ID: nht90-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 24, 1990

FROM: JERRY RALPH CURRY

TO: D. H. BURNEY -- AMBASSADOR OF CANADA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3-16-90 TO JERRY R. CURRY, NHTSA, FROM D. H. BURNEY, AMBASSADOR OF CANADA TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1990, expressing the concern of your country about this agency's new regulations on importation of motor vehicles and equipment.

Canada is concerned that, under P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers, and private citizens will not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or used Canadian market vehicles to the United States. It is concerned further that Canadian individuals and firms will be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States. Canada therefore requests that this agency modify its regulations wit h respect to Canadian market vehicles, recognizing their near-compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. You have five specific requests, and I shall address each.

Preliminarily, I want to note several things. First, my assurance that this agency gave very careful consideration to the concerns of Transport Canada in adopting final regulations under the 1988 Act, as well as those expressed by Canadian companies tha t commented on the proposed regulations. As we noted in the notices proposing and adopting those regulations, our discretion to make changes in the regulations was narrowly circumscribed in many instances by the detailed language of that Act. On a more technical level, I want to note that your understanding of our new regulations expressed in paragraphs (a) through (g) on page 2 of your letter is essentially correct. However, with respect to your paragraph (d), please note that determinations of vehi cle eligibility for importation may also be made by me as Administrator on my own initiative, and need not be pursuant to a petition. Also, as to paragraph (e), I would like to point out that the bond processing fee, proposed to be *$125, is only $4.35 (however, under paragraph (f) the bond is not less than 150 percent of the dutiable value of the vehicle).

Your first request is that the agency "recognize Canadian market vehicles as a special class of non-complying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS." The 1988 Act was enacted on October 31, 1988, and became effective January 31, 1990. I regret to say that none of its provisions authorize the agency to directly distinguish between non-complying vehicles of Canadian manufacture and those originating in other countries.

However, the eligibility provisions that you reference in paragraph (d) do permit a basis for minimizing some of the burden that the 1988 Act imposes. We begin with the premise that if a Canadian vehicle has not been certified by its manufacturer as in conformance with U.S. standards, then it cannot be presumed to conform in all respects to the U.S. standards. Canadian and U.S. safety standards do differ in some ways (e.g., mandatory automatic crash protection for U.S. market passenger cars manufactur ed on and after September 1, 1989). Nevertheless, we believe that enough similarity may exist to support a finding that a Canadian passenger car is "substantially similar" to a U.S. passenger car, justifying a determination that it is eligible for impor tation into the United States, and capable of conversion to meet U.S. safety standards. Further, such a finding may be made on our own initiative. I am pleased to inform you that NHTSA is publishing a notice of tentative determination that would cover a ll passenger cars certified as meeting the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and that were manufactured up to September 1, 1989. A copy of the notice is enclosed for your reference. After receiving and considering public comment, we will make a final decision on this matter. If we decide to adopt our tentative determination as a final determination, your first request would, in effect, be granted.

Your second request is that we "exempt such vehicles from the fees." These fees are the ones mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of your letter, the registered importer annual registration fee, the vehicle eligibility petition fee, and the bond pro cessing fee. Each fee is specifically required by the 1988 Act, and must be established in advance of the fiscal year in which it is effective. The registered importer fee is required to cover agency costs for administration of the registration program . The vehicle eligibility fee is required to cover the agency's costs in making and publishing eligibility determinations. The bond processing fee is required to reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for its costs in processing the agency's conformance bo nd that accompanies each nonconforming vehicle. Congress provided no authority to waive these fees, or to modify them during the fiscal year that they are in effect. Thus, the fees that have been established must remain in effect until October 1, 1990.

When we begin the review that will lead to next year's fees, we shall be happy to consider whether some provision may be made for Canadian market vehicles. In the meantime, I would like to point out that under our notice of tentative determination on el igibility of Canadian vehicles, the fee of $1,560 would cover the blanket determination of all passenger cars, and would not be applied to each individual model and model year of passenger car. This action would effectively moot Canada's second request that Canadian market passenger cars be exempted from the determination fee.

Canada's third request is to "exempt them from the bonding requirement." The 1988 Act requires the importer of a non-conforming vehicle to furnish an appropriate bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into compliance, or will be exported or aban doned to the United States. This is not a new requirement; ever since January 1, 1968, each nonconforming vehicle, Canadian or otherwise, has been required to be accompanied by a conformance bond upon its entry into the United States. The 1988 Act prov ides us with no authority to exempt Canadian vehicles, and does not distinguish degrees of nonconformity. Therefore, we believe that we are unable to grant Canada's request, absent specific authorization by the U.S. Congress.

The fourth request is to "exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.S. citizens." This request raises two issues: whether Canadian market cars may be imported by persons other than registered importers , and whether registered importers must be U.S. citizens. As to the first issue, the 1988 Act does allow one alternative to direct importation by a registered importer. That is, a person other than a registered importer may import a nonconforming vehicl e if he has a contract with a registered importer to perform conformance work. This would allow a Canadian citizen to import a Canadian market car, without himself becoming a registered importer.

The second issue is whether a Canadian company is permitted to be a registered importer. We believe that a registered importer is a person who is physically present in the territory in which importation occurs, as opposed to an exporter, who is outside t hat territory. While we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, we believe that a Canadian company could qualify to do business within an individual State, and become a registered importer. Thus, it is not necessary to be a U.S. "citiz en", but it is necessary to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The 1988 Act requires the registered importer regulation to contain requirements for recordkeeping, and inspection of records and facilities. Since the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not extend beyond the boundaries of the United States, we believe that it would be difficult to enforce our provisions on inspection of premises, documents, etc. in the territory of another country.

This brings us to your fifth and final request, that we "allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada." Under current regulations, conformance work is permitted to be performed outside the united States. However, vehicles modifi ed in this fashion must be admitted under the same procedures as if they had not been modified. This allows the agency to review the documents on pre-importation conversion work, to ensure that it has been satis- factorily accomplished, before the confo rmance bond is released. Accordingly, we believe that the concern underlying this request has already been accommodated.

If, after reviewing this letter, you have further suggestions for reducing the burdens that the new law may have imposed on importations of Canadian-manufactured vehicles, I would be happy to consider them.

Enclosure

ID: nht90-2.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1990

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Ref: W-007-F

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-21-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Satoshi Nishibori (A37; CSA 501(9))

TEXT:

Enclosed for your consideration is a copy of a letter that we have sent to EPA regarding the regarding the procedure specified in its regulations for calculating light truck CAFEs. As you will note, in that letter we request clarification of how EPA's c alculation regulations should be interpreted in light of NHTSA's vehicle classification regulations, with regard to calculating light truck CAFEs. We would appreciate receiving any comments that you may have regarding this matter and, in particular, on our understanding of NHTSA's policy regarding the treatment of imported light trucks.

We also would like to confirm our understanding of the scope of the "captive import" definition in 49 CFR 533.4 (b)(2). As we interpret that definition it applies only to light trucks that are imported by a manufacturer whose "principal place of busines s is in the United States." Our question relates to how this definition would apply to Nissan, given its corporate organization.

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (NML), the parent corporation, is based in Japan. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A. (NMC) is a wholly-owned, U.S. corporate subsidiary of NML that imports and distributes vehicles that are produced by NML. Nissan Motor Manufactur ing Corp. U.S.A. (NMM) is another corporate subsidiary and is owned jointly by NML and NMC. NMM is responsible for operating Nissan's facility in Smyrna, Tennessee, where certain passenger automobile and light truck models are produced. It is our under standing that this type of corporate structure is typical for most (if not all) foreign manufacturers that produce vehicles in the U.S.

In our opinion, neither light trucks that are imported by NMC nor those that are produced at the NMM facility shoud be considered to be "captive imports," even though their domestic content levels are currently below 75 percent. It is our understanding that, at the time that NHTSA developed the "captive import" definition, it was aware of concerns that fuel economy domestic content requirements for passenger automobiles operated in a perverse manner for foreign manufacturers, by discouraging them from increasing domestic content levels. These concerns led NHTSA in 1979 to seek legislation to exclude foreign manufacturers from the "separate fleet" requirement. If the "captive import" definition were interpreted to treat Nissan as having its principal place of business in the United States, then the perverse impact of the separate fleet requirement would remain for Nissan and any foreign manufacturer that set up U.S. subsidiaries to import or produce light trucks.

Moreover, vehicles that are imported through NMC would not be considered to be "captive imports" as that phrase is normally used. The phrase is usually applied to vehicles that are imported by domestic manufacturers but which are produced by foreign man ufacturers in which the domestic company has an ownership interest. In contrast to this, NMC has no ownership interest in NML. Vehicles that are produced at the NMM facility are not imported, even though their domestic content is currently less than 75 percent, and they therefore cannot be considered to be captive imports.

NML's name appears on the certification labels for all Nissan trucks, as the manufacturer of the vehicles. NML's principal place of business is in Japan.

NHTSA should consider the Nissan organization in its entirety to have its principal place of business outside the U.S., consistent with the above- mentioned considerations. This approach would also be consistent with section 503 (c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, under which the activities of closely related corporations are combined for fuel economy calculation purposes.

Please confirm whether our interpretation regarding this matter is correct. If you have any questions on this letter, please contact Mr. Noboru Fujii of my staff, at (202) 466-5284.

ID: nht90-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHARLES M.A. SAEDT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 4-8-90 FROM CHARLES M.A. SAEDT ATTACHED; (OCC-4641)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1990, with respect to your intended exportation of a Volkswagen manufactured to conform to European specifications. You are a member of the Dutch armed forces, and you will be in the United States until June 1 991. You understand that you will need to get an exemption when you import the car into the United States.

As Taylor Vinson of this OffiCe explained to you on April 10, at the port of entry you will be required to execute a Form HS-7, a declaration form covering the importation of your car into the United States. It appears that you are eligible to mark Box 12, and to import the vehicle under the declaration that you are a member of the armed forces of a foreign country on assignment in the United States. You must attach a copy of your official orders to this form. When this is done, there should be no pr oblem in importing your car.

You also represent by marking Box 12 that you are importing the vehicle for your own personal use and on a temporary basis, that you will not sell the vehicle to any person in the United States, and that you will export the vehicle upon departing the Uni ted States at the conclusion of your tour of duty.

ID: nht90-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ANTHONY T. GREENISH -- U.N.D.P.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-19-90 TO U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION FROM ANTHONY P. GREENISH; (OCC 4482) TEXT:

Your letter of February 19, 1990, to the Department has been referred to this Office for reply. You are contemplating buying a car in Europe and importing it when you return to the United States in July. You have in mind the BMW 324d and the Honda Acco rd 1.6 LX, and ask for information "as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards.

BMW does not offer the 324d for sale in the United States, and we assume that the Honda you mentioned was also produced for the European market. This means that these vehicles are not certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safet y, bumper, and theft prevention standards. Because of the difficulties you would entail in attempting to import an uncertified vehicle, we recommend that you purchase a vehicle certified by its original manufacturer for the American market. As you know , many European manufacturers have a factory delivery program for U.S. tourists. That way you can ensure that your car meets 100 percent of Federal requirements.

If you nevertheless wish to pursue the idea of buying and importing a passenger car not certified by its original manufacturer to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you should be aware of some recent changes in law. Because of new regulati ons which were mandated by congress and became effective January 31, 1990, such a vehicle may not be imported unless the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that that specific model and model year is capable of conversion to mee t the standards. Importation of the vehicle is also subject to the requirement that it be imported either by a person who has been approved by this agency as a Registered Importer and will be responsible for converting the vehicle to meet the standards, or by a person who has a contract with a Registered Importer. In either instance, a bond in an amount equal to 150 percent of the entered value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs service must be given to ensure performance of the conversi on work. We anticipate that the effect of these stringent regulations will be to convince many prospective importers not to buy vehicles intended for markets other than the United States.

ID: nht90-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MARGARET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: TELEFAX DATED 6-3-90 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM MARGRET SCHMOCK ATTACHED; (OCC 4508) TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of March 6, 1990, with respect to the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and "CAC Title 13, Article 9".

You have indicated that CAC requires a headlamp adjustment range in the horizontal of at least +/- 4 degrees, whereas Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal adjustment range of not less than 2.5 degrees. You have asked whether Bosch headlamps still must have an adjustment range of +/-4 degrees in the horizontal although Standard No. 108 has been changed.

We understand that "CAC" refers to "California Administrative Code". The effect of the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is to prohibit California from adopting and enforcing a minimum horizontal headlamp adjustm ent range greater or less than 2.5 degrees. Thus, a State requirement that a headlamp have a horizontal range of +/- 4 degrees is invalid because it differs from a corresponding Federal requirement.

We are unable to answer your further questions with respect to the California code, and suggest that, for further information you write Department of Motor Vehicles, State of California, 2415 First Avenue, Sacramento, California 95818, ATTN: Mr. A. A. Pi erce, Director (FAX 916-732-7854).

ID: nht90-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: J. DOUGLAS SMITH -- ENGINEERING MGR., DURALITE TRUCK BODY AND CONTAINER CORP. TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-10-89 TO TAYLOR VINSON, NHTSA, FROM J. DOUGLAS SMITH ATTACHED; (OCC-4119) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office. I regret the delay in responding.

You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to the location of clearance lamps. You stated your understanding that "if a chassis cab is equipped with clearance and marker lamps, it is not necessary to add a second set of two lamps to act as clearance lamps to the front wall of the truck body." This is not correct. A chassis cab is an incomplete motor vehicle, and not required to comply with Standard No. 108. However, when the chassis cab is completed, the completed vehicle must comply, and be certified by its final-stage manufacturer as complying, with Standard No. 108 (and all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards). Standard No. 108, in pertinent part, requires front clearance lam ps to be mounted to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and as near the top as practicable.

This means that if clearance lamps have been mounted on the chassis cab, and if in that location they do not indicate the overall width of the completed motor vehicle and are not as near the top of the completed motor vehicle as practicable, the final st age manufacturer must add a set of clearance lamps to the front of the truck body to meet that requirement. In this event, the cab-mounted clearance lamps may be disconnected or removed.

However, this is not true with respect to the mounting of identification lamps on chassis cabs. Standard No. 108 allows them to be mounted as close as practicable to the top of the cab as an alternative to the top of the vehicle. Further, on truck trac tors, clearance lamps mounted on the cab may be located to indicate the width of the cab rather than the overall width of the vehicle.

I hope this has answered your question.

ID: nht90-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JERRY W. MOONEY -- RESIDENT IN CHARGE, DEPT. OF THE TREASURY, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE TITLE: FILE SV08PLOSV001

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-29-90 TO STEVEN WOOD FROM JERRY W. MOONEY; (OCC 4612) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1990, with respect to your investigation of the importation of 17 M151A2 military jeeps from Canada. The jeeps were imported as "parts" rather than as vehicles, shipped intact inside containers "and covered w ith parts."

You have asked three questions:

1. "We are of the understanding that a list does not exist naming certain vehicles as being noncomplying. If not, what is the procedure to determine if a vehicle complies to DOT standards?"

Your understanding is correct; no list of nonconforming vehicles exists. No procedure per se exists to determine if a vehicle meets DOT standards. However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each motor vehicle must bear the permanen tly-affixed certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to it on its date of manufacture. The presence of the certification label gives rise to, the presumption that the vehicle meets D OT Standards, and vehicles offered for importation bearing the certification label are admitted into the United states as complying vehicles.

2. "We are of the understanding that the M151A2 does not comply to DOT standards. What makes it a noncomplying vehicle?"

The M151A2 jeep was not certified as conforming to Federal standards. The lack of certification raises a presumption of nonconformance with all standards. Whether it did, in fact, meet some or all of those standards is a question to which we do not have the answer.

3. Does the fact that the M151A2 was manufactured for DOD make it a noncomplying vehicle?

No. Under the regulations of this agency, no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in compliance with contractual specifications. Although this relieves the manufacturer of the legal obligation of compliance, he may nevertheless choose to manufacture his vehicle in conformance with one or more standards. As I said in response to your second question, we have no knowledge as to the M151A2's state of com pliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions. Although the importation of these vehicles appears to be a violation of the regulations of this agency (the failure to file a declaration), it is only a technical one, since no Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard applied to the jeeps at the time of their manufacture. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the safety implications of this importation.

For many years, the Department of Defense, with the encouragement of this agency, has maintained the policy that all M151 vehicles must be scrapped at the end of their useful military life in a manner such that they cannot be reassembled for use on the p ublic roads. Over the years, these vehicles have exhibited a tendency to roll over, even when operated by drivers specifically trained in their correct usage. Consequently, it has been deemed in the interests of safety to ensure that they will not be o perated by untrained drivers on the public roads. While exportation of unscrapped M151s to Canada initially removed the threat to safety in the United States, their importation into this country renews that threat. Thus, we support your investigative e fforts. We understand that, under Customs procedures, merchandise entered fraudulently may be redelivered for export, or seized by Customs. If the vehicles are seized, we recommend their export or destruction, rather than disposal by sale at auction or by use by Customs personnel in the performance of their duties.

ID: nht90-2.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Richard L. Martinez -- Santa Fe Insurance Agency , Inc.

TITLE: Europa International, Inc

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated March 9, 1990 To Talyor Vinson and From Richard L. Martinez (OCC 4529)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of March 9, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to "the $2,000 liability policy, that you discussed with him. You have asked four questions with respect to this subject on behalf of a client who intends to apply for recognition as a registered importer by this agency, and as an independent commercial importer (ICI) under EPA regulations. Initially, let me provide you with some background information. under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically Title 15, United States Code, Section 1397(c)(3)(d) (ii), the Department of Transportation is required to prescribe by regulation "provisions for ensuring that the [registered] importer (or any successor in interest) will be able technically and financially to carry out the importer's responsibilities under part B of this title (relating to discovery, notification, and remedy of defects)." These responsibilities primarily are to notify vehicle owners in the event that either a safety related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the owner's vehicle, and to remedy the situation.

In developing a regulation to implement the statutory requirement, the agency examined the regulations of the EPA pertaining to ICIs. In a final rule published on September 25, 1987 (52 FR 36136), EPA required ICIs to provide to vehicle or engine owners warranties, and to ensure that the warranties "are insured by a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance company", and "are transferable to each successive owner . . . ." (40 CFR 85.1510(b)(2)). In commenting on EPA'S proposed regulation, the State of California had noted that CARB's own new regulation addressing non-conforming vehicles required modifiers to post a prepaid surety bond in the amount of $1,000 per vehicle to cover its obligation to perform recalls, or alternatively, to purchase insurance which will cover the modifier's recall obligation. The Department of Transportation, wishing to conform as closely as possible to procedures already in practice for grey market importers who were ICIs, proposed and adopted 49 CFR 592.6(h), requiring registered importers to "maintain in effect a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance complany as a guarantor of its performance under paragraph (f) of this section." (which relates to notification and remedy).

With this background in mind, I shall reply to your four questions: "1. Is it required that the term of the policy be for eight years from the date of purchase/sale?" In essence, yes. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are required to provide remedy without charge for a period of 8 years following the first purchase of a vehicle (however, there is no limit on the time for notification). The general requirement for registered importers, established by Section 592.6(f)(2)(i), is that the obligation to provide remedy without charge shall not apply if the noncompliance or safety related defect exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after importation occurred more than 8 calendar years before notification respecting the failure to comply is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. However, during the 8-year period following sale after importation, the registered importer is not obligated to provide repair without charge if two factors are present. The first is that tbe condition is a safety related defect that is attributable solely to the original manufacturer of the vehicle, and not to the registered importer. The second is that the date of the original first purchase of the vehicle, if known, or, if not known, the date of manufacture, as determined by the Department of Transportation, is more than 8 years from the date on which notification is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. "2. The limit is $2,000. Would that apply annually or would it be for the entire eight-year period? The reason for this question is that the companies are wondering whether or not this is a cumulative limit, e.g., $2,000 x eight years = $16,000."

The purpose of the policy is to ensure that any noncompliance or safety related defect that is determined to exist in a vehicle may be remedied without charge to the vehicle owner. If the registered importer is financially unable to effect remedy, then the policy is intended to cover the cost of remedy. The most usual form of remedy is repair. Pursuant to comments received during the course of rulemaking that $2,000 appeared to be the uppermost sum necessary to repair a single noncompliance or safety related defect, the agency adopted section 592.5(a)(8) stating that the policy is in an amount that equals $2,000 for each motor vehicle . . . ." The answer to your question can be expressed in the following example. If a registered importer becomes insolvent in the second year following sale of the vehicle, for the next 6 years the policy should be available to any owner of the vehicle to cover the costs of repairing any safety related defect or noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle, with a limit of $2,000 on the cost of correcting any such defect or noncompliance covered by a single campaign. 3 Records of past remedial campaigns are available if insurance companies wish to study the types of noncompliances and safety related defects that have occurred over the years, as well as the model and model years involved. In our judgment, the cost of each repair has been far less than $2,000. If repair is impossible, alternative forms of remedy established by statute are replacement with a vehicle of equivalent value, or repurchase of a vehicle. Obviously this form of remedy cannot occur if the registered importer has gone out of business. "3. You mentioned that the policy was to cover non-compliance or safety defect situations. What are areas to be covered: emissions controls, latent defects, brake problems, warranty situations such as drive train, etc.?" Each system, part, or component of a motor vehicle is covered by the remedial authority. If a component is part of a system necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle does not comply with that standard because of the design or manufacture of that component, replacement of the component with a satisfactory one would be the object of a remedial campaign. For example, if a vehicle could not meet the stopping distance requirement of Standard No. 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, and that failure was due to the inadequacy of the brake lining the object of the campaign would be to recall all affected vehicles and replace the brake lining with one by which the vehicle would comply. The statute defines a defect as one that is inclusive of any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor veicles or motor vehicle equipment. But only defects that are determined to be safety related require correction. The question of whether a defect is safety related depends upon the facts of the individual case. Generally, defects in emission controls are not safety related, nor are "warranty situations such as drive trains". Determinations of the existence of noncompliances or safety related defects are made by the registered importer, the Department of Transportation, or the original manufacturer of the vehicle. "4. Europa is looking into whether or not MBNA would provide a warranty policy (for tbe G-wagon multipurpose passenger vehicle not sold in the United states) as they currently do for their private passenger vehicles. The present warranty covers for a 12/12 plan. If they were to extend this, is it possible that that could be acceptable as an alternative to the $2,000 limit? We doubt that MBNA would be willing to extend any type of warranty to a vehicle that is not originally manufactured by its parent company to comply with Federal safety standards, that it does not import, and that is not sold through its dealers. Further, such a vehicle could not be imported into the United States unless the Department of Transportation had determined that it was capable conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 4 However, assuming that the G-wagon is deemed eligible for entry and that MBNA is willing to extend a warranty to it, there is no legal reason why MBNA could not assume responsibility for remedial work without charge in the event the registered importer were unable to provide it, whether in the form of an express warranty, or other document. I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht90-2.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel.,NHTSA

TO: Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-21-90 To Taylor Vinson and From Dipl.- H. Westermann; (OCC 4484); Also attached to letter dated 2- 7-90 To Richard van Iderstine and From Dipl.- H. Westermann.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety standard No. 108 with respect to whether two designs for center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) you enclosed are permissible. You wish to know whether tbe ECE definition of "lamp unity" can be applied, and whether the designs form a CHMSL unity in the sense of Standard NO. 108. The question, as we see it, is not whether the ECE definition can be applied, but whether the two designs you submitted would meet the clearly expressed requirements of standard No. 108. The standard requires that there be a single lamp, that it have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, that its signal be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and that it provide specified minimum photometric values at 13 specific test points. The design represented in Enclosure 1 appears to pass through the center of the lamp, at the H-V test point, thus affecting compliance of the lamp. Measurement at test points can only be determined by photometric testing. The design represented in Enclosure 2 would not comply with the standard. It is, in effect, two lamps mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. standard No. 108 requires a single lamp, to be mounted on the vertical centerline.

ID: nht90-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HERBERT E. STOEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO JOHN WOMACK FROM HERBERT E. STOEL ATTACHED; (OCC-4406). ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 12-30-87 TO KEN SIKKEMA FROM HERBERT E. STOEL. TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to John Womack of this office, suggesting that the color of taillamps on motor vehicles be green.

The agency is concerned about methods to effectively improve rear lighting and signaling. The issues involved include lamp size, location, operation, combinations and separation, and color. We are learning that changes in lamp function, operation, and c olor should be approached in a conservative fashion, so as not to confuse the operators of other vehicles.

With specific respect to use of the color green on rear lighting equipment, we are aware that some research suggests a green/red color scheme may enhance driver performance. In such systems, a green lamp indicates that the accelerator pedal is applied, amber that the foot has been lifted from the accelerator pedal, and red, that the brake is being applied. Some years ago, an experiment was conducted with such a system using transit buses in the D.C. area. The results were inconclusive. Although some research suggests a possible improvement in driver performance with green/red lamps, there are no data addressing the possible driver confusion that might arise from multiple color lighting arrays.

Thank you for your suggestion to enhance motor vehicle safety.