ID: nht91-5.13

DATE: August 2, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David A. McClaughry -- Harness, Dickey & Pierce

TITLE: Your ref: 0364-50108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-11-91 from David A. McClaughry to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1991, 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 15 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).

ID: nht91-5.14

DATE: August 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Saunders-White

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-91 from Charles Saunders-White to Steve Kratzke

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter asking whether any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were in effect in 1929, and from 1920-1934. You stated that you are building a vehicle, which the state of Wisconsin will title a "reconstructed vehicle", using the frame and body from a 1929 roadster. You indicated that the vehicle must conform to all 1929 state and Federal laws and asked whether, in 1929, any Federal standards required motor vehicles to be equipped with

(1) fenders; (2) bumpers; (3) hoods; (4) doors, or (5) windshield wipers (power or manual).

You also asked whether any Federal standards, in effect from 1920-1934, required motor vehicles to be equipped with these items.

To answer your question, there were no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect prior to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., which was signed into law on September 9, 1966. This Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The initial group of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued under the authority granted by the Safety Act took effect on January 1, 1968, except for Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, which took effect on March 1, 1967. Thus, no Federal standards were in effect in 1929, nor between 1920 and 1934, that required vehicles to be equipped with the items of motor vehicle equipment listed above.

ID: nht91-5.15

DATE: August 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale R. Thompson -- Executive Director, Anderson County Board for the Mentally Retarded and Developmentally Disabled

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-91 from Dale R. Thompson to Mary Versailles

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 28, 1991, requesting information regarding transportation of handicapped children ages 3 and 4. In your letter and in subsequent phone conversations with Mary Versailles of my staff, you indicated that children in this age group "are officially classified as public school children under recent implementation of Public Law 99-457. Public Law 99-457 requires that public schools provide educational and related services (including transportation) to eligible handicapped children." Previously, your agency had transportated these children, using 15 passenger vans, to your center for developmental training and custodial care. You are now planning to coordinate your services with the local public schools. You plan to use your vans to transport these children to and from the public school. While at the school, the children would receive approximately two hours of educational services from public school teachers. Prior to and after these services, the children would receive custodial care by your staff.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. You asked the following three questions about transporting these children.

1. The vehicles our agency has previously purchased to transport this population prior to their public school age classification does not meet FMVSS/(NHTSA) standards as a "school bus". As we are proposing to utilize these vehicles to transport this population TO and FROM a public school facility for both educational and custodial care, are our vehicles subject to any current, or proposed (NHTSA) requirements? NOTE 1. Each child will receive approximately 2 hours of educational services from the school system and 3-4 hours of custodial care per day at the same location.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), defines a "school bus" as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has stated that whether a program for preprimary-age students is a "school" is determined by whether the program is educational or custodial. Because your students will be receiving approximately two hours of education each day, the program would be considered educational.

The Act gives NHTSA the authority to regulate the MANUFACTURE and SALE of new vehicles, including new school buses. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a

motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR Part 571.3. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one must consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use. Thus, under Federal law, a 12-15 passenger van is considered a school bus if its intended use is to transport school children.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. Since you will be transporting children to school, it would be a violation of Federal law for any person, aware of the vehicles' intended use, to sell you a vehicle that is not a school bus.

On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, you may USE a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles. Therefore, to determine whether you may use noncomplying vans to transport school children, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

2. Would these vehicles be subject to (NHTSA)/FMVSS requirements if they were only used to transport this population FROM the educational/custodial location each afternoon (From school to home only). NOTE 2. After mid-morning public school services are completed, our agency,will be providing afternoon custodial care prior to the return trip home.

NHTSA regulations define a "school bus" as a bus used for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. See 49 CFR Part 571.3. We interpret the term "to and from" to be inclusive of situations where a bus is used to transport children only one way between home and the school. We also note that the Act's definition of school bus uses the term "to or from school."

3. What safety features are required of a "bus" in order to comply with (NHTSA)/FMVSS standards. (NOTE: In a subsequent phone conversation, you stated that you were interested in which standards are applicable to a "school bus.")

The following is a list of all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 119 and 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124;

Standard No. 131 (effective September 1, 1992); Standards No. 201 through 204 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through 210; Standard No. 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); Standard No. 222; Standards No. 301 and 302.

Some of these standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards No. 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, including Standards No. 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard No. 131 requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992 to have a stop signal arm. Standard No. 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard No. 221 establishes strength requirements for the body panel joints in school buses. Standard No. 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants on school buses. Under Standard No. 222, small school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less) must be equipped with lap belts. For large school bus, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" - strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238.

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.

ID: nht91-5.16

DATE: August 7, 1991

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Quang Van Nguyen -- Houston Express Reprographics, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-12-91 from Quang Van Nguyen to Samuel K. Skinner

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 12, 1991, to Secretary Skinner, with reference to your invention "Emergency and Safety Lights."

You have noted that when the hazard warning signal is operating, the vehicle turn signal lamps are not. You have told us of witnessing an accident in which safety was compromised by the inability to use the turn signal lamps when the hazard signals were operating, and your invention addresses this concern. From the drawings you enclosed, this invention appears to consist of a housing with the high-mounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by two lamps which would provide the hazard warning signal function, and which are completely separated from the center lamp by triangular dividers. You have asked that the Department of Transportation support and approve your invention "for all types of automobiles."

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" safety inventions, but we can advise you of the relationship of your device to the Department's statutes and regulations. In this instance, the relevant statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), and the relevant regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Further, we must distinguish between use of the invention as "original equipment" (installed on new motor vehicles, either by the manufacturer or the dealer, before its first sale), or "aftermarket equipment" (installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, after a vehicle's first sale).

Under Standard No. 108, the hazard warning function is provided by activating all four turn signal lamps. You are correct that simultaneous operation of the turn and hazard warning functions is impossible. Although Standard No. 108 contains no explicit requirements for hazard warning systems, it contains explicit requirements for the flashers and switches that must be used in hazard warning systems. Specifically, new motor vehicles must be equipped with flashers meeting the requirement of SAE Recommended Practice J945, Vehicular Hazard Warning signal Flasher, February 1966, and switches meeting the requirements of SAE Standard J910, Hazard Warning Switch, January 1966. The definitions of flasher and switch contained in each of the SAE materials specify that when the hazard switch is actuated, the flasher causes the turn signal lamps to flash. The effect of this is that the hazard warning signal lamps must meet the photometric and minimum lens area specifications for turn signal lamps, which are explicit requirements of Standard No. 108, specifically, the requirements of SAE Standard J588 NOV84, Turn Signal Lamps. Were your device installed on a motor vehicle, the hazard function would no longer be provided through the turn signal lamps, and the vehicle would

fail to comply with Standard No. 108. For this reason, your device could not be installed as original equipment.

With respect to the aftermarket the Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from wholly or partially rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your device does not appear intended for installation by the vehicle owner, who is exempt from the statutory prohibition mentioned above. Because it would render the hazard warning system inoperative, the device, if sold in the aftermarket, could not be legally installed.

Federal law, however, would not preclude its installation on a passenger car that was manufactured before Standard No. 108 became effective, that is to say, a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1969. Nevertheless, its legality would still be subject to State and local laws. We are unable to advise you on such laws, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Although we have no data indicating that accidents such as you witnessed are frequent, we appreciate the concern you have shown. If you are interested in carrying this matter further, we suggest that you investigate the possibility of turning your device into a supplementary turn signal system that could be activated by a separate switch when the hazard warning system is in operation. If this is feasible for you, and if you intend to use the device as planned at present, we shall be pleased to provide you with an interpretation on supplementary lighting, and on the requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps.

ID: nht91-5.17

DATE: August 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gabriella Petersen; Hans Petersen -- Petersen Engineering GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-16-91 from Petersen Engineering GmbH (OCC 6161)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning whether any law in the United States requires the marking or coding of a number of structural parts of certain motor vehicles. As discussed below, the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) (Theft Highway Traffic Safety Prevention Standard), issued by the National Administration (NHTSA), specifies requirements for identifying numbers or symbols to be placed on major parts of certain high theft passenger automobiles.

The Theft Prevention Standard was issued pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act, which is Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(2). Congress passed Title VI in order to reduce the number of motor vehicle thefts by making it easier for law enforcement officials to trace and recover parts from stolen automobiles. Some of the more important provisions are section 603(a)(2), that specifies that NHTSA shall select the high theft lines that are subject to the Theft Prevention Standard, with the agreement of the manufacturer, if possible. Section 603(d) provides that once a line has been designated as a high theft line, it remains subject to the Theft Prevention Standard unless that line is exempted under section 605 of the Cost Savings Act. Section 605 provides that a manufacturer may petition to have a high theft line exempted from the requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard, if the line is equipped as standard equipment with an antitheft device. The exemption is granted if NHTSA determines that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with the Theft Prevention Standard in reducing and deterring motor vehicle thefts.

To implement these statutory requirements, NHTSA promulgated the Theft Prevention Standard in 1985. The standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe vehicle identification numbers (VINs) onto the following 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft passenger automobiles: engine, transmission, right front fender, left front fender, hood, right front door, left front door, right rear door, left rear door, front bumper, rear bumper, right rear quarter panel, left rear quarter panel, and if present, the decklid, tailgate, or hatchback. The agency annually publishes a list of the high theft car lines that have been selected for previous model years and includes new car lines selected for the most current model year. The most recent list of high theft car lines was published on September 11, 1990.

As you requested, I am enclosing copies of the September 1990 list of high theft car lines, the Cost Savings Act, and the Theft Prevention Standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to write to me again.

ID: nht91-5.18

DATE: August 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: H. George Johannessen, P.E. -- Chairman, Seat Belt Technical Committee, Automotive Occupant Restraints Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-22-91 from H. George Johannessen, P.E. to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5858)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). More specifically, you asked about the meaning of the requirement in S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 that "...the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this provision.

You explained that some have asserted that a safety belt fails to comply with S4.1(b) if it actually moves off an occupant's pelvis during a crash. To reach such a conclusion, one must ignore the words "be designed to" and treat the requirement as though it read "...the pelvic restraint shall remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." Such a reading is plainly incorrect, because it reads the phrase "be designed to" out of the regulation.

You explained that you believe S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory phrase that is essentially meaningless. According to your letter, this language first appeared in a standard developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and was subsequently adopted verbatim in the safety belt standard issued by the Department of Commerce and in Standard No. 209. You asserted that the SAE committee that developed this language included it as a design goal only, since the committee members "were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal," and "were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field."

We cannot agree with your suggestion that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory design goal. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires each safety standard to meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that the standard be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. When NHTSA adopted Standard No. 209 as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency concluded that Standard No. 209, including S4.1(b), met all applicable statutory criteria.

It is true that there is no compliance test procedure specifically for S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. However, the meaning of that provision becomes clear when it is viewed in the context of the occupant protection requirements in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No.

210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and the rest of Standard No. 209. Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that vehicles be equipped with safety belts and that the lap belt portions of those belts adjust to fit persons ranging in size from a 6-year-old child to a 95th percentile adult male (See S7.1.1). Standard No. 209 requires that safety belts meet specified strength, durability, and other performance requirements. Standard No. 210 requires that the anchorage holding the safety belt in the vehicle meet stringent strength requirements, so that the belt will remain attached to the vehicle in a crash, and lap belt location requirements (S4.3.1), including a minimum lap belt mounting angle, to reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining, i.e., having the lap belt move off the pelvis. See the detailed discussion of the minimum lap belt mounting angle at 55 FR 17970, at 17974; April 30, 1990.

Viewed in this context, we believe that the requirement of S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 means that safety belts must be designed to be capable of being properly adjusted and positioned on the pelvis of occupants ranging from 6-year-old children to 95th percentile adult males. The belts must also be capable of remaining on the pelvis of such occupant during collision or roll-over. A belt system that was not capable of being positioned on the pelvis and remaining there during crashes would not comply with S4.1(b).

Given this meaning and purpose, we offer the following observations. First, the fact that a lap belt moved off the occupant's pelvis during a collision would NOT of itself show that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. Compliance with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is determined by the design of the safety belt system, not the performance of individual safety belts while in service. Second, the actual performance of a safety belt in a vehicle (e.g., a lap belt moving off the occupant's pelvis during a crash) COULD indicate that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. If the agency had information indicating that a particular belt design was not capable of being properly positioned on the pelvis or not capable of remaining on the occupant's pelvis when installed in particular vehicles in particular crash modes, the agency might well investigate whether that safety belt design complied with S4.1(b). However, NHTSA has no such information about any safety belt systems at this time.

ID: nht91-5.19

DATE: August 9, 1991

FROM: Alonzo Bendolph

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Alonzo Bendolph (A38; Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing in regards to a business endeavor I plan to persue.

On August 08, 1991, your vehicle safety department was contacted regarding any possible regulations governing the placement of personalized stickers in the upper portion of the front and rear windsheilds of a vehicle. I was told that to get the proper interpretation of this matter that your department should be contact.

Essentially my business idea is this: I'd like to offer personalized stickers for the front and rear windsheild that would extend to both sides of car (frame to frame). The same sticker would be no greater than 6 inches in length. These same stickers would contains some of the following phrases listed below:

"My wife is #1" "young and single and I love to mingle" "Can't touch this"

These signs would be clear and containing no additional tint. Only the lettering would be visble.

In an efforts to get a definite answer as to the legality of these stickers, NY State dept of motor vehicles was contacted. I was told that all signs placed in the front and rear windshield other than inspection and registration are illegal. Inspite of this, many motorist proudly display such signs as Toyota, Honda, Chevy Blazer, and so on. Is this supposed law in New York a law that is enforced? Or is it just a law on the books - like jay walking and improper parking distance from the curves.

please supply written correspondence as to the NHTSA position relative to this issue. Hoping to hear from your office soon.

ID: nht91-5.2

DATE: July 19, 1991

FROM: John D. Hayes -- Port Brokers Inc.

TO: Chief Council Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-31-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John D. Hayes (A38; Part 591)

TEXT:

We are anticipating handling in September an imported shipment on a Carnet basis of one DAF tractor and one trailer with a self contained jumbo video screen (27 square yards in area when completely set up) that will be used in a concert tour throughout the United States over a 30 days period of time. At the end of the 30 days period this will be completed exported.

In order to be sure that we are not overlooking any important factors, we would appreciate your legal interpretation in what is necessary for this vehicle and trailer to travel throughout the United States. We understand that your form HS7 would be used and box 7 would be completed.

The DAF cab is 6,900 kilos and the trailer with jumbo video screen is 26 tons.

This screen costs $20,000 per day and it is extremely important that we avoid any delays which may occur regarding problems with Department of Transportation.

We must respond next week to our customer in the Netherlands so that they can start working on this project. Please advise as soon as possible any particulars we need to know.

We would appreciated receiving your response by fax if possible.

If any other details are necessary for your interpretation please let me know.

ID: nht91-5.20

DATE: August 9, 1991

FROM: David L. Kulp -- Manager, Fuel Economy Planning & Compliance, Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company

TO: Orron E. Kee -- NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Deletion of Off-Highway Data from the Pre-Model and Mid-Model Reports

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David L. Kulp (A38; Part 523; Part 537)

TEXT:

Ford requests your concurrence to discontinue the reporting of off-highway data as listed in S537.7(c)(5) for light-duty trucks that otherwise comply to the light-duty truck definition in S523.5(a). Per a telephone conversation between you and Ms. Peg Gutmann of my staff on July 19, 1991, the off-highway data is only required for automobiles that a manufacturer wishes to classify as a light-duty truck per the provisions of S523.5(b).

Please contact Ms. Gutmann at (313) 337-5367 if you have any questions or concerns.

ID: nht91-5.21

DATE: August 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David R. Stepp -- Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara, P.C.

TITLE: Re: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. Reimportation of Volkswagens

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-1-91 from David R. Stepp to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6180)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 1, 1991, 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, 15 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 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 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 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).