ID: nht68-2.38

DATE: 10/03/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of September 3, 1968, to Mr. Sason of the National Highway Safety Bureau, discussing the Chrysler Corporation's Super Lite, has been referred to this office.

The State of Vermont has contacted us in regard to this question. We understand that in Vermont, and in other States, Chrysler has taken legal action to prevent state prohibition or regulation of the Super Lite on the basis of Federal preemption under @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and Standard 108.

I enclose a copy of a letter, dated September 17, 1968, from Director Hadden to the Chrysler Corporation, in which he says:

"It should be noted, however, that, while the incorporation of this lamp in your 1969 automobiles would not be precluded by the Federal Standard, the various States may interpose restrictions as to the lamp."

In this office stated to the State of Vermont's Department of Motor Vehicles in response to an inquiry on the question: It is the opinion of the FH A that Federal lighting Standard No. 108 does not deal with the aspect of performance that relates to the Super Lite, and therefore there is no preemption of State regulations dealing with it.

We will be glad to give you whatever interpretive assistance you wish in this and other matters relating to the traffic safety laws, within the limits of our resources. We would also like to hear from you that legal developments are taking place in your state in this area.

ID: nht87-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David A. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David A. White Senior Safety Engineer Grumman Olson Post Office Box 2005 Sturgis, MI 48091

Dear Mr. White:

This letter responds to your inquiry of November 17, 1986, asking this agency to approve an alternate location for the certification label of a light duty truck your company intends to manufacture for the United States Post Office. Section 567.4 of the N ational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places set out in that pr ovision. If none of those locations is practicable, S567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate place to affix the label, and to ask our approval for that alternative.

You explain in your letter that in the circumstances you describe, the S567.4 locatons are impractical. First, you explain, the vehicle's small and irregularly shaped for a label. Second, if your company places the label on the inside of the sliding door , opening the door would hide the label. Third, you assert that the instrument panel is too small for a label.

You enclose a drawing to illustrate where your company intends to place the certification label. According to your description, the certification label will be placed on a fixed panel behind the driver, and between the cab and the load compartment. This panel is one part of a three piece assembly of which the remaining two components are a center sliding door and a second fixed panel. You state that a person can see the certification label from the driver's area without moving any vehicle item.

In directing a manufacturer to put its certification label in those places set out in S567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular design, inst alling the certification label as your company proposes will facilitate seeing and reading the label, while placing the label as specified in S567.4 may not be practicable or might interfere with those activities. Therefore, on the condition that your co mpany's label complies in all other respects with S567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the forward side of the left hand bulkhead fixed panel.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 17, 1986

Administration of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Grumman Allied Industries, Inc., LLV Division would like to request approval of an alternate location for the certification label of a light duty truck to be manufactured for the U.S. Post Office. The locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4 are not practical for the following reasons:

1. The vehicle has sliding side doors making the hinge pillar, door latch post, and door edge too small and irregularly shaped to accept a label.

2. A label placed on the inward facing side of the side door would be covered up by the vehicle structure when the door is opened.

3. The instrument panel is too small to accept a label.

Grumman Allied Industries proposes to locate the label on the forward side of the left hand bulkhead fixed panel. This bulkhead is located behind the driver between the cab and load compartment. The bulkhead is a three piece assembly consisting of a cent er sliding door and two fixed panels. The door slides to the right when opened. The certification label will be in view from the drivers area without moving any vehicle item. I am enclosing a copy of drawing 85616200 to show the location we are proposing .

David A. White Senior Safety Engineer DAW/sm 03/14/87

ID: 8027

Mr. Patrick R. Smorra
Group Vice President
Chrysler Corporation
38111 Van Dyke Avenue
Sterling Heights, MI 48312

Dear Mr. Smorra:

This responds to your letter of November 12 to the Administrator asking for a variance from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for vehicles that Chrysler Corporation would like to sell to foreign nationals for their use on vacation in the United States. You have inquired whether additional information is required.

The agency would be willing to consider Chrysler's request through the medium of a petition for temporary exemption from one or more specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The temporary exemption, two years in duration, permits a manufacturer to sell up to 2,500 exempted vehicles in any 12- month period during the term of the exemption, subject to such terms and conditions as the agency deems appropriate. These exemptions are renewable. Indeed, NHTSA has already provided exemptions to General Motors for the same purpose as Chrysler's, pursuant to 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(d). For your guidance, I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice that granted GM's original petition in 1988. Because of the necessity to afford the public an opportunity to comment, a petitioner should anticipate an elapsed time of approximately four months between the agency's receipt of its petition and a determination on it. Should you have questions on the exemption process, Taylor Vinson of this office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

You have also asked "[i]f, upon expiration of the variance, the vehicle has not left the U.S. who is responsible for the delinquency?" This is an interesting question. The exemption is not provided directly to the purchaser. Instead, it is provided to a manufacturer to allow it to sell nonconforming vehicles to foreign nationals without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, subject to the purchaser's agreement to export the vehicle when (s)he leaves this country. Should a manufacturer sell an exempted vehicle to a foreign national knowing, or in the exercise of due care having reason to know, that the purchaser did not intend to export it, the manufacturer would have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against sale of nonconforming vehicles, notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle had been exempted. Moreover, if the manufacturer did not take appropriate steps to assure that the purchaser honored his or her commitment to export the vehicle, the agency could find that continuation of the exemption was no longer in the public interest, and cancel it. However, if the manufacturer did not know or in the exercise of due care have any reason to know that its exempted vehicles would not be exported, it would appear to have incurred no liability under the Act.

As for a foreign national purchaser who fails to export a vehicle in conformity with the terms of the condition imposed by the manufacturer under the exemption, it appears that the purchaser could be deemed to have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against introduction into interstate commerce of a nonconforming vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that the manufacturer had received an exemption for the manufacture and sale of the vehicle. Finally, depending on the safety standards from which the vehicle had been excused, the owner of the vehicle might find it difficult to register it in a State without bringing it into full compliance with the safety standards.

You have also asked, "[I]n the unlikely event that this vehicle has an accident in which it is deemed undriveable, who is responsible for its disposition." The answer to this question would appear to turn on the ownership of the vehicle. Since Chrysler does not intend to lease the exempted vehicles, we assume that it will transfer all right, title, and interest in them to the foreign national purchasers, and we assume that those owners will be responsible for the disposition of wrecked vehicles deemed undriveable.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref.555 d:2/9/93

ID: nht93-1.28

DATE: February 9, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Patrick R. Smorra -- Group Vice President, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/12/92 from P.R. Smorra to Administrator, NHTSA (OCC 8087)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 12 to the Administrator asking for a variance from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for vehicles that Chrysler Corporation would like to sell to foreign nationals for their use on vacation in the United States. You have inquired whether additional information is required.

The agency would be willing to consider Chrysler's request through the medium of a petition for temporary exemption from one or more specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The temporary exemption, two years in duration, permits a manufacturer to sell up to 2,500 exempted vehicles in any 12-month period during the term of the exemption, subject to such terms and conditions as the agency deems appropriate. These exemptions are renewable. Indeed, NHTSA has already provided exemptions to General Motors for the same purpose as Chrysler's, pursuant to 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(d). For your guidance, I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice that granted GM's original petition in 1988. Because of the necessity to afford the public an opportunity to comment, a petitioner should anticipate an elapsed time of approximately four months between the agency's receipt of its petition and a determination on it. Should you have questions on the exemption process, Taylor Vinson of this office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

You have also asked "(i)f upon expiration of the variance, the vehicle has not left the U.S. who is responsible for the delinquency?" This is an interesting question. The exemption is not provided directly to the purchaser. Instead, it is provided to a manufacturer to allow it to sell nonconforming vehicles to foreign nationals without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, subject to the purchaser's agreement to export the vehicle when (s)he leaves this country. Should a manufacturer sell an exempted vehicle to a foreign national knowing, or in the exercise of due care having reason to know, that the purchaser did not intend to export it, the manufacturer would have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against sale of nonconforming vehicles, notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle had been exempted. Moreover, if the manufacturer did not take appropriate steps to assure that the purchaser honored his or her commitment to export the vehicle, the agency could find that continuation of the exemption was no longer in the public interest, and cancel it. However, if the manufacturer did not know or in the exercise of due care have any reason to know that its exempted vehicles would not be exported, it would appear to have incurred no liability under the Act.

As for a foreign national purchaser who fails to export a vehicle in conformity with the terms of the condition imposed by the manufacturer under the exemption, it appears that the purchaser could be deemed to have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against introduction into interstate commerce of a nonconforming vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that the manufacturer had

received an exemption for the manufacture and sale of the vehicle. Finally, depending on the safety standards from which the vehicle had been excused, the owner of the vehicle might find it difficult to register it in a State without bringing it into full compliance with the safety standards.

You have also asked, "(I)n the unlikely event that this vehicle has an accident in which it is deemed undriveable, who is responsible for its disposition." The answer to this question would appear to turn on the ownership of the vehicle. Since Chrysler does not intend to lease the exempted vehicles, we assume that it will transfer all right, title, and interest in them to the foreign national purchasers, and we assume that those owners will be responsible for the disposition of wrecked vehicles deemed undriveable.

ID: 15566.ztv

Mr. Junichi Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This replies to your letter of July 7, 1997, asking for an interpretation of the headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your letter contains a drawing of a headlamp with two light sources, two separate lens and separate aimable reflectors and one housing. You have asked whether a pair of these units would be regarded as a two-lamp or a four-lamp headlighting system for purpose of compliance with the photometric requirements of Figure 15 (four lamps) or Figure 17 (two lamps).

Because the two light sources are in a single housing, we regard your drawing as showing a single headlamp. Therefore, a system consisting of two of these lamps would be a two-lamp system, required to comply with the photometric requirements of Figure 17.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.8/11/97

ID: myles.ztv

Mr. Russel Myles
McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge, L.L.C.
63 South Royal, Suite 900
Riverview Plaza
Mobile, AL 36602

Dear Mr. Myles:

This is in reply to your letter of March 7, 2003, following up on my letter of

May 24, 2002, regarding prepaid mandatory service insurance policies acquired by registered importers. You have two questions related to that letter.

Your first question is related to my conclusion that if such a policy becomes ineffective because the underwriter has gone out of business, an RI would not be required to secure a new policy that provides coverage for the periods that remain outstanding on all previously imported vehicles. You asserted that this is contrary to my statement in the letter that "policies must remain in effect until ten years have elapsed from" the date on which the vehicle is first purchased after importation. You asked that I reevaluate this interpretation.

Obviously, we hope that the issuer of the mandatory service insurance policy will remain financially able to honor claims against that policy for the full ten years that free remedy of noncompliances and safety-related defects is required. However, as I remarked last year, "the owners of these vehicles would be protected to the extent that the company is required by state regulatory authorities to maintain sufficient reserves or take other measures to cover its outstanding liability on previously issued policies in the event that it should go out of business."At that time, we were unaware that any policy underwriter had gone out of business. You have now brought to our attention one that has: Vehicle Protection Services (VPS) of Michigan. However, you have not indicated that any owner covered by a VPS policy has suffered actual loss as a result thereof, or that Michigan law does not adequately address the issue of reimbursement. As I further noted in 2002, our regulations do not obligate a RI to obtain new policies for previously imported vehicles if the original underwriter goes out of business. For this reason, I cannot provide an interpretation that differs from the one I gave you last year. However, if events transpired that such a requirement would be in the public interest, we could propose an appropriate amendment to our regulations.

You have also expressed concern about contracts issued to a RI by a company that is not an insurance carrier but an entity that is only "backed" by an insurance company. Specifically, you asked who has standing "to make a claim on the real insurance policy," commenting that "the insurance companys only obligation is to the non-insurance company issuing the guarantee." It is our understanding that a vehicle owner holding such a policy would present a claim to the non-insurance company which would either pay the claim or present the claim to the insurer for payment, either to the policy holder or the non-insurance company. We adopted these requirements based upon what we understood were the commercial realities of the time, principally the difficulty in finding businesses that would issue service insurance contracts or policies.

We noted your statement that "vehicle owners and/or RIs could find themselves facing deductibles and other coverage limitations that completely undermine the regulatory coverage requirements and create other practical difficulties for those persons intended to be protected." However, RIs, as part of the application process, are required to furnish us with a copy of the policies they intend to provide to vehicle owners and are thereafter required to notify us within 30 days of any change in the information that is submitted in its application. See 49 CFR 592.5(a)(8) and (f). RIs are also required to include a current copy of their service insurance policy in their annual applications for renewal. See 49 CFR 592.5(e). We routinely review these policies to ensure they are consistent with the obligation of the RI to provide remedy without charge during the term of the policy.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.5/27/03

ID: 1983-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cummins Engine Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 26 1983 NOA-30 Mr. J. N. Uranga Cummins Engine Company, Inc. Box 3005 Columbus, Indiana 47201

Dear Mr. Uranga:

This is in further response to your January 28, 1983, letter in which you asked about the defect reporting requirements in Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. We responded by letter to you on March 24 indicating that as an original equipment manufacturer you might have some reporting responsibilities if a component of your original equipment was found to be defective.

In a conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff, you have indicated that you manufacture the engine of a certain vehicle and another manufacturer produces the fan. Both pieces of equipment are then sent to the vehicle manufacturer for assembly with the vehicle. In this instance, you ask whether you would have reporting responsibilities if the fan were determined to be defective. The answer to your question is no.

In the situation that you pose, you do not install the fan on your equipment nor does the fan ever come within your control. Therefore, you would not have responsibility for that part. The fan manufacturer and the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for any defects in that equipment. In instances where you might install a fan on your equipment prior to sale to the vehicle manufacturer, you might have reporting responsibilities if a defect is discovered in that part, since the part would be a component of the overall engine that you supplied to the vehicle manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-5.26

DATE: 12/17/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Maxim Motor Division

COPYEE: STAN HARANSKY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 206. Your letter(Illegible Word) forwarded to us November 10, 1971, by Mr. Stan Haransky. Associate Director of the Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

You ask whether the standard would prohibit the manufacture of fire trucks without side doors on the cabs. According to your letter, the trucks are built without side doors in order to allow firemen to enter and exit the cabs quickly during emergencies.

Standard 206 does not require that any type of motor vehicle be equipped with side doors. The standard requires only that if a vehicle subject to it has hinged or sliding side doors, they must conform with the standard's performance requirements for hinges, locks and latches.

Please write if I can be of any further assistance.

ID: 15305.ztv

Mr. Mark A. Evans
Photometric Engineer
Calcoast - ITL Lighting Technology
P.O. Box 8702
Emeryville, CA 94662

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1997, to Messrs Van Iderstine and Boyd of this agency. For your future reference, the Office of Chief Counsel has been designated as the Office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration responsible for providing legal interpretations of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You ask what components of a headlamp must be included when a corrosion test is conducted on it pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically you ask whether it is "just the housing lens, reflector and bulb?" Because paragraph S8.4(b) "makes a reference to unfixtured," you also ask whether that implies that "the aim and mounting hardware should be included?" Finally, because the connector is to be attached to the bulb, you ask whether that makes "the bulb compression spring a headlamp component?"

The performance requirements to which paragraph S8.4 relates are set forth in paragraph S7.4(h)(3) (applicable to integral beam headlamps) and paragraph S7.5(i) (applicable to replaceable bulb headlamps). These paragraphs require that, after a corrosion test of a headlamp conducted according to paragraph S8.4, "there shall be no evidence of external or internal corrosion or rust visible without magnification." When a headlamp is tested as provided in paragraph S8.4, it is to be tested "with connector attached to the terminals, unfixtured . . . ." Paragraph S4 defines a headlamp test fixture as a test device "whose mounting hardware and components are those necessary to operate the headlamp as installed" on a motor vehicle.

Since the headlamp is to be tested unfixtured, this means that a test headlamp need not be equipped with mounting hardware and associated components at the time of testing for corrosion resistance. However, all other components of the headlamp would be subject to the corrosion test, including its aiming hardware (if so equipped) and the bulb compression spring, and be required to comply with corrosion resistance requirements specified by Standard No. 108.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/24/97

ID: nht88-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PETER CAMERON-NOTT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/01/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM PETER CAMERON, OCC-2120; LETTER DATED 11/13/86 TO PETER CAMERON FROM FRANCIS ARMSTRONG, NEF 32GSH

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cameron-Nott:

This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1988, with reference to importation of motor vehicle equipment included in an incomplete vehicle.

You have stated that the kit will include brake hoses, brake fluid, and glazing, and that these items will conform with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 106, 116, and 205 respectively, and that they will all carry the DOT symbol certifying compliance. You ask whether these items may be entered under Box 2 on the HS-7 importation form.

The answer is yes. Box 2 (implementing 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(ii)) allows importation without bond of motor vehicles and equipment manufactured to conform with, and certified as conforming to, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Sincerely,