ID: Legg1

ID: Lewis.2

Mr. William Heath Lewis
Automotive Manufacturing Group, Inc.
d/b/a A.M.G.
20479 Via Marisa
Boca Raton, FL 33498

Dear Mr. Lewis:

This responds to your July 29, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin in which you ask whether your companys products, truck clearance lamps with "clear application" (presumably emitting a white light), meet the requirements of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and how you would go about obtaining DOT approval for those products. Your e-mail attached four photographs of trucks that have a series of lamps on the cab roof, immediately above the windshield. As these depicted vehicles are equipped with both clearance lamps and identification lamps, this letter addresses the requirements for both types of lamps. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations and to discuss how they may affect your products.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571). NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by inspecting and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate possible safety-related defects.

The requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (see 49 CFR 571.108). The standard sets performance requirements for clearance and identification lamps, including color. Specifically, Table I requires multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, trailers, and buses that are 80 or more inches in overall width to be equipped with 2 amber clearance lamps and 2 red clearance lamps. Table I also requires those vehicles to be equipped with 3 amber identification lamps and 3 red identification lamps. These lamps must emit amber or red light, respectively.

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies location requirements for clearance and identification lamps. Specifically, the standard requires two amber clearance lamps on the front and two red clearance lamps on the rear to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. The clearance lamps must be located, one on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable.

Table II also requires covered vehicles to be equipped with identification lamps on the front and rear of the vehicle. The standard requires three amber lamps on the front and three red lamps on the rear of the vehicle. The identification lamps are to be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline, and with lamp centers spaced not less than 6 inches or more than 12 inches apart. Alternatively, the front lamps may be located as close as practicable to the top of the cab.

These requirements related to the color of clearance and identification lamps apply to both original equipment and replacement (aftermarket) lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard provides that " each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies shall be designed to conform to this standard. "

In light of the above and based upon the location of the lighting equipment in the photographs accompanying your correspondence, the standard requires your clearance lamps (or identification lamps) to emit amber light. However, we note that manufacturers are not required to use an amber lens to comply with the color requirements for an amber lamp. Rather, they may use any plastic material that complies with the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2, as long as the light emitted from the completed lamp complies with the applicable color requirements.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/23/04

ID: Lewis.3

Mr. Walter J. Lewis
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
980 Hammond Drive, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA30328




Dear Mr. Lewis:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You ask: (a) whether Item 4A glazing "may continue to be used in the "C" pillar of vehicles and between the B and D pillars in hearses if those locations meet the criteria for Item 4A glazing"; and (b) if Item 4A glazing may be used in certain locations rearward of the B-pillar on the Porsche Cayman S and Porsche 911 GT2 and GT3 vehicles. As explained below, in answer to both questions, we cannot interpret the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the "C" pillar.

S5.5, "Item 4A Glazing," of FMVSS No. 205 states:

Item 4A glazing may be used in all areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used, and also for side windows rearward of the "C" pillar.I.e., Item 4A glazing may be used under Item 4A paragraph (b) of ANSI/SAE Z26.11996 only in side windows rearward of the "C" pillar.

"Item 4A paragraph (b)" of ANSI/SAE Z26.11996 states that Item 4A glazing may be used in the following locations: "In a vehicle whose rearmost designated seating position is forward-facing and cannot be adjusted so that it is side or rear-facing and, the forwardmost point on the visible interior surface of the glazing, is rearward of the vertical transverse plane that passes through the shoulder reference point (as described in Figure 1 of 49 CFR 571.210 Seat belt assembly anchorages) of that rearmost seating position".

You believe that FMVSS No. 205 permits the use of Item 4A glazing in side windows anywhere in the vehicle as long as the provisions of "Item 4A paragraph (b)," above, are met. You state that the preamble to an August 12, 1996 final rule permitting Item 4A glazing adopted criteria (in former S5.1.2.11) equivalent to those of Item 4A paragraph (b), above, and that the preamble allowed for a wide application of the glazing.You quote the following from the preamble adopting S5.1.2.11:

Since the adopted criteria do not limit Item 4A installation to locations between the "C" and "D" pillars in station wagons and hatchbacks, they permit Item 4A glazing installation in any vehicle location that can meet that approach. Thus, Item 4A glazing could be installed in the "C" pillar of vehicles and between the "B" and "D" pillars in hearses (funeral coaches) if those locations met the criteria. (61 FR 41739)

Discussion

We cannot agree that S5.5 permits Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the C pillar. The wording of S5.5 is clear that Item 4A glazing may be used only in side windows rearward of the C pillar. The regulatory history of S5.5 also illustrates that the reference to the C pillar was not inadvertent, as explained below.

FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes (ANSI) Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26.1). In July 2003, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 205 to update the reference from the then-referenced 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 to the 1996 ANSI standard (July 25, 2003; 68 FR 43964). At the time, the agency believed that the requirements for Item 4A glazing were adequately presented in the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1, and accordingly deleted S5.1.2.11 that had specified the locations in which Item 4A glazing may be used. The agency subsequently realized that the 1996 ANSI standard does not contain the location restriction for Item 4A glazing that the agency sought to have. NHTSA published a correction to the final rule (68 FR 55544; September 26, 2003) to add S5.5 to the standard "to make clear that Item 4A glazing is only permitted for use in side windows rearward of the C pillar." The September 26, 2003 final rule takes precedence over the preamble of the August 12, 1996 final rule. In light of the 2003 correction, which reflected the agencys view of the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing only in side windows rearward of the C pillar, ^[1] we cannot interpret S5.5 as you suggest.

We note further that even the August 12, 1996 final rule whose preamble you quote placed the regulatory text permitting Item 4A glazing under the heading, "S5.1.2.11 Test procedures for Item 4ARigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows Rearward of the "C" pillar" (emphasis added). Thus, even S5.1.2.11 did not permit Item 4A glazing to be used forward of the C pillar.

In your letter (with accompanying photographs), you discussed the Porsche Cayman S and Porsche 911 GT2 and GT3 vehicles. The vehicles do not have rear designated seating positions. You ask if Item 4A glazing is permitted for side windows forward of the C pillar "[u]sing the same logic applied to the hearse case discussed in the 1996 final rule (i.e., that there is no opportunity for head contact with this piece of glazing) ." Interpreting S5.5 as you suggest would render meaningless the agencys statements in the September 26, 2003 document, discussed above, that made clear that Item 4A glazing is only permitted for use in side windows rearward of the C pillar. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we cannot interpret the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the C pillar.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref.205
d.4/25/06





---

^[1] In a July 12, 2005 document further correcting S5.5, the agency reiterated that it had corrected the standard after discovering that the incorporation of the 1996 version of ANSI/AE Z26.1 "inadvertently permitted item 4A glazing to be used in side windows rearward of the B pillar".

ID: lieberman.ztv

Edward Lieberman, P.E.
President
KLD Associates, Inc.
300 Broadway
Huntington Station, NY 11746

Dear Mr. Lieberman:

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 2003, containing a proposal to conduct a field evaluation of a supplementary motor vehicle lighting system. This system is called the "Sunlight Safety System" and was developed by Harold Caine. You have requested "a variance of FMVSS 108."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to exempt a vehicle only from complying with one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time it is manufactured. When a vehicle has been sold and is in use on the public roads, it becomes subject to applicable State laws, and, if it is a commercial vehicle used in interstate commerce, the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. You should consult these authorities to determine whether use of this supplemental lighting system is legal on state and interstate highways.

NHTSA has had occasion over the years to comment on Mr. Caines lighting systems. I enclose a copy of our letter of November 16, 1999, to Mr. Terry Wagar of the Department of Motor Vehicles, State of New York, which represents the agencys most recent views on the subject.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: FMCSA
ref:108
d.5/27/03

ID: loadbind.rm

Allen F. Brauninger, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington, D.C. 20207

Dear Mr. Brauninger:

This responds to your May 30, 1997, letter asking whether a load binder is motor vehicle equipment. From the information you sent us, load binders appear to be some type of strap or chain used to secure cargo to flat bed trucks. If so, then the answer to your question is yes.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(7) of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (the "Safety Act"), defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured [or] (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be purchased or otherwise acquired and used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered an "accessory," and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to load binders, it appears that the item would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, a substantial portion of the expected use of load binders relates to motor vehicle operation. The system is intended to hold cargo secure aboard flatbed trucks during transit. Also, the product would be purchased by and principally used by commercial truck drivers, ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While load binders are an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, the product's manufacturer is subject to the requirements in 49 U.S.C. sections 30118-30120 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I have forwarded your letter to our Office of Defects Investigation for its consideration.

Additionally, load binders used for transporting cargo in interstate commerce are subject to regulation by the Federal Highway Administration. Accordingly, we will forward your correspondence to the Chief Counsel of that agency for further review.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Rebecca MacPherson of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/28/97

ID: LondonTaxi2

Via Facsimile and Regular Mail





Mr. Larry Smith
President and CEO
London Taxis North America, Inc.
80 Union Street
Sudbury, MA 01776

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter of November 26, 2001, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.4(g) of those regulations prescribes the contents of the certification label that manufacturers are required to affix to new motor vehicles. One item of information that the certification label must contain is the name of the vehicle's manufacturer. Section 567.4(g)(1) provides that the "full corporate or individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle"> must be stated on the certification label, unless any of three specified exceptions apply. The only pertinent exception is the one stated at section 567.4(g)(1)(i). That section provides that "[i]f a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used.">

You state that London Taxis North America, Inc. (LTNA) has entered into an agreement with London Taxis International (LTI), which you identify as the British manufacturer of "the well-known London Taxi TX1 vehicle (the "TX1")." You state that "[u]nder this agreement, LTNA has the exclusive right to import a U.S. specification TX1 into the United States," and that "LTNA is solely responsible for developing the design modifications to be incorporated into the U.S. version of the TX1, as well as for all testing and certification of the U.S. specification vehicle." You state that the U.S. version of the TX1 will be assembled by LTI in the United Kingdom and imported into the United States by LTNA. You state that LTI will assign vehicle identification numbers (VINs) to the U.S. version of the TX1, and that these VINs will incorporate the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to LTI.

In light of these circumstances, you have asked whether the certification label to be affixed to the U.S. version of the TX1 may identify the vehicle as being "Manufactured by London Taxis International for London Taxis North America, Inc., which is solely responsible for U.S. certification." You express the opinion that this wording would be appropriate because 49 U.S.C. 30115 requires the "manufacturer" of a vehicle, as opposed to its "assembler," to certify that the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards and, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5), the term "manufacturer" includes "importer." You also contend that some precedents exist for the wording you have proposed. Specifically, you note that the certification label affixed to model year (MY) 1997 Ford Aspire passenger cars identified those vehicles as having been "manufactured by Kia Motor Company for Ford Motor Company." You further note that in an October 13, 1981 letter to Paccar, Inc., this Office stated that Paccar's name could appear on the certification labels for vehicles assembled by Kenworth Mexicana, a Mexican affiliate.

Consistent with the wording used on the certification label for the 1997 Ford Aspire, the certification label for the U.S. version of the TX1 may identify the vehicle as being "Manufactured by London Taxis International for London Taxis North America, Inc." However, the additional wording that you have proposed, which would identify LTNA as being "solely responsible for U.S. certification" of the vehicle, may not be included on the label. There is no provision in the vehicle certification regulations for such additional wording to be included on the certification label. One purpose for including manufacturer information on the certification label is to identify the manufacturer who assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the provisions of which are now codified at 49 U.S.C.

30101 et. seq. (See, e.g., 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1)(iii), pertaining to trailers, and 49 CFR 567.5(e), pertaining to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.) The additional wording that you have proposed for the TX1 certification label would create ambiguity as to whether it is LTI or LTNA that is assuming legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed under the Safety Act. In this circumstance, it would be unclear to NHTSA and to the vehicle owner as to which entity would be responsible for conducting a safety recall campaign in the event that the vehicle is found to contain a safety-related defect or to be in noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The circumstances that permitted Paccar, Inc. to be identified as the manufacturer on the certification labels of vehicles assembled by Kenworth Mexicana are not present in this case. In addition to owning a 49 percent interest in Kenworth Mexicana, Paccar informed the agency that it was responsible for the design of the vehicles produced in Mexico and exercised control over all matters relating to their compliance with the safety standards. You have made no representations that LTNA has a similar relationship to LTI, or that it has exercised similar design responsibility and control over the U.S. version of the TX1. Accordingly, there is no basis for LTNA to be identified on the certification label as the vehicles' manufacturer under the exception in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1)(i). Additionally, LTNA's status as the vehicles' importer provides no basis for it to identify itself as the manufacturer on the certification label. Even though the term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) to include the "importer" of a vehicle, 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1) explicitly requires the name of the "actual assembler" of the vehicle to be identified on the certification label, unless one of the three stated exceptions to that requirement apply. The regulation provides no exception for an importer to substitute its name for that of the actual assembler.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.1/15/02

ID: Lorenz.2

ID: Lorenz2

ID: lotus.ztv

Mr. Arnold Johnson
CEO Lotus Cars USA, Inc.
500 Marathon Parkway
Lawrenceville, Ga. 30045

Dear Mr. Johnson:

We have received the "Petition of Lotus Cars" for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, dated April 30, 1999, accompanied by a letter of the same date to Assistant Chief Counsel Coleman requesting confidential treatment of certain information in the petition.

The manufacturer of the vehicle is Lotus Cars Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. It has a wholly-owned subsidiary, Lotus Cars USA, Inc., which imports and distributes Lotus vehicles in the United States. The petition states that it is being submitted by both the British and the American corporations. You have signed the petition as CEO of Lotus Cars USA, Inc., and provided financial data relating to your company.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i), we may grant a temporary exemption upon a finding that compliance with a standard "would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith." It seems clear that Congress intended that we grant temporary relief under this provision to the fabricating manufacturer. Accordingly, as a general rule, we accept hardship petitions only from the fabricating manufacturer of the vehicle and the person who certifies compliance of the vehicle pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30115.

As the wholly-owned subsidiary of Lotus Cars, Ltd., Lotus Cars USA Inc. may submit a petition on behalf of its parent. However, an exemption would only be granted to Lotus Cars, Ltd. as the actual manufacturer of the vehicle. This means that we must assess the hardship that compliance and denial would create for the parent, not just for its wholly-owned American subsidiary. Your petition is incomplete in this regard as it does not contain the required financial information for Lotus Cars Ltd. for its past three fiscal years. When we have this information we shall be pleased to give further consideration to the Lotus petition.

With respect to confidentiality requests, please be advised that the public must have access to the same financial information that we use in determining the existence of hardship. In the usual hardship case, cumulative net loss figures are sufficient such as are shown by Lotus Cars USA Inc. in its profit and loss figures for 1993-1997 (i.e., we would have granted your confidentiality request for all financial information except for these bottom-line figures). If Lotus Cars, Ltd. has cumulative net profits, we may need to consider and make available additional financial information in order to assess its hardship arguments.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:555
d.6/3/99

ID: ltrtoMyles2

Russell Myles, Esquire
McDowell, Knight, Roedder & Sledge, L.L.C.
63 South Royal, Suite 900
Riverview Plaza
Mobile, AL 36602

Dear Mr. Myles:

This is in response to your letter of April 17, 2002, requesting clarification of certain requirements in our regulations in 49 CFR Part 592 that specify the duties of registered importers of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You note that under section 592.5(a)(8) of those regulations, an applicant for registered importer (RI) status must supply a copy of a contract to acquire "a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance company" to ensure that the applicant will be financially able to remedy any noncompliance or safety-related defect determined to exist in a vehicle that is covered by a certificate of conformity the applicant furnishes to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Section 592.6(i) specifies that one of the duties of an RI is to maintain such a policy in effect to guarantee its ability to carry out the defect and noncompliance notification and remedy responsibilities that are set forth in section 592.6(g).

You note that under section 592.6(g)(2)(i), the requirement to provide a remedy without charge does not apply "if the noncompliance or safety-related defect exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after importation occurred more than 10 calendar years before notification of the failure to comply is furnished" to the owner of the affected vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 577. This has prompted you to ask how long prepaid mandatory service insurance would be required (1) for a vehicle that was first sold after importation 30 days before owner notification under Part 577 is provided and (2) for a vehicle that was first sold after importation nine years before such notification. You state that you are asking these questions so that you can better understand "when coverage for each imported vehicle must begin and when that obligation expires, and how that coverage commitment is affected by the language of 592.6(g)(2)(i)."

Because the mandatory service insurance policies required under sections 592.5(a)(8) and 592.6(g) are for the purpose of guaranteeing the RI's ability to fulfill its responsibility to provide notification and remedy for defects and noncompliances under section 592.6(g), those policies must take effect no later than the date on which the vehicle is first purchased after importation, and must remain in effect until ten years have elapsed from that date. Therefore, a full ten-year policy would be required for the vehicle in each of the examples that you cite, effective upon the date of the vehicle's first sale after importation. In the case of the first vehicle, 9 years and 335 days of outstanding coverage would remain on the policy, and in the case of the second vehicle, one year of outstanding coverage would remain.

You next request confirmation that if a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy becomes ineffective because the insurance underwriter has gone out of business, the RI would be required to secure a new policy that provides coverage for the periods that remain outstanding on all previously imported vehicles, as well as for the full ten-year term on all vehicles the RI may subsequently import. As far as we are aware, no company that underwrites mandatory service insurance policies has gone out of business to date. We therefore have never had the need to address this issue. An RI would have to obtain mandatory service insurance policies for its future imports from a new company in the event that the company that previously provided this coverage is no longer able to satisfy applicable requirements, including those of state regulatory authorities.

The RI would not be required to obtain new mandatory service insurance coverage for periods that remain outstanding on vehicles that it has previously imported. We note that the owners of those vehicles would be protected to the extent that the company is required by state regulatory authorities to maintain sufficient reserves or take other measures to cover its outstanding liability on previously issued policies in the event that it should go out of business. Beyond that, our regulations do not obligate an RI to obtain new mandatory service insurance policies for previously imported vehicles if the original underwriter should go out of business. It naturally follows that there is no "information concerning the new policy" that the RI would be required to furnish to the owners of those vehicles. In asking us whether an RI would have such an obligation, your referred us to 49 CFR 592.5(f), which requires an RI to notify NHTSA of any changes in the information submitted with its application for RI status, which, as previously noted, includes a copy of a contract to acquire a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy, or a copy of the policy itself. We note that this section requires notification to NHTSA if there is a change in the mandatory service insurance policy furnished with the RI's application for RI status. There is no comparable requirement for the RI to furnish notification of such a change to the owners of the affected vehicles as well.

Lastly, you have asked whether the actual insurer should be identified in the policy information that an RI places with a vehicle to be sold, and if so, you have asked how much information concerning the actual insurer should be provided to the vehicle owner. You have referenced, in this regard, Registered Importer Newsletter No. 16 dated May 2000, which states that the service insurance policy that an RI is required to obtain for each vehicle it imports or brings into conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards should be placed in the glove box of the vehicle or given to the owner with other important vehicle documents if the vehicle does not have a glove box. The guidance further states that "[t]hese policies must be written by an insurance company or by a company that is backed by an insurance company," and that "[t]he insurance company must be registered with a state as authorized to issue insurance policies and be totally independent of any RI to which it is providing policies." Although there is no express requirement in either the Part 592 regulations or this guidance for the insurance company underwriting the policy to be identified on the face of the policy, NHTSA expects this information to be provided to the vehicle owner. Without that information, the owner would encounter practical difficulties in making a claim in the event that the RI defaults on its obligation to provide notification and remedy for safety-related defects and noncompliances.

If you have any further questions regarding the mandatory service insurance requirements or other requirements that NHTSA has placed on RIs, please contact Coleman Sachs of this office at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Ref:592
d.5/24/02