ID: nht90-2.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1990

FROM: William Waltz -- Wagner Division, Cooper Industries, Inc.

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 to W. Waltz from P. J. Rice; signature by S. P. Wood; (A34; Std. 108) TEXT:

Wagner Lighting Division of Cooper Industries would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a "Determination of Inconsequentiality" for non-compliance. We have been asked to assemble antique-appearing sealed beam headlamps for Lectric Limited.

Lectric Limited, a small manufacturer of parts geared toward the antique automobile industry, perceived a need among automobile collectors and hobbyists for sealed beam headlight bulbs for their cars which cosmetically appeared to be the same as those which were originally supplied with their vehicles. These authentic styled bulbs would enhance the value of their vehicles and also add valuable points to their scores at various shows.

Most of these same auto enthusiasts are acquiring old bulbs from wrecking yards which in most cases are extremely dim due to their age and the fact that they were built to the J579A spec. These old bulbs are also prone to sudden failure which is of no consequence at a car show; but can be hazardous on the occasional drive that these vehicles are sometimes used for. In spite of these risks, auto enthusiasts search the junk yards for these rare bulbs and use them.

After considering this problem, Lectric Limited requested a license from Fisher Guide Division of General Motors to duplicate their original lens design on October 6, 1987. On November 9, 1988, a license was granted to Lectric Limited to produce these bulbs.

On March 4, 1989, Lectric Limited contracted with Corning Glass to produce the lenses in accordance with J579A spec. It should be pointed out, that at the time the order to produce these lenses was given, the J579A spec was still on the books. However, shortly after Corning manufactured the tooling to produce these lenses the J579A spec was taken out of the book.

After the J579A spec was declared obsolete (approximately May, 1989), Lectric Limited requested that Corning attempt to upgrade the lens designed to meet J579C. This change also added to the cost of the project, but since the J579C spec would produce a superior and safer product it appeared that the added expenditure would be justified.

Corning was successful in modifying the design to meet J579C spec without noticeable change to the outward appearance of the bulbs and thereby still allowing these bulbs to be acceptable to the vast majority of antique auto enthusiasts.

Lectric Limited was not aware, at the time, that the markings 1D1 or 2D1 were a part of the spec and were required to be on the top of each bulb

produced. These markings on the face of each bulb would in effect make them useless to the antique auto enthusiasts. With no alternative, the car hobbyist would continue to purchase the unsafe but cosmetically accurate junk yard bulbs.

Lectric Limited is a small company and this waste of funds invested would be devastating to its financial future. This, in turn, would cause layoffs and a curtailment in new investments and projects.

OPTION #1

Wagner is requesting permission to produce these bulbs to 579A spec which would allow the use of the word TOP on #6012 (7") bulbs, #1 on 4001 (5 3/4") bulbs and #2 on 4002 (5 3/4") bulbs. We would also not be using the D.O.T. identification on the bulbs.

OPTION #2

Wagner would produce these bulbs to meet 579C specs and would use the word TOP on #6014 (7") bulb in place of 2C1, use the #1 designation on the 5001 (5 3/4") bulbs in place of the 1C1 designation and use the #2 designation on the 4000 (5 3/4") bulbs in place of the 2C1 designation. We would also not be using the D.O.T. identification on these bulbs.

ADDENDUM TO OPTION #2

Lectric Limited is willing to ink stamp the 1D1 or 2C1 and DOT designation on either the face and or the rear of each bulb, in order to avoid mistaking these bulbs for J579A spec bulbs.

Lectric Limited would produce an instruction sheet for insertion in each bulb package or print instructions on each box explaining the variations to the end user. This would also help to avoid confusion.

Lectric Limited is also willing to assure that these bulbs will only be marketed through antique auto specialty retailers and not through major chain stores and retail outlets. This, in addition to the added cost of the bulb which will be necessitated by the small production volume, and the need to amortize the tooling cost over a limited run will help to assure that these bulbs will not be in wide use in everyday transportation vehicles.

In short, Lectric Limited is willing to do whatever is necessary to satisfy the NHTSA requirements in order to obtain a reasonable variation to the 579C spec in regard to the 1D1 and 2C1 designation issue.

We believe that this product will, in effect, enhance the safety of antique automotive enthusiasts and a variation should be granted on these grounds as well as the others stated in this request.

ID: nht90-2.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1990

FROM: Michael O'Donnell

TO: Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: Applicable Regulations

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-18-90 to Michael O'Donnell from Paul Jackson Rice; (A35; VSA 108(a)(2) TEXT:

Some time ago, I contacted Ms. Tislghman at telephone #: 1-202-366-2992 inquiring about your departmental regulations regarding non-commercial vehicles. At that time, I was informed that National Highway Transportation Safety Regulations only apply in r egard to the manufacture of New Vehicles and further these regulations only apply in regard to vehicles made/used for commercial application(s).

If this is still the case, I would appreciate a letter from you to that effect. If not, please inform me of any regulations applying to a recreational vehicle/house coach.

The vehicle is a 1977 school bus conversion and is for personal and family use only, not for any type of commercial operation.

I will supply any further information you may require. Thank you for your prompt attention and cooperation.

ID: nht90-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/90

FROM: CARL HEINZ FABER -- MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA

TO: BARRY FELRICE, ASSOCIATE -- ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: ARMREST STORAGE COMPARTMENT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/14/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO KARL HEINZ FABER; A35; STANDARD 20

TEXT: In the near future, Mercedes-Benz vehicles will come equipped with new armrests between the two front and, where applicable, two rear seating positions. The new design will have a built-in compartment that can accommodate car phone storage. It will be covered by a lift-up lid that will afford easy access to the phone for the driver so that he can keep his basic attention on driving without having to deal with a small latch. A blue-print of the armrest is enclosed.

Our new armrest complies with the requirements of Standard 201 S3.5.2 which state that armrests that fold into the seat back or between two seat backs shall "Be constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material."

In addition, we believe that the center armrest lid is not covered by S3.3 and S3.3.1, based on the fact that S3.3 (Interior Compartment Doors) is very specific as to the components and the locations of compartment doors which must be tested. It specifi es neither the armrest itself nor a location between designated seating positions as being subject to S3.3.1.

Based on the above and in an effort to remove the car phone from an exposed interior position where it could interfere with the driver's use of controls, potentially be contacted by the head, or be insufficiently secure in case of collision, we will init iate production of the above described phone holder/armrest in the very near future.

If any member of your staff would like additional information, they should please contact Thomas Baloga in our Safety Engineering department at (201) 573-2616.

Enclosure

ID: nht90-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/90

FROM: MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PANDA TECHNIK PRESIDENT

TO: NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/13/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PANDA TECHNIK; A35; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Panda Technik, the North American agent of GEKA Gunther & Kastl GmbH., Eislingen/Fils, West Germany, is contemplating the distribution of the GEKA early warning panel in the United States. As this is a safety related devise, we respectfully request your evaluation of this product's suitability as a supplemental safety reflector. Our main concern is to insure that no laws or regulations are violated in the use of the GEKA early warning reflector.

Safety reflectors of this type are required, by law, in West Germany and we feel can make a significant contribution in the reduction of nighttime accidents in our roads as well.

The GEKA safety reflector consists of a metal backing plate, to which triangular section reflectors are affixed by means of rivets, to form a square reflector body. The individual reflector elements are assembled so that a pattern of diagonal, alternati ng red and white reflective strips is created (other color combinations can be made available as well). This pattern resembles the similarly alternating red and white stripe reflective tape developed by the NHTSA as a measure to increase the nighttime v isibility of on highway trucks.

The purpose of the GEKA reflector is to enhance nighttime and adverse weather visibility of slow moving/stationary vehicles which may be positioned in a manner which generates a hazard of collision with oncoming traffic. This is accomplished through a r eflective efficiency up to ten (10) times that of conventional reflectors (such as those required by law on all motor vehicles).

The GEKA reflector is intended solely as a supplemental safety devise and will be advertised as such, with specific mention that this is only an auxiliary devise which in no way replaces, supersedes or eliminates required safety devises or safety procedu res.

Applications for which the GEKA safety reflector are considered beneficial are:

* Slow moving trailers/convoys

* Parked or broken down vehicles within or near roadways

* Public Utility vehicles (i.e. utility line trucks, road crews, etc.)

As mentioned, Panda Technik firmly believes the GEKA early warning reflector can make a substantial contribution in the reduction of nighttime accidents through the increase in visibility and presence of slow moving or stationary vehicles.

Furthermore, the GEKA reflector can be installed with simple hand tools on either the front or rear of the vehicle. In cases where the vehicle is transverse to the flow of the traffic (such as line crews performing telephone or electric repairs) the rem ovable version can be positioned in accordance to the direction of traffic flow and which portion(s) of the vehicle is (are) exposed to the risk of collision.

In order to facilitate your evaluation of the GEKA reflector, a sample has been included. This particular model represents a fixed version, to be deployed whenever needed, which remains in the close, protected position, under normal usage.

Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this matter. Should you have any additional questions, require additional documentation or need further test samples please, do not hesitate to contact Panda Technik.

Sincerely

ID: nht90-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

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

TO: BILL WALTZ -- WAGNER DIVISION, COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-13-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM BILL WALTZ ATTACHED; (OCC 4056). TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter requesting permission for deviations from marking requirements for round sealed beam headlamps.

Wagner has been asked to assemble some Headlamps designed to appear as closely as possible to those produced by Guide Lamp in the 1950's. The lamps would be marked "1" and "2" in accordance with the nomenclature of the day, rather than "2D1", "1C1", and "2C1", as required by Standard No. 108. The DOT symbol would not be provided, "since this obviously was not on the original lamps." You have informed us that the lamps will be made to today's photometric standards" and "subjected to all the tests curren tly required of the round headlights." Finally, "they will be distributed on a limited basis through antique parts dealers."

I am sorry, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment from any requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our temporary exemption authority under 15 U.S.C. 1410 extends only to motor vehicles. Further, we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of either vehicles or equipment from their statutory obligation to certify through use of the DOT symbol that their products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the motor vehicle lamps which you have identified, and for which you ask an exemption are designated Type C and Type D sealed beam headlamps. As su ch, they must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c, December 1978, which are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. They are considered replacement equipment, and must conform to all requirements of standa rd No. 108, including marking and certification.

Standard No. 108 covers both original and replacement vehicle equipment. Depending on the vehicle category, it became effective for original equipment on January 1, 1968, and January 1, 1969. On January 1, 1972, it became effective for equipment intende d to replace original equipment on all motor vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, 1972. Therefore, it might appear that the standard would not apply in any event to replacement equipment for 1950's vehicles. However, the headlamps you describe are designed to conform to all contemporary requirements, except marking and certification. Even though intended for use on 1950's vehicles, these circular headlamps are interchangeable with circular headlamps installed on any vehicle manufactured after the effective dates of Standard No. 108. Therefore, they must be designed to conform with Standard No. 108, and marked and certified accordingly.

The intended markings "1" and "2" would signify mistakenly that the headlamps were designed to conform to SAE standard J579a, October 1965 (which also did not require the OT symbol on the lens). Until June 1989, SAE J579a was incorporated in Standard No. 108 as a permissible option to SAE J579c, but the agency deleted it as the lamps appeared to be out of production. However, even had J579a been retained, we could not have allowed the lenses of headlamps manufactured to J579c to be marked according to J579a.

ID: nht90-2.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 20, 1990

FROM: Wayne Brush -- Director, Material Management, Conceptor Industries, Inc.

TO: Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 to W. Brush from P. J. Rice; signature by S. P. Wood

TEXT:

Conceptor Industries Inc. ("Conceptor"), a subsidiary of Magna International Inc., in conjunction with the Electric Vehicle Development Corporation, the Electric Power Research Institute and several U.S. Electric Utilities is modifying General Motors Van s to produce electric powered vehicles for sale into the United States and Canada.

In January 1989, Conceptor made an application for a temporary exemption from three Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This exemption was subsequently granted in November 1989 (Docket No. EX 89-2; Notice 2) with an expiry date of November 1, 1990. Conceptor has completed its testing program and concluded that the vehicle meets paragraphs S5.1.1.3, S5.1.2, and S5.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.105 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, 49 CFR 571.124 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 12 4 Accelerator Control Systems, and paragraphs S6.2/S6.4, and S6.3/S6.4 of 49 CFR 571.301 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity.

The purpose of this letter is to seek your assistance in resolving a difficult administrative problem for both General Motors and Conceptor concerning the assignment of the vehicle identification number for the electric van. Both companies are aware tha t the vehicle may not fit the current definition of an incomplete vehicle as described in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 568 (49 CFR 568) due to the fact that the shell as manufactured by General Motors lacks a power train. However, the shel l does have the other minimum requirements, i.e. a frame and chassis structure, steering system, suspension system and braking system. Due to this variance from the definition your department has indicated that Conceptor must assign the VIN. While Conce ptor is prepared to do this, use of a VIN to that is to a large extent different than that used by General Motors causes serious administrative difficulties in terms of tracking warranty, safety recall campaigns, etc. With this in mind, General Motors h as suggested that Conceptor use a VIN while it uses the GM world manufacturer identifier, check digit, model, year and production sequence codes, has a unique vehicle description code placing an "X" as the engine type code. An example of the proposed VI N is shown below:

2GKGG35X1K4528366

I would appreciate your thoughts on whether this approach is acceptable to NHTSA and if so, some guidance on how to secure the necessary approval. Early resolution of this matter is very important to us as we hope to be in production on July 9, 1990.

I will contact your office early next week to set up a convenient time to meet and discuss this issue.

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.