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.

ID: nht90-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/90

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

TO: LARRY F. WORT -- BUREAU OF SAFETY PROGRAMS DIVISION OF TRAFFIC SAFETY ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO TAYLOR VINSON -- DOT; OCC 4613; FORD RATIONALE FOR FMVSS 108 COMPLIANCE BY CLARKS GORTA -- FORD DATED 03/19/90

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to Federal requirements for front side marker lamps on trucks. The Ford C-CT Series Cab is equipped with a reflex reflector (apparently mounted on the door, to judge by the Exhibit A that you enclosed), but does not have a separate front side marker lamp. Ford states that it uses "the roof mounted corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements", and that they satisfy photometry and all oth er Federal requirements. You have asked whether "the top of the cab clearance light [may] be used to fulfill the requirements for front side market lights. . . on cab over engine vehicles."

The answer is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not prohibit combining the front side marker lamp with any other lamp, and prohibits a front clearance lamp only from being optic ally combined with a front identification lamp (section S5.4, formerly S4.4). Although, under Table II of Standard No. 108, Location of Required Equipment, a front side marker reflector may not be mounted higher than 60 inches from the road surface, the re is no corresponding limitation on the mounting height of front side marker lamps, which would preclude it from being located on top of the cab. The marker lamp must be located "as far to the front as practicable", and the agency generally defers to t he manufacturer's discretion in determining whether a location is practicable, unless it is clearly erroneous. Judging by the location of the combination clearance-side marker lamp shown in Exhibit A that you enclosed, we have no reason to question Ford 's decision to locate the lamp there.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/90

FROM: RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH -- PRESIDENT SAFETY PREMIUMS

TO: JOHN MESSERA -- NHTSA

TITLE: AUTOMOBILE TRIANGLE DEVICE AUTOMOBILE TRIANGLE DEVICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/05/90 FROM STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA TO RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH -- SAFETY PREMIUMS, ON A 35, STD 125

TEXT: One of your associates provided us with a copy of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #125 while you were away from the office.

The standard was called to our attention since we have marketed for years a Signal Glo Car Mirror warning device, as described in the enclosed literature. Included in those products were two different triangle shapes.

One of our customers, who is in the retail automotive trade, has asked us to develop a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror for possible retail sales.

As our triangle gets larger, we wish to make sure that it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in the Standard #125. In addition, we would like to make sure that our instructions for use are clear and in no way conflict with the sta ndard.

A sample of our earliest Signal Glo triangle, and our prototype new larger size "Light at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle are enclosed for your information.

We would appreciate any comments or assistance you may be able to give us.

[BROCHURE OMITTED]

ID: nht90-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Peter K. Brown -- President, KC HiLites, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-2-90 to Peter Brown from Paul J. Rice; (A35; Std. 108) TEXT:

I am writing for your comments and approval regarding an Automotive Lighting product that our company intends to market.

The headlight systems on many late model vehicles operate differently than in the past. The low beams are extinguished when the high beam units are in use. This was done to reduce the foreground light of the low beams when the high beams are in use. I n actual use, having both systems operating in the high beam mode is superior.

With this in mind, I have studied paragraph 5.5.8 of the Federal Register Volume 54, No. 88 dated May 9, 1989. I interpret this to mean that headlights of a specific type, when used in a 4 headlight system, can all be illuminated at the same time on Hig h Beam.

The intended packaging, product and retail header card are enclosed for your inspection. I welcome any suggestions or comments that you may have. As these are prototype packages, will you please return them with your comments.

Our product catalog is enclosed to give you some idea of our company and products. Thanks for your help.