ID: nht87-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter Cameron-Nott

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott 90 Horace Street Startford, CT 06497

Dear Mr. Cameron-Nott:

This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1986, with respect to kit cars.

Your first question concerns a 1965 Jaguar that has been rebodied but carries its original mechanical components, title, and identification number. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require conformance with the Federal motor vehi cle safety standards applicable to passenger cars if the passenger car to be imported into the United States was manufactured before January 1, 1968. However, certain of these standards cover vehicle components, and if the relevant components have been m anufactured on or after January 1, 1968, these components would be subject to the applicable Federal safety standard. These components include brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, retreaded tires, glazing materials (most importantly, the windshield mu st be marked AS-1), seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers (which may not incorporate winged projections). Although the 1965 Jaguar would have a new body, by retaining its original mechanical components, title, and identification number, it would be cons idered a 1965 model and not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars. But if any of the equipment listed above has been manufactured after January 1, 1968, those items must comply in order to be imported into thi s country.

You have asked how the situation would differ were the rebodied Jaguar a 1972 model, the other facts being identical. We would consider this car " a 1972 model, and required to conform to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied on the dat e of its original manufacture. Conformity could be achieved either before or after its importation into this country.

Your second question concerns "a kit car consisting of both new and used components i.e. new body/chassis and used mechanicals from various sources including Ford/Triumph and M.G." You have reported EPA's position that the year of the engine determines what standards are to be met, and you have asked if these are also DOT's requirements. The age of the engine is not the determining factor with us. Generally, the agency considers a kit car consisting of a new body and new chassis to be a new motor vehicle, and required to meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new passenger cars as of the date of its assembly, even if some of its mechanical components have been used previously . This means that such components must not prevent the assembled vehicle from meeting those standards.

If you have further questions we would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel 12/7/86 N.H.T.S.A. 400 7th St S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I recently spoke to Mr. John Donaldson at D.O.T and he recommended that I write to you concerning importation of rebodied and kit vehicles. There are some points upon which I would request further clarification.

I wish to import the following vehicles:

#1 1965 Jaguar that has been rebodied but still using original mechanical components. i.e. new body and original Jaguar mechanicals including suspension, steering, brakes, transmission etc.

The chassis carries the original 1965 Jaguar I.D. # and is titled accordingly i.e. 1965 Jaguar two seat convertible and 1965 I.D. #.

In addition what standards are applicable if the rebodied vehicle is for example a 1972 Jaguar and titled as such?

#2 A kit car consisting of both new and used components i.e. new body/chassis and used mechanicals from various sources including Ford/Triumph and M.G.

E.P.A. has informed me that in these cars the rebodied 65 jaguar is exempted because it was originally manufactured prior to 1968 but the 1972 Jaguar must be certified to 1972 standards. And for the kit car the year of the engine in the vehicle determine s what standards must be met. Are these also the requirements of D.O.T.?

Your clarification of these points would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely Yours,

Peter Cameron-Nott

ID: nht87-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/21/87

FROM: S. L. LEPOSKY -- EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CO

TO: DISTRIBUTORS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/11/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BETH WHITMAN; REDBOOK A31, STANDARD 110, 120; SAAR; STEELHAMMERS 2J; SA 29AR STEELHAMMERS 2J; UNDATED LETTER FROM SL LEPOSKY TO ALL DISTRIBUTORS AND SALESMEN RE NON USE OF DUCK BILLED STEE L TIRE HAMMERS; LETTER DATED 07/09/87 FROM LEO CAREY TO BETH WHITMAN

TEXT: Dear Distributor:

Attached, please find new catalog material on our "Combi Truck & Farm Tire Bead Breaker. Please note that the catalog sheet serves two purposes.

1. The front side gives all pertinent information regarding the "Combi" bead breaker and refers the buyer to the other side.

2. The back of the catalog supports the OSHA regulation outlining the DO'S AND DON'TS of truck tire changing.

We suggest you use the catalog sheet in discussing the NON-USE of steel duck bill hammers when changing truck and farm tires with your salespeople. The OSHA regulation is being enforced and it's only a matter of time until the dealers and users will hav e to change. CHANGE THEM OVER TO A "COMBI".

The second piece of promotional material enclosed is the yellow #10 size statement and invoice stuffer for your use. All you need do is fill out the attached form and we'll do the rest. You put your dealer imprint onto the stuffer along with YOUR se lling price and mail it out. Suggested retail on the HAP-1 "Combi" is $ 898.00 for the head and pump complete.

We will be showing and demonstrating the "Combi" bead breaker as well as some new air hydraulic tire changing tools at the upcoming A.R.A. Show in Louisville, Kentucky on April 10, 11, and 12th, 1987. Please don't wait till then to start promoting t he tool. Do that now and reap the benefits by April and May. We are also scheduled to show at several large trucking shows and the NTDRA Show in Dallas, Texas. If you have a local or regional trade show that you attend, we'll work with you. We'll pro vide no charge demo's, catalog material and special signs along with "SPECIAL SHOW PRICES".

We are presently working on a bead breaker comparison and explantion sheet outlining all known bead breaking tools in the industry. This will include truck, farm, and giant tire. We're sure you will find it most informative.

ID: nht87-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allen R. Tank

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Allen R. Tank President Minikin 606 NE Lincoln Avenue St. Cloud, MN 56301

Dear Mr. Tank:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1986, with respect to the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether a vehicle with two wheels at the front, and one at the rear with two tires mounted on it, would still be regarded as a motorcycle.

The definition of a motorcycle is "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." This is technically inaccurate in part because wheels do not contact the ground. I believe that the drafter of the definition meant to say "tires" rather than "wheels." Thus the configuration about which you have asked is one in which four tires contact the ground, and we therefore conclude that such a vehi cle would not be regarded as a motorcycle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I have communicated with George Shifflett in the Department regarding our three wheel vehicle. According to your standards, we are governed by the laws specifically addressed to motorcycles. The question was raised, if the three wheel vehicle had two whe els in the front with one in the rear, the rear rim having two tires mounted on it, would it still be regarded as a motorcycle.. I have enclosed three photos that will visually explain our proposed application.

I would appreciate your opinion on the additional tire effect on our motorcycle classification.

Sincerely,

Allen R. Tank President

cc: George Shifflett

ID: nht87-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/87

FROM: GLENN M. MAKI -- COUNTY OF BARAGA BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS L'ANSE, MICHIGAN

TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD, DATED 5/16/89, REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 4/3/89 FROM THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD OF AGAPE PLASTICS TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL ON FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARD NO 108 -- HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS FOR VEHICLES DRIVEN IN WINTER WEATHER; LETTER FROM KENNETH R. HAMMERBERG, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS TO TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, UNDATED; LETTER DATED 4/2/87 FROM PRINCIPAL ARVON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL TO TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; LETTER DAT ED 3/2/88 FROM RONALD R. MITCHELL SUPERINTENDANT, MORAN TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS TO VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT LENS CO; BROCHURE, UNDATED, OF VAN STRATEN COMPANY ON HEATED SAFETY LIGHT

TEXT: Throughout the years the road commissions have had a safety problem associated with their snow removal and ice control equipment. This same problem exists, to some degree, with all vehicles traveling the roads during the winter season. When the vehicles are plowing snow the problem is compounded due to the snow being caught-up in the wind turbulence caused by the vehicle and attached equipment.

The problem is -- snow and ice build-up on the warning, directional and flood lights at the rear of the vehicle. This obscures the lights, sometimes totally, making it difficult for any vehicles following behind to see the vehicle ahead or see the st op or turn signals when they are used.

This hazard could be reduced or eliminated if the lights could be kept free of snow and ice build-up. George VanStraten of Baraga, Michigan has developed a "Heated Lens" which has worked very well for us. We installed these "Heated Lenses" on two of our sander trucks and the lights have remained snow free and clear when the surrounding area was covered with a thick layer of snow. The tail-lights and directional lites remain clear and highly visible. We feel this improves safety significantly and should result in reducing rear-end collisions. We have also installed a "Heated Lens" on the rear flood-lite on our sander truck. This also stays snow-free and helps the operator see if the material is being discharged from the sander.

In my opinion the "Heated Lens" has a very broad potential application on all types of vehicles operating in the snow belt and in my opinion should be required by law on all trucks and other equipment traveling on the highways. Perhaps automobiles sho uld be included as well. The Baraga County Road Commission plans to install them first on all sander trucks and next on all snow plow trucks.

How many times have you heard the expression "I didn't see his signal". We feel in many cases the "Heated Lens" would prevent a serious accident. I would urge others to try these "Heated Lens" and let the results speak for themselves.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht87-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Guy Vander Jagt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Guy Vander Jagt U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-2209

Dear Mr. Vander Jagt:

Thank you for your November 3, 1986, letter on behalf of your constituent, Miss Reva Darling of Ludington, Michigan, who asked about requirements for safety belts on buses used for school transportation and other purposes. Your letter has been referred t o my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Miss Darling is interested in extending the applicability of Michigan's safety belt use law to belts on "public" buses. She believes that safety belts should be installed on school buses and buses used by transit and charter companies, and suggests that funding be made available to encourage the installation of belts on those vehicles.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to develop motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, inclu ding school buses and charter and transit buses. Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle; for example, different requirements apply to passenger cars than to buses. For buses generally, our requirements only specify that a safety belt must be installed for the bus driver. They do not require safety belts for passengers on large buses used for pupil transportation and other purposes.

We have not required large buses to have safety belts for passengers because we have not found sufficient justification for such a requirement, given that buses have excellent safety records. This safety record arises in part from the fact that, in crash es with other vehicles, buses tend to be substantially heavier than the other vehicle while cars tend to weigh approximately the same as the vehicle with which they crash. As a result, the crash forces experienced by bus occupants tend to be less than th ose experienced by car occupants. Also, because of the elevated stating positions in large buses, bus occupants sit above the area typically damaged in a collision with another vehicle. Further, we require large school buses to provide passenger crash pr otection with higher and stronger seats, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. That approach, together with the other attributes of large school buses, provides adequate levels of crash protection in school buses without safet y belts. I have enclosed a copy of a NHTSA publication, "Safety Belts in School Buses," which addresses in more detail the issue of whether safety belts should be required on school buses.

NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large buses from doing so. Although large buses are not required by Federal law to have passenger safety belts, bus owners are free to purchase their buses with safety belts installed if they believe their particular circumstances warrant such installation. However, we have no reason at this time to believe that such an installation is necessary as a Federal requirement applicable to all transit buses.

Miss Darling asks whether there have been any proposals to apply Michigan's safety belt use law to public buses. Safety belt use requirements art a matter of State rather than Federal law. Therefore, Michigan state officials would be able to answer Miss Darling's particular question concerning the state law.

On a final matter, Miss Darling suggested that funding be made available to equip buses with safety belts. For your information, while the Administration has not proposed any legislation affecting school buses, H.R. 749 (introduced in the 99th Congress) proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. H.R. 749, however, was not enacted.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The Honorable Guy Vander Jagt House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Vander Jagt:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Miss Reva Darling.

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

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

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Mr. Ed Babbitt Director of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 10406 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Babbitt:

I have enclosed a copy of correspondence I received from a constituent, Miss Reva Darling, relative to seat belts in public buses.

As you will note, Miss Darling is interested any information on this issue. I would appreciate any information or comments you may be able to provide in response to her query.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

With all good wishes,

Sincerely,

Guy Vander Jagt Member of Congress

Rep. Guy Vander Jagt 2334 Rayburn Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Rep. Vander Jagt,

Hello, my name is Reva Darling and I am a junior in high school. I am writing in regard to the recent seatbelt law established in Michigan last year.

My question is this: Has there been any proposals in conjunction with applying this law to public buses? By buses, I am referring to both charter and/or school related buses. I believe that funding to make seatbelts possible on these vehicles is highly worthwhile considering the number of passengers and lives involved. I would appreciate any information that you could send me about hi s.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Reva Darling

Reva Darling 2456 S. Meyers Rd. Ludington, MI 49431

ID: nht87-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/87

FROM: G T DOE -- LOTUS ENGINEERING

TO: ERIKA Z JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/15/87 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GT DOE; VSA 108, STANDARDS 208, 216 LETTER DATED 09/18/87 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO J. DOUGLAS HAND

TEXT: Dear Madam

Lotus is proposing to introduce a convertible car into the United States. It is planned to develop and certify the car as a two seat convertible. It is recognised, however, that if no other provision is made, accessory manufacturers may offer 'hardtop' conversions to our customers. In anticipation of the latter possibility, a factory manufactured and approved quality hardtop optional conversion would be offered. The hardtop would consist of a composite roof structure, which would replace the convert ible canopy and support frame. The removal of the latter would reveal a trimmed luggage shelf behind the two designated seating positions. It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could trave l in this area. The fitting of the hardtop would in no way degrade the quality, reliability, or safety of the vehicle. The application of the hardtop conversion is depicted in the accompanying illustration.

It is possible that, whilst vehicles would be imported as convertibles, individual dealers might elect to fit hardtops to new vehicles and display them in their showrooms in this condition.

Could you please give interpretations with respect to the following:-

1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of FMVSS 216. Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?

2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned for any further information, or discussion regarding the above.

ID: nht87-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/87

FROM: HANNS-OTFRIED WESTERMANN--HELLA KG HUECK & CO.

TO: DR. BURGETT--NHTSA

TITLE: RE MULTI BULB DEVICES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-22-90 TO H. WESTERMANN FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 108)

TEXT:

We intend to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices, which have - opposite to conventional lamps - a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb. The miniature bulbs are about 2 to 3 cp each, as is actually applied t o CHMSL.

This design shows a number of advantages:

1. The failure probability of the signal function of a device is very low, because the burn out of a single bulb does not drop the light-out-put of the lamp below the minimum value required.

2. The average life of the miniature-bulbs is greater than the one of current 32 cp bulbs: about 3 per cent mortality rate after 1500 burning hours.

3. The devices can be built smaller and particularly with less depth.

4. The openings in the vehicle's body work can be avoided in part or totally, because the devices can be surface mounted.

5. The absence of body work openings increases the vehicle's stability and avoids sealing problems.

Summary: "Multi-bulb-devices" increase the traffic safety and lower the system costs over the vehicle's life time.

FMVSS No. 108 opposes this idea, because it is required that lamps with 2, 3 or more lighted sections have to comply with higher intensity requirements than a lamp with only one compartment or bulb. The reason for this requirement is to assure a uniform ly conspicuous surface luminance. These higher intensity requirements because of the larger overall lens area are not applicable to our design with a great number of miniature bulbs.

In spite of the great number of bulbs (10 to 20, depending on function) the total area of the lamp is not larger than the one of current one-compartment-lamps. The luminous Intensity requirement for 3- or more compartment lamps for this lamp size would c ause undesirable high luminances.

For each of the many bulbs the lighted lens area is substantially smaller than the required minimum area (22 inches square) for each compartment of multi-compartment lamps, but the total area of all bulbs is in compliance with the requirement for one-com partment-lamps.

We kindly ask for your comment on the legal aspects of this deviating design with many miniature bulbs and in particular, whether the intensity requirements of single-compartment lamps are applicable. (For LED-lamps it is even discussed, that for their higher conspicuity the intensity requirements could be lowered below those of single-compartment lamps). In our opinion the minimum requirements should not depend on the type of design (number of bulbs or compartments) but on the overall visible lens ar ea.

We want to draw your attention to the changes of ECE Regulations R6 and R7:

"If with a single lamp containing more than one bulb one of this bulbs fails, the lamp with the remaining bulbs shall comply with the minimum value required ...

Any failure of a bulb in such a lamp shall be clearly visible, if the lamp is switched on."

ID: nht87-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Russell Thatcher -- Director, Mobility Assistance Program, Exective Office of Transportation and Construction, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Russell Thatcher Director Mobility Assistance Program Executive Office of Transportation and Construction Commonwealth of Massachusetts 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510 Boston, MA 02116-3969

Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1986, to NHTSA Regional Administrator Jack Connors requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You explained that you are in the process of buying a number of vans which will be outfitted with Republic Seating Corporation's Model D117 seats. You stated that questions have been raised about whether the safety belt placement on those seats complies with our standard. You enclosed a quarter-scale diagram of the seat in question showing the location of the safety belts and asked our opinion about whether the safety belt placement complies with our standard.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which this agency enforces, it is the responsibility of a vehicle manufacturer to certify that its products comply with the requirements of our standards. This agency does not have the authority to approve a manufacturer's design plans. We can offer our opinion, but it is the manufacturer's obligation to ensure that the finished vehicle complies with all of the applicable standards.

The standard which affects the mounting angle for safety belts is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. The drawing enclosed with your letters shows that the lap safety belt anchorage for this seat is installed on the frame of the seat. S4.3.1 .3 of the standard provides:

In an installation in which the seat belt anchorage is on the seat structure, the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage shall extend forward from that contact point at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 20o and not more than 75o.

According to the drawing enclosed with your letter, the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the safety belt, on the outboard side of the seat, with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage is 75o. If the outboard porti on of the safety belt is installed in a completed vehicle in the location shown in the drawing would meet the requirement of S4.3.1.3, since its mounting angle is not more than 75o.

We cannot offer a opinion as to whether the inboard portion of the safety belt would comply with S4.3.1.3, since the mounting angle for that portion of the safety belt is not depicted in the drawing. I want to emphasize again, that this letter represents the opinion of the agency based on the facts you have presented. It is a manufacturer's responsibility under the Vehicle Safety Act to certify that its completed vehicle complies with our standard.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Jack Connors, Regional Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 55 Broadway / Kendall Square Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142

Re: Interpretation of, and Compliance with, Specification 49 CFR Section 571-210 Subsection 4.3.1.3

Dear Mr. Connors:

The State of Massachusetts, acting through the Executive Office of Transportation & Construction, administers the Federal 16(b)(21 and State Mobility Assistance Programs. These programs provide grant subsidies to private and public non profit agencies ac ross the state for the purchase of wheelchair lift equipped vans and minibuses used to transport elderly and disabled persons.

We are currently in the process of purchasing forty three (43) vans from Collins Bus Corporation which will be outfitted with Republic Seating Corporations Model D117 seats. Questions have been raised about the current seat belt placement being utilized by Republic Seating.

We would like to request an opinion from your office on whether or not the design complies with federal standards. Attached is a quarter-scale diagram of the seat showing the location of the seat belts.

Your expeditious handling of the matter would be greatly appreciated. During the last year approximately 100 vehicles across the State have been purchased and are being operated in transportation programs.

Should you require additional information, please contact my Assistant Director Royal Spurlark or myself at 973-?000. should you need to contact Republic Seating for information, you can call Mr. Peter Redding, President of that company at (312) 628-8500 .

Sincerely,

Russell Thatcher Director Mobility Assistance Program

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: nht87-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M.R. Dunn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. M. R. Dunn Engineering Director Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited Crew Cheshire CW1 3PL ENGLAND

Dear Mr. Dunn:

Thank you for your telefax of December 18, 1986, concerning Rolls-Royce's ability to meet the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You reported that Rolls-Royce has experienced setbacks in both its aut omatic belt and airbag programs and faces "a real possibility of being unable to comply during the 1987 model year to 31 August 1987." You asked "whether there would be any restriction imposed on our sales of non-complying 1987 model year cars and the ex tent of any financial penalty per car if any."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act sets out a manufacturer's obligation to produce vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for a number of remedies the agency would p ursue if a manufacturer has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act. Those remedies are discussed below.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act obligates a manufacturer to produce vehicles that conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section prohibits a manufacturer from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, sellin g, or importing a vehicle that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act also obligates a manufacturer to furnish, at the time of delivery of a vehicle to a distributor or dealer, a certificate that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is a violation of section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Vehicle Safety Act for a manufacturers to issue such a certification if it "in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect."

The Vehicle Safety Act provides NHTSA with a wide range of remedies the agency can pursue if there is a violation of the Act. Section 109(a) provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a provision of section 108 or any regulation issued under the authority of that section. Section 109(a) further provides that each non-complying motor vehicle constitutes a separate violation and entitles the agency to collect a civil penalty of up to $800,000 for a series of violations.

Under section 110 of the Vehicle Safety Act, the agency has authority to seek injunctive relief to restrain "violations of this title (or rules, regulations or orders thereunder), or to restrain the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery f or introduction in interstate commerce, or the importation into the United States" of non-complying motor vehicles.

Section 111 of the Vehicle Safety Act imposes additional duties on a manufacturer of a non-complying vehicle that has been delivered to a distributor or dealer but nor yet sold to a retail customer. That section requires the manufacturer to repurchase th e non-complying vehicle from the distributor or dealer, and to reimburse the dealer or distributor for a portion of its expenses. As an alternative, the manufacturer can furnish she purchasing distributor or dealer with the necessary conforming parts and reimburse the distributor or dealer for a portion of its expenses. If a non-complying vehicle has been sold to a retail purchaser, sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act require the vehicle's manufacturer so conduct a non-compliance notification and remedy campaign.

Under the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208, Rolls-Royce has the obligation to install automatic restraints in ten percent of its vehicles manufactured during the period September 1, 1986 - August 31, 1987 for sale in the United Stares. If the ag ency were to determine that passenger cars manufactured by Rolls-Royce for sale in the United States do not conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 205, the agency could pursue any or all of the following remedies under the Vehicl e Safety Act. To determine the extent of Rolls-Royce's compliance, the agency could require Rolls-Royce to provide information on the number of vehicles produced and the number equipped with automatic restraints. The agency could seek to restrain the sal e of the non-complying Rolls-Royce cars that have been imported into the United States. In addition, the agency could seek to restrain the further importation of non-complying Rolls-Royce passenger cars into the United States. Further, the agency could s eek a civil penalty against Rolls-Royce for each violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) and (C). In addition to seeking those remedies, the agency has authority under section 152 of the Vehicle Safety Act to determine whether Rolls-Royce should be ordered to conduct a notification and remedy campaign for the non-complying vehicles. While your question and the above discussion are hypothetical, we strongly urge Rolls-Royce to take all necessary steps to assure compliance with the phase-in requirements of Stan dard No. 208.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

TELEFAX No 010 1 202 366 5930

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington USA

For the attention of:

Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking Room 5401

Following our telephone conversation I acknowledge your advice that a petition for temporary exemption from FMVSS 208 passive restraints is unlikely to be successful for 1987 model year. As described in our original petition for an extension of the effec tive 1987 model year to 31 December 1987 extra time is required to improve our chances or offering airbags. I must report that with setbacks in both our passive belt and our airbag programs we face a real possibility of being unable to comply during 1987 model year to 31 August 1987.

Will you please advise me whether there would be any restriction imposed on our sales of non-complying 1987 model year cars and the extent or any financial penalty per car if any.

N R Dunn Engineering Director Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd, Crewe

ID: nht87-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/87

FROM: BRUCE W. SMITH -- PRESIDENT UNIT CORPORATION

TO: JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/04/87 TO BRUCE W SMITH FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30(2) STANDARD 213, VSA 103 OCC - 211

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Jones

Unit Corporation would like to have your office's recommendation on one of our new products. Talking to a member of your staff we found out that our product will fall under a law called General Defect Responsibility. We would also like this verified.

I hope this report gives you enough information on our final product to give us a recommendation. If you have any questions or suggestions please contact me.

Sincerely,