ID: 20629.drn

Mr. Joseph P. Brennan
Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Sate-Lite Manufacturing Co.
6230 Gross Point Road
Niles, IL 60714

Dear Mr. Brennan:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your "new 12 oz. Automotive Emergency Warning Triangle" must meet Standard No. 125, Warning devices. You stated that the triangle is designed to be attached to a vehicle's window and can be deployed without leaving the automobile. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you will market the product for use with motor vehicles less than 10,000 pounds (lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). As explained below, because your warning triangle is designed to be carried in motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 does not apply to this product. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company, Sate-Lite, as the manufacturer, is subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) laws.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. l25 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) If sold for use with buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb, your company's warning triangles must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the warning triangle is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 would not apply.

Please note, however, that even if not covered by Standard No. 125, your warning triangle, as an item of "motor vehicle equipment," is subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, "Motor Vehicle Safety." Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA should determine that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your devices are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

You describe your product as meeting Standard No. 125's requirements for "retroreflectivity and fluorescence." In subsequent marketing efforts, please do not mention your product in conjunction with Standard No. 125. Although we understand that Sate-Lite is only citing the product's retroreflectivity and fluorescence features, we are concerned that some customers may interpret the statement to mean that the product meets all Standard No. 125 requirements. Customers who may believe your product meets Standard No. 125 may decide to use it in conjunction with vehicles 10,000 lb GVWR or greater, a use for which your product is not intended.

Finally, some states may regulate warning devices that vehicles 10,000 lb GVWR or less may or must use when the vehicle is stopped. Each state in which you sell your product can provide information whether there are any requirements in that state for warning devices to be used with vehicles that are 10,000 lb GVWR or less.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:125#VSA
d.10/22/99

ID: 5927Carraway

Mr. Bruce H. Carraway, Jr.
Carraway Safety Belt Company
14 Kings Bridge
Atlanta, GA 30329

Dear Mr. Carraway:

This responds to your letter in which you follow-up on our earlier correspondence regarding belt minder systems. In your recent letter, you requested that the agency require vehicles to be equipped with a belt minder system which relies on a voice synthesizer to provide an audible alarm. As explained below, the agency does not have authority to require a system as you have described.

In your letter, you requested that the agency require vehicles to be equipped with a belt-minder system developed by your company. You explained that the system would transmit a message through a vehicle’s audio system when a vehicle’s ignition is turned to the “on” position. Additionally, you stated that your system would use a voice synthesizer to state, “Thank you for fastening your seat belt.” You further explained that the duration of the message would be 4 or 5 seconds, and would repeat after a period of approximately 100 seconds. From your letter, it appears that the audible warning would sound regardless of whether the safety belt at the driver’s seat is buckled.

I want first to thank you for your continued interest in motor vehicle safety. As explained in our previous letter to you, Congress has provided the agency with specific direction with respect to certain types of vehicle-based safety belt incentives. 49 U.S.C. § 30124 states that:

A motor vehicle safety standard … may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by using a safety belt interlock designed to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle if an occupant is not using a safety belt or a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the “start” or “on” position. (Emphasis added.)

Under this provision, the agency is prohibited from establishing a standard based on the system you described. Specifically, the agency is prohibited from requiring a belt minder system that sounds after the initial 8-second period. As your system has a second audible alarm 100 seconds after a vehicle’s ignition is turned to the “on” position, a standard mandating your system would not comply with the congressional directive.

While the agency is unable to mandate your system, we continue to encourage vehicle manufacturers to consider voluntarily introducing belt-minder systems and other innovative technologies that could increase seat belt use in ways acceptable to their customers. As explained in our previous letter to you, manufacturers may provide a voluntary audible signal that sounds after the 8-second period specified in S7.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, so long as they provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Further, i n a previous interpretation letter to MMC Services, we stated that an audible “voice” signal would be permitted under the standard (January 13, 1981; copy enclosed).

However, we have concerns with a system such as you described, in which the audible signal operates regardless of whether an individual is buckled-up. Under your system, an occupant that has not fastened his/her safety belt would still be “thanked” for buckling-up. This may minimize the incentive to buckle-up that a belt-minder system is intended to provide. Further, it could both confuse and aggravate drivers and passengers because an occupant would receive the same signal no matter what action is taken.

If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

fef:208

d.11/12/04

ID: 7114

Mr. John W. Phillips
Project Engineer
Transportation Research Center of Ohio
East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your letter to this office dated March 20, 1992, in which you inquired whether the Hybrid III large male test dummy, Model No. H3-95-R with 1992 pelvis upgrade, manufactured by First Technology Safety Systems, is an "approved equivalent test device" for conducting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 202 test. I am sorry we could not respond to you on or before April 2 as you requested.

Standard 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR Part 571.202), specifies requirements for head restraints to reduce the frequency and severity of neck injury in rear-end and other collisions. S4.3 of the standard requires that "a head restraint that conforms to either (a) or (b) shall be provided" for certain seating positions. In Standard 202's demonstration procedures relating to the compliance option set forth in S4.3(a), S5.1(a) specifies use of a "dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device."

The Model H3-95-R dummy is marketed by First Technology Safety Systems as a "95th Percentile Male Hybrid III Test Dummy." We therefore assume that it has the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male. The only remaining issue of whether the dummy can be used under S5.1(a) is whether it has "an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure."

In the preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 202, NHTSA provided clarification of the term "approved representation of a human articulated neck structure." The agency stated that a neck structure of a test device would be approved if it could be demonstrated by technical test data that the articulation of the neck structure represented that of a human neck. NHTSA indicated that approval could only be given to a structure sufficiently described in performance parameters to ensure reliable and reproducible test data. See 33 FR 2945-2946, February 14, 1968.

You did not provide any specifications or test data concerning the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy (Model H3-95-R). However, NHTSA conducted an extensive evaluation of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy, including its neck, in the context of specifying its use (as one of two alternative 50th percentile male dummies) in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, dummy. The specifications for the Hybrid III test dummy, for purposes of Standard No. 208, are set forth in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. The specifications for the other 50th percentile male dummy used in Standard No. 208 are set forth in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572.

We understand that the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy is essentially a scaled version of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. We therefore approve a Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy for purposes of Standard 202, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that of the Part 572 Hybrid III test dummy, other than minor differences related to adjustments for length. For the same reasons, we approve use of a 95th percentile male version of the dummy specified in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that specified in Part 572, other than minor differences related to adjustments to length.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:202 d:5/5/92

ID: nht95-5.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerel M. Sachs -- General Manager, Automotive Glass, Import Products Glass (IPG)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/26/95 LETTER FROM JEREL M, SACHS TO CLARKE HARPER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 8-4-86 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/14/90 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO NORMAND LAURENDEAU

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sachs:

This responds to your June 26, 1995, letter requesting a manufacturer's code mark for automotive glazing to comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated in your letter that you "intend to engage in the manufacture and/or contract manufacture of automotive safety glass in the United States and overseas." Your letter also stated that you were negotiating for the tooling, machinery, and the code mark of Lin's Glass Company in Taiwan.

In a June 29, 1995, phone conversation between Paul Atelsek and a member of your staff, we learned that IPG only imports and distributes; but does not actually make, glazing. He was also told that Lin's has gone out of business, and that you had switched to another supplier in Taiwan. In a July 13, 1995, phone conversation with Mr. Atelsek, you confirmed that IPG makes no glazing and that your new supplier has a code mark assigned by NHTSA, but said that you preferred to use a "fresh" number assigned to your company. You said that other companies that do not make glazing have code marks assigned to them, and named another company that you said imports "cheap" Chinese glass and applies its own manufacturer's code mark in order to disguise the origin of the glass from its buyers. In a July 13, 1995, letter in support of your request, you stated that IPG would be doing contract manufacturing with a supplier who is also supplying other customers, and that having your own number would help you monitor quality control and track your product in the marketplace. You believe that having your own number would also benefit NHTSA because the agency would have an easier time implementing a recall through IPG than through the Taiwanese supplier.

As Mr. Atelsek explained on the telephone, we cannot issue a number to your company because you are not a "prime glazing manufacturer." Standard 205, at S6.1, defines "prime glazing material manufacturer" as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." As your company does none of these things, we cannot issue a code mark to IPG. To show you that this is a matter of longstanding legal interpretation, I have enclosed some interpretation letters we have written to others asking this question and related questions.

The glass should be marked with the number we have assigned to your supplier, the prime glazing manufacturer in Taiwan. The practice you mentioned of using code marks to disguise the identity of the manufacturer is directly contrary to our policy. This code mark is supposed to help NHTSA identify the prime manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Therefore, the code mark on a particular piece of glazing needs to refer to the company that actually, made the glazing, and code marks should never be applied to glazing made by anyone else.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-3.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerel M. Sachs -- General Manager, Automotive Glass, Import Products Glass (IPG)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/26/95 LETTER FROM JEREL M, SACHS TO CLARKE HARPER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 8-4-86 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/14/90 LETTER FROM PAUL J ACKSON RICE TO NORMAND LAURENDEAU

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sachs:

This responds to your June 26, 1995, letter requesting a manufacturer's code mark for automotive glazing to comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated in your letter that y ou "intend to engage in the manufacture and/or contract manufacture of automotive safety glass in the United States and overseas." Your letter also stated that you were negotiating for the tooling, machinery, and the code mark of Lin's Glass Company in T aiwan.

In a June 29, 1995, phone conversation between Paul Atelsek and a member of your staff, we learned that IPG only imports and distributes; but does not actually make, glazing. He was also told that Lin's has gone out of business, and that you had switche d to another supplier in Taiwan. In a July 13, 1995, phone conversation with Mr. Atelsek, you confirmed that IPG makes no glazing and that your new supplier has a code mark assigned by NHTSA, but said that you preferred to use a "fresh" number assigned to your company. You said that other companies that do not make glazing have code marks assigned to them, and named another company that you said imports "cheap" Chinese glass and applies its own manufacturer's code mark in order to disguise the origin of the glass from its buyers. In a July 13, 1995, letter in support of your request, you stated that IPG would be doing contract manufacturing with a supplier who is also supplying other customers, and that having your own number would help you monitor quality control and track your product in the marketplace. You believe that having your own number would also benefit NHTSA because the agency would have an easier time implementing a recall through IPG than through the Taiwanese supplier.

As Mr. Atelsek explained on the telephone, we cannot issue a number to your company because you are not a "prime glazing manufacturer." Standard 205, at S6.1, defines "prime glazing material manufacturer" as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." As your company does none of these things, we cannot issue a code mark to IPG. To show you that this is a matter of longstanding legal interpretation, I have enclosed some interpretation letters we have written to others asking this question and related questions.

The glass should be marked with the number we have assigned to your supplier, the prime glazing manufacturer in Taiwan. The practice you mentioned of using code marks to disguise the identity of the manufacturer is directly contrary to our policy. This code mark is supposed to help NHTSA identify the prime manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Therefore, the code mark on a particular piece of glazing needs to refer to the company that actually , made the glazing, and code marks should never be applied to glazing made by anyone else.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: 9137

Mr. Greg Biba
172820 Highway QQ #8
Waupaca, WI 54981

Dear Mr. Biba:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an "infant observation mirror" that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the "rebound" phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:213 d:10/25/93

ID: 08-006170as congressional

ID: 17374.drn

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senate
131 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4402

Dear Senator Hatch:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Clyde L. Simpson, General Manager of Autotech USA in Park City, asking about requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that apply to Autotech's spare wheel covers for sport utility vehicles. I sincerely regret that Mr. Simpson's earlier letter to the agency was lost.

Mr. Simpson describes Autotech's spare wheel cover, called "The Original Brilliant Cover," as consisting of a stainless steel outer ring assembly, with a stainless steel latch with an integrated lock, and a plastic faceplate assembly with a continuous safety strap. The strap fits the faceplate by passing the strap through two slots which are located opposite each other at the outer perimeter of the faceplate. The strap is placed behind the spare tire and wheel assembly, preventing the faceplate from falling off if the ring assembly should become unlatched or if the spare tire should deflate. Mr. Simpson explains that the product has European approval, and describes some specifications that the product had to meet to receive the approval. He also states that the product has a locking mechanism to ensure its faceplates do not fall off and become a safety hazard.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

While "The Original Brilliant Cover" is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any safety standards for spare wheel covers. However, there are certain responsibilities that apply to Autotech, which are briefly described in the enclosed information sheet. For example, Autotech, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, is responsible for ensuring that its products are free of safety-related defects. This responsibility is set forth in sections 30118-30120 of our statute (at Title 49 of the United States Code). In the event Autotech or NHTSA determines that the wheel cover contains a safety-related defect, Autotech would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility would be borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the wheel cover is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

Other legal requirements may apply depending on how "The Original Brilliant Cover" is sold. If the wheel cover were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the spare wheel cover, meets all safety standards. In addition, if the spare wheel cover were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business on a new or used vehicle, 30122(b) of our statute prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition subjects the violator to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install Autotech's spare wheel cover on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to somehow result in the vehicle no longer meeting a safety standard. However, NHTSA urges owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so Autotech may wish to consult State regulations to see whether its product would be permitted.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your constituent's questions. If there is anything else I can do, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.3/13/98

ID: 16359.drn

Mr. Peter K. Welch
Director of Government and Legal Affairs
California Motor Car Dealers Association
915 L Street, Suite 1480
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Welch:

This responds to your October 28, 1997, request for an interpretation about a new vehicle (with a seating capacity of 11 or more, including the driver), sold by a dealer to a private family. You wish to know whether, if the dealer knows the family will use the vehicle to transport school children to and from school, the dealer must sell a vehicle that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to school buses. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter posed two questions. The first question is :

1. Does a van which has a capacity of carrying 11 persons or more qualify under the federal law as a school bus if purchased by an individual for personal and family purposes and the individual periodically uses the van to transport his or her own children and/or other children to school or school-related activities pursuant to a non-monetary carpooling arrangement?

The answer is no, the van would not be considered a "school bus." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has addressed this issue in an interpretation letter of April 25, 1986, to Mr. Arnold Spencer (copy enclosed). In that letter, NHTSA stated that it does not consider privately-owned family vehicles used by parents to carry their children to or from school to be subject to our school bus safety standards.

In 1974 Congress amended NHTSA's statutory authority by passing the School Bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments (P.L. 93-492). The school bus amendments directed NHTSA to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. The House Committee Report on the school bus amendments stated that "(p)rivate motor vehicles used to carry members of the owner's household or other students in a carpool arrangement" were among the types of motor vehicles not meant to come within the scope of the amendments. (House Report 93-1191, page 42.) Therefore, persons selling new buses or any other type of vehicle for family use are not required to sell complying school buses.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State may impose its own standards regarding what requirements must be met for vehicles to be sold, licensed and operated in the state. For information on what requirements, if any, California has regarding the sale of vehicles such as the van you describe, please contact California's State Director of Pupil Transportation at the following address:

Mr. Ron Kinney, Supervisor
School Transportation
California Department of Education
560 J Street, Suite 170
Sacramento, CA 95814

Mr. Kinney's telephone number is: (916) 322-4879.

The second question is:

2. If the answer to question No. 1 is yes, what duty does a new car dealer have to question a prospective new van purchaser relative to issues involving carpooling arrangements and what liability does a dealer face if the purchaser advises the dealer that the van will not be used to carpool students but subsequently uses the van for school-related carpooling?

For purposes of NHTSA's laws, since the answer to our first question is no, our answer to the second question is moot. California law should be consulted to see whether there are relevant duties or responsibilities under the laws of your state.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealers' Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.12/8/97

ID: 8783

Mr. Han Dinh
Project Manager
United States Postal Service
8403 Lee Highway
Merrifield, VA 22082-8101

Dear Mr. Dinh:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the conversion of postal vehicles to operate on compressed natural gas (CNG). You explained that you are deciding which specifications to apply to the CNG pressure vessels on the converted vehicles. You ask whether we would recommend the American Gas Association's voluntary standard, NGV-2, or the Department of Transportation standard for cylinders which transport CNG.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or vehicles using CNG as a fuel. However, as you know, NHTSA has undertaken rulemaking on a safety standard for CNG tanks and vehicles. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993.) In response to our January 1993 proposal, the agency received over 55 comments, which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. Given that this rulemaking has not been completed, NHTSA is unable to recommend to you a particular course of action with respect to the NGV-2 and DOT standards at this time.

If NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders and vehicles, the standard would apply to new products, and have applicability to vehicle conversions as follows. The cylinder regulation would be an equipment standard. Thus, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

The fuel system regulation would apply to new vehicles as manufactured by original equipment manufacturers or as converted prior to the first sale of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is sold, if the vehicle is converted by a commercial converter, the CNG fuel system regulation would apply if the vehicle was manufactured after the effective date of the standard and thus would have been regulated if it had originally been a CNG vehicle. With this in mind, I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed . . . in compliance" with any FMVSS.

In addition, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151- 159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For further information about FHWA requirements, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:303 d:8/16/93