raise the level back above 75 percent.

There are circumstances in Volkswagen's case, however, that lead us to conclude its exemption terminated at the time Volkswagen's U.S. production terminated in its entirety (July 14, 1988). We believe it was evident at that time that Volkswagen was not merely halting U.S. production, but doing so with an intention to permanently abandon such production. We note, for example, that Volkswagen actively sought purchasers for its U.S. production facility in advance of its termination of U.S. production. While a manufacturer could change its mind after permanently abandoning U.S. production, resumption of U.S. production would be relatively difficult. Further, subsequent events, up to and including Volkswagen's February 1990 letter, have confirmed the appearances in 1988 of permanent termination of production.

While it would have been preferable for those appearances to have been confirmed essentially contemporaneously, we conclude that Volkswagen terminated U.S. production with an intention to permanently abandon it, and that its exemption became moot at that time. Since Volkswagen could receive no benefit from the exemption, and clearly had no intention of resuming U.S. production, I conclude that the exemption should be considered terminated effective with the beginning of the first model year following the company's cessation of U.S. production, i.e., MY 1989.

This decision is consistent with section 503(b)(3)(F) which provides that in any model year in which an exemption is effective, no credits may be earned. We interpret that section as requiring the bar to continue to the end of the model year in which the exemption terminated. Hence, the prohibition against earned credits is deemed to have ended with the beginning of the 1989 model year. I note that during MY 1989, Volkswagen accrued a CAFE credit excess of $28,798,575 for its passenger cars, and $56,310 for its light trucks. I hope you have found this information useful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:CSA d:l0/l/90

ID: 2679y

Mrs. Tonda Anderson
1134 Ross Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55106

Dear Mrs. Anderson:

Thank you for your letter asking for an explanation of the legal requirements that would apply to a product you would like to market. Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly disclose the details of this product. We hereby grant this request. Your letter, which contains the details of this product will not be made available to the public. As Steve Kratzke of my staff explained to you in a telephone conversation on September 19, all of our interpretation letters are available to the public. Thus, this letter will be publicly available. However, I will not discuss any specific features of your product in this letter.

Your letter indicated that your proposed product would alter the alignment of the shoulder belt to increase comfort for the person wearing the shoulder belt. This agency has discussed the legal requirements that might apply to devices that realign the shoulder belt in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. You should also note that your proposed product would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on such manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information or have some questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:208 d:l0/l/90

ID: 2700y

Mr. Don James
Contracts
Stone Bennett Corporation
l4l9 Upfield Drive
Carrollton, Texas 75006

Dear Mr. James:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l02, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standard's display identification requirements for automatic transmission vehicles without a gear shift lever park position. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. l02 sets forth the following display identification requirements for automatic transmission vehicles without a gear shift park position:

S3.l.4 Identification of shift lever positions. . . .

S3.l.4.2 Except as specified in S3.l.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence does not include a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position.

S3.l.4.3 Such information need not be displayed when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle. You asked about several similar designs for shift control consoles. In addition to including a mechanism for shifting the transmission (push buttons or toggle levers), the consoles incorporate a display which lists the particular gear position which has been selected, e.g., "R" for reverse. No other gear positions are shown. In at least some of the designs, the display is an electronic one. You asked about the "acceptability" of providing a label indicating the gear position sequence on the body of the shift control console, e.g., "1 2 D N R." Drawings provided with your letter indicate that the label would be provided directly adjacent to the gear position display.

As indicated above, section S3.l.4.2 requires identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, to be displayed in view of the driver. While your designs do identify the gear position selected, they do not, in the absence of an added label, identify the shift lever positions in relation to each other. The additional label would, however, provide such information.

Section S3.l.4.2 also requires that the specified information be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position (except when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle). The times when display is required includes situations in which the ignition is "off." Since your designs use electronic technology to identify the gear position selected, a vehicle equipped with your design might not meet this requirement, at least in the absence of a device which activates the display whenever a driver is present. It is our understanding that "permanent" display is not possible with electronic technology, due to battery drain. However, if the gear position display is turned off with the ignition (the most obvious means of avoiding battery drain), this requirement would not be met. This is because the display would not function when a driver is in the driver's seating position (before leaving the vehicle or upon entering the vehicle at a later time) while the ignition is "off."

As you are aware, NHTSA has proposed new requirements for the purpose of facilitating the use of electronic technology. See 55 FR l226, January l2, l990. If amendments are adopted based on that proposal, the analysis presented above could change.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l02 d:l0/l2/90

ID: 2701y

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson
Human Factors Engineer
Arcad
l2025 Tech Center Dr.
Livonia, MI 48l50

Dear Mr. Donaldson:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the requirements of sections S5.l and S5.3.3(a) in connection with an instrument panel illumination intensity control. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

As noted by your letter, section S5.l of Standard No. l0l reads as follows:

S5.l Location. Under the conditions of S6, each of the following controls that is furnished shall be operable by the driver, and each of the following displays that is furnished shall be visible to the driver. . . .

One of the controls listed under section S5.l is a hand-operated control for illumination intensity. Thus, under section S5.l, an instrument panel illumination intensity control is required to be in a location where it is operable by the driver.

You also noted that section S5.3.3(a) requires that "(m)earns shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions." You asked whether, under this section, an instrument panel illumination intensity control is required to be "visible to the driver." As discussed below, section S5.3.3(a) does not apply to an instrument panel illumination intensity control.

Section S5.3.3(a) is one of a number of sections which appear under the heading "Illumination." See section S5.3. Standard No. l0l does not require that all controls be illuminated. Section S5.3.l sets forth requirements concerning which controls must be illuminated. Section S5.3.3(a) then sets forth additional illumination requirements for the controls which must be illuminated and their identification (as well as for gauges and their identification).

In order to determine whether section S5.3.3(a) applies to a particular control, the first question is thus whether Standard No. l0l requires illumination for that control. As indicated above, this is covered in section S5.3.l. It provides that, with certain exceptions, the identification required by S5.2.l or S5.2.2 for any control listed in column l of Table l and accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. (Column 4 of Table l includes the heading "Illumination.") Thus, Standard No. l0l requires illumination only for those controls which are listed in Table l and have the word "yes" in the column for illumination.

Since an instrument panel illumination intensity control is not listed at all in Table l, no illumination is required by Standard No. l0l for that control. Given that section S5.3.3(a)'s additional illumination requirements only apply to controls which Standard No. l0l requires to be illuminated, and since no illumination is required for an instrument panel illumination intensity control, the section's requirements do not apply to that control.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l0l d:l0/l7/90

ID: 2702y

Mr. William D. Rogers
President
SportsCar America, Inc.
400 South Elliott Road
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

Dear Mr. Rogers:

We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCar America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below.

SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an "Exclusive Distribution Agreement" ("the Agreement") with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a prototype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards.

The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the "Manufacturer." Under Section l of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with "those modifications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation" of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CFR Part 567, the Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles.

Although you identify SportsCar America as the "distribution agent", we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale in the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition.

Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it would like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar figure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is available to the agency in its determination.

If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:555 d:l0/9/90

ID: 2703y

Mr. W. Marshall Rickert
Motor Vehicle Administrator
Maryland Department of Transportation
6601 Ritchie Highway
Glen Burnie, MD 21062

Dear Mr. Rickert:

Thank you for your letter seeking this agency's opinion as to whether the State of Maryland may amend its motor vehicle regulations to permit the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows, for individuals who may desire this for medical reasons. I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the legal principles that relate to your question.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperative" within the meaning of Standard 205.

This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides: A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unless the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the [Maryland Motor Vehicle] Administrator.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which aftermarket tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, although section 22-104 appears to preclude aftermarket tinting by any person if the result would be to reduce the level of light transmittance below 70 percent, Maryland may amend its rules or regulations to permit such tinting by individuals, for medical or any other reasons deemed valid by the State. However, Maryland has no authority to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of Maryland law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

In adopting Standard 205, NHTSA determined that a minimum light transmittance of 70 percent is necessary to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. This is the same level of light transmittance contained in the Safety Code of the American National Standards Institute. If, as your letter suggests, Maryland is considering permitting vehicle owners to modify their vehicles such that their windows will have a lower level of light transmittance, we would urge you to carefully consider the safety consequences of such an exemption.

Please let me know if you need any further information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:l0/l5/90

ID: 2704y

Ms. C. D. Black
Manager, Product Legislation and Compliance
Jaguar Cars Inc.
555 MacArthur Blvd.
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430-2327

Dear Ms. Black:

This concerns your July 23, 1990 petition requesting "reconsideration of an interpretation" of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114), as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). You requested that the agency consider interpreting the amendment to permit a mechanical override device that would allow shifting the transmission lever through the use of a separate tool, other than the key.

We note that while your petition requests an "interpretation," it appears to be seeking an amendment to the standard. Moreover, it appears that you consider your submission to be a petition for reconsideration. However, your petition was submitted to the agency after the June 30, 1990 deadline for submitting petitions for reconsideration. Under 49 CFR 553.35, NHTSA considers a late-filed petition for reconsideration as a petition filed under Part 552, i.e., as a petition for rulemaking. In the case of your petition, the agency received timely petitions for reconsideration which addressed the same issues. NHTSA therefore plans to address the issues raised by your petition at the same as we respond to those petitions.

In addition, in this letter, we will address your questions in the context of Standard No. ll4's current requirements, as amended in the May 30, l990 final rule. As discussed below, your proposed system would not appear to comply with the requirements of section S4.2, as amended.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 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 Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. 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. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000.

Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

"Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

You explained that you plan to equip your vehicles with an electrical interlock that allows the transmission shift lever to be moved by producing an electrical signal to disengage the interlock. In case of battery or electrical failure, the electrical interlock does not work and thus the transmission shift lever cannot be moved. Therefore, you plan to install a spring-activated mechanical emergency release that is activated by using a tool in one hand and simultaneously moving the transmission shift with the other hand. You believe that your system would adequately prevent against theft through the steering lock and "rollaway" accidents though the device just described, and there is no need to require the vehicle's key to activate the override.

We do not believe your suggested device would comply with Standard No. ll4, as amended. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. Assuming that the mechanical emergency release operates independent of the ignition key, it does not appear that the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. It is irrelevant that your emergency release could only be operable by using a tool and both hands, because this requirement would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:ll4 d:l0/l2/90

ID: 2705y

Mr. S. Kadoya
Manager
Safety and Technology
Mazda Research and Development
of North America, Inc.
l203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48l05

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This responds to your request for interpretations of several safety standards and the Bumper Standard, in connection with a planned "active" suspension system. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by this agency, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter, Mazda is concerned about the protocol of compliance testing of vehicles equipped with an active suspension system. This concern arises because many standards do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance testing. As you noted, this has not been a concern for conventional suspension systems, since they do not provide for variable height.

Mazda's planned active suspension system would be actuated by hydraulic fluid or compressed air, with control pressure being developed by a hydraulic pump or air compressor driven off the engine. Consequently, the active suspension system would be operational only when the vehicle's engine is operating. At vehicle speeds in excess of "z" mph, where z is greater than 35 mph, the suspension height would be lowered by "x" mm from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation. If the engine/vehicle were not used for several consecutive days, pressure in the control system would fall such that the supension height may be lowered from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation by "y" mm, where y is greater than x. The suspension height would return to the nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine.

Before discussing your specific questions, I would like to discuss more generally the issue of how compliance is determined in situations where a standard does not specify a particular test condition. In issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA attempts to specify all relevant test conditions. The agency does this as part of ensuring that its standards are objective and practicable. As a practical matter, however, it is not possible to specify every conceivable test condition. This is particularly true for ones which may only be relevant to as-yet-undeveloped technologies.

In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does not specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. Even if a standard is silent as to a particular test condition, the language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation. For example, in a situation where it may appear to be reasonable to limit a particular test condition but it is not obvious what particular limitation should be adopted, it would be inappropriate to select a particular limitation by interpretation. Instead, such a decision should be reached in rulemaking.

I will now address the specific questions asked in your letter.

Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

In asking about Standard No. l08, you stated the following:

NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. l08; at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February l2, l985, with respect to active suspension equipped vehicles. This interpretation stated that the requirements of FMVSS l08 must be meet (sic),"...at any time in which..." lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be,"...operated for its intended purpose." Consequently, headlamps, tailamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, must comply with the location requirements of FMVSS No. l08 whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" postiion. Conversely, reflex reflectors, and turn signal lamps that also function as hazard warning signal flashers must comply with the location requirements when the vehicle's ignition is in either the "on" or "off" position. However, it is Mazda's interpretation that hazard warning flashers are not intended to be operational for a period of days, but rather for a period of hours, at maximum, only.

You then asked two questions, (l) whether Mazda's understanding of the subject NHTSA interpretation is accurate, and (2) whether Mazda's interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers is correct.

I note that the February l985 interpretation was written in the context of a vehicle with a variable height system actuated by hydraulic fluid. In that particular system, the hydraulic pressure relaxed over a period of about three hours after the ignition was turned off, with the result that the vehicle assumed a lower height than it would have during driving. NHTSA stated the following:

We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height requirement would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height.

With respect to your question of whether Mazda's understanding of the interpretation is correct, I would like to note two points. First, while you state that "the requirements of FMVSS l08" must be met at any time in which lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be operated for their intended purpose, our interpretation was limited to standard's minimum height requirement. While we are prepared, if asked, to address other requirements, our interpretations should be understood to be limited to their specific facts and conclusions. Second, while our interpretation only addressed headlamps and hazard warning signal lamps, you applied the interpretation for headlamps to taillamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, and the interpretation for hazard warning signal lamps to reflex reflectors. We concur with this application, with respect to Standard No. l08's minimum height requirement.

We do not agree with Mazda's suggested interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers. You would apparently like us to conclude that Standard No. l08's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers does not apply after a vehicle's ignition has been turned off for a matter of days.

In addressing how Standard No. l08 applies in the absence of a specification for vehicle height, our February l985 interpretation differentiates between situations where the vehicle is operating and where it is not. Looking at the purposes of the requirements in question, we believe it is obvious that the minimum height requirement for headlamps is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating, while the minimum height for hazard warning signal lamps is also relevant to situations where the vehicle is stopped and the ignition turned off. However, we believe that any determination that Standard No. l08's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers should not apply after a specified number of hours after the ignition has been turned off is one that would need to be addressed in rulemaking.

It is therefore my opinion that the minimum mounting height of hazard warning signal lamps must be met at all heights with the ignition off, even if the system requires days to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height. If you believe that a time limitation should be placed on this requirement, I note that you can submit a petition for rulemaking requesting such a change.

Standard No. lll, Rearview Mirrors

You requested an interpretation of section S5.l.l of Standard No. lll, which generally requires a passenger car's rearview mirror to "provide a field of view with an included horizontal angle measured from the projected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and sufficient angle to provide a view of level road surface extending to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle...." You noted that since the specified procedures for determining the location of the driver's eye reference points are made referenced to points with the vehicle's cabin, your active suspension system would not affect these measurements. However, different vehicle heights would be relevant to whether there is a view of level road surface extending to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle. You stated that, based on "intended purpose," Mazda's interpretation of Standard No. lll is that the requirements of this standard are to be met when the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position as rearview mirrors are not intended to be used when the vehicle's engine is not operating.

You then asked two questions, (l) whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. lll with respect to the state of the vehicle's ignition switch is correct, and (2) for the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. lll, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA.

We agree that the field of view requirement specified in S5.l.l for rearview mirrors need not be met for vehicle heights that only occur when the engine is not on, since the requirement is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating. However, the requirement would need to be at all vehicle heights that occur during vehicle operation, under the loading conditions specified in S5.l.l.

With respect to the issue of how suspension height should be maintained for purposes of compliance testing, you note early in your letter that, for reasons of practicality and safety, a vehicle's engine is not actually operational during compliance testing. However, since the active suspension system derives its power from the vehicle's engine, the system's ability to maintain and regulate suspension height is only possible during engine operation. You therefore indicated that Mazda is seeking guidelines (for several standards) by which Mazda may be able to establish a means to maintain the intended suspension height for compliance testing purposes in the absence of engine operation.

We are not able, in an interpretation, to specify a particular means for maintaining suspension height for compliance testing in the absence of engine operation. However, the basic principle that should be followed in selecting a means for maintaining suspension height is that it should not result in different test results than would occur if testing could be conducted with suspension height being maintained by engine operation, i.e., what would happen in the real world. This should be relatively straightforward for section S5.l.l of Standard No. lll, since the test is static. For a crash test, it is important that a vehicle not be altered in any way that would change the vehicle's crash performance relevant to the aspect of performance being tested.

Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement

In asking about Standard No. 204, you stated the following:

Section S4 of this standard specifies the compliance parameter for this standard. Section S5 specifies the testing conditions to determine compliance with this standard. Section S5.l specifies that the vehicle be loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight. Section S5.5 specifies that the vehicles fuel tank be filled with Stoddard solvent to any capacity between 90 and 95 percent of the total capacity of the tank. Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of this standard is that they are to be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" position only. Furthermore, Mazda interprets the vehicles suspension height pursuant to S5.l and S5.5 to be the intended suspension height for the vehicle given the conditions of S4, i.e., 30 mph vehicle speed and steered wheels are positioned straight ahead.

You then asked whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 are correct. As discussed below, we agree that Standard No. 204's requirements need to be met only at the suspension height that occurs at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead.

Standard No. 204 specifies requirements limiting the rearward displacement of the steering control into the passenger compartment to reduce the likelihood of chest, neck, or head injury. These requirements must be met in a 30 mile per hour perpendicular impact into a fixed collision barrier. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions, it does not specify suspension height.

Looking at the Standard No. 204 as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA explicitly decided to limit the standard's evaluation of steering control rearward displacement to how vehicles perform in 30 mph perpendicular impacts, even though the requirements have relevance at lower and higher speeds. Therefore, we agree that the standard's requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that occur at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead.

With respect to Mazda's question concerning means of maintaining intended suspension height for compliance testing, please see our discussion provided with respect to Standard No. lll.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

In asking about Standard No. 208, you stated the following:

Section S8.l.l(d), "Vehicle test attitude," specifies the procedure for determining the vehicle test attitude that is to be used for testing. Specifically, this section requires that the vehicle's pretest attitude, "...shall be equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded attitude or between the as delivered and fully loaded attitude." The as delivered attitude is defined by S8.l.l(d) as being, "...the distance between a level surface and a standard reference point on the test vehicle's body, directly above each wheel opening, when the vehicle is in its "as delivered" condition. The "as delivered" condition is the vehicle as received at the test site..." Because it is highly likely that the test vehicle will not have been operated for a period of days prior to arriving at the test site, the suspension height may have fallen by "y" mm. The fully loaded attitude is defined as the attitude of the vehicle when loaded in accordance with S8.l.l(a) or (b) and a determination of the height of the suspension at the fully loaded condition is made from the same level surface, using the same standard reference points, as were used to determine the "as delivered" condition. The definition of the "as delivered" condition is quite clear. However, Mazda interprets the "fully loaded condition" of the vehicle to be the condition when the vehicle's ignition is "on." In this instance it is likely that the height of the standard reference points on the vehicles body when in the "fully loaded condition" relative to the level surface will be greater than for the "as delivered" condition. Conversely, conventional vehicle suspension systems will likely have an "as delivered" height greater than the "full loaded" height. However, this fact is of no importance as S8.l.l(d) states that the pretest vehicle attitude may be, "...between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude." With respect to the injury criteria specified by section S6 of this standard, Mazda's interpretation is that these criteria must be met with the vehicle's ignition in the "on" position only.

You then asked three questions, (l) whether Mazda's interpretation of the definition of the "fully loaded condition" is correct with respect to the condition of the ignition switch, (2) whether Mazda's interpretation of the irrelevance of the relative relationship between the "as delivered" and "fully loaded" conditions is correct, and (3) whether Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of "between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude" is correct.

In addressing your questions, I will begin by noting that Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements which must be met in specified crash tests at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions, it does not specify suspension height. However, the standard does specify vehicle attitude, which is closely related to suspension height. In addressing how Standard No. 208 applies in the absence of a specification for vehicle height, the relationship between the standard's attitude specification and vehicle height must be considered.

Section S8.l.l(d) specifies the attitude of the vehicle during testing, i.e., the angle of the vehicle relative to the ground. This test condition ensures that the vehicle is not overly tilted toward the front or back, or to one side. The section accomplishes this purpose by specifying that, during a compliance test, the height of the vehicle at each wheel is within a specified range. This range, which may be somewhat different for each wheel, is determined by looking at the vehicle in the "as delivered" condition and the "fully loaded" condition. A vehicle must meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 when its height at each wheel is anywhere within the specified ranges.

On first glance, one might read section S8.l.l(d) to create a height requirement, since ranges of height are determined under that section (at each wheel). This would be incorrect, except in a very narrow sense, since Standard No. 208 does not specify, for vehicles with variable height suspension systems, what suspension height should be used in the two conditions ("as delivered" and "fully loaded") where the specified ranges of height are determined under section S8.l.l(d).

Looking at the Standard No. 208 as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA explicitly decided to limit the standard's evaluation of occupant crash protection in frontal impacts to how vehicles perform in impacts of 30 mph or less, even though the requirements also have relevance at higher speeds. It is our interpretation that the frontal crash test requirements need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at speeds of 30 mph or less, with the vehicle operational. It is also our interpretation that the crash test requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test.

A remaining issue is how section S8.l.l(d) applies for vehicles with variable height suspension systems. As discussed below, vehicle attitude should be determined under this section using the actual suspension setting (or equivalent, if the setting is automatic) to be used in a crash test.

For purposes of illustration, I will assume a vehicle with two very different suspension height settings. It would not be appropriate to conclude that the ranges of height determined under section S8.l.l(d) should simultaneously cover both suspension heights. Such ranges would be very large, and would not ensure that the vehicle is not overly tilted toward the front or back, or to one side. Moreover, such ranges would not be relevant to the real world, with respect to vehicle attitude.

Traditional vehicles can be viewed as having a single suspension "setting." This single suspension condition is used in determining vehicle attitude under section S5.8.8.l. The ranges of height result from the differences in loading under the "as delivered" and "fully loaded" conditions.

A single suspension "setting" (or equivalent, if the setting is automatic) should similarly be used in determining vehicle attitude for vehicles with variable height suspension systems. The "setting" should be the one to be used in a crash test.

With respect to Mazda's question concerning means of maintaining intended suspension height for compliance testing, please see our discussion provided with respect to Standard No. lll.

You also asked for an interpretation of section S8.2.7 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies additional conditions to be used for lateral moving barrier crash testing. Section S8.2.7(a) states that the vehicle is at rest in its "normal attitude." You stated that Mazda interprets the meaning of "normal attitude" to be that vehicle attitude which is intended when the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition, with the vehicle loaded pursuant to S8.l.l(a) or (b), and while the vehicle is at rest.

Standard No. 208 provides manufacturers the option of either equipping their vehicles with safety belts or meeting certain alternative requirements, including lateral moving barrier crash test requirements. These requirements are relevant at all vehicle heights that can occur during vehicle operation, regardless of speed. Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the standard's evaluation of this aspect of safety performance to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that the lateral moving barrier crash test requirements, if applicable, must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational. "Normal attitude" is the attitude determined under section S8.l.l(d). As discussed above, attitude for vehicles equipped with variable height suspension systems is determined under section S8.l.l(d) using the actual suspension setting (or equivalent, if the setting is automatic) to be used in a crash test. Standards No. 2l2, Windshield Mounting; No. 2l9, Windshield Zone Intrusion; No. 30l, Fuel System Integrity

In asking about Standards No. 2l2, No. 2l9, and No. 30l, you noted that NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation to Mazda about how these standards apply to adjustable height suspension systems. In a letter dated August l0, l982, the agency addressed a vehicle equipped with a suspension system having two height positions, one for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving, which could be selected by the driver. NHTSA stated the following:

[Safety Standards No. 2l2, No. 2l9, and No. 30l] do not specify a height adjustment because almost all vehicles have a single, set adjustment. . . . After careful consideration, it is the agency's position that such a vehicle capable of variable height adjustment would have to comply with the vehicle adjusted to any position that is possible. This is true because the vehicle could be driven on the highway, for example, even if it were adjusted to the off-road position. Consequently, it is important that the vehicle comply with the standards in all positions.

You noted that while suspension height could be adjusted by the driver for the system discussed in the agency's previous interpretation, the active suspension system you are currently considering would use an on-board electronic controller to select suspension height, and suspension height would not be adjustable by the driver. Consequently, according to your letter, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehicle speed and loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. You stated that because it is possible to determine exactly what the intended suspension height should be for a given situation, it is Mazda's opinion that the test vehicle should be tested at the intended suspension height given the specified speed and loading conditions. You also stated that, using an "intended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of the three standards are to be met only when the vehicle's ignition is "on." You then asked whether these suggested interpretations are correct.

Standard No. 2l2 specifies windshield retention requirements that must be met in a specified frontal crash test at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Similarly, Standard No. 2l9 specifies windshield zone intrusion requirements that must be met in a specified frontal crash test at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Standard No. 30l specifies fuel system integrity requirements for several specified crash tests. These include a frontal crash test similar to those in Standards No. 2l2 and No. 2l9. Requirements for this test must be met at any impact speed up to and including 30 mph. Other tests include a rear moving barrier crash test, a lateral moving barrier crash test, and a static rollover test.

We agree that the requirements of Standards No. 2l2, No. 2l9, and No. 30l need not be met for vehicle heights that only occur when the engine is not on, since the requirements are only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating. Looking at the three standards as a whole, we believe it is clear that, for the frontal tests specified by the three standards, NHTSA decided to limit the standards' evaluation of safety performance to how vehicles perform in impacts of 30 mph or less, even though the requirements have relevance at higher speeds. It is our interpretation that the frontal crash test requirements specified by these standards need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at speeds of 30 mph or less, with the vehicle operational. It is also our interpretation that the crash test requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test.

We reach a different conclusion for Standard No. 30l's other crash test requirements. These requirements are relevant at all vehicle speeds and suspension heights. Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the standard's evaluation of these aspects of safety performance to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that these crash test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational.

Part 58l Bumper Standard

In asking about the Part 58l Bumper Standard, you noted that NHTSA has previously issued several interpretations of how the standard applies to vehicles with adjustable height suspension systems. In a letter to Subaru dated May 6, l986, NHTSA stated the following:

Given the absence of a specific test condition concerning suspension height, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted. There is no language in the test requirements of the standard limiting their applicability to "the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position."

This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Bumper Standard, set forth in section 58l.2, to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed collisions. If a vehicle's suspension could be adjusted so that its bumper height resulted in bumper mismatch with other vehicles in the event of low speed collisions, the reduction in physical damage attributable to the Bumper Standard would be defeated in whole or part.

In another letter, dated February l2, l985, NHTSA stated that a vehicle is "required to meet the pendulum test of Part 58l in any vehicle use scenario in which the vehicle operates, and the barrier test of Part 58l when the engine is idling."

You suggested, for the barrier test, that the agency's May l986 interpretation may be inappropriate for your active suspension system, since your system provides for only one suspension height when the engine is idling. You also suggested, for the pendulum test, that these interpretations seem to be in conflict with the Bumper Standard's stated purpose to reduce physical damage to motor vehicles in low speed collisions. We assume that you are referring to the fact that your suspension system has heights that occur only at speeds greater than 35 mph. You then requested that NHTSA provide an interpretation of Part 58l with respect to your system.

In addressing how Part 58l applies to vehicles equipped with an active suspension system, I will address separately the standard's barrier and pendulum tests. For the barrier test, a vehicle must meet specified damage criteria after an impact into a fixed barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, at 2.5 mph. Section 58l.6 sets forth conditions applicable to bumper testing. Under section 58l.6(c), at the onset of a barrier impact, the vehicle's engine is operating at idling speed.

Looking at the Bumper Standard as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA decided to limit the barrier test's evaluation of bumper performance to how vehicles perform in 2.5 mph frontal impacts, even though the requirements have relevance at lower and higher speeds and when the vehicle is nonoperational. It is our interpretation that the barrier test requirements specified by this standard need to be met at all suspension heights that can occur at 2.5 mph.

We reach a different conclusion for the pendulum test, which serves the purpose of creating a bumper height requirement. This requirement is relevant at all vehicle speeds and suspension heights, and when the vehicle is nonoperational. I note that while Mazda is correct that the Bumper Standard's stated purpose is to reduce physical damage to motor vehicles in low speed collisions, NHTSA has justified the bumper height requirement on safety concerns related to "higher speed collisions." In proposing Standard No. 2l5, the predecessor of Part 58l, the agency stated:

. . . in higher speed collisions the tendency of a bumper to override another or to ride under or over a guardrail creates hazards for vehicle occupants. Vehicles with interlocking bumpers block traffic and expose their occupants to considerable danger, particularly if they attempt to get out to unlock bumpers. By overriding or underriding a guardrail, a bumper may strike a supporting post, or similar fixed object, with serious consequences for the vehicle and its occupants. 35 FR l7999, November 24, l970.

The relevance of the bumper height requirement to nonoperational situations is also clear, e.g., to help protect parked cars.

Moreover, NHTSA has not decided to limit the bumper height requirement to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds. It is our interpretation that the pendulum test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur, regardless of vehicle speed or whether the ignition is turned on.

This interpretation is consistent with an October l8, l978 letter to Nissan, in which NHTSA addressed how the pendulum test applies to vehicles equipped with height control systems, including automatic height control systems. Among other things, the agency stated the following:

. . . There is no language in the pendulum test requirements of the standard which would limit their applicability to only the ignition-on or ignition-off situation or to the recommended driving position for normal roadways. The vehicle must be capable of meeting the pendulum test requirements at all stable bumper heights possible at unloaded vehicle weight.

Thus, in the situations described in Question l and 2 of your letter, in which an automatic height control system is employed, the vehicle must comply with the pendulum test requirements in both the ignition-on and ignition-off positions . . . .

I note that one of our past letters, a December 24, l984 letter addressed to Porsche, appears to suggest that the pendulum test must be met in any setting in which the system operates "when the engine is idling." This might be read to suggest that the pendulum test need not be met when the vehicle is nonoperational. However, this interpretation cited section 58l.6(c) in concluding that the engine is idling during Part 58l testing. Section 58l.6(c) applies only to the barrier test and not the pendulum test. We therefore consider this interpretation to be incorrect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the analysis presented above.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08#lll#204#208#2l2#2l9#30l#58l d:l0/2/90

ID: 2706y

Mr. Dennis T. Johnston
Senior Executive Engineer
Product Engineering and
Regulatory Affairs
Sterling Motor Cars
8953 N.W. 23rd Street
Miami, Florida 33172

Dear Mr. Johnston:

This responds to your letter reporting a change in the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that therefore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332).

In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the trunk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understanding that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated.

After reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

If Sterling does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Sterling notify the agency of such decisions.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:543 d:l0/5/90