ID: nht90-1.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 9, 1990

FROM: Richard L. Martinez -- Santa Fe Insurance Agency.,Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Attorney-at-Law.,NHTSA

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated April 25, 1990 To Richard L. Martinez and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; Part 592)

TEXT:

Thank you very much for talking with me earlier in the week about Europa's interest in importing the Mercedes-Benz G - Wagon. As I understand from the principal of Europa, they intend to apply for an independent commercial importer's license under the EPA, and also as a registered importer under the Department of Transportation. I wanted to find out if you could provide me with a little more information about the $2,000 liability policy that we spoke about. I've been making some inquiries with property and casualty insurance companies, and they are completely befuddled by the matter; so I've now gone to some of the specialty markets that provide warranty coverages. Since I've only sent out the inquiries today, it will probably be a while before I hear back from them. In the interim, here are some questions I would appreciate your reviewing: 1) Is it required that the term of the policy be for eight years from the date of purchase/sale? 2) The limit is $2,000. Would that apply annually or would it be for the entire eight-year period? The reason for this question is that the companies are wondering whether or not this is a cumulative limit, e.g., $2,000 x eight years = $16,000. 3)You mentioned that the policy was to cover non-compliance or safety defect situations. What are areas specifically to be covered: emissions controls, latent defects, brake problems, warranty situations such as drive train, etc.? 4) Europa is looking into whether or not MBNA would provide a warranty policy as they currently do for their private passenger vehicles. This present warranty covers for a 12/12 plan. If they were to extend this, is it possible that that could be acceptable as an alternative to the $2,000 limit? Some of these questions might appear to be somewhat naive, but since this is fairly new ground for ourselves and Europa, please March 9, 1990 Richard L. Martinez -- Santa Fe Insurance Agency.,Inc.

bear with us. Any further information you can provide us with would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht90-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/13/90

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

TO: HANK KMIECIK -- STEERABLE CARRIAGES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-5-90 TO NHTSA FROM HANK KMIECIK, STEERABLE CARRIAGES, ATTACHED; [OCC 4333]

TEXT: This responds to your January 5, 1990 letter requesting our review of your rear wheel steering system for trucks, buses and special application vehicles. This system is intended to replace one rear axle on these vehicles, and when activated, enables the axle to rotate slightly on its vertical axis. It is intended to improve the maneuverability of these vehicles in low-speed situations such as making sharp turns.

During a February 9, 1990 telephone conversation with David Greenburg of this office, you explained that, while your product uses air from the vehicle's compressed air suspension system to operate the axle, it is isolated from the air brake system. You also explained that, as a result of this design, a failure in the air system connected to your product would not affect the operation of the vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 makes manufacture rs of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards.

In this instance, there are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for steerable rear axles. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a product would not have to certify that a steerable rear axle complies with any safety standard before offering it for sale to the public. However, the addition of a steerable rear axle to a vehicle before its first sale to the public could affect the vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. In such a case, the manu facturer or alterer that installed this product on a new vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle, with the steerable rear axle installed, complied with all applicable safety standards. For example, installation of the steerable axle could affect t he vehicle's

compliance with the applicable braking standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; Air brake systems) or the tire and rim selection standard (FMVSS No. 119; New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars).

Of course, you will need to consider other safety effects that operation of the steerable axle system could have. Among these considerations would be ensuring that the trailer's gross axle weight rating (GAWR) is not exceeded when the steering system is in operation and the trailer is supported by only the steerable axle instead of by both the steerable and fixed axles.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your steerable rear axle are subject to the requirements in section 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defe ct exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

In addition, the use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" a ny device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the steerable rear axle and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the steerable rear axle in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safet y standards. If the installation of the steerable rear axle would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the product can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether the installation of this steerable rear axle on vehicles would result in a "render inoperative" violation on your company. This agency may reexamine your determination in the conte xt of an enforcement action.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that State laws may apply to your product.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Enc.

ID: nht90-1.69

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 14, 1990

FROM: Daniel L. Giles -- Christianson, Stoneberg, Giles & Myers, P.A.

TO: Steven P. Wood -- Acting Chief, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Western Community Action, Inc./Head Start Busettes

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from P.J. Rice to D.L. Giles (A36; Std. 108; VSA 103(3)); Also attached to letter dated 3-8-90 from D.L. Giles to D. Baker; Also attached to memo dated 3-6-90 from B. Wilson to D. Giles; Also attached to memo dat ed 2-22-90 from D. Baker to B. Wilson; Also attached to letter dated 3-18-88 from R.C. Rost to Chief Council, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 8-26-88 from E.L. Jones to R.C. Rost

TEXT:

Western Community Action, Inc. provides community services, including head start services in the Marshall, Minnesota area. They recently purchased two Wayne Busettes for use in transporting children to and from the head start facility. These buses carr y 23 children passengers or 16 adult passengers. The chasse is less than 10,000 pounds GVWR. The buses are blue in color with white lettering. As delivered by Minnesota Body and Equipment Company, each bus is equipped with an amber warning light syste m.

Western Community Action, Inc. has been warned by the Minnesota State Highway Patrol that the amber warning lights are illegal equipment in Minnesota because these vehicles are not "school buses" under Minnesota Statutes. No citation has been issued as of the date of this letter, but my client has been told that citations will issue if the amber warning light system is not removed or disabled.

I am enclosing the following documents:

1. March 8, 1990 letter to Dave Baker from Daniel L. Giles

2. March 6, 1990 letter from Bev Wilson to Dan Giles.

3. February 22, 1990 Memorandum from Dave Baker to Bev Wilson including copy of Minnesota Statutes.

4. March 18, 1988 letter from Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. to N.H.T.S.A.

5. August 26, 1988 letter from N.H.T.S.A to Minnesota Body & Equipment Co.

Mr. Dave Baker, Law Compliance Representative of the Minnesota State Highway Patrol has been provided with copies of the March 18, 1988 correspondence of Minnesota Body and Equipment Company and the August 26, 1988 correspondence from the N.H.T.S.A. Aft er reviewing this correspondence he has advised me that my client must remove or disable the amber warning light system from the Wayne Busettes it owns, or be in violation of Minnesota Statutes. Mr. Baker suggested that because these busettes are being used entirely within the State of Minnesota, they are not subject to regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Would you kindly review the correspondence and advise me at your

earliest convience whether the Wayne Busettes used in the head start program by Western Community Action, Inc. must be equipped with the amber warning light system, and if so, when the system is to be used. I would appreciate your response by fax, if po ssible.

ID: nht90-1.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 7, 1990

FROM: Perry E. Faulkner -- Foremost Tire & Retreading

TO: William "Bill" McCollum -- Fifth Congressional District

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-13-91 from Jamie McLaughlin Fish to Bill McCollum (A37; Std. 117; Std. 119); Also attached to letter dated 6-18-81 from Frank Berndt to Roy Littlefield (Std. 119)

TEXT:

The following question was submitted to the Department of Transportation for verification.

"Are casings purchased overseas, for recapping in the United States, required to have the Department of Transportation, D.O.T. number on the casing. This D.O.T. number signifies that the Federal Excise tax has been paid and that the tire meets or exceed s Federal standards?"

Your office gave me the phone number for Tire Compliance at 1-915-655-0546, Yates Galloway. He confirmed that in the Code of Federal Regulation, 571.117-S 5.2.3, that any tire that is recapped in the United States must have imprinted from the Factory of origination the Size of the tire and D.O.T. number. Any casing brought into the United States without the D.O.T. number cannot be sold recapped.

For our records, this is my formal request for an official letter from Mr. Galloway, for our protection. There are numerous tire dealers who are trying to sell large volume of tires from overseas market without the D.O.T. number. If the casing was to b lowout and a death was the result the person that sold the casing would have the total responsibility for selling a casing that does not meet Federal Standards.

Thanking you in advance for your valued time and consideration on this very important and life safety request. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the office.

ID: nht90-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/90

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

TO: T. CHIKADA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING LIGHTING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-9-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., ATTACHED [OCC 3832]; ALSO ATTACHED FILE MEMO TO DOCKET SECTION FROM RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE, NHTSA, DATED JULY 21, 1989; [85-15-N08-011]

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1989, to the former Chief Counsel, Erika Jones. You have asked for an interpretation of two of the amendments of May 9, 1989, to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have delayed answering you u ntil action could be taken on petitions for reconsideration of the May 9 amendments. This action was taken on February 8, 1990 (copy of Federal Register notice enclosed), and the new amendments adopted then, effective March 12, 1990, include definitions of "Direct reading indicator" and "Remote reading indicator."

Section S7.7.5.2(a)(1)(iii) states in pertinent part that each graduation on a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) "shall indicate a linear movement of the scale indicator of not less than 0.05 in. (1.27 mm) if a direct reading analog indicator is used ," and "if a remote reading indicator is provided, it shall represent the actual aim movement in a clear, understandable format." Your letter depicts two devices identified as a "direct reading analog indicator" and a "remote reading indicator", and you ask for confirmation that each conforms with the requirements of the section.

Preliminarily, we observe that your drawings do not depict how the devices are determined to be "direct" and "remote". Our interpretation of your "direct indicator" is that the location of the bubble is proportional to the slope of the surface and the a djustment, i.e., as the angle of aim changes, so does the location of the bubble, and its location relative to the graduations changes in proportion to the angle of aim. Our interpretation of your "remote indicator" is that the location of the bubble re presents the difference between the correct setting and the actual setting of the adjustment, and the reading may or mau not be proportional to the difference. Based on these interpretations, either device would appear to be capable of meeting the recen tly adopted definitions of direct and remote reading indicators.

For example, if either device were mounted in its entirety on the headlamp to sense vertical attitude, the devices would both appear to be capable of directly reading the aim of the headlap and also appear to be capable of accommodating variations in flo or slope. In this case, each device would meet the definition of a "direct reading indicator". And if either device were mounted in whole or in part elsewhere than on the headlamp or its aiming or mounting equipment (e.g., mounted on the firewall, inne r fender panel, instrument panel), and linked mechanically to the headlamp such that its vertical aim was correctly displayed on the indicator, each device would also appear to meet the definition of a "remote reading indicator".

Paragraph S7.7.2 requires in pertinent part that each headlamp aiming mechanism allow aim inspection and adjustment, and be accessible for such uses "without removal of vehicle parts, except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." You have asked whether the protective cover mentioned includes the cover to protect the spirit level when it is a component of the VHAD. The answer is no. The protective cover mentioned is one intended to shield the entire VHAD, or a cover that is not tran sparent and inhibits the proper aim inspection and adjustment. A transparent cover or transparent portions of a cover protecting the indicator (in your case, the spirit level of your direct reading indicator) is not required to be removable. However, i f your remote reading indicator has a transparent protective cover, it would be required to be removable without the use of tools to gain access to the dial indicator, if the indicator is not adjustable with the cover in place.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ENC.

ID: nht90-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/90

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

TO: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-16-90 TO ROBERT F. HELLMUTH, NHTSA, FROM SATOSHI NISHIBORI, NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC., ATTACHED

TEXT: This responds to your January 16, 1990 letter to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, the Director of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars ( 49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 provides that when a passenger car tire is used on vehicles other than passenger cars, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing it by 1.10 before calculating the sum of the load rati ngs of all of the original equipment tires on the vehicle. S5.3.2 through S5.3.5 establish requirements for certain information about the tires and rims to be labeled on the vehicle. S5.3.2 sets forth lettering size and format requirements for the labe ling. S5.3.3 through S5.3.5 require the labeling to provide the following information: the "size designation of tires . . . . appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR" be given on the label; the size and type designation of rims "appropriate fo r those tires", and the "cold inflation pressure for those tires".

Your question was whether the cold inflation pressure set forth on the label in response to S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must reflect the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 for passenger car tires. You suggested in your letter, and in your January 1 8, 1990 meeting with agency staff, that S5.3.5 does not require the 1.1 reduction factor to be taken into account when determining the cold inflation pressure to be specified. Instead, you suggested that Standard No. 120 requires the vehicle manufacture r to specify an inflation pressure that is adequate to support the tire's share of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), without regard to the 1.1 reduction factor. I cannot agree with your suggested interpretation.

You asserted that S5.3.5 merely requires the label to include the "cold inflation pressure for those tires," without referring to S5.1.2 and its 1.1 reduction factor. You contrasted this requirement with that in S5.3.3, which expressly refers to S5.1.2 and the 1.1 reduction factor. You asserted that this difference in wording showed that the 1.1

reduction factor need not be considered when specifying the cold inflation pressure on the label in response to S5.3.5. This argument is not persuasive.

The load-carrying capability of a tire generally varies with the inflation pressure of that tire; i.e., a tire can carry a greater load at a higher inflation pressure and a lesser load at a lower inflation pressure. Hence, a reference to inflation press ure alone, without any corresponding load-carrying capability to which that inflation pressure applies would be meaningless. If S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 were interpreted to require the manufacturer to specify some inflation pressure, without regard to any load that must be borne by the tire at that inflation pressure, the vehicle manufacturer could specify an extremely high or low inflation pressure. Such a specification would be useless or even dangerous for the consumer, and contrary to the purpos es of the labeling requirements.

You implicitly recognize that such an interpretation is unacceptable when you argue on page 1 of your January 16, 1990 that S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must be interpreted to require the manufacturer to recommend an inflation pressure "that will permit th e tires to safely carry Gross Axle Weight Rating loads and will provide good vehicle ride characteristics." In other words, Nissan agrees that the inflation pressure specified in response to S5.3.5 cannot be an extreme value such as 1 psi; instead, it mu st be determined with reference to some load that the tires will carry.

The question then becomes what loading must be considered to determine if the specified inflation pressure complies with S5.3.5. This question is answered by reading the labeling requirement of S5.3.5 in connection with the other labeling requirements i n S5.3, instead of considering S5.3.5 in a vacuum. S5.3.2 sets forth the format and lettering size for the labels to be placed on all vehicles manufactured on or after December 1, 1984. The information that must appear on such labels is set forth in S5 .3.3, S5.3.4, and S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120. S5.3.3 specifies that the label shall include information on "the size designation of tires (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR." (Emphasis added). On any reading of this emphasized language, it is beyond dispute that the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered when specifying the appropriate tire size designation pursuant to S5.3.3. Following this, S5.3.4 requires information on the size and type designation of rims "appropriate for those tires" to appear on the label. The reference to "those" tires in S5.3.4 indicates that the tires are the tires previously specified in S5.3.3. Similarly, when S5.3.5 requires the cold inflation p ressure for those tires to appear on the information label, the language is referring back to the tires specified in S5.3.3. Since NHTSA agrees with your statements that S5.3.3 incorporates the 1.1 reduction factor of S5.1.2 to

determine compliance with S5.3.3, and since S5.3.5 refers to the tires specified in S5.3.3, the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered to determine ocmpliance with S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120.

ID: nht90-1.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/90

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

TO: BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH -- HARTLEY ASSOCIATES INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3-2-90 TO GEN. JERRY RALPH CURRY, NHTSA, FROM CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. NOWAK ATTACHED; ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 2-20-90 TO HENRY J. NOWAK FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH, HARTLEY ASSOCS. INC., AND LETTER DATED 8-22-89 TO DEIRDRE FUJIT A, OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH.

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning an infant restraint system that has a sun visor permanently attached to it. You ask whether Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems, requires the visor to be covered with energy absorbing material, when the visor i s not contactable by a test dummy's head during dynamic testing. I regret the delay in responding. The answer to your question is no.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for certifying a particular vehicle or item of equipment in the first instance on its manufacturer. For t his reason, NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before actual compliance testing by the agency. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement actions. W e are able to tentatively state whether we believe a particular requirement applies to your product, based on the information contained in your letter. However, it is important for your company to keep in mind that these tentative statements are based e ntirely on the information you presented to NHTSA. Our view could change if the agency were to find reason to test your product or otherwise acquire additional information about it.

Child restraints recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That section requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during a dynamic test be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirements ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. The standard does not require non-c ontactable surfaces to be covered with the specified protective materials, since doing so would not meet the safety need addressed by S5.2.3.2.

The term "contactable" is intended to refer to "surfaces which can be contacted by the test dummy's head during dynamic testing." (See the preamble to the final rule establishing the current Standard 213, 44 FR 72131, 72135; December 13, 1979; emphasis a dded.) You report that your crash tests indicate that the sun visor cannot be contacted by the dummy's head during Standard 213's dynamic tests, in part because the force of the test caused the visor to fold back into the storage position" during the tes ts. Assuming that these observations are accurate, we would regard the visor to be a non-contactable surface. Accordingly, the visor would not be required to be covered with energy absorbing material.

We are providing a copy of this letter to Congressman Henry Nowak, who contacted us on your behalf about your inquiry. Again, my apologies for our delay in responding.

ID: nht90-1.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 16, 1990

FROM: D. H. BURNEY -- AMBASSADOR, CANADIAN EMBASSY

TO: JERRY R. CURRY -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-24-90 TO D. H. BURNEY FROM JERRY RALPH CURRY; (A35; PARTS 591, 592, 593 AND 594) TEXT:

I am writing with regard to your Final Rule on the Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on and after January 31, 1990 (Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 188, September 29, 1989).

The Final Rule and the enabling legislation -- the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-562) -- were drafted to address and correct the enforcement difficulties associated with the previous regulations governing the importation of veh icles which did not comply with the DOT Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). These difficulties arose largely from the export to the United States of vehicles originally manufactured for the European marketplace, in particular luxury and spor t automobiles. Canada is concerned that in seeking to address problems related to these vehicles, the NHTSA will be imposing serious and apparently unintended burdens on Canadian exporters of vehicles certified to Canadian safety standards.

"Canadian market vehicles" are those subject to the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) established by Transport Canada. Canadian standards are virtually identical to the FMVSS, and where there are differences these differences are well docum ented. As a practical matter, for most Canadian market vehicles the only relevant difference is the metric instrumentation for speedometers and odometers. Most Canadian market vehicles sold in Canada are produced in the United States to meet both Canad ian and U.S. standards because of the rationalization of North American production. Consequently, a Canadian market vehicle would require only minor modification to bring it into compliance with U.S. standards, in contrast to noncomplying imports from o ther countries, which could require significant modification.

Under the Final Rule, a Canadian market vehicle would be deemed to be a non-complying vehicle if it does not bear the original manufacturer's declaration that it meets all U.S. safety standards. In addition:

a) importation of Canadian market vehicles is restricted to importers registered with NHTSA;

b) registered importers must be U.S. residents;

c) each registered importer is required to pay an annual registration fee of $255;

d) for each make, model and year of non-conforming vehicle, a petition fee of $1560 or $2150, depending on whether the petition concerns a vehicle which is "substantially similar" or "capable or being

modified", is required for filing for a determination of eligibility for importation;

e) the registered importer is required to pay a bond processing fee of $125 for each vehicle imported;

f) the registered importer is required to post a bond, not less than the dutiable value of each vehicle imported, for the production of a statement, after conformance, certifying that the conformance work has been accomplished, and

g) conformance work must be done in the United States.

The Final Rule will not have a direct impact on vehicle manufacturers (e.g., the "Big Three") or secondary manufacturers (e.g., truck-body builders), as these original manufacturers are exempted from the Final Rule requirements if they certify their vehi cles as meeting U.S. standards and are able to provide appropriate documentation.

However, given the cost, complexity and delays that the new procedures would entail, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers and private citizens, acting independently of original manufacturers, would not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or u sed Canadian market vehicles to the United States. Further, Canadian individuals and firms would be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States.

Canadian regulations are being changed to give effect to Article 1003 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. These provisions are designed to maintain the integrity of Canadian safety and emission standards while recognizing that Canadian and U.S. sta ndards are virtually identical. U.S. market vehicles exported from the United States are allowed entry into Canada upon demonstration of a U.S. Department of Transport compliance certificate for U.S. standards and a declaration of intent that the vehicle will be modified as required to conform with Canadian safety requirements (currently the required modification for most U.S. market vehicles involves only meeting the metric and bilingual labelling requirements, for which stickers can be purchased from the Canadian Automobile Association for $2.95). Imports of U.S. market vehicles are subject only to the actual costs of modifications and do not face any fees paid to government. U.S. individuals and firms are able to provide conformance goods and serv ices.

In Canada's view, the Final Rule is inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement and will unduly restrict trade between the two countries. Canada accordingly requests that NHTSA modify the Final Rule with respect to Cana dian market vehicles, recognizing near-compliance with the FMVSS and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. To this end, Canada requests that NHTSA: a) recognize canadian market vehicles as a special class of non- comp lying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS;

b) exempt such vehicles from the fees;

c) exempt them from the bonding requirement;

d) exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.s. citizens, and

e) allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada.

I would propose that Canadian and U.S officials meet to discuss the technical details of this request.

ID: nht90-1.74

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1990

FROM: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Department, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TO: Barbara A. Kurtz -- Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 to B. Gill from B. Felrice; (A35; Part 543)

TEXT:

In accordance with the requirements of Part 543, "Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard", section 543.9 "Terminating or modifying an exemption", Honda Motor Co., Ltd. hereby submits its petition to modify the exemption granted by NHTSA for the Acura NS-X carline for model year 1991.

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. hereby requests permission to use an antitheft device similar to, but different from the standard equipment antitheft device which would have been installed under the current exemption. Please note that no vehicles of this carline have yet been manufactured. We request that NHTSA approve the modification of this exemption by April 2, 1990 since we plan to use the modified antitheft device in all production vehicles.

Enclosed are revised pages for the system description showing how the system would be changed. The revised page 3 has been changed to show that the system can be armed by using the auto door lock system control to lock either door. Previously, it was n ecessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. We believe that this improvement makes the system more convenient to use.

The second change is to include the radio in the alarm system. The revised page 5 shows that when the radio is removed the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal is disconnected, if the wiring is cut or if the coupler is disconnected. Pag es 20 and 21 have also been revised to show this change. This change does not affect the operation of the vehicle theft deterrent system as described in our original petition but it does provide additional security for the radio receiver.

Please call me if you have any questions or if you need additional information.

(Enclosure) NS-X is equipped with an auto door lock system as standard equipment. This system makes it possible to lock both doors simultaneously by locking either door.

Therefore, it's possible to arm the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked.

Additional explanations:

It is possible to arm the theft deterrent system by using the door button

without using a key. When the driver's door button is pushed down, passenger's door button will be pushed down automatically. Then, the driver's door is closed, the system will be armed. However, it's necessary to make sure that the driver's door button has been pushed down when arming the system by using the passenger's door button.

(diagram omitted)

This system incorporates a security indicator light located on the driver's door lining as a visual check of the arming condition.

(diagram omitted)

3-2 Activation of the system:

If any of the following conditions occur, the horns will sound, headlights pop up and flash and sidemarker lamps, position lamps and tail lamps will flash for about 2 minutes.

1. Door is opened forcibly. 2. Engine hood is opened. 3. Trunk lid is opened without using the key. 4. Front hood is opened. 5. Battery terminal(s) is removed and reconnected. 6. Engine starter circuit and battery circuit are bypassed by breaking the ignition switch. 7. Front hood/engine hood/trunk lid opener in the vehicle is operated.

8. Radio is removed; a. The radio terminal is disconnected by removing the attaching screw.

b. The wiring is cut. c. The coupler is disconnected.

(Diagrams omitted)

ID: nht90-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/19/90

FROM: CLARKS GORTE -- FORD HEAVY TRUCK VEHICLE ENGINEERING

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: [FORD RATIONALE FOR FMVSS 108 COMPLIANCE]

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION; REDBOOK A 35; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TO TAYLOR VINSON -- DOT ; OCC 4613

TEXT: Mr. Van Alstin, listed below are the FMVSS requirements and the rationale used by Ford Heavy Truck Engineering to signoff for compliance to FMVSS 108, specifically side marker lamps.

FMVSS 108 required motor vehicle lighting equipment is covered on page 226, S4.1.1 and S4.1.1.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations for 571.108, the location is covered on page 237, S4.3, S4.3.1, & S4.3.1.1, combinations are covered on page 238, S4.4.

1990 and prior year Ford C-Series and CL-Series vehicles use the roof mounts corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements of FMVSS 10 The corner marker lamps are forward of the vartical C/L of the vehicle, are prominantly displayed, s ecurely attached, and satisfy the photomarty, vibrat corrosion, moisture, dust and color requirements.

For your information, all Ford C and CL-Series are believed to be in compli. with FHWA DOT requirements, Part 393-Parts and Accessories Necessary For Sa Operation. Subpart B.

Should you require additional information or require further clarification please contact this office.

Clarke Gorte Ford Heavy Truck Vehicle Engineering

C-CT SERIES DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS [Illustration Omitted]