Interpretation ID: 1983-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. A. Forbes Crawford

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1983, to Secretary Lewis recommending that he make an "administrative decision" that would exempt foreign manufacturers from compliance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations for vehicles conforming to standards of their country of origin, and which are produced in quantities "up to 50,000 per year with engines not exceeding 65 cu. in. or 1100cc."

The Department does not have the legal authority to issue a directive of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless temporarily exempted. No permanent exemption is authorized for any type of vehicle, and no discretionary power is provided for this purpose. Authority of a nature responsive to your request could be provided only by a Congressional amendment to the Act.

As a former principal of Jet Industries which was the beneficiary of one of the NHTSA temporary exemptions (No. 76-1) and an extension of it, you are aware that a mechanism exists by which you may participate in the American market in a manner that takes into account both your economic realities and our safety concerns.

SINCERELY,

PERSONAL

January 10, 1983

Drew Lewis, Secretary of Transp. U.S. Government

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I am one of millions of U. S. Citizens who are sorry you are leaving the Government. We understand and wish you every success in your new career. I occassionally "kid" myself into believing I helped you solve the Air Controllers Strike by sending you a telegram suggesting that unemployed Commercial Airline Pilots be hired as controllers. At least Percy Woods, President of United phoned to thank me because I had suggested the idea to him (My having help start United in 1931).

The purpose of this communication is to ask you to make an administrative decision, before leaving the Government, which can be very helpful in relieving a small segment of unemployed Automobile workers. Based on my having been involved in the Tractor and Truck business for many years, I had tried to obtain permission from the NHTSA and EPA to start the manufacture in the U. S. of two models of Foreign made small vans (not made in the U. S.) on the condition that they be excluded from NHTSA requirements for up to 50,000 units per year. I was offered 10,000 units but the Foreign manufacturers would not commit on less than 50,000 units. I didn't press EPA for that reason but their Washington, D. C. and Flint, Michigan offices could not give me a simple answer on whether a 1600 cc engine could be exempted. After 30 days I received regulations the size of a telephone book in which I couldn't find the answer. In California, where anti-pollution requirements were tougher than Federal, a five minute phone call elicted a direct answer that such size motor was exempted.

If you could give an Administrative Directive which enabled Foreign manufacturers to assemble up 50,000 units per year of vehicles that meet their conutries' safety and pollution requirements, and get EPA to confirm the action, there is a strong possibility that I can arrange for the following assembly in the U. S.:

1. Fiat Motors Citivan 980 CC This is a van version of Light carriers as exemplified by imported Japanese Pickups. It is 30 Inches shorter and has a 12" longer & 2" wider carrying area protected from weather and pilferage.

Fuji Heavy Industries Subaru 600 CC Also a van version of light carrier 52 inches shorter than the Ford Courier.

Attached is a possible Administrative Directive for NHTSA & EPA approval.

A. Forbes Crawford

PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE

Amendment to NHTSA & EPA Regulations

"The Regulations are hereby amended to exempt manufacturers (or assemblers) of Automotive Vehicles (Cars & Trucks) from NHTSA (Also EPA) regulations as long as such vehicles comply with traffic and anti-pollution requirements in the Countries where they are currently produced, or have been produced within current regulations of such country at any time during the past five years. In addition, such exemption shall apply to such vehicles designed, engineered and committed for production in the U. S. at the discretion of the Administrator. Such exemptions shall apply for units production up to 50,000 per year with engines not exceeding 65 cu. in. or 1100 cc."

COMMENTS

In connection with the proposed exemption of U. S. vehicles up to 50,000 Units per year. U. S. Manufacturers may want to come out with a new type of vehicle. It used to be that major manufacturers would not go into production unless they could predict a market of at least 40,000 per year.

Added to the proposed amendent should be: -"Proposed manufacturer of such vehicles shall be allowed to import 10,000 per year of the vehicle proposed for production in order to establish a dealer market for such vehicles. This exemption should apply for at least two years or longer at the discretion of the agency - depending on the variables involved in getting into production - such as arranging for U. S. manufacturers to tool up to manufacture components or joint venture manufacture of sub assembly units.

Larger manufacturers in the U. S. are automating many of their operations and causing many existing plants to become obsolete. These plants and unemployed workmen in the communities would be ideal for this program.

January 10, 1983

To: Drew Lewis

From: A. Forbes Crawford

Subject: Possible Accelerated Action

In the event of the proposal I have made for an amendment to the regulations is an action that could take a lot of time, will you consider just making an administrative decision on the two companies -- Fiat and Fuji Industries. I believe this can be done. Then if you can write letters to the following giving them exemptions as suggested (including a commitment from EPA), we can accelerate the projects:

Fiat Motors - Torino, Italy (Attention Giovanni Agnelli, Pres.)

Fuji Heavy Industries - Tokyo, Japan (Attn: S. Kikuchi, Director)

International Vehicles Ltd. - Vancouver, B. C. (Attn: A. F. Crawford, Pres.)

I have already received tentative consent from the first two and of course control the last one covers a newly designed vehicle (Four Wheel Steered) which I will manufacture in the U. S. if I can receive the exemptions. Upon receipt of letters for the first two I will go to Japan and Italy to work out plans for starting each project - because they do not conflict with each other. In fact, each compliments the other.

[Attachments in file in Chief Counsel's Office]

MIDDLEKAUFF, INC.

September 27, 1982

Frank Berntt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berntt:

This is in reply to your letter to us as of August 12, 1982 regarding our petition of July 16, 1982 for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #301. As we pointed out to you in our letter of July 16th, it is necessary that we do make some slight alteration on the vehicles as we are forced to relocate the filler cap on the vehicle, and extend the filler hose from the gas tank which is mounted between the frame members at the front of the vehicle to this gas cap. While all due care has been exercised by us in this operation in duplicating the hose and clamps used by the original manufacturer, it is necessary for us to furnish the gas cap mounted on the side of the vehicle for filling purposes. This is the point that disturbed us in some degree.

Since writing you, we have been furnished with a print outlining the complete installation of the utility body as required by AM General Corporation on their vehicles which includes a recessed cup for the gas cap itself on the side of the vehicle. While our engineering studies reveal that this installation is in compliance with 301-75 inasmuch as the complete installation is done in accordance with the print furnished by AM General, it is their feeling that rather than have us Certify the vehicle as the final manufacturer, they would consider us as a sub contractor completing certain phases of the work for them. Therefore, they would prefer to Certify the vehicles themselves as a complete truck after our work, and for this reason would like us to have the exemption referred to in our files for safety as well as legal reasons.

In order to satisfy AM General Corporation, and as we can see no hardship on the part of the Department of Transportation as well as the small number of vehicles involved, we would very much appreciate having you see your way clear to issue such exemption for a three year period to us. We would appreciate having you review our request as we believe the possession of this exemption would help cement our position with AM General and allow us to comply with their thinking as outlined in paragraph two above.

Thanking you for your consideration.

F. E. Bettridge Board Chairman

cc: JIM FORRESTER