ID: 7855-2

Mr. Robert F. Gayer
Equipment Coordinator
Transportation Services
Salt River Project
P.O. Box 52025
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2025

Dear Mr. Gayer:

This responds to your letter asking whether certain trailers, manufactured in 1989, were required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. (49 CFR 571.121). You explained that you disagree with statements by the trailers' manufacturer that "these trailers do not need to comply with `121,' because they are `Heavy Haul Trailers.'" You further stated that the trailers may not comply with certain provisions in Standard No. 121, including the reservoir requirements in S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.5.

I note that we previously responded to a similar letter from Salt River Project concerning certain trailers manufactured in 1987. Our letter (copy enclosed) was sent to Mr. Derral T. Crance on April 3, 1989. We explained that heavy hauler trailers are not excepted from Standard No. 121 unless they have a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds. Since you indicated that the trailers of current concern have a GVWR of 68,000 pounds, they would not be excepted from the standard as heavy hauler trailers. Moreover, the trailers do not appear to come within any of the other exceptions to Standard No. 121.

Standard No. 121 does, however, include a number of special provisions for heavy hauler trailers, including exceptions from certain requirements. Of particular note, S5.6 sets forth a number of specific parking brake requirements but permits heavy hauler trailers to meet the requirements of either that section, or, at the option of the manufacturer, the requirements of 49 CFR 393.43. Part 393 requires commercial motor vehicles to be equipped with various types of equipment, including brakes. Specifically, section 393.43 addresses brake requirements in breakaway and emergency braking situations.

Heavy hauler trailers manufactured in 1989 were generally subject to sections S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, the provisions about which you specifically asked. Under S5.2.1.1, a reservoir was required to be provided that is capable of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system. Under S5.2.1.5, each service reservoir was required to be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.

Notwithstanding the general applicability of S5.2.1.1, certain heavy hauler trailers which complied with the requirements of 49 CFR 393.43 instead of the specific parking brake requirements set forth in S5.6 would not have had to comply with S5.2.1.1. This is so because the vehicle is not required to have parking brakes. However, a braking system is required which applies automatically and promptly upon breakaway from a towing vehicle. Such a vehicle would also be required to carry sufficient chocking blocks to prevent movement when parked, as required by 393.41.

Since your letter suggests that you purchased trailers that may not have complied with Standard No. 121, I have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:121 d.12/14/92

ID: nht87-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/23/87

FROM: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOCIATION INC

TO: STEVE KRANTZKE -- NHTSA/

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DOUG COLE; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 302; LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM JONATHAN JACKSON TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/08/87 FROM ROSE TAL ISMAN TO DOUG COLE

TEXT: Hi Steve!

It was a pleasure talking with you and thanks again for a speedy returned call. George Shiflett recommended I contact your office about an issue that has arisen from a Certification program that National Van Conversion Association (NVCA) sponsors. The i ssue surrounds the question of "compliance with FMVSS #302".

A part of NVCA's Certification includes the physical gathering of random samples of fabrics, foams, carpets, and other flammable items that van conversion firms use in vehicles. These samples are then channeled to an accredited testing firm for destruct ive testing to verify compliance with FMVSS #302. NVCA has found many samples, according to the tests performed, not to be in compliance with FMVSS #302. The manufacturers of these samples vehemently oppose NVCA's findings and insist that their samples are indeed in compliance with FMVSS #302.

In an effort to double check NVCA's test procedures, I contacted four major testing laboratories recommended by the American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators. Half of those contacted suggested that NVCA's test methods were correct and the ot her half disagreed. Each half was quite certain they were right. The issue appears to be about when to use (or not to use) support wires in conjunction with the FMVSS #302 test. NVCA doesn't use any support wires in its test; some fabric manufacturers use support wires in their tests. In many (not all) instances, these support wires are an influence on whether a material passes or fails the FMVSS #302 test. Will you please clarify for us whether to use or not to use the support wires?

I have enclosed copies of test procedures from NVCA's testing lab, a fabric manufacturer, Ford, and Fisher Body Division of GM for your review. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter NVCA will include with its communications with conversion firms (in the c ase of a FMVSS #302 failure, per NVCA's current test methods). If you see anything that we need to alter immediately, please contact me; if not, I realize your interpretations, comments, opinions, rulings, or whatever may take some time to formulate and NVCA will proceed as normal until we hear from you. Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated by many involved. If I can provide any additional data or be of service in any way, please call on me.

ENCLOSURE

ID: 05-009466drn

ID: Copy of 05-009466drn

ID: 23010.ztv

Mr. Tomas P. Quintanilla
Customs & Quarantine Officer III
1501 Central Avenue
Tiyan, GU 96913





Dear Mr. Quintanilla:

This is in reply to your fax of April 18, 2001 asking several questions about a 1954 BMW motorcycle recently imported into Guam. You report that "the motorcycle has all the original parts affixed when it was manufactured excluding the tires." We understand this to mean that the tires on the vehicle are not the original ones.

You asked "If the tires on the motorcycle are specifically made for that type and year of motorcycle/vehicle and manufactured after 1966, should it or does it have to comply with the FMVSS?"

This is an interesting question, and the answer is no. The motorcycle itself, of course, is not required to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards since it is a motor vehicle that is "at least 25 years old" (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(9)). On the other hand, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, "New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars," is an equipment standard. It does not apply to motorcycles but to "new pneumatic tires designed for highway use on . . . motorcycles manufactured after 1948" (S3, 49 CFR 571.119). There is no question that new replacement tires for a 1954 BMW motorcycle would have to meet Standard No. 119. Nor is there any question, under our interpretations, that, if the BMW's tires were shipped separately, they would have to comply with Standard No. 119 if they were manufactured on or after September 1, 1974, the effective date of Standard No. 119 (Unlike its treatment of motor vehicles, Section 30112(b)(9) does not exclude motor vehicle equipment from applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards on the basis of age).

However, when a single motor vehicle that is no longer required to comply with our regulations because of its age is imported into the United States, we would not require any individual replacement equipment item installed on the vehicle at the time of entry to meet a Federal requirement that might be appropriate were the equipment item detached and shipped separately. This means that the tires of the BMW motorcycle do not have to comply with Standard No. 119 if the motorcycle is imported with them installed (or if they are detached and were manufactured before September 1, 1974).

You have also asked: "If an individual imports a . . . 1950/1960 model vehicle and needs to replace any glass item with an original replacement (windshield, window lights . . . .) do these items need to comply with FMVSS?"

The answer is yes. Any glazing that is manufactured to replace any glazing in any motor vehicle, no matter what its age, must be manufactured and marked in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, Glazing installed in a motor vehicle at the time of its importation need not comply with Standard No. 205 when the vehicle itself is excused from compliance because it is 25 years or older in age.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.5/15/01

ID: 2104y

Mr. Frank E. Timmons
Deputy Director, Tire Division
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Timmons:

This responds to your September 28, 1989 letter requesting that NHTSA reconsider its August 30, 1989 interpretation (copy enclosed) of the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards ("UTQGS," 49 CFR /575.104). In that earlier interpretation, the agency was asked by E.H. Galloway about the correct interpretation of the UTQGS provisions requiring one to "inflate the tire to 24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa." See //575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Specifically, Mr. Galloway asked whether tires with inflation pressures expressed in both English units (psi) and metric units (kPa) should be inflated to 24 psi or 180 kPa during the testing to determine the tires' traction grades under the UTQGS.

In its August 30 interpretation, the agency concluded that tires whose inflation pressure is expressed in both English and metric units should be inflated to 24 psi for the UTQGS traction testing. That interpretation explained its conclusion as follows:

The language of the regulation sets forth a general requirement for an inflation pressure of 24 psi, and a subordinate requirement that "tires with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals" use an inflation pressure of 180 kPa. An examination of the background of this language shows that the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa is to be used only for tire sizes that have inflation pressures specified only in kilopascals.

Your letter asked that the agency reconsider this interpretation. You stated that P-metric tires generally are labeled with a maximum inflation pressure of 240 kPa. However, section S4.3.4(a) of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars sets forth an additional labeling requirement for tires whose maximum inflation pressure in expressed in kPa, as follows: "If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, or 340 kPa, then each marking of that inflation pressure ... shall be followed by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number." This requirement in Standard No. 109, therefore, prohibits any passenger car tire from being sold or offered for sale in this country with the inflation pressure specified only in kPa.

By specifying conditions for use of the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa that are impossible for any tire to satisfy, because of the requirements of Standard No. 109, the effect of the August 30, 1989 interpretation is to remove the alternative inflation pressure from the UTQGS traction testing procedures. A correct interpretation of a regulation gives effect and meaning to all of the language in a regulation. For this reason, I believe the August 30, 1989 interpretation of the UTQGS traction testing procedures was incorrect.

I conclude that any tire with its inflation pressure expressed first in metric units, with the equivalent pressure in English units shown in parentheses, is a "tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals," as that phrase is used in 49 CFR /575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Accordingly, any such tire would be inflated to 180 kPa for UTQGS traction testing.

I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that might have been caused by the August 30 interpretation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: E. H. Galloway Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility P.O. Box 1671 San Angelo, TX 76902

ref:109#575 d:ll/l/89

ID: 21610michelin

Mr. Larry D. Weiman
Magenheim Bateman & Helfand
5600 Houston Center
1221 McKinney Street
Houston, TX 77010

Dear Mr. Weiman:

This responds to your May 2, 2000, letter asking for assistance in locating information pertaining to the marketing, testing, application and certification of a particular type of Michelin tire: Michelin XM + S 244 Reinforced Radial X, size 205R16 104T.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, we issued a number of standards for tires. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, New pneumatic tires, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119). All retreaded passenger car tires must be certified as complying with FMVSS 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires (49 CFR 571.117). We also have authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, including tires.

The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative rating of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers.

Finally, 49 CFR 574.5 requires each tire sold in the United States to have a tire identification number (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewall by the manufacturer to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

Our statute establishes a self-certification process applying to the manufacture of vehicles and equipment to our safety standards. This means that NHTSA does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before their introduction into the U.S. retail market. Instead, each tire manufacturer must certify that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. We do not require that a manufacturer base its certification on any specific test or on any number of specified tests. However, manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine what tests results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify, with due care, that its tires comply with applicable Federal tire safety standards.

Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public.

NHTSA tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers or distributors and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. Those test reports are made public. If the tire passes the tests, no further action is taken. If it fails the tests and is determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer.

As discussed in correspondence to you dated June 8, 2000, from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, no compliance or defect reports have been located for the tire type and size you specified.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:109
d.7/12/00

ID: 3145o

Mr. Gary M. Ceazan
Vice President
Riken-America, Inc.
PO Box 3698 Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, CA 90051

Dear Mr. Ceazan:

This is in response to your letter asking whether tires marked with both an ETRTO (European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization) size designation and a different ISO (International Standardization Organization) size designation can legally be imported into the United States. As discussed below, such tires cannot be imported into the United States, because they do not comply with the applicable safety standards. I regret the delay in this response.

All new pneumatic tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.109), and all new pneumatic tires imported for use on motor vehicles other than passenger vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.119). Both of these standards prohibit "dual-size markings," or labeling two different size designations on one tire.

In the case of passenger car tires, section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." (emphasis added). This agency expressly prohibited dual-size markings on passenger car tires in a preamble amending Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. This prohibition was expressly repeated in subsequent amendments that addressed the question of tire labeling under Standard No. 109; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974; and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

In the case of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, there is no express prohibition in Standard No. 119 against dual size markings. However, section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire and size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." NHTSA has interpreted the use of the singular in the phrase "tire size designation," rather than the plural "tire size designations," to be a prohibition against marking more than one tire size designation on these tires. See the enclosed copies of my January 7, 1988 letter to Mr. E.W. Dahl and my February 16, 1988 letter to Mr. Mike Kaizaki.

Since tires marked with two size designations would not comply with our tire standards, they could not legally be imported into the United States, according to the requirement specified in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). If you have any further questions about our tire standards or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:l09#ll9 d:ll/l/88

ID: nht93-7.36

DATE: October 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard A. Wennerberg -- Vice President, Marketing Services, American Gas Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 8/19/93 from Richard A. Wennerberg to John Womack (OCC-9019)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for a letter explaining the status of Federal regulations applicable to compressed natural gas (CNG) containers for motor vehicles and CNG fueled motor vehicles. As you stated, representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the United States Department of Transportation, met with the American Gas Association (AGA) on August 16, 1993 to clarify your understanding of this agency's statutory authority with respect to the notice of proposed rulemaking for CNG fuel containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993) This letter, which you plan to forward to State officials interested in CNG fueled motor vehicles, summarizes this information.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 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. The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA does not have the statutory authority to issue a standard for CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. Therefore, if the Federal government were to issue a standard applicable to the manufacture of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle, NHTSA is the only Federal agency authorized to do so.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG containers, CNG fueled vehicles or any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such containers. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, a manufacturer is not required to comply with any NHTSA or Department of Transportation safety standard related to CNG fuel systems.

Nevertheless, manufacturers of CNG containers 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 container 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.

In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done.

I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR S567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's "render inoperative" provision (S108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) 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. If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the "render inoperative" issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG containers, all containers 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 new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

In addition to these current regulatory provisions, as mentioned above, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. As we explained at the August 16, 1993 meeting, the agency is currently reviewing the comments to the proposal for CNG containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. As we explained, the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule, assuming that a rule is issued.

If a Standard is issued, each manufacturer would be responsible for certifying that its products meet with the requirements of that standard. This is so because 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 does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

You should also be aware that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, 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 at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9019

Mr. Richard A. Wennerberg
Vice President, Marketing Services
American Gas Association
1515 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209

Dear Mr. Wennerberg:

This responds to your request for a letter explaining the status of Federal regulations applicable to compressed natural gas (CNG) containers for motor vehicles and CNG fueled motor vehicles. As you stated, representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the United States Department of Transportation, met with the American Gas Association (AGA) on August 16, 1993 to clarify your understanding of this agency's statutory authority with respect to the notice of proposed rulemaking for CNG fuel containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993) This letter, which you plan to forward to State officials interested in CNG fueled motor vehicles, summarizes this information.

By way of background information, 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. The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA does not have the statutory authority to issue a standard for CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. Therefore, if the Federal government were to issue a standard applicable to the manufacture of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle, NHTSA is the only Federal agency authorized to do so.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG containers, CNG fueled vehicles or any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such containers. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, a manufacturer is not required to comply with any NHTSA or Department of Transportation safety standard related to CNG fuel systems.

Nevertheless, manufacturers of CNG containers 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 container 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.

In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done. I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR 567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's "render inoperative" provision (108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) 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. If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the "render inoperative" issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG containers, all containers 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 new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

In addition to these current regulatory provisions, as mentioned above, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. As we explained at the August 16, 1993 meeting, the agency is currently reviewing the comments to the proposal for CNG containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. As we explained, the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule, assuming that a rule is issued.

If a Standard is issued, each manufacturer would be responsible for certifying that its products meet with the requirements of that standard. This is so because 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 does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

You should also be aware that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, 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 at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:303 d:10/22/93