ID: aiam4479

"Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in response to your letter regardin Volkswagen's (VW) plan to introduce ceramic dots on selected areas of passenger motor vehicle windows in order to reduce energy transmission on the car's glazing. I sincerely apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you suggested that one possible means of reducing energy transmission into the interior of cars would be to apply extensive tinting or ceramic dots over extended areas of the glazing on those cars. You provided, in Attachments I and II of your letter, diagrams of the proposed areas of the glazing that would be shaded under your proposal, which included shading at the top (in the shade band areas) of the windshield as well as at the bottom. Shading on side and rear glazing was also shown. You offer a rationale that all of these areas may have less than 70% light transmissibility, and still comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). Your rationale begins with the observation that Section 4.2 of ANS Z26.1 has specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the 'levels required for driving visibility.' These footnotes are referring mainly to shade bands on the upper edge of the windshield. You also referred to SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands), which defines a 'glazing shade band' as 'an area of the vehicle glazing through which light transmission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by ANS Z26.1.' SAE J100 recommends shade bands only on the upper edge of the glazing. However, you implied that this recommended practice does not necessarily result from a determination that all other portions of the glazing are at 'levels required for driving visibility,' the limitation set forth in Standard No. 205. Instead, your letter set forth a suggested definition of the term 'levels required for driving visibility.' In a February 15, 1974 letter from this agency to Mr. George Nield, NHTSA said, 'We consider the word 'levels' in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to the driver's eyes.' You noted that EEC Directive 77/649 specifies levels requisite for driving visibility in the driver's 180 degree forward direct field of vision, and that Section 5.1.3 of this Directive specifies the boundaries for the driver's forward direct field of vision. You stated that this Directive provides guidelines for determining which areas of the glazing are 'requisite for driving visibility.' You stated that VW has tested its proposed shade bands around the lower edge and vertical sides of the glazing, as shown in Attachments I and II of your letter, according to the specifications of Directive 77/649 and concluded that 'ceramic dots in the area defined in the EEC directive very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small drivers' eyes, which are 'requisite for driving visibility'.' Based on this information, you asked the agency whether your proposal to include tinted bands or ceramic dots with light transmittance of less than 70 percent in areas beyond the shade band of the windshield would comply with Standard No. 205. The answer to your question is no. We agree with your observation that neither Standard No. 205 nor ANS Z26 explicitly states how one determines whether or not an area is 'requisite for driving visibility.' Our February 15, 1974 letter explained that one would make such a determination by considering the vertical height of the glazing in relation to the driver's eyes. We subsequently considered this subject again in a June 19, 1987 letter to a manufacturer whose identity was kept confidential. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information. As you will see, we concluded in this letter that the particular proposed head-up display described in the manufacturer's letter would not be located in an area of the windshield that was 'requisite for driving visibility,' and therefore vehicles equipped with this head-up display would not appear to violate Standard No. 205. This conclusion was based on the fact that the display would not obstruct the driver's forward visibility any more than typical hood designs or unretracted head lamps. Applying this reasoning to your plans to tint a band along the bottom of the windshield, it appears that this area is 'requisite for driving visibility,' except for that portion through which the shortest driver sees the hood or other parts of the vehicle. We again conclude that it is not requisite for driving visibility that the driver see the hood of the vehicle he or she is driving. You also asked about putting shade bands on the lower edges of all side windows and over most of the surface area of the rear window in the car. These areas cover parts of the glazing through which the driver could see not just parts of the car being driven, but also the road and traffic to the side and rear of the car. In many of our previous interpretations, we have said that all windows in passenger cars are requisite for driving visibility and must, therefore, meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement in Test 2 of ANS Z26. See, for example, the enclosed letters of April 4, 1985 to Mr. Armond Carderelli and of August 4, 1983 to Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha. This position was taken after considering the number of potential driving situations in which the entire surface area of any of these windows may be needed to allow the driver to analyze the traffic situation and react to it properly and promptly. As shown by our June 19, 1987 letter to the unnamed manufacturer, it is possible for a party to rebut this presumption. To do so, however, the party must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the area of the window surface in question is at a level that would never enhance driver visibility. We do not believe your letter shows this for the side and rear window area surfaces shown in Attachments I and II. Your letter attempts to show that the extended shade bands on the side and rear windows are at levels of the glazing that are not requisite for driving visibility by relying primarily on a European Economic Community Directive. We note that this Directive has not been referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205. Whatever the ultimate value of this Directive may prove to be in determining what levels on windows are requisite for driving visibility, the agency has not analyzed the recommendations of the EEC directive in detail. Thus, we are not in a position to comment on whether the guidelines established in this Directive are sufficient for defining levels which are requisite for driving visibility, within the meaning of Standard No. 205. Additionally, another source of information that is not referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205 appears to disagree with the EEC directive. This is the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100, which indicates that the only levels of windows that are known not to be requisite for driving visibility are bands along the upper edge of the windshield. SAE J100 suggests that the areas along the side and rear window you propose to tint darkly may be at levels requisite for driving visibility. As noted above, NHTSA has not yet evaluated this situation. However, the SAE recommendation suggests that it may not be as simple to determine the levels that are requisite for driving visibility as implied in your letter. Because of these uncertainties, we cannot conclude that the areas shown in Attachments I and II are not at levels requisite for driving visibility. Accordingly, the presumption that all of the window surfaces in this car are at levels requisite for driving visibility has not been rebutted. This means that if a vehicle has side and rear window portions that do not meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirements, as shown in your Attachments I and II, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 205. I would also like to respond to your assertion that, since your company could block the areas of the side and rear window in question with sheet metal, those areas must be interpreted as not being at 'levels requisite for driving visibility,' within the meaning of Standard No. 205. We have already considered and rejected this argument in a June 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Hisakazu Murakami (copy enclosed). In that letter, we said, 'While there currently are no requirements for the size of window openings, the agency must interpret Standard No. 205 to require window openings that are present to have complying glazing.' Although we have concluded that the areas on the side and rear windows are at levels requisite for driving visibility, we believe that it is appropriate to again re-examine the question of whether we should more precisely specify those areas of windows that are at 'levels requisite for driving visibility.' As we stated in the enclosed June 19, l987 letter, we plan to initiate a rulemaking action to address this issue, instead of continuing our case-by-case consideration of whether particular areas are at levels requisite for driving visibility. Again I apologize for the delay in this response. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4783

"Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter about the built-i child seat Volvo has designed for the center rear seating position. The built-in seat uses the vehicle's lap-shoulder safety belt to restrain the child. I regret the delay in responding. You indicated in a telephone conversation that Volvo is considering designing the seat solely for children who weigh more than 50 pounds. Such a seat is not subject to the requirements of Standard 213 because the seat is not a 'child restraint' as that term is defined in the standard. Paragraph S4 of Standard 213 defines a child restraint system as 'any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds.' The agency would determine whether your built-in seat is designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds by considering available indications of the manufacturer's design intent, e.g., the physical suitability of the seat for use by children who weigh less than 50 pounds, and the manner in which the seat is labeled and marketed. The agency would look to see whether the seat is clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by the system. We would also consider any indications in Volvo's marketing efforts and point of sale materials regarding the size and age of child that the seat is designed to restrain. Finally, we would consider any size and age information included in the vehicle's owner manual. You also indicated Volvo may consider designating the seat as suitable for children weighing more than 40 pounds. If the seat were so designated, it would no longer be a seat designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, and therefore be a child restraint system subject to Standard 213. You ask whether, if Standard 213 applies to your seat, the standard permits such a seat. You state that the seat would meet the labeling and performance requirements of the standard. You believe that Standard 213 permits the seat because the final rule that amended 213 to set requirements directly applicable to built-in seats (53 FR 1783, January 22, 1988) said that paragraph S5.4.3.3 of the standard allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness system. You are correct that the standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Paragraph S5.4.3.3 provides, in part, that 'each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child' must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 (i.e., provide upper and lower torso restraint, and a crotch restraint (for seats for children weighing over 20 pounds), of a specific form). The definition of a 'child restraint system' specifically excludes the vehicle's lap/shoulder belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language of S5.4.3.3, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems applies only to seats that have belts, and not to a seat such as yours that uses the vehicle's belt system. Please note that Standard 213 sets limits on knee excursion for built-in seats (S5.1.3.1(b)). Thus, although your seat is not required to have a crotch strap, the seat must be designed to prevent a child from sliding excessively forward and down, legs first ('submarining'). The agency would like to emphasize its concern that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the lap belt should be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis of a child, the area of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. We cannot determine from your drawing whether the vehicle lap belt would be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. The instructions for the proper use of the built-in seat that are required by S5.6.2 of the standard should inform users how to properly adjust the belt system, so to avoid submarining and imposing impact loads to the child's abdomen. The agency is also concerned that the sitting height of some children who may occupy the seat might not be high enough for the shoulder belt to be properly positioned when attached. Instead, the belt might pass in front of the child's neck or face. For those cases, if no other option is available, NHTSA believes that the shoulder belt should be placed behind the child's back. We recommend that you include information in the printed instructions about such adjusting of the shoulder belt for small children. As a reminder, NHTSA will use these adjustment instructions per S6.1.2.3.1 to position the three year old dummy in the seat if the agency tests the seat in its compliance program. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4434

"Dear Mr. Momboisse: Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the Genera Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver 'exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchased directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation.' This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured for, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for your request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, the Border Patrol will save $5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs. This agency has jurisdiction over 'motor vehicles' as that term is defined by l5 U.S.C. 139l(3). If a vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle,' then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicability of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 57l.7(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be 'motor vehicles' required to comply with the standards. Under l5 U.S.C. 1391(3), a 'motor vehicle' is 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways....' The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibikes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public roads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads. You have informed us that the Hummer will 'generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas.' However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to consider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a 'motor vehicle.' However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operations and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original military specifications. Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that one of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has become of paramount importance in the 'war against drugs.' In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-l4 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United States, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a component of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufactures and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 17693.drn

Mrs. June Becklin
397 Jesse James Lane
Mahtomedi, MN 55115

Dear Mrs. Becklin:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether dealers may sell new multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) or passenger cars that they know will be used to transport school children. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not prohibit a dealer from selling a new MPV or car for such a purpose.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Any person selling a new vehicle must sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is a vehicle that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying school children to or from school or related events (49 C.F.R. 571.3). Because any new "bus" that is sold for pupil transportation purposes is a "school bus," the school bus standards apply, and any person selling such a vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting our school bus standards.

We do not require, however, that only school buses can be sold for pupil transportation. Under our regulations, a van that seats fewer than 11 persons is an "MPV," which is defined in 571.3 as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A passenger car is a motor vehicle "except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR 571.3). An MPV or passenger car is a different type of vehicle than a bus or a school bus, and must meet safety standards that apply to their vehicle type. Dealers selling new MPVs and passenger cars must be sure to sell vehicles that have been certified to the applicable standards.

We do not have a policy either for or against the use of MPVs and cars for school transportation. These vehicles must meet safety standards that provide high levels of crash protection. NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed), that establishes minimum recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. To the extent that the guideline distinguishes between vehicles, it does so by distinguishing school buses from non-school buses. For instance, among the recommendations is

Paragraph IV.B.1.h., in which NHTSA recommends that all buses regularly used for pupil transportation should "[c]omply with all FMVSS applicable to school buses at the time of their manufacture." That is, if a bus is regularly used to transport pupils, it should be a school bus. The provision does not apply to MPVs and passenger cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA102(14)#Part 571.3, "multipurpose passenger vehicle"# Part 571.3 "school bus only"
d.7/6/98

ID: nht87-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John F. Doerr

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John F. Doerr 100 Lefferts Ave. 4D Brooklyn, NY 11225

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Secretary Dole on your "Safety Light Warning System." You have asked if your system "could legally be implemented" and for advice "how I may go about marketing this system."

The patent drawing of your device depicts a light bar mounted in the rear window area with a green lamp in the center flanked by amber lamps, with two red lamps at the end. This system would be acceptable neither as original equipment on passenger cars, nor as replacement equipment on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. As of that date, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be manufactured with a red stop lamp in the approximate location of your green lamp. There is no Federal prohibition against offering the system in the aftermarket for retrofitting on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, but the system would be subject to the laws of each State in which it would be sold or us ed. I understand that Oregon and California allow green-amber-red deceleration warning systems when the lamps are mounted on the rear of the car, but restrictions may exist as to their mounting in a vehicle's interior.

I hope this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 12, 1986

Mrs. Elizabeth Dole Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation 400 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mrs. Dole:

Subject: SAFETY WARNING LIGHT SYSTEM

I know you are concerned about rear end collisions, extra "eye-level stop light" confirms this.

I have a patent on this system which I believe will be more effective. This system consists of a small green light st eye-level which burns when you are gaining or maintaining speed. When you release the accelerator the green light goes off and the yello w or amber caution goes on, on each side warning the driver behind you to be alert which gives the driver a second or more to react, then, if you apply the brakes, caution lights goes off and normal stop light, lights go on, on each side at eye-level.

This information was sent to all auto makers in the United States and some abroad. They like the idea but are not interested in negotiating with me, as they don't accept ideas from anyone other than their own engineers.

I am interested to know if this could legally be implemented and if you could give me any advice or information as to how I may go about marketing this system.

Enclosed, is a brief description and my patent # 4,470,036.

Sincerely,

John F. Doerr Inventor

ID: 3145o

Mr. Gary M. Ceazan
Vice President
Riken-America, Inc.
PO Box 3698 Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, CA 90051

Dear Mr. Ceazan:

This is in response to your letter asking whether tires marked with both an ETRTO (European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization) size designation and a different ISO (International Standardization Organization) size designation can legally be imported into the United States. As discussed below, such tires cannot be imported into the United States, because they do not comply with the applicable safety standards. I regret the delay in this response.

All new pneumatic tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.109), and all new pneumatic tires imported for use on motor vehicles other than passenger vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.119). Both of these standards prohibit "dual-size markings," or labeling two different size designations on one tire.

In the case of passenger car tires, section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." (emphasis added). This agency expressly prohibited dual-size markings on passenger car tires in a preamble amending Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. This prohibition was expressly repeated in subsequent amendments that addressed the question of tire labeling under Standard No. 109; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974; and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

In the case of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, there is no express prohibition in Standard No. 119 against dual size markings. However, section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire and size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." NHTSA has interpreted the use of the singular in the phrase "tire size designation," rather than the plural "tire size designations," to be a prohibition against marking more than one tire size designation on these tires. See the enclosed copies of my January 7, 1988 letter to Mr. E.W. Dahl and my February 16, 1988 letter to Mr. Mike Kaizaki.

Since tires marked with two size designations would not comply with our tire standards, they could not legally be imported into the United States, according to the requirement specified in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). If you have any further questions about our tire standards or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:l09#ll9 d:ll/l/88

ID: 1985-04.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/23/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Isis Imports

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports, Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 U.S. Custom House San Francisco, CA 9412

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt. Your company, Isis Imports, is an importer of Morgan passenger cars, and has heretofore imported pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iii). Upon advice of your attorney you have concluded that you may instead import them pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix), and wish to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of that fact.

More specifically, under 12.80(b)(1)(iii) an importer declares that his vehicle was not manufactured in conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but that it has been, or will be, brought into conformity: he also is required to furnish a bond for the production of a /conformity statement. Under 12.80(b)(1)(ix), the importer simply declares that the vehicle is an "incomplete vehicle" as defined by 49 CFR Part 568; no bond is required as it is assumed that the vehicle will be completed to conform to the Federal safety standards and bear the certification of its final-stage manufacturer. Because the Morgans are received from Morgan Motor Company without "major components of the fuel system; no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc.," you believe that they are (incomplete vehicles," which are defined by S568.3 as "an assemblage consisting as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations...to become a completed vehicle."

We disagree with your conclusion. The rulemaking history of Part 568 clearly shows that the intent of the regulation is to cover vehicles whose manufacture has customarily been shared. As the agency commented in 1970, "A large number of heavy vehicles of all types, of recreational vehicles, and of special purpose vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages, of which the first is an incomplete vehicle such as a stripped chassis, chassis cowl, or chassis cab to which one or more subsequent manufacturers add components to produce a completed vehicle." (35 FR 4639) The Morgan, on the other hand, is a passenger car ordinarily manufactured in a single stage, and in this instance is nonetheless virtually complete when it arrives in the United States. It is therefore a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), and the agency will not accept any HS-7 forms evidencing attempts to enter the vehicles pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix).

I enclose copies of a couple of rulemaking proposals on Part 568 so that you might have a better understanding of its thrust. Were we to accept your interpretation, S568.4(a) would require Morgan Motor Company to furnish a document with each vehicle advising Isis how compliance with each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard might be affected by its final manufacturing operations. Given the decision of Peter Morgan over the years not to conform his vehicles for the American market, we question whether he would furnish a document attesting that his product complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except 301, Fuel System Integrity.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

November 22, 1985 Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I write on the advice of counsel to inform NHTSA and your office of a change in our response to Form HS 7. As you may recall, Isis Imports Ltd. is the U.S. outlet for the Morgan motorcar of England. We sell fewer than twenty-five cars a year, and we complete the manufacture of these cars here in San Francisco. (For your reference, I enclose a copy of our earlier correspondence, a brochure and a magazine article.)

We have until now checked Box 3 on Form HS 7. A review by our attorney of our final manufacture of these cars in the context of the applicable regulations, tells us that only a response checking Box 9 is appropriate to our business.

The Morgan chassis, body and engine is received from the Morgan Motor Company less major components of the fuel system; no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc. These vehicles are, therefore, according to our attorney, "incomplete vehicles as per 49CFR Part 568.3:

"Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

To: Frank Berndt, Esq.

Since the Morgan cars we sell in the United States operate on a propane fuel system, which is of domestic origin, the addition to the vehicle of this fuel system, as well as implementation of required safety systems, necessitates "further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components" as per 49CFR Part 568.3.

The addition of the fuel tank, in particular, is a fairly detailed manufacturing procedure and without the entire fuel system we add, the car is not a complete vehicle, since it could not be operated. We are aware, of course, of the requirements for "Final Stage manufacturers" as stated in 49 CFR 566 and 49 CFR 568 and are forwarding to the Administrator our identification as a "Final Stage Manufacturer."

Please let us know if your office or your agency require any further information from us. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

W. R. Fink President

WRF:jb

File

CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports, Ltd. P. 0. Box 2290 US Custom House San Francisco, CA 94126

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1983 requesting confidential treatment for information which was submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with statements of compliance and which pertained to vehicles imported by Isis Imports, Ltd. into the United States.

In telephone conversations with Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, you indicated that you had no objection to the release of HS Forms 189. You requested, however, that submitted drawings, diagrams, specifications and photographs showing the methods and extent of modifications made to Morgan vehicles be treated confidentially by this agency. After carefully reviewing the submitted materials and your justifications I have decided to grant your request in part and deny it in part.

All submitted materials will be afforded confidential treatment with the exception of the photographs. NHTSA does not believe that their release will cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. In order to determine whether release of information will cause such harm, courts consider "how valuable the information will be to the requesting competitors and how much this gain will damage the submitter." Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle. 662 F. 2d 45, 51 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

You indicate that a presumption has been established by 49 CFR Part 512 with respect to blueprints and engineering drawings containing process of production data where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints or engineering drawings except after significant reverse engineering. This class determination, however, pertains only to blueprints and engineering drawings; it cannot be interpreted to apply to photographs. Additionally, release of the photographs will not be very valuable to the requesting competitor, and will therefore not cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. Since accompanying diagrams, text and other information will remain confidential, significant reverse engineering will still be required to determine the methods and extent of modifications necessary to bring Morgan vehicles into compliance with Federal standards.

If you wish to submit additional justification explaining why Isis is entitled to confidential treatment for the photographs you must do so within 10 days of your receipt of this letter. At the end of that period, they will be made publicly available. I will notify appropriate agency personnel of this decision, and they will treat your submissions accordingly. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 2405y

His Excellency
D. H. Burney
Ambassador of Canada
501 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Mr. Ambassador:

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. l00-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, 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 with 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 that 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 vehicle 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 l50% 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 l988 Act was enacted on October 31, l988, and became effective January 31, l990. 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 l988 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 manufactured on and after September 1, l989). 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 importation 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 all passenger cars certified as meeting the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and that were manufactured up to September 1, l989. 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 processing fee. Each fee is specifically required by the l988 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 bond 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, l990. 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 eligibility of Canadian vehicles, the fee of $l,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 l988 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 abandoned to the United States. This is not a new requirement; ever since January 1, l968, each nonconforming vehicle, Canadian or otherwise, has been required to be accompanied by a conformance bond upon its entry into the United States. The l988 Act provides 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 l988 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 vehicle 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 that 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. "citizen", but it is necessary to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The l988 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 modified 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 satisfactorily accomplished, before the conformance 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.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

Enclosure ref:59l#592#593#594 d:4/24/90

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: 1982-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 February 3, 1982

Mr. B. G. Ridgway Chief Car Safety and Regulations Engineer Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd. Car Division Crew, Cheshire CW1 3PL England

Dear Mr. Ridgway:

This responds to your letter concerning the labeling requirements of Standard No. 105 applicable to a separate indicator lamp concerning reservoir level. Your letter asked whether it is permissible to use words other than "Brake Fluid" for vehicles which use hydraulic system mineral oil rather than conventional brake fluid. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105 states in relevant part:

...If separate indicator lamps are used for one or more of the various functions described in S5.3.1(a) to SS.3.1(d), the lens shall include the word "Brake" and appropriate additional labeling (use "Brake Pressure," "Brake Fluid" for S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b)) except that if a separate parking indicator lamp is provided, the single word "Park" may be used....

As your letter pointed out, conventional brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil are not compatible. Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, differentiates between "brake fluid" and "hydraulic system mineral oil."

We interpret section S5.3.5 to require the use of the words "Brake Fluid" only for vehicles which use conventional brake fluid. The section's use of the word "appropriate," prior to its statement that "Brake Fluid" be used for S5.3.1(b), indicates that the labeling set forth in the parentheses need only be used where it adequately describes the fluid being used. For vehicles which use hydraulic system mineral oil, or other types of non-conventional brake fluid which might be developed in the future, the general requirement for the word "Brake" and appropriate additional labeling is applicable.

We are concerned, however, about your proposed use of the words BRAKE HSMO/LHM, since we doubt that many persons would understand that HSMO/LHM is an abbreviation for hydraulic system mineral oil/liquide hydraulique minerale. We suggest that you consider using the words "BRAKE MINERAL OIL" or similar language that more persons would understand.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Kenneth W. Preece Regulations and Special Projects Manager Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc.

Box 476 Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

The Administrator BGR DT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400, Seventh Street S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. U.S.A. 7th April, 1981

Possible PART 552 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS FMVSS 707-80 - CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS FMVSS 705-75 -HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

Dear Administrator,

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited believes that the requirements of these two standards, if strictly applied to the letter of the rules, force us into providing cars which have safety systems less safe than they would be with a less strict interpretation of the rules.

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited no longer uses BRAKE FLUID, as defined in FMVSS 776 in cars supplied to the USA market. HYDRAULIC SYSTEM MINERAL OIL (HSMO), again as defined and controlled by FMVSS 116, is used instead.

The braking systems provided in the cars have a comprehensive system of warning displays, separate displays being provided for the two pressure systems and a further display to warn if the level of the HYDRAULIC SYSTEM MINERAL OIL in either of the two separate reservoirs is too low.

FMVSS 101-80 controls the wording for this reservoir level warning display by its reference to FMVSS 105-75 in Table 2.

The specified wording in FMVSS 105-75 paragraph 5.3.5, for reservoir level, 5.3.7(b) is "Brake Fluid". We note that this wording is within parentheses and believe that it is intended to be advisory and we hope that you will accept our use of a different, safer, wording.

We are most concerned that the appearance of the words BRAKE FLUID would immediately bring to the minds of the driver and service personnel the thought of adding conventional brake fluid to the reservoir. This must not happen. As you know, and FMVSS 116 recognises, Brake Fluid and Hydraulic System Mineral Oil are NOT COMPATIBLE.

We have taken every care to label the reservoirs and the car, we have provided full customer and service information to avoid any risk of Brake Fluid being wrongly put into the reservoirs. If we can use different wording on the reservoir level warning display we can complete our safety information system without any ambiguity.

We therefore intend to use the following wording on the reservoir level warning display:-

BRAKE

HSMO/LHM

Where HSMO and LhM are abbreviations for Hydraulic system mineral oil and Liquide Hydraulique Minerale respectively. LHM will suit our Cars sent to Canada and it is a well known trade mark for HSMO.

In the interests of enhancing the safety of our products we intend to implement this change of wording at the earliest time.

We would appreciate your confirmation that our action will not be taken as non-compliance with either FMVSS 101-80 or FMVSS 105-75. Should you be unable to give this confirmation we hereby PETITION you to change FMVSS 105-75 paragraph S.5.3.5 so that it permits us to label our products in a manner which we feel is more safe.

Yours faithfully,

B. G. Ridgway Chief Car Safety and Regulations Engineer