ID: nht91-6.1

DATE: September 17, 1991

FROM: Herbert J. Lushan -- Regalite Plastics Corp.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Herbert J. Lushan (A38; Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing you at the suggestion of John Rigby.

Regalite Plastic is a manufacturer of Clear Flexible Plastic Sheets that are used in the rear windows of Convertible automobiles and as side and rear windows of Jeep-type vehicles.

Our regular clear ULTRALITE window meets and exceeds the ANSI Z26.1-1977 Item 6 test requirements.

We have been asked by one of our customers to make a bronze TINTED clear plastic flexible window for the rear and rear sides of their Jeep-type vehicle. This bronze tinted clear will not pass Test #2, Luminous Transmittance Test.

Since these Jeep-type vehicles are considered MPV (Multi purpose vehicles) by the manufacturer, I understand that they only have to meet the Item 7 SPECS which eliminates the Test #2 for Luminous Transmittance as a requirement.

Please confirm or deny whether my understanding or interpretation is correct so that we may proceed properly.

ID: nht91-6.10

DATE: September 25, 1991

FROM: Marc M. Baldwin -- Parker, McCay & Criscuolo

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re Hanley v GLAVAL - Information regarding two-point seat belt

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Marc M. Baldwin (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Please find enclosed my correspondence dated August 19, 1991 regarding information on two-point seatbelts. Kindly forward to the udnersigned the requested information at your earliest convenience. If you should have any questions in this regard, please contact my paralegal, Abgela Sabato, who will be happy to assist you.

Thank you for your cooperation and courtesies in this regard.

Enclosure

August 19, 1991 File No. 1010-0123-MMB

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 4423 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, DC 20590

RE: Hanley v GLAVAL Information regarding 2-point seatbelt

Dear Sir/Madam:

Kindly forward to the undersigned information regarding the specific date when 2-point seatbelts were outlawed. The vehicle involved in my litigation was a 1984 Firebird Trans Am which was converted from a hard top to a convertible. The conversion was done in March of 1984. Please advise if they are any specific regulations regarding convertibles. If you should have any questions in this regard, or need any additional information, please contact my paralegal, Angela Sabato, who will be happy to assist you.

Thank you for your cooperation and courtesies in this regard.

Very truly yours,

MARC M. BALDWIN

ID: nht91-6.11

DATE: September 27, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Phillip Ramos, Jr. -- Philatron International

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This letter concerns an issue you raised with Mr. Robert Hellmuth of NHTSA's Enforcement office about the oil resistance test requirement of Standard 106, Brake Hoses. Your company manufactures a hose assembly that is designed for use between a towed and a towing vehicle. You believe that the oil resistance test requirement does not apply to your product.

Your view is incorrect. Standard 106 defines "brake hose" as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes" (S4 of 49 CFR S571.106). Your hose is encompassed within that definition of a "brake hose." S7.3 of the standard states that "Each air brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be capable of meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading...." The oil resistance requirement (S7.3.4) is included in S7.3. Thus, the requirement applies to your product.

We note that neither the standard nor the oil resistance requirement has any provision to exclude hose designed for use between a towed and a towing vehicle from the oil resistance requirement. In contrast, there are requirements of the standard that distinguish between brake hose used between a towed and a towing vehicle and hose used in other applications. (See, for example, the tensile strength test requirement of S7.3.10 for air brake hose assemblies.) If the agency intended to exclude hose such as yours from the oil resistance requirement, the exclusion would have been set forth in S7.3.4 or elsewhere in the standard.

We also would like to remind you that, in the event your firm has or obtains knowledge that your brake hose and assemblies do not meet the requirements of Standard 106, you must submit to NHTSA a Noncompliance Information Report in accordance with 49 CFR Part 573. The report must be submitted within five days after you determine that your product fails to comply with a motor vehicle safety standard.

Mr. Hellmuth has informed me that the Enforcement office will include your firm's air brake hose assemblies in the agency's fiscal year 1992 compliance test program. The agency will keep you advised of the status of the tests and will supply you with a copy of the final report when the tests are complete.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-6.12

DATE: September 30, 1991

FROM: W.R. Kittle -- Director, Automotive Safety Planning and Compliance, Product Strategy and Regulatory Affairs Office, Chrysler Corporation

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Petition for Temporary Exemption; Low Emission Motor Vehicle; 49 CFR 555

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to D.E. Dawkins (A39; Part 555)

TEXT:

Chrysler Corporation, a Delaware corporation, with offices at 12000 Chrysler Drive, Highland Park, Michigan 48288-1919, hereby petitions the NHTSA for a temporary exemption from certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the Chrysler TEVan, an electrically driven version of the Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager multipurpose passenger vehicle. The exemption is sought for a one year period.

The Chrysler TEVan has been developed in cooperation with the Electric Power Research Institute, Southern California Edison Company, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the United States Department of Energy. The acronym, TEVan, is derived from the expression, "T-115 Electric Van", where T-115 is the engineering model code for the Caravan/Voyager vehicles. TEVan is pronounced as if it were two words, "Tee Van".

The basis for this petition is the facilitation of the development of low-emission engine features. The TEVan is a low-emission motor vehicle as defined by section 123(g) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The TEVan does not have an internal combustion engine. Instead, it has an electric motor propulsion system powered by nickel-iron batteries. As a result, it will emit air pollutants in amounts significantly below new motor vehicle standards applicable under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 f-1) at the time of its manufacture, and with respect to all other pollutants, it will meet the new motor vehicle standards applicable to it under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act at the time of its manufacture.

The TEVan is a Dodge Caravan in which the internal combustion engine, transmission, coolant system, manifold-vacuum-assisted power brakes, gasoline fuel system, and engine-driven hydraulically-assisted power steering system have been replaced by an electric drive motor, a nickel-iron battery pack, a micro-processor based battery management system, a controller-convertor-charger unit, a two-speed manual or three-speed automatic transmission, and electric-motor-driven pumps for the vacuum power brakes and the hydraulically-assisted power steering. In addition, the original hot water heater/defroster unit has been replaced by a diesel fuel-burning unit. Since their manufacture, those that were equipped with the automatic transmission have been refitted with the manual transmission.

Based on certification testing of the Caravan, and the anticipated effect of the modifications above upon the vehicle, the TEVan complies with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with the considerations or exceptions indicated below.

FMVSS 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect.

S3.1.2; TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT. The requirement for transmission braking effect is met by regenerative braking, in which the electric motor becomes a generator, recharging the batteries and dissipating energy in the process. Regenerative braking can be switched off at the option of the driver to restore steering control on slippery surfaces.

FMVSS 105 - Hydraulic Brake Systems

S5.1; SYSTEM BRAKE SYSTEMS. The performance of the service brake system is predicated on the use of the regenerative characteristic of the drive motor to augment the power-assisted hydraulic wheel brakes. The motor, driven through the transmission by the mass of the coasting vehicle, functions as a generator to dissipate energy through charging the drive batteries. In the performance tests of S5.1.1 - Stopping Distance, however, the transmission must be in neutral, and in the TEVan, that would preclude the contribution of regenerative braking. No tests have been conducted with the TEVan, however, it is our opinion that with regenerative braking, the stopping distance requirements would be met.

Further, in the test for evaluation of S5.1.4 - Fade and Recovery, the distance between the starting points of successive brake applications at 60 mph is 0.4 miles. The TEVan will not accelerate from 5 to 60 mph in that distance, so the test cannot be conducted as prescribed. Then too, the TEVan is considerably heavier than the parent vehicle. Nonetheless, we believe that if the test could be conducted as prescribed, and with regenerative braking, the fade and recovery requirements would be met or nearly met.

FMVSS 207 - Seating Systems

S4.2(a)-(c); GENERAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS. The right end floor pan anchor sockets for the removable two-passenger second seat have been reduced in height below the floor pan to provide space for a portion of the battery pack. While the modified sockets are believed to be equivalent in strength to the original, compliance tests have not been performed.

FMVSS 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages S4.2; STRENGTH. The modified right end floor pan anchor sockets discussed in FMVSS 207 - Seating Systems, above, must also transmit seat belt forces to the vehicle structure through seat-mounted anchorages.

Again, while the modified sockets are believed to be equivalent in strength to the original, compliance tests have not been performed.

FMVSS 212 - Windshield Mounting, and

FMVSS 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion

S5; REQUIREMENT. Windshield mounting and zone intrusion performance are ultimately determined by vehicle front structure crush characteristics.

The front structure of the base Caravan/Voyager, modified to support the

electric drivetrain components, is believed to be materially equivalent in strength to the original, however, a 30 mph barrier impact test has not been conducted to confirm compliance.

FMVSS 301 - Fuel System Integrity

S5.5 - FUEL SPILLAGE: BARRIER CRASH, and S5.6 - FUEL SPILLAGE: ROLLOVER. A 1.6 gallon tank has been provided just behind the rear axle for the fuel used in the diesel fuel-burning heater/defroster. The integrity of the diesel fuel system has not been evaluated with fixed and moving barrier impact tests, however, it is believed that the system would comply with the spillage requirements if the vehicle were so tested.

If exempted, the TEVan would differ from the 1989 model Year Dodge Caravan vehicle from which it was derived in that the internal combustion engine, drivetrain, and engine-driven vehicle subsystems have been replaced by an electric traction motor, a complement of nickel-iron batteries, an electric controller, and certain electrically-driven vehicle subsystems. Changes have also been made in structural elements to accommodate the latter components. To assist in the review of this petition, a brochure describing the TEVan in greater detail has been provided as Attachment 1. The probable effect on the performance of the modified vehicle with respect to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is described above.

Chrysler is not presently manufacturing the TEVan, but is manufacturing an improved version of the Dodge Caravan upon which it is based. The latter vehicle meets all applicable Federal Safety Standards.

Chrysler is not aware of any tests conducted with the TEVan in which it failed to meet a Safety Standard. Since only four vehicles have been or will be modified for field evaluation of this initial design, no testing for compliance is planned or anticipated.

While destructive compliance testing has not been conducted on any of these vehicles, Chrysler believes that their safety performance will be very like that of the Caravan/Voyager vehicle from which they were derived. While vehicle weight is much greater because of the batteries for the drive system, hydraulic brake system performance is augmented by regenerative braking. The internal combustion engine is no longer in place to share or transfer front impact forces, however, the electric motor and its controller take the place of the engine, at least in part. Similarly, the potential for fuel-fed fire is greatly reduced, first because of the nearly tenfold reduction in the size of the fuel tank, and secondly because less volatile diesel fuel is used instead of gasoline.

The exemption of these vehicles from the requirement to confirm performance with respect to the braking, crashworthiness, and post-crash standards will facilitate the development of the electric motor, controller, and battery for the next generation of the TEVan. That vehicle will be designed to comply with all Federal safety standards, to the extent that an electrically-powered vehicle can so comply.

The four vehicles that are the subject of this petition will not be brought into compliance with the Federal standards applicable to them in the 1989 model year by Chrysler. Provided an exemption is granted, one or more of the vehicles will be titled and sold for ongoing endurance evaluation.

Not more than 2,500 exempted, first generation TEVans will be sold in any 12-month period for which an exemption may be granted. In fact, only four such vehicles were manufactured for test and evaluation.

The grant of the requested exemption would be in the public interest because it would:

o facilitate the field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle without unreasonably degrading the safety of that vehicle;-

o facilitate the development of a vehicle which could be very fuel-efficient in terms of its use of fossil fuels;

o accelerate the development of electrically-driven vehicles and related technology which could help to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Please direct all questions regarding this petition to Howard Willson of my staff at 313-956-6037.

ID: nht91-6.13

DATE: October 3, 1991

FROM: Darrell E. Lischynski -- P.Eng., Project Manager, Energy and Processing, Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-4-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Darrell E. Lischynski (A38; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing this letter on behalf of Calmar Industries Inc. of Outlook, Saskatchewan, who manufacture a Seat Lift Kit for Ford Supercab trucks, as described in the attached product literature. Calmar wishes to market their Lift Kit in USA, and wants to be sure that they have met all required safety regulations.

The Calmar Seat Lift Kit is an attachment to raise the rear bench seat in Ford Supercab trucks. The kit does not alter the factory seat, and uses the factory seat belts. However, the seat mounts are changed, and an extension is provided to raise the seat belt attachment point.

PAMI is an independent engineering organization funded by the provincial governments that has tested the Calmar Seat Lift Kit according to Canadian and American safety standards 207 (seating systems) and 210 (Seat Belt Anchorages) as described in the attached certificates. If these are all of the safety standards that this kit must meet, Calmar would appreciate a letter from yourself stating so. If the kit must be tested to meet other standards, please inform Denis Tofin of Calmar Industries, or myself, so that tests can be initiated.

Thank you for your time.

ID: nht91-6.14

DATE: October 3, 1991

FROM: Alan E. Willis -- Senior Transportation Engineer, Franchise Regulation Division, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: TaxiCab Safety Shield/Partitions and Passenger Safety

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-16-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Alan E. Willis (A38; Std. 201; Std. 205; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The City of Los Angeles plans to require the installation of safety shields in all taxicabs which may be 1982 model year and newer. The installation is intended to deter or prevent crimes against the taxicab driver. Such mandated installations will be similar to laws existing in other cities such as Oakland, California and Tampa, Florida. We are concerned for the safety of the rear seat passenger who may impact the rigid shield in a sudden stop and question the compliance of the shield with any Federal auto safety regulations.

In talking with Mr. John Rigby of your staff on September 18, 1991, it was determined that 49 CFR, Sections 571.201 (Occupant Protection) and 571.205 (glazing Materials) may apply. He suggested that we write to you to request an official determination on the issue. If you have any questions, please contact me or David Leatherman at (213) 485-4817.

ATTACHMENT

Tentative Resolution Board Order No. 484 Board of Transportation Commissioners City of Los Angeles

(Text of attachment omitted)

ID: nht91-6.15

DATE: October 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jon Nisper -- K.B. Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-23-91 from Jon Nisper to Jerry Medelin (OCC 6403)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of August 23, 1991, to Jere Medlin of this agency. You have enclosed a drawing of a combination headlamp/turn signal lamp assembly that depicts two possible positions ("Case l," "Case 2") for the inboard wall. With respect to each, you have asked "where should the 100mm separation be measured for turn signal headlamp position?"

Let me begin by noting that there is no requirement in Standard No. 108 that front turn signal lamps be separated from headlamps by at least 100mm. However, if there is less than a 100mm separation of those lamps, S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 provides that the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities for the lamps shall be 2.5. NHTSA determines the distance of the separation pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 5.1.5.4.2 of SAE Standard J588 NOV84, "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width." That paragraph provides the following means of measuring spacing:

"Spacing for a front turn signal lamp which primarily employs a reflector (for example, one of parabolic section) in conjunction with a lens to meet photometric requirements, shall be measured from the geomeric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area to the lighted edge of the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp."

We would apply this as follows. You stated in your letter that the inboard walls in your proposed headlamp/turn signal assembly serve no functional purpose. We interpret this as meaning that neither the inboard wall in Case 1 or Case 2 shown in your drawing would be used optically in the headlamp. Under this assumption, and the assumption that no direct light from the bulb filament illuminates the outer edges of the headlamp lens nearest the turn signal, the lighted edge of the headlamp reflector would end where the relevant inboard wall meets the reflector. Pursuant to SAE Standard J588 NOV 84, one would then take a vertical plane that is parallel to the axis of the headlamp bulb, and project it from the end of the lighted edge of the reflector (i.e., where the respective inboard wall meets the reflector) onto the lens. You have already drawn this as a line in the drawing enclosed with your FAX. Next, take the axis of the turn signal bulb and project it onto the lens (this line also exists in your enclosed drawing). To determine the separation, one would then measure the distance between the projected points on each lens. Should the headlamp lens area between the turn signal and the projected vertical wall line onto the headlamp lens be lighted, either on purpose or inadvertently, then the actual lighted edge of the headlamp would be used for measurement purposes.

ID: nht91-6.16

DATE: October 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: D. G. Kong -- General Manager, Certification Business Department, KIA Motors Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-3-91 from D. G. Kong to Andrew J. Sklover

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to former Special Assistant Andrew Sklover, requesting information about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and about National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) certification and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirements. You asked whether the Isuzu Amigo, a sport utility vehicle, the roof of which you described as composed half of hard top with steel and half detachable soft top with plastic or cloth, would be considered a "convertible" and thus exempt from Standard No. 216. You also asked for information about vehicle certification and VIN requirements, as well as the relationship between Federal and state regulations in the area of motr vehicle safety. I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions.

First, you asked whether NHTSA would consider the Isuzu Amigo to be a "convertible" and thus exempt from the performance requirements of Standard No. 216. The agency has defined a convertible as

a vehicle whose A-pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or another rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.

Based on NHTSA's information about the Isuzu Amigo's design, the "hard top with steel" that you described joins the vehicle's A-pillar to the B-pillar at the top, extending as a roof over the driver and front passenger seating positions. The soft top portion covers an area that may include rear seating positions. Because the A- and B-pillars are joined by a "fixed rigid structural member," the Amigo would not be considered a convertible. Accordingly, since the Amigo is not a convertible, S108 of the National Higway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397) requires that all such vehicles manufacturered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States on or after September 1, 1993 conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 216.

You also asked for general information about NHTSA certification and VIN requirements. Although I will address certification generally, I have also enclosed two information packets which discuss these, as well as other issues related to NHTSA requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. These packets explain the basic procedures manufacturers must follow to comply with NHTSA regulations, and explain how manufacturers can obtain copies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other regulations.

As a general statement about certification, manufacturers are not required to get an "approval" from this agency before selling its products. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, S114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles and items of equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. When a manufacturer has, in the exercise of "due care," determined that its product complies with all applicable standards, the manufacturer affixes a certification to the product in accordance with the applicable safety standard, and Part 567, Certification, in the case of new vehicles. The agency periodically tests certified vehicles and equipment item for compliance with the safety standards, and investigates alleged safety-related defects.

You also asked generally about the relationship between state and Federal laws and regulations related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards that establish minimum performance requirements for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also prohibits states from enacting "safety standards" that are different from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. States do, however, have substantial authority to adopt regulations that relate to motor vehicle safety. States are not prohibited from adopting, for example, requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after their first sale, or the operation and modification of vehicles by their owners. Information about state laws related to motor vehicles can be obtained by writing to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administraotrs, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-6.17

DATE: October 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey P. Shimp -- Engineer, Fleet Engineering & Q.A., Transportation Department, Baltimore Gas and Electric

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-91 from Jeffrey P. Shimp to Mary Versailles (OCC 6483)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 17, 1991, regarding the addition of a seat to your company's cargo vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of Federal law for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles or new items of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards at the time the product is delivered to the first purchaser in good faith for purposes other than resale.

After a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Please note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Therefore, Baltimore Gas and Electric may install additional seats in the cargo vans it owns without violating the "render inoperative" provision or any other provisions of the Safety Act, providing Baltimore Gas and Electric performs the work themselves.

However, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that owners can make to their own vehicles. You should contact the State of Maryland to learn if it has enacted any laws or regulations that apply to your planned modifications to your vans. In addition, you may wish to consult with an attorney familiar with the law in the State of Maryland regarding potential liability for your company in connection with adding a seat to these vans.

Finally, although Federal law does not regulate your company's planned addition of seats to its vehicles, we urge you to carefully consider the safety issues that would arise if your company proceeds with the installation of these additional seats. Specifically, this agency encourages your company to select and install any additional seats in a way that will not degrade occupant protection, and to install a safety belt for those additional seats, so that your employees using the additional seat will be protected in the event of a crash.

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

ID: nht91-6.18

DATE: October 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gordon W. Didier -- Butzel Long

TITLE: Re ASC, Inc. - Petition for Low Volume Exemption from Average Fuel Economy Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-25-91 from Gordon W. Didier to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

In a letter dated September 25, 1991, you indicated that General Motors Corporation has agreed to accept the transfer from ASC, Inc. to General Motors of responsibility under the CAFE law for model year 1989 and 1990 Turbo Grand Prix vehicles, provided that NHTSA does not object to this transfer of CAFE responsibility. You enclosed a copy of a letter from General Motors confirming this agreement. You indicated that ASC and General Motors are communicating directly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to arrange for the EPA to amend its data base and include ASC's production in the calculations for General Motors for model years 1989 and 1990. You requested written confirmation that NHTSA does not have any objection to this arrangement, in order that you can provide EPA with a copy.

This letter is to confirm that NHTSA does not have any objection to General Motors taking CAFE responsibility for the model year 1989 and 1990 Turbo Grand Prix vehicles. The reasons underlying this opinion are set forth in the July 29, 1991, Federal Register notice (56 FR 35834) denying ASC's petition for a low volume exemption for these vehicles. In particular, the vehicles have two manufacturers, GM and ASC, and since 49 CFR Part 529 does not cover the manufacturing arrangements of GM/ASC, the manufacturers can, under a past NHTSA interpretation, determine by agreement which of them will count a vehicle as its own.