ID: nht90-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

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

TO: MEHDI ROWGHANI -- DALLAS EUROPEAN PARTS DISTRIBUTORS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-9-90 TO TAYLOR VINSON FROM MEHDI ROWGHANI ATTACHED; (OCC 4337) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether "importation and sale of European doors (without reinforcement bars) is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Transpo rtation."

Your question appears premised upon the fact that many EUropean passenger cars achieve compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 side Door strength by being equipped with doors incorporating reinforcement bars. However, this standard applies only to new vehicles, and does not extend to replacement parts for such vehicles. Thus, if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced, and that door incorporated a reinforcing bar, there is no requirement that the replac ement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214. In short, the importation and sale of a replacement door that does not incorporate a reinforcing bar does not violate any of the statutes, standards, or other regulations administered by this agency.

If the replacement door is intended for use on a passenger car line that is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard that this agency administers, however, you should be aware that it must nevertheless be marked with the registered trademark of the manufacturer of the door, or unique identifier if there is no registered trademark, and the letter "R". I enclose a copy of the standard for your information, as this requirement is a relatively new one, and may not be clearly understoo d. This marking must be on the door before the door is imported into the United States.

Enclosure (Part 541)

ID: nht90-2.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1990

FROM: William F. Canever -- Staff Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Ford Motor Company

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from K. DeMeter to W.F. Canever; Also attached to letter dated 10-22-90 from P.J. Rice to W.F. Canever (A36; Sec. 501(8); Sec. 501(12)

TEXT:

You have requested information regarding Ford Motor Company's interest in Jaguar plc, and our intentions with regard to filing the Final 1989 Model Year Report for Ford and Jaguar.

We intend to file a combined 1989 report for Ford and Jaguar because Ford controlled the import of Ford vehicles during model year 1989. Having first obtained the agreement of the Board of Directors of Jaguar to recommend-the offer, Ford Motor Company, Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, publicly announced its tender offer for Jaguar shares on November 2, 1989. The offer document, which constituted the formal legal offer, was mailed on November 8. After over 50 percent of Jaguar st ock had been tendered, Ford declared the tender offer "unconditional" on December 10, 1989. Thus, Ford gained controlling interest in Jaguar and the importer of Jaguar vehicles, and under provisions of the CAFE laws, Ford became the manufacturer of Jagu ar vehicles imported during the 1989 model year and therefore these vehicles must be combined for purposes of calculating 1989 model year corporate average fuel economy levels.

During the period of negotiation, tender offer, and acceptance, and continuing through the end of calendar year 1989, Ford was manufacturing 1989 model year vehicles. Ford, by virtue of its acquired interest in Jaguar and the importer of Jaguar vehicles , was the manufacturer for CAFE calculation purposes of Jaguar vehicles imported into the United States customs territory during that period of time. Additionally, Ford's 1989 model year had not closed at the time of acquisition because Ford was the man ufacturer, for CAFE calculation purposes, of certain 1989 Aston Martin vehicles that were being imported into the United States through calendar year end 1989.

Because Ford controlled Jaguar and the importer of and Jaguar vehicles prior to the end of the 1989 model year, and because fuel economy standards apply to particular model years as a whole and not to separate parts of a model year, all Ford and Jaguar v ehicles produced and imported for model year 1989 should be placed in Ford's fleet. This treatment is consistent with that accorded Chrysler and AMC for model year 1987, the year Chrysler acquired AMC, as outlined in your letter of April 4, 1990 to Lewi s Goldfarb.

Therefore, Ford will file its Final 1989 Model Year Report with the Jaguar vehicles included in its import CAFE fleet. Because we anticipate that Ford and the importer of Jaguar vehicles will jointly earn credits in 1989, we may, at some future date, fi le a carryback plan to cover Jaguar's

shortfall for model years 1986 through 1988 and to recover civil penalties paid (see, for example, letter dated March 21, 1990 from Jaguar Ltd.). Again, this is consistent with the treatment accorded CAFE credits in the Chrysler/AMC situation.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office. As we discussed, we will not file our Final 1989 Model Year Report until you have had an opportunity to review and respond to this information.

ID: nht90-2.71

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1990

FROM: William F. Canever -- Staff Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Ford Motor Company

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to William F. Canever (A37; Part 535; CSA S 502(1))

TEXT:

As we discussed, Ford Motor Company will be submitting a credit allocation plan to cover a CAFE credit shortfall for its 1989 Domestic Light Truck Fleet. You have asked us to explain our proposed method of credit allocation.

Our credit allocation method is consistent with the methodology that was reviewed and approved by NHTSA when Ford filed a 1985 light truck credit allocation plan. (See letter from Diane K. Steed, dated April 26, 1988, approving the 1985 credit allocatio n plan.) Under that approved plan, Ford utilized 1986 CAFE credits earned on a combined reporting basis and prorated the credits based upon the sales mix of individual 4x2 and 4x4 vehicles to cover the 4x4 portion of its 1985 credit shortfall. Proratio n was necessary because Ford had elected to report its 1985 light truck CAFE on a class basis (4x4 and 4x2), while reporting its 1986 light truck CAFE on a combined basis. After proration, application of 4x4 credits to the 1985 shortfall and recombinati on, Ford has 3,208,660 combined light truck credits available from 1986. Ford intends to apply those credits to its 1989 combined light truck CAFE credit shortfall.

The proration method was approved by NHTSA in a Notice of Interpretation. In the Notice, NHTSA's Chief Counsel stated:

The Agency interprets . . . the Act to require as much commonality as possible between classes in transferring credits, but not absolute identity. . . . In transferring credits earned in 1979-1980 model years the agency will attempt to assure that those credits are applied to offset civil penalties on the same type of vehicles as those which generated the credits. This will be pursue d by pro-rating the earned credits according to the number of vehicles in the credit-earning class which would fall in the class subject to the civil penalty in the prior or subsequent year. 44 Fed. Reg. 64943 (1979).

While the Notice of Interpretation was prompted by new standards which permitted manufacturers to comply with light truck CAFE standards on a combined basis or a class basis, the proration methodology was not specifically limited to any particular model year nor was it limited to a one time only application. In fact, the preamble to the final rule which established the three-year carryforward and carryback of fuel economy credits for manufacturers of light trucks reaffirmed the proration methodology ci ting examples which indicated that the methodology could be used in several different years.

This notice also reaffirms the policy set forth in the November 1979 notice of interpretation regarding the transfer of credits by a manufacturer between a year in which it complies with a single fuel economy standard applicable to al l light trucks and a year in which it complies with several standards for different classes of light trucks. 45 Fed. Reg. 83233 (1980).

Neither the preamble nor the notice of interpretation limit the proration methodology to any given year or to a single opportunity. Indeed, it is instructive to note that at the time the preamble was published light truck CAFE standards had been set onl y through 1985, and the preamble discussed the proration of credits as a choice available to a manufacturer for all of those years:

Additional examples are set forth below to illustrate how this procedure will be applied in light of the manufacture(r)s' choice in model years 1983-1985 to comply with either a single standard for all light trucks or with optional se parate standards for two-wheel (4x2) and four-wheel drive (4x4) light trucks.

(45 C.F.R. S535.4(e)) While the regulation states that credits may not be transferred between classes of light truck, it is clear that the proration methodology protects against such an occurrence. Prorating of combined credits assures that credits are applied to offset civi l penalties on the same types of light trucks as those that generated the credits. This fact was recognized by NHTSA when it first proposed and approved the use of the proration methodology.

The regulatory scheme creates two methods of complying with light truck CAFE standards, it does not create three classes of light trucks. Manufacturers can comply with light truck CAFE standards on a combined basis or on a class basis. However, there ar e only two classes of light trucks--4x4 and 4x2. No where is the term "class" applied to the combined light truck fleet. In fact, if a combined fleet were a separate "class" of light trucks, then the proration methodology would be prohibited even in th e circumstances identified in the Notice of Interpretation and in the preamble. Both the regulation and the discussion in the preamble to the final rule make it clear that there are only two "classes" of light trucks, and that there are two separate met hods of complying with the light truck CAFE standards. Complying with a single fuel economy standard applicable to all light trucks is a method of compliance--it does not create a new and separate class of trucks.

As you know, Ford has elected different means of compliance for different model years. In the past, Ford has reported its light truck CAFE on a combined basis for model years 1982, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989, while reporting on a class basis for model y ears 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, and 1985. Ford has, with NHTSA approval, utilized the proration method of credit allocation to cover shortfalls in 1982 and 1985. (Because NHTSA has eliminated the option of complying with the standard on a class basis begi nning in 1992, it can be anticipated that the proration

methodology may be employed by manufacturers to determine credit allocation. However, if NHTSA maintains a combined fleet standard, these issues will resolve themselves after the 1995 model year.)

The proposed use of 1986 credits to cover 1989 does not directly involve the use of prorated credits. Ford elected to report both 1986 and 1989 on a combined basis. Proration is involved here only to the extent that Ford prorated some of its 1986 credi ts to cover 1985 and then recombined the remaining credits to carry forward for future allocation. Because the proration and recombination of 1986 credits was previously accepted by NHTSA when it approved Ford's 1985 credit allocation plan, we do not be lieve that there are any outstanding issues to be addressed. However, as we discussed, we will not file our credit allocation plan for 1989 until you have had an opportunity to review this information. Please let us know if you require any additional i nformation or if we can be of assistance in any way.

ID: nht90-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 3, 1990

FROM: MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-25-90 TO MARGARET SCHMOCK FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; VSA 103(d)) TEXT:

Could you please be so kind and answer me some questions about the FVMSS 108 and the CAC Title 13, Article 9.

The amended FMVSS 108 says: S7.7.3 When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its vertical aim shall not be less than +/- 4 degrees ... S7.7.4 When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its horizontal aim shall not be less than +/- 2.5 degrees ... CAC says: The range of adjustment from the specified aim the lamp shall be at least +/- 4 degrees in both the vertical and horizontal directions. So my questions are: Does this mean that our headlamps still must have an adjustment range of +/- 4 degrees in horizontal direction, although the FMVSS 108 has been changed? Is it possible that the CAC meanwhile has been amended according to the FMVSS 108? Is it true that the CAC doesn't differ between auxiliary lamps and headlamps (in opposite to the FMVSS 108 that is only valid for headlamps)? Thanking you very much in advance for your actions.

ID: nht90-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: HIROSHI OZEKI -- EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT MAZDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM HIROSHI OZEKI -- MAZDA TO STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA DATED 04/10/90 ENTITLED REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF 49 CFR 571.108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO JAMES R. MI TZENBERG -- FLXIBLE CORP DATED 12/08/86 ON STD 108 INTERPRETATION; LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL TO CHUCK HOWARD -- SAFETY ALERT CO, DATED 06/17/83

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 10, 1990, with respect to the use of the hazard warning system concurrently with the stop lamps to provide additional warning to vehicles to the rear. You enclosed two interpretations of the agency which appear t o be conflicting, and you have asked for a clarification.

In our letter of June 16, 1983, we informed Safety Alert Company that its flashing deceleration warning system could operate through any rear lighting system that Standard No. 108 allows to be used for signalling purposes, such as the turn signal or haza rd warning system, provided that the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed. However, in our letter of December 8, 1986, we informed Flxible Corporation that their flashing deceleration warning system was unacceptable un der Standard No. 108 because "simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus, and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4. 1.3."

We do not believe that there is a conflict. The system described in the Safety Alert letter would utilize a vehicle's original lighting equipment that is intended to flash, and that the motoring public is accustomed to seeing flash. The system described in the Flxible letter, on the other hand, would employ a series of new lamps, not required by the standard but supplemental to the required lighting equipment, and whose presence and function would be unfamiliar to motorists following. Thus, that unfam iliar system, if flashing, could have a confusing effect, as we stated in our 1986 letter.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht90-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/90

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

TO: RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH PRESIDENT SAFETY PREMIUMS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/25/90 WITH COMPANY BROCHURE ON AUTOMOBILE TRIANGLE DEVICE, FROM RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH -- SAFETY PREMIUMS TO JOHN MESSERA -- NHTSA

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). You indicated that you have for many years produced and sold a "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On," which you described as a "dangling safety tag which attaches to the car mirror to alert passersby of emergency needs." These warning devices are made of a reflective plastic material designed with a clip attachment, and come in eight di fferent shapes, including a triangular configuration. These products are slightly more than four inches high.

You also stated that, pursuant to a request from a customer, your company has developed a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror. You have provided a prototype of this new larger size "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle, that is a pproximately 6" at the base and 5 1/2" in height. You stated that, as your warning triangle gets larger, you "wish to make sure it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in Standard No. 125." Additionally, you stated that you wanted t o be certain that the instructions for this larger size warning triangle "in no way conflict with the standard." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised thi s authority to establish Standard No. 125. Section S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the pre sence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.)

2

This language in S3 of Standard No. 125 makes clear that the standard's requirements are not limited to devices used by large trucks; that is, Standard No. 125 does not apply only to a "roadside truck version" of a warning device. Instead, the standard a pplies to all devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, from the smallest motorcycle to the largest truck, if the device satisfies the other conditions set forth in S3 of the standard.

One of the conditions set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance, are not subject to Standard No. 125. Examples of such devices include a rag tied on a radio antenna and a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade. By the time approaching traffic sees one of the se non-warning devices, the traffic would already be aware that the vehicle displaying such a device was stopped.

Your "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" product appears to be designed and to function in the same way other non-warning devices do; i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. If this is the case, the "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the larger "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle may be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." It appears from the promotional material enclosed in your letter that this larger triangle is intended to serve the same purpose as what you call "truck warning triangles." We assume that you are describing warning devices that are certified as complying with Standard No. 125. If your larger triangle is to serve this function, it would be subject to Standard No. 125 and would have to conform to all the requirements of the standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the larger triangle must conform include minimum size, durability, material, c ontainer, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate c ommerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Further, the Safety Act provides that NHTSA has no authority to appr ove, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicab le Federal safety standards. To comply with any applicable legal obligations, especially in connection with the manufacturer of the larger size warning triangle, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard 125 and consider the desi gn, marketing, and intended use of the new larger warning triangle.

3

You should also be aware that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $ 800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers a nd remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questio ns or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-2.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1990

FROM: Tekonsha Engineering Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter from F. Berndt to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 11-30-81 from F. Berndt to K.G. Moyer (A23; Redbook 3; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to L.F. Henneberger (A36; VSA Sec. 103 (d); Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 6-22-90 from L.F. Henneberger to P.J. Rice (OCC 4927); Also attached to Ford Bulletin Number 10, signed by R.R. Chestnut, dated 1 2-15- 89

TEXT:

By law vehicles towing trailers large enough to have a braking system must be equipped with a brake control device. Tekonsha Engineering is a major manufacturer of such a device.

The following is a brief overview of the use of the Commander Electronic Brake Control when the service brakes (foot) are applied initiating a stopping action the brake control activates both electrical braking systems simultaneously, illuminating the br ake lights and prompting a smooth stop. It is our understanding that it is a common practice to use the brake control's manual override (hand) to help control a swaying trailer. The brake lights do not illuminate while in this mode, thus eliminating fa lse braking signals.

We take pride in the fact that we make a diligent effort to engineer a product compatible with the ever changing vehicle electrical systems. The technological development of the Commander Electronic Brake Control was based on an extensive compatibility s afety study. We found that we could avoid the potential danger of interfering with the towing vehicles' electronically activated systems such as, the cruise control, the anti- lock brake system and the over-drive system by circumventing the electrical a ctivation of our device via the stop light switch. The enclosed Ford QVM Bulletin substantiates our efforts.

We feel the Commander's electrical non-interference factor to be a strong positive safety feature.

ID: nht90-2.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/08/90

FROM: JOSEPH R. WHEELER -- CORNELIUS AND COLLINS

TO: KEN WEINSTEIN -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/14/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH R. WHEELER; A35, STANDARD 208

TEXT: As we discussed this morning, I have made an inquiry with your agency concerning action by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49 CFR @ 571.208 S4.1.5.1 (1987). As you know, under this provision, automobile manufacturers would have three options with regard to passenger restraint systems if the Secretary of Transportation determined, by not later than April 1, 1989, that 2/3 of the total U.S. population was subject to mandatory state usage laws.

As I told you, the original version of Tennessee's MUL contained a self-nullifying provision, Tenn. Code Ann. @ 55-9-609, a copy of which is attached for your information.

As you told me, the Secretary of Transportation never made the determination provided for in S4.1.5.1. I would like a brief statement from your agency which simply confirms that this action was never taken by the Secretary of Transportation, and that , therefore, Tennessee's population was never counted. I am not requesting any opinion from your office concerning the effect of this statutory provision, or the legal effect of the fact that the Secretary never made the determination in question.

As we discussed, this letter is needed for a filing which must be made no later than June 15, 1990. Therefore, I would request that you send your original reply federal express or overnight mail to me early in the week. We will be more than happy to reimburse your agency for the overnight mail expenses, and I certainly appreciate your prompt attention and assistance with this response.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Wheeler [TENNESSEE PROVISION CODE]

55-9-609. Legislative intent [Repealed effective June 30, 1990]. -- (a) It is the legislative intent that the passage of Acts 1986, ch. 866 shall include the population of this state towards the required percentage of persons necessary to avoid fede ral regulations mandating the imposition of any federally imposed safety device or regulation pertaining thereto.

(b) The provisions of @@ 55-9-603 -- 55-9-610 shall be null and void if the United States secretary of transportation does not include Tennessee within the population necessary to prevent the requirement that air bags be required in motor vehicles pur suant to federal regulations. [Acts 1986, ch. 866, @@ 9, 14.]

Compiler's Notes. For repeal of this section on June 30, 1990, see @ 55-9-610.

For codification of Acts 1986, ch. 866, see the Session Law Disposition Tables.

ID: nht90-2.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/90

FROM: RALPH H. SHEPPARD -- ADDUCI, MASTRIANI, MEEKS & SCHILL

TO: TAYLOR VINSON; PAUL JACKSON RICE, ESQ. -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: IMPORTATION OF A NON-CONFORMING VOLVO CAB CHASSIS INTENDED FOR RE-EXPORT TO SWEDEN OUR FILE: BAF-001

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/22/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO RALPH H. SHEPPARD; A35, PART 591

TEXT: This letter follows my telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson, Esq., of your office, regarding the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements with regard to importation of a non-conforming Volvo truck cab chassis manufactured in Belgium pursuant to Swedish environmental and safety standards. As discussed with Mr. Vinson, the vehicle would be presented to the U.S. Customs Service as a temporary importation under bond (TIB) entry at the time of its arrival.

Once the vehicle is in the United States, our client, BAF Communications Corporation, or Peabody, Massachusetts (hereafter "BAF") will install a passenger and equipment box on the rear of the cab chassis, and then install various telecommunications eq uipment in order to equip the vehicle as a mobile television transmission facility. Upon completion, anticipated within 90 days of importation, the vehicle will be re-exported to Sweden, for use there by our clients' customer, Comvik Skyport of Sollentun a, Sweden.

As I indicated in my telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson, we request your priority consideration of the appropriate DOT Waiver criteria for this transaction, which involves pending importation. Based on our review of the regulations, and their sta tutory intent, we believe that a waiver of DOT requirements for this vehicle is warranted under any one of four different waiver options itemized on DOT Form HS-7. First, under item 4, since this vehicle is intended solely for re-export after the additi on of the box and telecommunications equipment, and all applicable shipping documents and entry documents will so indicate, we believe waiver is warranted under Section 591.5(c) of your regulations. Second, the president of the Swedish company, the ulti mate purchaser of the completed vehicle, and a non-resident of the United States, is prepared to certify that the vehicle would be imported solely for the purpose of the addition of the various equipment, that it will not be sold during its time here, an d that it will be exported within the time provided in the regulation, and therefore is entitled to a waiver under regulation section 591.5(d).

Third, under item 8, the vehicle would be eligible for a waiver under that provision as well since the vehicle is not manufactured primarily for use on the U.S. public roads and therefore is not a motor vehicle subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Bumper and Theft Protection Standards. Finally, pursuant to item 9 of the form HS-7, "the vehicle requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended functions", and will be exported after the further manufacturing operations are accomplis hed.

Since the above-described vehicle is not intended for permanent use in the United States, we believe that the letter and spirit of the various laws enforced by the Department of Transportation support waiver of those provisions with regard to vehicles such as this which are imported for customizing work, and solely intended for re-exportation. Needless to say, such operations benefit the United States, by permitting U.S. businesses to contract for work on such vehicles, bringing in valuable funds re lated to the services and equipment provided, thus helping improve the U.S. trade deficit. We do not believe that the regulations should be enforced in a way which has a chilling effect on the ability of U.S. businesses to remain competitive with foreig n companies performing similar customizing operations.

Accordingly, we request that you clarify the Department of Transportation requirements with regard to the above-described transaction, and confirm that the vehicle would be permitted entry, subject to subsequent re-exportation under one of the four wa iver criteria outlined above.

We look forward to your expedited consideration of this matter, and ask that you immediately contact us at (212) 949-7120 if there are any questions regarding our request. Further, upon formulating a response to our letter, please transmit that respo nse by facsimile to (212) 949-7271, rather than relying on normal mail delivery.

ID: nht90-2.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 11, 1990

FROM: Tony Llama -- President, Davenport Enterprises

TO: Steven P. Wood, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 to T. Llama from P. J. Rice; (A35; Part 591); and letter dated 6-12-90 to T. Llama from D. Sander

TEXT:

Our customer in Panama, Motores Internacionales, S.A., is the distributor for Latin America and the Caribbean of vehicles manufactured in the USSR, and we supply the air conditioners for the vehicles which they sell.

Recently they received a new vehicle, which is a van similar to the ones manufactured in Japan. This type of van can also be converted into an ambulance, and they have asked us to design and develop an a/c unit for this vehicle.

In order to do so, we must bring one into the U.S.A. for a period of at least 90 days. Once we have built and installed the a/c unit on this vehicle, it will be returned to Panama for evaluation and testing.

Since this is a non-compliant vehicle, we would like to request from you permission to enter it into the United States through the Port of Houston, Texas, where it will be transferred on a platform to our factory in Dallas, Texas, until we finish develop ing the air conditioning unit. Then it will be returned to Panama in the same manner.

Please let us know your requirements so that we may advise our customer and be able to proceed with this project.

P.S. Please address your response to our export office in Coral Gables, Florida.