ID: 21871.ztv

Mr. Thomas C. Bliss
3M Traffic Control Materials Division
3M Center
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000





Dear Mr. Bliss:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 2000, asking for interpretations of S5.7, Retroreflective Sheeting, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Several of your customers would like "to incorporate their company logo directly into the conspicuity markings used on their vehicles." You understand that "our customer is permitted to use their logo on markings placed on the vehicle in excess of the amount required to satisfy the minimum coverage stated in the regulation," and you ask that we confirm that interpretation.

S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires that a strip of retroreflective sheeting, "originating and terminating as close to the front and rear as practicable," be applied to the side of trailers, but that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered. . . ." This exception is intended to accommodate different trailer configurations by allowing breaks in the conspicuity material where the features of the trailer are such that it may not be feasible to install continuous sheeting. A manufacturer must comply when half the trailer length is covered, but if it wishes to add more conspicuity material to the portion of the trailer length that is not covered, the material must comply with S5.7. We view the installation of nonconforming material on the side as subject to the prohibition in S5.1.3 that no additional reflective material or other motor vehicle equipment shall be added that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. For this reason, the appropriate question is, as you have asked in your first question, "do conspicuity markings that incorporate a logo conform to FMVSS 108?"

First, because the standard requires conspicuity markings to be either red or white, the introduction of a third color (or white on a red section and vice versa) would not conform to Standard No. 108. Thus, any logo must be red or white. Assuming the logo is red or white, the answer is similar to that which we have provided inquirers as to whether logos are acceptable on the lens of the center high-mounted stop lamp. Both the lamp and retroreflective sheeting must meet the color and photometric requirements that are specified for each. If the sheeting meets the color, photometric, and all other requirements with the logo in place, then retroreflective sheeting incorporating a logo would comply with Standard No. 108. This, of course, would permit a logo that straddles red and white segments of retroreflective sheeting as well as a logo that is contained entirely within either a red or white segment. However, because the standard requires segments of red and white, a red logo could not appear in a white segment and vice versa. A logo (or portion of a logo) in a red segment could, however, be shown in a different shade of red, and a logo (or portion) in a white segment could be shown in a different shade of white, provided that both shades of red and both shades of white complied with the red and white color specifications of SAE J578c.

Your next question is whether conspicuity markings that incorporate a logo would "qualify as conspicuity markings under FMVSS 108." S5.7 prescribes dimensions for the width of the sheeting and the length of the individual segments. As noted above, a logo could be inserted in otherwise conforming sheeting if the sheeting meets the photometric, color, and all other requirements with the logo in place.

You have also asked whether "conspicuity markings that incorporate a logo [are] taken into account when assessing conformance to FMVSS standard 108." The coefficients for retroreflection of each segment of red and white sheeting must be not less than the minimum values specified in Fig. 29 of Standard No. 108. In determining conformance with S5.7, if a logo prevented a segment of sheeting from complying with the photometric or any other requirement, we would consider that the segment failed to comply with Standard No. 108. Thus, the answer to this question is yes.

Finally, you have asked whether "a 48mm (2 inch) wide marking with a logo [which] conforms to the performance requirements necessary for DOT -C2, can . . . be considered DOT-C2 marking." The answer is no. S5.7.1.3(d) requires DOT -C2 sheeting to have a width of not less than 50mm. The sheeting in your question is 2mm too narrow to be DOT-C2, even if it meets the photometric requirements for DOT -C2 sheeting with the logo in place.

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





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.10/6/00

ID: 21872.ztv

Mr. Paul Crunk
Track Master Inc., LED
Box 725
Taylor, MI 48180-0725





Dear Mr. Crunk:





This is in reply to your fax of July 11, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You wish to manufacture for use on "semi trucks and trailers" certain "marker lamps that will have the ability to change from street legal to a show color for when the driver is off road in a parking lot or truck stops or truck shows." The color "will match the color of their truck or trailers." You cite the color blue as an example of a show color. The marker lamp will operate normally with red or amber colors. There is some indication in your letter that the system would be used in marker lamps that incorporate turn signal lamps.

As you realize, front side marker lamps and turn signal lamps must be amber in color. Rear side marker lamps must be red in color. Rear turn signal lamps must be either red or amber in color. These color requirements have been established by Tables I and III of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment , for original lighting equipment on all motor vehicles, including truck tractors and trailers. These requirements also apply to replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment, which must meet the same standards as original equipment. This means that the use of any color other than red or amber to illuminate a side marker or turn signal lamp would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. The fact that you intend the system to be used only off road is immaterial; the vehicle itself has been manufactured for on-road use and its equipment must meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I also observe that truck tractors and trailers operated commercially in interstate commerce are subject as well to the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the Department of Transportation. FMCSA regulations require that marker and turn signal lamps be red or amber in color.

Consequently, the side marker lamps that you describe cannot be certified as complying with Standard No. 108 and thus cannot be sold either as original or replacement equipment.

This system would also be subject to State law. Generally, States reserve the use of the color blue for emergency vehicles. Increasingly, the color purple is used to designate funeral processions.

Mr. Vinson has already talked with Peter Crunk of your company on this matter, but if you require further information, you may call him at 202-366-5263.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.8/11/00

ID: 21883.ztv

Mr. Arman Asinmaz
611 Golden Harbour Drive
Boca Raton, FL 33432





Dear Mr. Asinmaz:





This is in reply to your e-mail of July 1, 2000, in which you ask "what color lights are permitted inside the headlight." We are unsure whether you are asking about the color of the headlamp beam or whether headlamps may incorporate a colored light source for a function other than headlighting, but we shall answer both questions.

The color of light from headlamps is specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. A state may not prohibit or allow any color for a headlamp other than that specified by Standard No. 108. The Federal standard requires that the light emitted by headlamps be white and comply with SAE Standard J578c, Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977. The SAE standard defines colors in terms of spectral coordinates, and the coordinates of white are such that near the boundaries the color white may be perceived as having a bluish cast. This bluish cast is especially noticeable in the light emitted by high intensity discharge headlamps.

Standard No. 108 also allows turn signal lamps and front side marker lamps to be incorporated "inside the headlight," to use your phrase, that is, to be in the same housing as headlighting sources. The color of light from these lamps is required to be amber. The amber light can be produced by an amber bulb emitted through a clear lens. Thus, amber is a color permitted "inside the headlight " (amber light can also be produced by the combination of a clear bulb and amber lens).

If you have further questions, you may e-mail Taylor Vinson of this Office as you did before

(tvinson@nhtsa.dot.gov).





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref.108
d.8/11/00

ID: 21884.ztv

Mr. Greg Hayes
Marketing Director
Benson International
I-77 & Route 14 South
Mineral Wells, WV 26150






Dear Mr. Hayes:

This is in reply to your e-mail of June 23, 2000, seeking a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding the location of clearance and identification lamps on the front of dump trucks, and asking five related questions. By way of background, you referenced a letter of this Office dated April 25, 1990, to J. Douglas Smith of Duralite Truck Body and Container Corp.

Your first question is:

"1. If a final stage manufacturer adds a dump body to a chassis and installs clearance lamps on that body, must the cab mounted clearance lamps be disconnected or removed or can they stay in place and remain operational?"

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires, in pertinent part, that front clearance lamps be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as near the top as practicable. Assuming that the clearance lamps on the dump body meet this requirement, the cab-mounted clearance lamps are not necessary for compliance with Standard No. 108, and may either be disconnected or removed, or remain in place and be operational, as indicated in our 1990 letter to Mr. Smith.

"2. If a final stage manufacturer receives a cab equipped chassis that is shipped to it with no top of cab clearance or identification lamps installed and the final stage manufacturer installs a dump body that requires the installation of body mounted clearance lamps, where may the final stage manufacturer install the identification lamps? On the top of the cab, at the top of the body or in whichever is the most practicable location?"

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires, in pertinent part, that front identification lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle and as close as practicable to the vertical centerline. Alternatively, the front identification lamps may be located as close as practicable to the top of the cab. The final stage manufacturer must determine which location is "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle," whether it is on the body or the cab, and install the identification lamps in the location chosen. However, if the top of the vehicle is on the body and it is not practicable to locate the identification lamps on the body, such as may occur on a cement mixer, the lamps must then be located as close as practicable to the top of the cab.

"3. [Where a vehicle is equipped with a cab shield and the chassis is equipped with vertical exhaust stacks, and ] clearance lamps would not be visible if mounted on the body bulkhead and would not indicate true over-all width if mounted on the face of the cab shield, where should they be mounted? Would chassis top of cab clearance lamps suffice if spaced wider than would be possible on the cab shield face under these circumstances? Would installing these lamps on the face of the shield, if spaced wider than the top of cab lamps, be acceptable even though they do not indicate the true over-all width of the vehicle?"

As noted in our response to your first question, Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that front clearance lamps be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as near the top as practicable. In our opinion, locating any clearance lamp so that its center is more than 6 inches from the outermost edge of a vehicle does not indicate its overall width within the meaning of Standard No. 108 (see our letters of June 9, 1997, to Donald W. Vierimaa, and September 4, 1996, to John W. Cook, copies enclosed). Only secondarily must the lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. The need to indicate overall width on wide vehicles is so important to safety that S5.3.1.1.1 of Standard No. 108 permits clearance lamps to be located other than on the front (and rear) if it is " necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle. . . ." This allows clearance lamps to be mounted on the fenders or on the left and right mirrors or their brackets if they represent the widest part of a truck body. These alternate locations are possible solutions to the problem you raise.

Your letter indicates that there is a configuration in which front clearance lamps located on the body bulkhead would be obscured by vertical exhaust stacks directly in front of them. We do agree that it is better to have front clearance lamps that are visible to oncoming traffic but we do not agree that they do not have to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. If a vehicle configuration is such that front clearance lamps cannot be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and be as high as practicable, they still must be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, i.e., centers not more than 6 inches from the outermost edge of the vehicle.

"4. . . . In the case of a single vertical stack . . . the shield will be mounted off-center on the dump body. Application of the clearance lamp on the non-stack side would indicate the over-all width on that side, but [not on the other]. . . . [C]an the clearance lamps still be installed on the cab shield face even though they do not (1) indicate the true width on [one] side and (2) would no longer be an equal distance from the centerline of the vehicle."

The answer to your question is that this is not acceptable for the reasons stated in our reply to your third question. Although clearance lamps need not be located at the same distance from the vertical centerline, they must still be mounted at the same height, and must indicate overall width, in order to comply with Standard No. 108.

"5. . . . [W]here there is no practicable location to mount any lamps [because of the installation of a tarp storage system], will chassis cab mounted clearance and identification lamps meet the requirements of Standard 108?"

This appears to be the first time that we have ever been asked this question (though on October 19, 1999, we provided an interpretation regarding tarp storage systems and rear clearance and identification lamps to Mike Spencer of Timpte, Inc., which is not on point). In our view, if a tarp storage system installed as original equipment prevents mounting front identification and clearance lamps at the highest point of the truck, the identification lamps may be located lower, such as on the cab if, in that location, they are mounted as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. Clearance lamps are intended to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and must be located in a manner to accomplish that. If the highest location that indicates overall width of the vehicle is on the top of the fender, the lamps should be mounted on the fender, as high as practicable, to meet the secondary requirement that clearance lamps be located "as near the top [of the vehicle] as practicable." In this instance, cab-mounted clearance lamps would not comply because they would not indicate the overall width of the vehicle even though they would be located "as near the top [of the vehicle] as practicable." However, as mentioned above, should the vehicle be equipped with mirrors and/or mirror brackets that are higher than the fenders, and if they are so located that clearance lamps mounted on them can indicate the overall width, then the clearance lamps must be located on the mirrors or mirror brackets.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.10/24/00

ID: 21885r.ztv

LeAnn M. Johnson-Koch, Esq.
Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe LLP
1200 Nineteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036-2412





Dear Ms. Johnson-Koch:

This is in reply to your letter of July 13, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, on behalf of your client, Harvest Drivemaster USA, requesting our opinion that Samsung Concrete Pumping Cranes, Models PX362 and PX321, are not "motor vehicles" under the laws that we administer. These vehicles are trucks which have cranes mounted to the bed behind the cab.

As Mr. Vinson explained to your associate, Ms. Dykes, we have no record of receiving either your original letter of May 22, 2000, or its followup of June 12, 2000, in spite of your delivery confirmation slips. I apologize for any inconvenience our delay may have caused you.

We have learned that the United States Attorneys in Baltimore, Denver, Dallas, and Atlanta are conducting criminal investigations into the possibly illegal importation into the United States of concrete pump trucks manufactured in Korea by Samsung and Daewoo, some of which were imported at Baltimore. The United States Attorney in Baltimore has identified the importing companies as "Harvest" and "Drivemaster" among others. Samsung and Daewoo have not manufactured these vehicles for sale in the United States or imported and sold them here. They have been imported by entities other than the manufacturers or their representatives. We assume that the concrete pump cranes about which you inquire are a subject of this investigation, and we understand the importance of our interpretation, both to your clients and to the investigation.

As you are aware, a motor vehicle under our principal vehicle safety statute is defined as a vehicle that has been "manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways." (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). Further, if a vehicle is a "motor vehicle," it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported into the United States (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)). You believe that the Samsung Concrete Pumping Cranes are not "motor vehicles," because they are mobile construction equipment. You have cited Koehring Co. v. Adams, 452 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Wisc. 1978), affirmed 605 F. 2d 280 (7^th Cir. 1979) and agency interpretations in support of your belief.

We have reviewed Koehring. The plaintiffs were seven manufacturers who sought a declaratory judgment that the mobile cranes, mobile excavators, and mobile drill wells which they manufactured were not "motor vehicles" subject to 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (recodified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 in 1994) ⁽¹⁾. The manufacturers had admitted that their vehicles used the public roads, and the parties stipulated that the typical item of the construction equipment at issue traveled an estimated average of 2,100 to 2,200 miles per year under its own power on the public roads, and spent a majority of its operation time off the public roads.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and declared "that mobile construction equipment which is designed to perform work on a construction site and which normally uses the public streets, roads or ways only for travel between job sites, is not a vehicle which has been manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways" (op. cit. at 638). Although conceding that the equipment possessed design features required for on-road travel such as rubber tires, the capability of traveling at highway speeds and conforming to government regulations for vehicle width, the court stated that the record before it was clear that operation on the public roads was "decidedly" an incidental activity and that "the greater percentage of these vehicles' operation is on off-highway construction sites rather than on public roads." On a limited interpretation of the term "primarily" in the definition of " motor vehicle," the court held that the mobile cranes, excavators and drill wells at issue were not "motor vehicles." The 7^th Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. Although we did not agree with the courts, we have not undertaken to reconsider Koehring in our interpretations involving construction equipment.

We continue to be concerned with the Koehing decision, particularly because we have received information indicating that concrete pump cranes manufactured by Samsung and others are using the public roads far more frequently than they appear to have done at the time of the Koehring decision. We are not bound by Koehring because it was not based on an analysis consistent with Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Committee, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). However, the importers of Samsung concrete pump cranes may have imported their vehicles pursuant to Koehring's classification of mobile cranes as "mobile construction equipment," in accordance with that court decision. Since our interpretations are in accord with that decision and we have not undertaken to distinguish it, we do not view the importation and use of the Samsung concrete pump cranes as a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.3/21/01





---

1. The citation of "15 U.S.C. Sec. 1391(3) (1999)" on page 2 of your letter of May 22, 2000, should be "49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) (1999)" as 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. was revoked in 1994.

ID: 21886

Mr. Lawrence A. Beyer
674 Lake Road
Webster, NY 14580





Dear Mr. Beyer:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You asked: "Is it a violation of the Act or the Regulations for the owner of a vehicle to obtain US Title for the vehicle prior to the vehicle's importation?"

We informed Philip Trupiano of Auto Enterprises on April 17, 2000, that it was permissible for a Registered Importer (RI) to obtain title to a vehicle in its own name before the conformance bond was released, but we did not address the question of titling a vehicle before its importation. A copy of that letter is enclosed.

Under our statute, a RI must not license or register an imported vehicle for use on the public roads, or release custody of the vehicle to a person for license or registration for such use, unless the conditions of Section 30146(a) of Title 49 United States Code have been satisfied. Also, if a RI fails to conform a vehicle, it must be exported or abandoned to the Government according to the terms of the entry bond covering it (Section 30141(d)(1); Sec. 591.8; Sec. 592.6(j)).

Under the statute, for permanent importations of vehicles, if a nonconforming vehicle is imported for personal use and not for resale under Section 30142, the statute does not prohibit its owner from obtaining a title before importation. Titling the vehicle in the name of its importer-owner does not affect either the obligation of the RI conforming the vehicle not to release it to the owner for registration until the conditions of Section 30146(a) have been satisfied, or the obligation of the owner to deliver the vehicle to Customs in the event that the vehicle has not been fully conformed.

If a nonconforming vehicle is imported for resale, it must be imported by a RI. If a RI obtains a title in its own name before importation, this would not affect the other obligations of the RI, including but not limited to those to retain custody until the conditions of Section 30146(a) have been satisfied, and to deliver the vehicle to Customs upon demand if the RI fails to conform it. In light of the statute and given that these other obligations remain applicable, we do not believe that it is a violation of our laws and regulations for a RI to obtain title to a vehicle in its own name before the vehicle is imported.

However, as we explained to Mr. Trupiano, a RI cannot obtain title in the name of its customer before the bond is released:

One of the conditions of the bond is that the vehicle it covers be exported or abandoned to the United States in the event that an insufficient showing of conformity is made and the bond and the vehicle are not released. If the RI has transferred or reassigned title to the vehicle to "the customer on whose behalf the vehicle is imported" before the bond has been released, the RI cannot fulfill its duty to export or abandon the nonconforming vehicle because it would no longer own the vehicle. In that instance, NHTSA's sole remedy would be to foreclose on the bond. This is insufficient to fulfill the safety purpose of the statute and the bond which is to ensure that imported noncomplying vehicles be brought into compliance before being licensed for use, and used, on the public roads.

This necessarily means that a RI cannot obtain title to a vehicle in the name of its customer before the RI imports the vehicle.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:591
d.11/8/00

ID: 21896.ztv

Mr. Daryl R. Nelson
Fleet Golf and Industrial Vehicles, Inc.
2534 North Blackstone, Suite 100
Fresno, CA 93703





Dear Mr. Nelson:





This is in reply to your letter of July 13, 2000, asking for an interpretation that small utility trucks and vans you wish to import from Korea are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by this agency. These are the "Fleet Cargo Plus" for "cargo or people," the "Fleet Traveler," described as a "7 person people mover," and the "Fleet Porter," a small pickup with cargo bed.

You enclosed a copy of our letter of January 25, 1999, to Metro Motors in which we gave our opinion that small vans and trucks manufactured in Korea by Asia Motors were not "motor vehicles" subject to our regulations. You represented that "these are the exact same vehicle models . . . and they are manufactured by the same Korean company who provided the units that Metro Motors applied for." Your vehicles differ only in "having the addition of a low speed gear ratio in the rear end."

In our letter to Metro, we presented the five factors we use to answer the question of whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" and applied them to the facts as Metro had stated them. You have repeated these factors together with the facts appropriate to your situation. These are:

1.  Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

You stated that "we advertise these vehicles as off-road vehicles and void the warrant if the vehicle is used other than as intended to be used . . . ." This factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

2.  Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

You addressed this factor by stating that "these vehicles will not be sold by any 'car dealers,' as we do not want to imply any association to on-road use.. It is also clearly stated on the instrument lens, owners book, sales literature, and on the rear body that this vehicle is for off-road usage." These remarks are more appropriate for inclusion under the first factor. Although you do not specifically say that your company will not assist vehicle purchasers in registering the vehicles for on-road use, we believe that it is implicit in your remarks that the company will not do so. Therefore, this factor would indicate that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

3.   Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

You replied that "we are definitely not going to sell our vehicles through car dealers . . . ." Your intent is to provide usage "on any surface where golf carts go (golf cart paths, schools and hall ways, construction sites, etc.)." Although your state, California, permits golf carts to be used on the public roads under certain conditions, these are exceptions to the primary usage of golf carts which is on golf courses. While construction sites and schools may have roadways, these are generally not roads used by the general public. This factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

4.   Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

You have informed us that the vehicles you wish to import will have a 2-inch by 7-inch yellow label on the rear headed "WARNING" and which states that "This vehicle is for off road use only! The use of this vehicle is not intended for on-road use, and it does not meet DOT regulations for on-road usage. It is illegal for use as a licensable vehicle!" This factor would indicate that the vehicles are not motor vehicles.

5.   Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

Your state that you have no knowledge whether these vehicles are or are not registered for on-road use elsewhere. For purposes of this interpretation, we assume that they are, and that they are operated there without the 25 mph-speed governor that you will install on the ones that it imports. Since the vehicles closely resemble small trucks and vans used on the public roads, we believe it is likely that states would permit them to be registered for highway use. Therefore, this factor suggests that the vehicles should be considered motor vehicles.

Based on the representations in your letter and considering all the five factors discussed above, on balance, we believe that your vehicles are not "motor vehicles." However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn, for example, the vehicles are in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners.

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





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.8/11/00

ID: 21899.ztv

Mr. Noburu Fujii
Director, Technical Affairs
Nissan North America, Inc.
Government Affairs Office
196 Van Buren Street, Suite 450
Herndon, VA 20170-5337





Dear Mr. Fujii:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 2000, with respect to "whether a sliding door system for use in a passenger motor vehicle meets certain requirements of FMVSS 108." Specifically, you ask "whether the potential obstruction of the rear sidemarker lamp, rear side reflex reflector, and rearward signals/markers when the sliding door is fully opened would violate any provisions of FMVSS 108." You have referred to our letter of April 8, 1998, to Pat Riebalkin, informing him that "compliance is judged with a motor vehicle in its normal operating configuration (e.g., doors and decklid closed.)"

We are pleased to inform you that the Riebalkin interpretation applies to Nissan as well. The lighting equipment in question will not be obstructed when the Nissan vehicle is in its normal on-road operating configuration (e.g., sliding door closed.) There is no need to provide auxiliary lighting equipment under FMVSS 108. However, this interpretation does not apply in Canada. We believe that Canada has a different interpretation, and recommend that Nissan consult Transport Canada for its views.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/19/01

ID: 21915.drn

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica
General Manager, Environmental Engineering
BMW of North America, Inc.
BMW Plaza
Montvale, NJ 07645





Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your letter dated December 3, 1999, concerning the use by BMW of North America, Inc. (BMWNA) of a particular world manufacturer identifier (WMI) in the Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) for BMW motor vehicles manufactured at your "Manufacturing Plant Number 10 in Greer, South Carolina ('Greer')." I apologize for the delay in responding. This letter addresses only WMI and VIN requirements for BMW motor vehicles manufactured in this country for sale in the U.S.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements for motor vehicle manufacturers at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. Part 565 specifies the format, content and physical requirements for a vehicle identification number system and its installation, to simplify the retrieval of vehicle identification information and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. The first three characters of the seventeen-digit VIN comprise a grouping known as the "manufacturer identifier" or "world manufacturer identifier," which uniquely identifies each large manufacturer, and the make and type of each motor vehicle. Section 565.6(a) states that the characters "are assigned in accordance with 565.7(a)."

Section 565.7(a) states that NHTSA has entered into a contract with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to coordinate the assignment of manufacturer identifiers. That paragraph also specifies: "Manufacturers may request a specific identifier or may request only assignment of an identifier(s). SAE will review requests for specific identifiers to determine that they do not conflict with an identifier already assigned or block of identifiers already reserved. SAE will confirm the assignments in writing to the requester. . . ."

BMW is using identifiers "WBA" and "WBS" for its vehicles manufactured in Greer, South Carolina, which have not been assigned by SAE under 565.7(a) nor confirmed by it as being assigned to your company. ⁽¹⁾ You state that the identifiers were assigned by the "Kraftfahrt Bundesamt, the national organization responsible for WMI assignment in Germany." Apparently WBA and WBS identify "BMW Germany" as the manufacturer. You state that BMW Germany assigns the VIN of each of vehicle manufactured at each of its manufacturing sites, including Greer.

We appreciate that Kraftfahrt Bundesamt has a role similar to ours in the assignment of WMIs. However, we cannot agree that a VIN using a WMI assigned by that organization complies with 565.7(a). The VINs of the vehicles produced at Greer have to bear WMIs that have been assigned or approved by NHTSA (i.e., by our contractor, SAE), as specified in 565.7(a). Our regulations do not permit Kraftfahrt Bundesamt to assign WMIs for the motor vehicles at issue. See 49 CFR 565.2.

There is good reason for this. The assignment of WMIs has to be well coordinated in order to establish an effective vehicle identification program. NHTSA must have an accurate record of the WMIs that have been assigned to each manufacturer in order, among other things, to identify vehicles for our safety recall and theft prevention programs. VINs are also compiled in a database that is used by local and state police forces to identify stolen vehicles. Coordination of assignment of WMIs by NHTSA ensures that WMIs uniquely identify manufacturers and that they do not engender confusion as to the identity of a manufacturer. The effectiveness of recall, theft- and other crime-prevention programs would be reduced if we permitted manufacturers to identify themselves with an identification that did not conform to our requirements.

You believe that the WMIs comply with part 565 because paragraph (a) of 565.5, Motor vehicles imported into the United States, states "Importers shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the motor vehicle." This section does not apply to the situation at hand. Because the vehicles manufactured at Greer are manufactured in the U.S. and sold in the U.S., the vehicles are not considered imported for purposes of 565.5. You state that because the Greer assembly plant is in a foreign trade zone, BMWNA is required to enter the motor vehicles manufactured at that facility into the United States in accordance with 49 CFR 591.5, Declarations required for importation. This statement is incorrect. Section 591.5 specifies the contents of the declaration that a motor vehicle importer must file at the time that a motor vehicle is imported into the United States. NHTSA has previously stated that because foreign trade zones are established solely for the administration of the customs laws of the United States, they have no applicability to NHTSA's importation regulations at 49 CFR Part 591, which are not customs laws because they are administered solely by NHTSA. This was addressed in our interpretive letter to Richard A. Kulics, Esquire, dated February 22, 1990 (copy enclosed), which has been readily available on the NHTSA Website. Moreover, because a vehicle manufactured in a foreign trade zone within the boundaries of the United States is manufactured in the United States, there is no need for an importation declaration to be filed when the vehicle leaves the foreign trade zone.

Please take immediate action to coordinate with SAE as to the WMI you will use on vehicles manufactured at the Greer plant. For information from the SAE on the WMIs, you may contact Ms. Douds at (724) 772-8511. If you have questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Coleman Sachs of my office at (202) 366-5263. We would appreciate hearing from you within 15 days about your plans to conform your practices to 565.7(a).





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Ms. Cathy Douds

WMI Coordinator
Society of Automotive Engineers
400 Commonwealth Avenue
Warrendale, PA 15096

ref:565
d.11/3/00

---

1. WBS and WBA do not meet the Society of Automotive Engineers' WMI format for US-manufactured vehicles (which is indicated by a first digit of 1, 4, or 5). SAE's WMI coordinator, Ms. Cathy Douds, has informed us that pursuant to BMWNA's request, SAE assigned the WMI "4US" in 1993 and"4UR" in 1995. Both WMIs identify the BMWNA plant location as Spartanburg, South Carolina.

ID: 21937.drn

Jiri Misik, Chief
Type Approval Tests and Technical Regulations
SKODA, automobilov a.s.
Vslava Klementa 869

293 60 Mlad Boleslav
Cesk Republika (Czech Republic)

Dear Mr. Misik:

This responds to your request for information about "US field of vision" requirements for motor vehicle windshields for passenger cars and light duty vehicles. As explained below, the United States has no forward field of view standard for these vehicles.

In your letter, you noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, describes Areas "A," "B" and "C" to be cleared in motor vehicle windshields. In contrast you noted that in Europe:

In our case the edge of area "A" and "B" ... is not placed on the windshield but on the steel structure or even on the side window. This case is not mentioned in any US legislation which is related directly to wipe, wash and forward vision, anyway. Forward field of vision is only clearly defined in European Directive 77/649 and Australian ADR 8, clause 8.3.

With this background, you ask whether "there is a mandatory US provision to place the edge of 'A' area on the windscreen with regard to forward field of vision."

In response to your question, no provision in the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards specifies forward field of view requirements for vehicles other than school buses. As you note, we have Standard No. 104, which establishes requirements for motor vehicle windshield wiping and washing systems. Since Standard No. 104 regulates windshield wiper performance, it defines each of Areas "A," "B" and "C" so that only the part of each Area that is within the glazing 25 millimeters inboard of the daylight opening is counted for the computation of the minimum cleared percentage. Please note that these are requirements for areas of the motor vehicle windshield to be cleared of water or other liquids. We have no standard analogous to EU Directive 77/649 which would use Areas "A," "B" and "C" to specify areas of mandatory forward fields of view.

Another indication that Standard No. 104 does not specify forward fields of vision is seen in the fact that there is no requirement that Area "A," as bounded by the angles specified in Tables I, II, III or IV, must be completely included on the windshield glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.10/5/00