ID: nht80-1.21

DATE: 03/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Debra Weiner; NHTSA

TO: Delta Inc. of Arkansas

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please find enclosed copies of letters concerning the legal implications of manufacturing and installing automotive auxiliary fuel tanks. In addition to the enclosed material, please note that a person who goes into the business of manufacturing motor vehicle equipment, such as auxiliary fuel tanks, is required to submit identifying information and a description of the items he produces to this agency in accord with 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed).

I hope that you will find the enclosed materials helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at 202-426-2992.

ENCLS.

ID: nht80-1.22

DATE: 03/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Diesel Fuel Saver, Jay Blanchard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter requesting confirmation of statements made to you by an NHTSA engineer, Robert Williams. Apparently, Mr. Williams stated that your product, the "Diesel Fuel Saver," would comply with Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75).

As you describe the product, the "Diesel Fuel Saver" is a piece of aftermarket equipment that can be readily attached to diesel fuel systems to heat the fuel and ostensibly increase fuel economy. However, Safety Standard No. 301-75 is only applicable to new vehicles and, therefore, would not apply to motor vehicle equipment such as yours unless it is installed on new vehicles. Further, Safety Standard No. 301-75 does not specify design requirements for individual components of fuel systems. Rather, the standard specifies performance requirements that must be achieved by vehicle fuel systems during barrier crash tests.

There are no other safety standards that would be applicable to your product. However, you would be responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), our enabling authority, for any defects in the "Diesel Fuel Saver" relating to motor vehicle safety. This means that you would have to notify purchasers of your product of any such defects that might exist and remedy those defects at your own expense.

Although Safety Standard No. 301-75 is not directly applicable to the "Diesel Fuel Saver," the standard does create responsibilities for certain persons who may install the product.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that none of the mentioned persons, which could include your own company, would be permitted to install the "Diesel Fuel Saver" on a motor vehicle if the equipment would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 (or any other applicable safety standard). Therefore, as a responsible manufacturer, you should determine whether vehicles can meet the performance requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 301-75 with your product installed. The prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) only applies to those persons mentioned above. Therefore, a private individual (the vehicle owner, for example) could install the "Diesel Fuel Saver" with impunity, regardless of whether the vehicle thereafter complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75. This, of course, would not remove your liability in private litigation.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

D.F.S.

DIESEL FUEL SAVER

February 8, 1980

Office of the Chief Counsel Debra Winer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mrs. Winer:

I talked with Bob Williams at 1-202-426-1828 and I told him about our unit and he said that the unit we have would meet the MVSS-301 Safety Standards.

What I would like you to do if you would is to say what Bob Williams said and put it in black and white so that if we are asked about it then we can say that it does meet the requirements.

The only thing we are doing is using the water from the radiator block to heat the fuel(we have a water jacket and a coil inside a steel jacket and the water goes through that and heats the fuel and then we have a plug in heater so that when the vehicle is not in use then it can be heated so that you have hot fuel.

Enclosed is some information concerning the Presca Diesel Fuel Saver that I'm sure will help you understand how it works and that there is no way that our unit has any danger to it.

I shall look forward to hearing from you.

For information purposes: We are getting 14% increase in mileage on Long Haul Trucks. 17-30% on Farm Tractors, A V W Rabbitt was getting 43 MPG and we brought it to 55 around town and 60 on the highway.

The prices run: $ 299 $ 269 & $ 249 for each one.

Jay Blanchard Administrative Assistant

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht80-1.23

DATE: 03/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ross Frame & Axle, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 8, 1980, letter asking whether the computers connected to the air brake systems of trucks can be disconnected.

The computerized braking systems were used by some manufacturers to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Part of that safety standard was invalidated by the court in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978). In that decision, the Court invalidated portions of the standard involving some of the road test requirements for trucks and trailers. The computer systems that you question were usually added for purposes of complying with the invalidated antilock sections of the standard.

The agency has previously addressed the question of whether the antilock systems can be disconnected in light of the court decision. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that--

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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 . . . .

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock systems or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

SINCERELY

Jan. 8, 1980

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Attn: Office of Administration

Dear Sirs:

I run a truck repair shop in southern Ohio. One of my customers has around thirty-five trucks. The largest percentage of these are equipped with the computerized braking system. Due to one accident and constant problems with the other trucks, it is their desire to disconnect the computers from their trucks braking system.

We have received word from the manufacture that this is now legal. My customer requests, in writing, a verification of this matter so they may turn it over to their lawyer for verification, so that in case of an accident, there will not be a law suit due to the disconnecting of the computerized brakes.

Any information you may have about this, please send to me so I may forward it on to my customer.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Joe Cain Ross Frame & Axle, Inc.

ID: nht80-1.24

DATE: 03/05/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Stumbaugh, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please accept my apologies for our delay in responding to your letter of September 17, 1979. You asked whether your client would be required to submit to this agency's inspection or gain its approval before installing a device which connects the gas cap of an automobile to the horn by wires and switches so that the horn blows continuously when the gas cap is removed by a potential thief.

Your client would not be required to obtain an inspection of his product by this agency or to obtain an approval of his product. However, he would be required to comply with other requirements should he begin to manufacture or install his device.

Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed) requires every person who begins the manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to submit certain information about his business to this agency not later than thirty days after he begins manufacture. The information consists primarily of the name and address of the manufacturer and a description of the types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to be produced.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (copy enclosed) is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, he would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this information helpful. If you have further questions please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

PAUL STUMBAUGH ATTORNEY AT LAW

September 17, 1979

Dept. of Transportation Auto Safety Standards

Gentlemen:

I have a client who has invented a device for use on an automobile. His unit involves wires and switches which connect the gas cap to the horn, and the horn blows continuously when someone removes the gas cap for stealing gas; but the same can be disconnected by a switch in the front seat of the automobile for the purpose of filling your tank with gas, etc.

I need to know if any type of inspection, is required and approval by your department before this device can be installed in vehicles for every day use.

Your advice would be appreciated.

PAUL STUMBAUGH Attorney at Law

ID: nht80-1.25

DATE: 03/05/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bus Con Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 22, 1980, letter asking two questions about the use of your body conversion numbers on the certification labels of vehicles you produce.

First, you ask whether a final-stage manufacturer may substitute its body conversion number for the vehicle identification number (VIN) that comes with the incomplete vehicle. The answer to this question is no. The VIN must be continued from the incomplete vehicle certification label to the final-stage certification label. However, you may insert your body conversion number on the label in addition to the VIN. Your number should appear at the bottom of the label below the required information.

In your second question, you ask whether you may include your body conversion number on the alterers' labels for previously certified vehicles that you alter. The answer to this question is yes. As indicated above the number should appear at the bottom of the label below the required information.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BUS CON CORP

January 22, 1980

Chief Counsel -- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

I am enclosing photostats of two certification labels mandated by Part 567. I would appreciate answers to the following questions.

1). On the label for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, may we the final stage manufacturer, insert our body conversion number as the vehicle identification number? If not, where may we put our number?

2). On the label for persons who alter previously certified vehicles, may we put our body conversion number somewhere on this label. If so where on the label may we put it. If not can we put our number elsewhere.

I would appreciate a prompt reply to this letter so that I may get labels printed. If you have any questions, please contact me. My business card is enclosed.

Yours truly,

David Shomberg

Enc/

Label Requirements for Persons Who Alter Previously Certified Vehicles Effective: February 1, 1974 *

* Tire sizes can be listed. 567.4(h)

Individual or corporate name

Month and year in which alterations were completed (May be abbreviated 2/74)

No earlier than the manufacturing date of the original vehicle nor later than the date alterations were completed

Use if different from the original

Use if alterations change vehicle type

THIS VEHICLE WAS ALTERED BY THE FINE CAR CO., INC. IN FEBRUARY 1974

AND AS ALTERED IT CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT IN JANUARY 1974

*GVWR 0000

*GAWR FRONT 0000 REAR 0000

TYPE BUS

Can I put our Body Conversion Number on this label?

Label Requirements for Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages On or After: January 1, 1972 *

* Tire sizes can be listed. 567.4(h)

See text of the regulation for alternatives for final stage manufacturers who complete chassis-cabs.

May be abbreviated MFD Full corporate name

Month and year of manufacture (May be abbreviated 7/72)

Name of original manufacture of incomplete vehicle (May be abbreviated "INC. VEH. MFD. BY")

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR)

Use exact text specified in Regulations No earlier than the manufacturing date of incomplete vehicle nor later than the date of completion

Vehicle Identification Number

Type vehicle

MANUFACTURED BY THE FINE CAR CO., INC. JULY 1972

INCOMPLETE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED BY

CLASSIC TRUCKS INC.

JANUARY 1972

GVWR 0000

GAWR FRONT 0000 REAR 0000

THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT IN MARCH 1972

0000 TRUCK

NOTE: When preparing labels, all characters must be 3/32" or more in height in block capitals and numerals and printed in a color in contrast to the background. See text of the regulation for labeling requirements for intermediate manufacturers.

Can I put our Body 10 Conversion Number where circled or must the number there be the one assigned by the chassis manufacturer?

ID: nht80-1.26

DATE: 03/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Glenn Brinks

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your earlier questions concerning Federal requirements for fuel systems on motorcycles. As stated in our previous letter, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fue' System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75), does not apply to motorcycles. You are correct in your assumption that there are no Federal regulations that would preclude the use of fiberglass fuel tanks for motorcycles. I might add that Safety Standard No. 301-75 does not specify design requirements for any vehicle (e.g., that the tank be made of metal or any particular material). Rather, the standard specifies performance levels that the entire fuel system must achieve during barrier crash tests.

Although no safety standards or other regulations preclude the use of fiberglass fuel tanks for motorcycles, you should still be responsible for assuring that such tanks are safe. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for any defect relating to motor vehicle safety which may exist in the manufacturer's product (15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq.). The manufacturer would be required to notify all purchasers of the existence of the defect and to remedy the defect at the manufacturer's expense.

I might point out that the agency is concerned that fiberglass fuel tanks will shatter upon impact in a collision, rather than crushing as do metal tanks. If you have any crash data regarding the performance of fiberglass motorcycle fuel tanks, we would appreciate receiving the information

I hope this has answered all your questions.

SINCERELY,

January 26, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt;

Thank you very much for your prompt reply to my query about motorcycle fuel tanks. Could you clear up one remaining point? In your reply you state that the FMVSS regarding fuel system integrity does not apply to motorcycles. Does this mean that motorcycle fuel tanks can legally be made from fiberglass? A fiberglass fuel tank can be much lighter, stronger and more resilient than a comparable steel one, but I would like to make sure that such a tank is legal. Thank you very much for your help.

Glenn Brinks

ID: nht80-1.27

DATE: 03/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fiat Motors of North America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 15, 1979, requesting that paragraph S8.1.9 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, be corrected to change the phrase, "size 11EE shoe" to "size 11E shoe." I am sorry for the delay in this response.

Size "11EE" shoes are specified in the standard to allow easy application of the shoes to the test dummy's feet. If the feet of the dummy are of the absolute maximum width allowed by the standard, some size "11E" shoes are very difficult to apply. However, the agency does not believe that use of either "11E" or "11EE" shoes will cause a variation in test results. Therefore, a manufacturer should be safe in using either size. Mr. Radovich was incorrect in his statement that size "11EE" shoes are not available on the market. Size "11EE" shoes can be obtained from the Freeman Shoe Company, the Bostonian Shoe Company and other companies by special order.

For the reason stated above, we do not anticipate amending the standard to specify that shoe size should be "11E". However, if you have any data or other information indicating that test results can vary between use of size "11E" or size "11EE" shoes, we would certainly appreciate seeing the data.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 15, 1979

Frank Berndt -- Chief Council, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As per my conversation with Mr. Radovich of your staff, I am requesting NHTSA to please correct FMVSS 208 para 8.1.9 as follows:

from: . . . with a size 11EE shoe . . .

to: . . . with a size 11E shoe . . .

Mr. Radovich agreed with me that this type of shoe is not available in the market and there is no explanation as to why NHTSA put 11EE in the standard.*

(*) type 11E is available from Freeman Shoe Co. in Wisconsin.

If you have any questions on the matter, please feel free to contact me, (313) 336-2400.

My best regards,

Aldo Fozzati -- FIAT RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, U.S.A. BRANCH

ID: nht80-1.28

DATE: 03/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 10, 1980

Copies to:

RAR,RS,RLL,JGB,DPD,MRB,CTT,RAW, WLW,MLT,DAL,RFH,WCC,CRS,GPT,RGS

Mr. David Martin, Director Director, Enviromenental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren, Michigan 48090

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is in response to your recent request for an interpretation of the term, "capacity", as used in Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard provides that "the fuel tank is filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard solvent...." "You ask whether "capacity" should include the vapor volume in the air dome plus the volume of the fuel filler pipe when filling a fuel tank for compliance purposes. (Total tank volume = usable capacity + unusable capacity + vapor volume + fluid in filler pipe.)

The vapor volume can be filled with solvent if the solvent is added very slowly to force the air vapors out of the dome. This has been done in past compliance testing by the agency. Upon reconsideration, however, it is our opinion that the term, "capacity", should not be interpreted to include the vapor volume in the air dome, since fuel tanks are never filled to this level by vehicle users. Fuel tanks are designed to include an area for fuel vapor and pressure build-up. Vehicle users never fill their tanks so slowly that this area is displaced with fuel. Therefore, it would be an unrealistic test to require manufacturers to fill tanks in this fashion. Apparently, fuel is actually squeezed out of the filler pipe during compliance testing if the tank is filled to this absolute level. This would not seem to be an accurate test of fuel tank integrity, since it is leaks or punctures in the tank itself that generally cause fuel loss in real-world crashes.

In consideration of these facts, the agency interprets "capacity" to mean "usuable capacity", as used in the vehicle manufacturer's Part I submission to the EPA, plus "unusable capacity" (i.e.. the volume of fuel left in the tank when the engine fuel pump sucks air).

It should be emphasized that the "usable capacity" should be determined only after the tank has been filled to its "unusable capacity". In other words, when testing a tank that has never been filled, the unusable, residual fuel level should be reached before the "usable capacity" is added to the tank. If this is not done, the actual volume of fuel in the tank will be somewhat below the "usable fuel capacity.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-1.29

DATE: 03/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 22, 1980, letter asking whether sections S6.1.8.1 and S6.2.6 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, permit the adjustment, after burnishing, of brakes that are equipped with automatic brake adjusters. The answer to your question is no.

On April 28, 1977, the agency responded to a similar request that you made for an interpretation of these sections to permit brake adjustment for brakes equipped with automatic adjusters. At that time, the agency stated that the provisions of Standard No. 121 do not permit the type of a brake adjustment that you request. However, the agency noted that it would accept a petition for rulemaking to modify the standard in the manner you suggest if such a petition were supported with sufficient technical data.

In your current request for an interpretation, you merely restate your 1977 letter without offering the necessary supporting data and without petitioning the agency to amend the standard. Accordingly, we must restate the agency's interpretation that the standard does not permit the type of adjustment that you request.

SINCERELY,

Heavy Vehicle Systems Group

The Bendix Corporation

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

January 22, 1980

Subject: Request for Interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121

Gentlemen:

The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group (Bendix) respectfully requests an interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the application of Section S6.1.8.1 and S6.2.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems (FMVSS 121) with respect to brakes equipped with automatic adjusters. These sections cover the brake burnish procedures for road and dynamometer testing and specify that after burnishing, the brakes are to be adjusted as recommended by the manufacturer. Specifically, Bendix requests concurrence from the NHTSA that FMVSS 121 Section S6.1.8.1 and S6.2.6 permits manual adjustment, after burnishing, of brakes equipped with automatic adjustment.

In considering this request, your attention is directed to the fact that on March 29, 1977 Bendix submitted a similar request, however the NHTSA's response of April 28, 1977 addressed the issue of disconnect and overadjustment, not the issue of manual adjustment.

Now, due to increased customer activity, and current governmental interest in fostering the use of automatic adjustment of brakes, Bendix again submits its request for an interpretation permitting adjustment, after burnishing, of brakes equipped with automatic adjuster. Such interpretation would allow all brakes, with or without automatic adjustment to be tested by using the same procedures.

Bendix supports the need to improve in-service brake performance and stability, which improvement can be achieved through the use of brakes equipped with automatic adjustment mechanisms, and as such Bendix feels that clarity in the applicable Standards are necessary to assure compliance. It should be noted that automatic adjusters maintain a good level of brake performance, however not to the original level of the manual adjustment of the brake. But this difference, in our estimation, is not detrimental because the total procedure of controlled conditioning of the brakes is to achieve optimum performance and repeatability, and is not necessarily representative of actual operating conditions. Under actual operating conditions, the use of automatic adjustment mechanisms insures continued good brake performance.

Bendix hereby respectfully requests concurrence of NHTSA in Bendix' interpretation that FMVSS 121 Section S6.1.8 and S6.2.6 permits the manual adjustment of brakes with or without automatic adjusters after the burnish procedures. Bendix believes that such an interpretation would greatly accelerate the voluntary usage by vehicle manufacturers of automatic adjusting brakes on air braked vehicles and alleviate the need for amended or new rulemaking in the area of brake adjustment.

We would be pleased to discuss this matter further at your convenience.

R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director Engineering

ID: nht80-1.3

DATE: 01/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable Harold Runnels, House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This further responds to your November 14, 1979, letter to the Secretary of Transportation concerning Mr. Richard D. Browning's interest in the conversion of automotive engines to run on propane.

From Mr. Browning's letter, I gather that he seeks to produce and market a converter system which will allow conversion of gasoline motors to propane. I have described below the way in which the legislation and regulations under which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration operates might apply to Mr. Browning's venture. This agency lacks the authority to deal with any emissions control issues arising from production and use of a propane converter system, but the Environmental Protection Agency may have requirements which would apply to such a system. Therefore, we have also referred your letter to that agency in an attempt to expedite a response on this issue.

To date, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not exercised its authority pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (14 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (the Act), to issue a safety standard applicable to propane-powered vehicles. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, applies only to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F., and propane has a boiling point well below this temperature. Despite the absence of safety standards specifically applicable to propane-powered engines, a manufacturer or installer of these systems may be subject to other Federal requirements.

Under the Act (sections 151-158), the manufacturer of a propane fueled engine or of the components used for converting a gasoline-fueled engine to propane would be responsible for any safety-related defects in that equipment regardless of whether it were installed in new or in used vehicles. Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by either the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer himself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers and dealers and provide a free remedy for the defect.

Under NHTSA safety regulations, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is required to attach an additional label to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). This requirement would apply to a person who alters a new vehicle to install a propane fuel system. (See the enclosed pamphlet listing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and an information sheet explaining where to obtain copies of the standards.) Additionally, should noncompliance be caused by the modification, the alterer could be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2)).

A person who installs a propane-fueled engine or converts the gasoline-fueled engine in a used vehicle is not required to affix an alterer's label. However, if that person is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, he must not in the course of installing the propane components knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design originally installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. (Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act)

I hope that you will find this response helpful. If you or your constitutent have any further questions on this issue, I will be happy to answer them.

SINCERLY,

RUIDOSO STATE BANK

November 7, 1979

Congressman Harold Runnels

Dear Harold,

Earlier today, I talked with your administrative assistant, Larry Morgan, in connection with a business venture which I am involved in.

The nature of the venture itself is one of an alternate energy type, being the invention and perfection of a converter system which will allow conversion of gasoline motors to propane. As you are aware, I'm sure, these propane conversion kits are already on the market; however, there is some draw-back to their use in the fact that they are not as efficient as they might be.

The unit which we have under consideration at this time appears to have a great deal of advances in its design, both in simplicity and effectiveness which we feel further benefits the use of such a unit in replacement for gasoline.

Our first question of you is, what regulatory authority will we need to pursue to get an approval for the unit in relation emission control, etc.? Through our conversations with other people, they felt that the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington would be the agency that we dealt with; however, we are not totally sure that that is the only agency that we have to deal.

Secondly, considering the clean-burning quality of propane gas, we don't feel that there will be a great deal of problem in getting an approval from the EPA; however, we need to know exactly what steps should be taken in reference to that approval.

Through the use of this new unit, we hope to use a product for fuel which, as you well know, is presently a by-product and is often a waste product of the petroleum industry. It becomes apparent that if large companies convert massive numbers of delivery vehicles, etc. to the system, that their fuel cost can be cut by approximately two-thirds thereby cutting the inflationary spiral of gasoline cost. Not even to consider the fact that the propane is not presently being used to its utmost capability; and is often being wasted.

We would consider it a personal favor from you if you will make the inquiry for us to whatever agency is appropriate and ask that they respond in some short time period. Time is of the essence to us in the fact that the sooner that we get all the necessary approvals and the unit into production, the sooner all the benefits which are available from the unit can begin to be reaped.

Harold, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your many considerations in reference to all of our problems in southeastern New Mexico; and I hope that when and if you get to Ruidoso, you will "holler" at us so that we might show you the unit in person.

I hope that everything is going well for you and that your endeavors in Washington are beneficial for both you and the State.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Richard D. Browning Executive Vice President