ID: 3112yy

Mr. Garth C. Bates, Jr.
Vice President
Steward & Stevenson Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 1637
Houston, Texas 77251-1637

Dear Mr. Bates:

This responds to your letter of July 12, 1991. In the letter, you ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has regulations concerning the construction or testing of compressed natural gas (CNG) automotive fuel tanks.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment nor endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, (49 CFR 571.301) specifies requirements for the integrity of motor vehicle fuel systems. However, that standard does not apply to vehicles that use only fuel with a boiling point below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Since CNG has a boiling point well below this level, vehicles manufactured to be fueled only by CNG are not covered by the standard. You should be aware, however, that NHTSA recently discussed the possibility of establishing a fuel system integrity standard for vehicles using CNG in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 1990 (55 FR 41561).

There are some requirements that are applicable to manufacturers of CNG automotive fuel tanks. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . .

Since your product would be manufactured for use as an automotive fuel tank, it would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. If either your company, as the equipment manufacturer, or this agency were to determine that your product contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the ANPRM concerning possible fuel system integrity requirements for vehicles using CNG and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures

/Ref: 301 d:7/30/9l

ID: 3113yy

Mr. Gerald Farr, P. Eng.
Senior Compliance Engineer
Compliance Engineering and
Vehicle Testing
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle
Regulation Directorate
Transport Canada (ASFAAA)
Ottawa, Ontario
CANADA K1A ON5

Dear Mr. Farr:

This responds to your letter of June 19, 1991, requesting information regarding the method used to calculate the angle specified in section S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

Your first question asks whether the agency uses a three dimensional protocol or a two dimensional protocol when calculating the angle formed by the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage. NHTSA uses a two dimensional protocol for these purposes. The agency recognizes that, as stated in your letter, this does not take into account the transverse coordinate of these two points. However, the agency does not believe that use of a two dimensional protocol diminishes the safety benefits offered by the safety belt system.

Your second question asks whether the agency has made any interpretations of the phrase "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware connecting it to the anchorage." The agency has never made a generally applicable interpretation of this phrase. When manufacturers have requested an interpretation for a specific design, the agency has indicated which point we would consider "the nearest contact point." If you have a specific design that concerns you, we can make a similar interpretation if you send us a diagram.

It is always a pleasure to hear from representatives of Transport Canada. We believe our cooperation has been mutually beneficial for many years. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:210 d:7/l6/9l

ID: 3114yy

David R. Stepp, Esq.
Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara, P.C.
Suite 807
1620 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5605

Re: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. Reimportation of Volkswagens

Dear Mr. Stepp:

This responds to your letter of July 1, l99l, on behalf of your client, Escargot Motorcars of Canada, with respect to its plan to export Volkswagen Beetles to Mexico for refurbishment, with subsequent reentry into the United States. You have asked for an interpretation that such vehicles may be allowed reentry without further certification.

As you have explained it, Escargot Motorcars plans to purchase Beetles that were initially imported into the United States by Volkswagen of America, and certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts "and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture." Some of the old Beetles will retain their manufacturer's original certification of compliance located on the door post, while others, if the bodies are worn or damaged, "the entire bodies may be replaced and/or painted and this manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed." If the bodies are extensively damaged, Escargot may ship only the chassis to Mexico.

You state that "(w)here the manufacturer's certification on the doorpost is preserved after restoration in Mexico, the vehicles clearly should be allowed to enter the United States without further certification." You also state that further certification is also unnecessary for vehicles no longer bearing the certification label, or whose door post condition is such that it must be removed during restoration, because that vehicle's VIN will indicate that it was originally imported into the United States as a certified and complying car. Similarly, those vehicles which are stripped of their bodies prior to shipment should be allowed entry without further certification "since the chassis will be preserved and registered."

The appropriate statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act, l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), which provides the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571), and the vehicle importation regulation (49 CFR Part 591). You suggest that the refurbished Beetles may be admitted without further certification since they were originally manufactured to conform to the Federal safety standards. Thus, it appears that Escargot would seek entry under section 591.5(b), the declaration that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards "and bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently attached by the original manufacturer of the vehicle."

The first issue raised by the factual situation described in your letter is whether the "refurbished" vehicles would be considered to be new or "used" vehicles. If the refurbishing involves sufficient manufacturing operations for the vehicles to be considered to be new, the vehicles would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of the new manufacturing operations (refurbishing), including the requirements for automatic restraints. However, if the refurbishing involves more minor operations, the vehicles would be considered to be used. As discussed below, only if the vehicles would be considered to be used could they be reimported into the United States based on the original manufacturer's certification label.

The range of potential manufacturing operations described by your letter is so broad as to include ones where a vehicle would be considered to be used and ones where a vehicle would be considered to be new. As indicated above, you state the following:

After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts "and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture." (Emphasis added.)

If the operations only involved replacement of the engine and minor restoration/repair of other parts, the vehicle would be considered to be used. If, however, in addition to replacing the engine, the other operations involved replacement or "re-manufacturing" of the other parts mentioned in your letter, it would be considered a new passenger car and subject to all current safety standards, notwithstanding the fact that the old frame was retained. A new certification would also be required.

I note that information that this agency has on Escargot's operations in Canada suggests that the latter category of operations may be more what that company has in mind. We have seen an advertising circular issued by The Beetles of Toronto, "a registered tradename of Escargot Motorcars, Inc.", that boasts "Every single piece of your Beetle is factory brand new, except one, and that's the frame." The circular states that The Beetles places around the pan, "all new components: engine, suspension, braking, steering, etc. The entire body is also new, as are the bucket seats, dashboard, gauges, dials, everything. Even down to the last nut and bolt." We regard this as the manufacture of a new motor vehicle to which contemporary safety standards apply, and which must be certified by Escargot as conforming to those standards.

To the extent that Escargot performed operations that are sufficiently minor that a vehicle would be considered used, it could be reimported into the United States under section 591.5(b), based on the original manufacturer's certification label. Under that section, an importer declares that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards and "bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle."

In the case of a used vehicle which is being reimported, we interpret the phrase "conforms to all applicable safety standards" to refer to the vehicle at the time of its original manufacture prior to its first sale. We recognize that, because of age and use, a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, and did not intend that phrase to prevent reimportation of used vehicles that originally complied with all safety standards.

While a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, the original certification label ordinarily lasts for the life of the vehicle. The certification label is the primary evidence that the vehicle was originally manufactured to meet applicable safety standards, and, in order for a used vehicle to reimported under section 591.5(b), we would ordinarily expect the certification label to present at the time of the reimportation. We recognize, however, that a certification label may be defaced or destroyed and would not, in such instance, consider absence of the certification label to an absolute bar to reimporting a vehicle under section 591.5(b). However, we would need to very carefully evaluate each factual situation on a case-by-case basis.

If you have any further questions of a legal nature, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263), and if they are of a technical nature, to Clive Van Orden of the Office of Enforcement (202-366-2830).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:59l#VSA d:8/l2/9l

ID: 3115yy

Mr. Jack Garbo
President/General Counsel
AVM Products, Inc.
2333 Delante St.
Fort Worth, TX 76117

Dear Mr. Garbo:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1991, requesting clarification of Standard No. 208. Specifically, you asked "whether the three-point seatbelt is required in all middle and rear outboard seating positions in the multipurpose vehicles after September 1, 1991." Specifically, you requested verification of your interpretation that these requirements apply only to forward-facing seating, and not rearward-facing seating. Your interpretation regarding rearward-facing seats is correct.

Beginning September 1, 1991, multipurpose passenger vehicles must have lap/shoulder belts at every forward-facing rear outboard designated seating positions. The term "rear outboard designated seating position" is defined in S4.2.4.1(b) as an "outboard designated seating position" located rearward of the front seat(s). If by the phrase "middle and rear outboard seating positions" you are referring to outboard seating positions in different rows of seats located behind the front seat(s), each such position that is forward-facing must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts after September 1, 1991. If instead the term "middle" is referring to center seating position(s) on bench seats, such positions may be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts. Rearward-facing seats may also be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:208 D. 8/14/91

ID: 3116yy

Mr. Mickey Hale
General Sales Manager
Jackie Cooper Olds-GMC
900 E. Main, P.O. Box 850239
Yukon, OK 73085

Dear Mr. Hale:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, our Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, asking what type of safety belt must be installed at rear seating positions in conversion vans. You indicated that these conversions would be made to used 1990 Chevrolet full-sized vans. You intend to install lap/shoulder belts at the front two seating positions and lap-only belts at each of the middle and rear seating positions, and asked if this planned installation would conflict with the safety belt installation requirements set forth in NHTSA's safety standards. The answer is that this planned installation would not conflict with Federal requirements, as explained below.

To begin, NHTSA does not classify vehicles as "vans." Instead, cargo vans are generally classified as "trucks," and passenger vans are generally classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles." S4.2.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard and rear forward-facing outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Any of these vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1991 are required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Thus, if your van conversions were new vehicles, your planned safety belt installations would be permissible for van conversions manufactured before September 1, 1991, but impermissible for conversions manufactured after that date.

You stated, however, that the van conversions in question would not be new vehicles, but would instead be used 1990 model year vehicles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, the Safety Act includes a provision that prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This prohibition applies to both new and used vehicles and means that the named commercial entities may not remove safety equipment required by the safety standards, such as seat belts, unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle will not be used during the time its compliance with the safety standards has been "rendered inoperative." In the case of safety belts, this means that your dealership could remove belts to make repairs or modifications, but must reinstall or replace the belts before returning the vehicle to a customer.

NHTSA does not consider it to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition when a dealer modifies a used vehicle in such a way that the vehicle is equipped with safety belts at every designated seating position and those safety belts are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted to be installed at that seating position in the vehicle when it was new. In this case, your letter states that you would equip the used 1990 conversion vans with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and lap-only belts at all other seating positions. This belt installation was permitted by Standard No. 208 for new 1990 multipurpose passenger vehicles. Therefore, your planned installation would not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act with respect to the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:208#VSA D. 8/14/91

ID: 3117yy

David A. McClaughry, Esq.
Harness, Dickey & Pierce
5445 Corporate Drive
Troy, MI 48098

Your ref: 0364-50108

Dear Mr. McClaughry:

This responds to your letter of July 11, l991, with respect to the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to a sale of motor vehicles to the United States Navy.

The Navy has proposed specifications for the design of a zero-emission motor vehicle which may not meet some of the FMVSS. You are aware of the exemptions that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides for military vehicles, and that l5 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(C) provides, upon the Administrator's grant of a petition, for low-emission motor vehicles. These raise certain questions which you have asked us to answer.

First, you would like our interpretation of "military vehicle." The definition of "military vehicle" is that contained in section 571.7(c): a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. This means any vehicle that the military purchases. However, if the contractual specifications require compliance with the FMVSS, the military vehicle must be manufactured to conform to the FMVSS.

You have asked whether the exclusion extends "only for FMVSS or all safety standards." The exclusion of section 571.7(c) is only from the FMVSS. However, vehicles that are owned by the United States Government bear Government registrations. They are not subject to State licensing laws, and, therefore, are exempt from State vehicle safety standards.

You have also asked if there are other military safety standards that the vehicles must satisfy. We are unaware of any military safety standards, but, if such standards exist, they would be standards of the Department of Defense, and not those of the Department of Transportation.

Finally, you have asked whether your client should attempt to obtain a low-emission vehicle temporary exemption under section 1410(a)(1)(C). Because of the existing exclusion from FMVSS compliance, we see no need for such an exemption if the vehicle is sold exclusively to the Navy or another branch of the military. However, if your client intends to sell the military-specification vehicle to an entity other than the Armed Forces of the United States, it must either comply with all applicable FMVSS at the time of manufacture and sale, or be exempted under one of the four subsections of section 1410(a)(1).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:57l d:8/2/9l

ID: 3118yy

Mr. Jack Garbo
President/General Counsel
AVM Products, Inc.
2333 Delante St.
Fort Worth, TX 76117

Dear Mr. Garbo:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1991, requesting clarification of Standard No. 208. Specifically, you asked "whether the three-point seatbelt is required in all middle and rear outboard seating positions in the multipurpose vehicles after September 1, 1991." Specifically, you requested verification of your interpretation that these requirements apply only to forward-facing seating, and not rearward-facing seating. Your interpretation regarding rearward-facing seats is correct.

Beginning September 1, 1991, multipurpose passenger vehicles must have lap/shoulder belts at every forward-facing rear outboard designated seating positions. The term "rear outboard designated seating position" is defined in S4.2.4.1(b) as an "outboard designated seating position" located rearward of the front seat(s). If by the phrase "middle and rear outboard seating positions" you are referring to outboard seating positions in different rows of seats located behind the front seat(s), each such position that is forward-facing must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts after September 1, 1991. If instead the term "middle" is referring to center seating position(s) on bench seats, such positions may be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts. Rearward-facing seats may also be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:208 d:8/l4/9l

ID: 3131o

Mr. Clarence M. Ditlow
Executive Director
Center for Auto Safety
2001 S Street, N.W.
Suite 410
Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

This responds to your letter asking us to "investigate" a service bulletin issued by General Motors to its dealers regarding rear seat lap/shoulder belt kits to be retrofitted in models from earlier model years. You objected to General Motors' decision not to provide retrofit kits for all models, because all earlier models have shoulder belt anchorages and because you question the statement in General Motors' service bulletin that rear seat lap/shoulder belts in certain models would not offer better protection for rear seat occupants than lap belts alone. You concluded by alleging that General Motors' "refusal to provide shoulder belt kits for selected models is effectively frustrating" the purpose of requiring anchorages for rear seat shoulder belts to be installed in cars made since 1972 and our policy of encouraging manufacturers to provide retrofit kits for rear seat lap/shoulder belts in older vehicles.

I disagree with your allegations. Let me begin by emphasizing that we continue to support the use of rear seat lap belts, the restraint system found in most cars on the road today. While rear seat lap/shoulder belts may be even more effective, numerous studies have confirmed that rear seat lap belts are effective in reducing the risk of death or serious injuries to occupants. Therefore, NHTSA continues to urge all motorists to use the available safety belt systems in their vehicles.

However, we are encouraging vehicle manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for those consumers who desire them, such as Ms. Dell'Aquila. General Motors has indicated to us that such a retrofit kit is available for Ms. Dell'Aquila's 1988 Buick Regal. However, General Motors' bulletin to its dealers appears to indicate that retrofit kits are not available for those cars. To clear up any confusion, we have forwarded a copy of Ms. Dell'Aquila's letter to General Motors for their response.

The allegations in your letter, however, go far beyond Ms. Dell'Aquila's situation to suggest erroneously that her experience shows some failure of our efforts to ensure that rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits are widely available. As you were told in Administrator Steed's April 28, 1987 letter to you on this subject, NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to require all manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for all older models. Absent such authority, the agency has sought the voluntary cooperation of the manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them. The vehicle manufacturers' voluntary positive response to our encouragement is demonstrated by the current availability of retrofit kits for a wide variety of model lines. In fact, the General Motors Information Bulletin enclosed with your letter shows that company has retrofit kits now available for more than 50 models of its cars, trucks, and vans.

The fact that retrofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy. If a manufacturer makes a good faith determination that it is not appropriate to make retrofit kits available for certain of its past models, that determination presumably reflects a thoughtful consideration of the characteristics of those individual models. We have no reason to question General Motors' determination with respect to a few of its past models.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:208 d:ll/l/88

ID: 3132o

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is in reply to your letters of July 14, l988, with respect to an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and a request for confidential treatment of it. We understand that you orally withdrew this request during a telephone conversation with this Office on August 23, l988.

You have asked whether Standard No. l08 permits the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors, or the use of such lamps as fog and/or cornering lamps. Although Standard No. l08 defines a replaceable bulb headlamp as one with a bonded lens-reflector assembly, this definition does not preclude a design with an adjustable reflector, as the bond may be applied to a portion of the reflector assembly that is not adjustable. However, a headlamp with an adjustable reflector must be designed to conform with all applicable photometric requirements with the reflector in all positions in which it may be adjusted.

As for its use as a fog or cornering lamp, you are correct that it is acceptable provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. Whether the device impairs the effectiveness is determined by the vehicle manufacturer before it certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The decision, however, may be questioned by this agency if it appears erroneous.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d:ll/3/88

ID: 3133o

Mr. Richard W. Ward
Vice President
K-D Lamp Company
1910 Elm Street
Cincinnati, OH 45210

Dear Mr. Ward:

This is in reply to your letter of September 14, l988, asking for a clarification of Federal requirements for the minimum lens area for turn signal lamps and stop lamps.

The understanding expressed in your letter is correct. The SAE materials for turn signal lamps and stop lamps for wide vehicles incorporated by reference in Table I apply to original equipment on vehicles currently being manufactured, and to equipment intended to replace such original equipment. These standards were expressly incorporated to supersede earlier versions of SAE standards for turn signal lamps and stop lamps. However, in recognition that original equipment lamps made to earlier SAE specifications might not be compatible with the electrical systems of vehicles designed to conform to later SAE specifications, the agency adopted paragraphs S4.l.l.6 and 4.l.l.7, allowing the continued manufacture for replacement purposes only, of turn signal lamps and stop lamps designed to conform to earlier specifications. Both sections incorporate in their text portions of the earlier SAE standards. Because the earlier specification for turn signal lamps, J588d, required an effective projected luminous area not less than 12 square inches for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles, this requirement is also specified in S4.1.1.7 for replacement lamps manufactured in conformance with J588d.

In short, your interpretation is correct with respect to turn signal lamps manufactured for installation on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Single compartment turn signal lamps designed to conform to SAE J588e need meet only a minimum luminous lens area of 8 square inches. But if a turn signal lamp is manufactured to replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to conform to SAE J588d, its minimum luminous lens area is 12 square inches.

I hope this clarifies the matter for your customer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref: 108 d:ll/3/88