ID: aiam3028

Dear Mr. Carnahan: This responds to your May 10, 1979, letter asking about modification of buses to reduce seating capacity so that they no longer must comply with school bus safety standards.; First, let me clarify several points. In applying motor vehicle safet standards, we define a 'school bus' as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define 'bus' as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The phrase 'more than 10 persons' includes the driver. Accordingly, any vehicle that transports 11 people is a bus.; Your first problem appears to involve how to determine whether vehicle is designed to carry more than 10 persons. You indicate, for example, that some manufacturers have attached labels to their vehicles stating that they are designed to transport 15 passengers. However, some of the vehicles only have 8 or 9 seats. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration measures vehicle capacity by the number of designated seating positions. Therefore, a vehicle that has 8 designated seating positions is not a bus. Such a vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If you are unsure of the vehicle type, refer to the vehicle certification label located on the door pillar post or on the inside of the door. That label lists the vehicle type as established by its manufacturer.; Any vehicle that is sent from its manufacturer and certified i compliance with multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) standards may be used to transport school children. These vehicles, since they are not buses, need not comply with the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, any vehicle that is certified as a bus, but not a school bus, should not be used to transport school children.; You ask whether a bus can be modified by removing seats so that i would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would require it to comply with the school bus safety standards. In theory such a modification is permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, *Certification*, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type (from bus to MPV), it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to the new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses. However, it is conceivable that the initial vehicle manufacturer might be able to assure the dealer that the vehicle was built in compliance with all necessary standards. In such a case, the dealer could attach a label, and the vehicle would be properly certified.; If a school modifies its own vehicles, it need not attach a label Also, it need not assure that the vehicles comply with any standards. In the event of an accident, however, a school could incur substantial liability if it were operating a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards.; In your final question you ask what agency enforces the standard against dealers and manufacturers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration enforces all of the motor vehicle safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3026

Dear Mr. Carnahan: This responds to your May 10, 1979, letter asking about modification of buses to reduce seating capacity so that they no longer must comply with school bus safety standards.; First, let me clarify several points. In applying motor vehicle safet standards, we define a 'school bus' as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define 'bus' as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The phrase 'more than 10 persons' includes the driver. Accordingly, any vehicle that transports 11 people is a bus.; Your first problem appears to involve how to determine whether vehicle is designed to carry more than 10 persons. You indicate, for example, that some manufacturers have attached labels to their vehicles stating that they are designed to transport 15 passengers. However, some of the vehicles only have 8 or 9 seats. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration measures vehicle capacity by the number of designated seating positions. Therefore, a vehicle that has 8 designated seating positions is not a bus. Such a vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If you are unsure of the vehicle type, refer to the vehicle certification label located on the door pillar post or on the inside of the door. That label lists the vehicle type as established by its manufacturer.; Any vehicle that is sent from its manufacturer and certified i compliance with multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) standards may be used to transport school children. These vehicles, since they are not buses, need not comply with the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, any vehicle that is certified as a bus, but not a school bus, should not be used to transport school children.; You ask whether a bus can be modified by removing seats so that i would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would require it to comply with the school bus safety standards. In theory such a modification is permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, *Certification*, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type (from bus to MPV), it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to the new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses. However, it is conceivable that the initial vehicle manufacturer might be able to assure the dealer that the vehicle was built in compliance with all necessary standards. In such a case, the dealer could attach a label, and the vehicle would be properly certified.; If a school modifies its own vehicles, it need not attach a label Also, it need not assure that the vehicles comply with any standards. In the event of an accident, however, a school could incur substantial liability if it were operating a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards.; In your final question you ask what agency enforces the standard against dealers and manufacturers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration enforces all of the motor vehicle safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5659

"Dear Mr. Bakst: This responds to your request for the views of th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on two questions related to litigation in which you are currently involved, that refer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. The two questions and our responses are set out below. You advise us that you are 'dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988.' You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that in December 1990, your client was injured while driving the Dodge Ram truck. You further informed Ms. Nakama that our October 26, 1995 interpretation letter to Hugh Bode, Esq. addressed Mr. Bode's questions stemming from the same accident and lawsuit as yours. Question 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser? The answer to the first part of this question is yes. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(c): A manufacturer of a motor vehicle . . . shall notify NHTSA by certified mail, and the owners, purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle . . . if the manufacturer -- (1) learns the vehicle contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety . . . Under 49 U.S.C. 30120, where such notification is required, the manufacturer 'shall remedy the defect . . . without charge when the vehicle is presented for remedy.' The vehicle manufacturer may choose to remedy the defect by repairing the vehicle, replacing it with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. The requirement that the remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than eight years prior to the manufacturer's defect determination. Question 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the 'two sources of energy' are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fail to comply with FMVSS 124? The relevant portion of FMVSS No. 124 (S5.1) provides as follows: There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. Under the standard, with either energy source severed or disconnected, the standard requires that the remaining energy source return the throttle to the idle position within the specified time from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (at (202) 366-2832), is the office within NHTSA which has the authority to investigate whether there is a noncompliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are not in a position to render an opinion as to whether the facts you describe indicate the existence of a safety-related defect. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our October 26, 1995 letter to Hugh J. Bode, Esq. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam2235

Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, concerning th applicability of the pendulum impact requirements of Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, to vehicles that are capable of height adjustment through the suspension system controls.; You described in your letter a system on your 450SEL 6.9 liter mode which allows a driver to adjust the height of the vehicle with the suspension system controls. When the vehicle is in the elevated position, a red warning lamp in the instrument cluster is illuminated in order to alert the driver to the fact that the vehicle is not in its recommended driving position for normal road conditions. In addition, the owner's manual informs the driver that the vehicle should be operated in the raised position only when being driven on rough terrain.; Standard No. 215 requires that vehicles be capable of complying wit certain damage criteria when impacted at any height between 16 and 20 inches by a pendulum test device. Since the 450SEL is constructed in such a manner as to allow its operation at a range of heights, testing for compliance with the pendulum impact requirements must be conducted with the vehicle in all such positions.; There is no language in the standard which would limit it applicability to vehicles in only their recommended driving position for normal roadways. The range of heights available for operation must be addressed during compliance testing and the vehicle must satisfy the damage criteria at all levels. The warning light that is activated when the vehicle is in the raised position and the owner's manual warning that the vehicle should be operated in the raised position only when driving over rough terrain do not alter the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure vehicle compliance at all positions with the bumper pendulum requirements. The vehicle is capable of being driven at any and all times in the raised position and, therefore, must comply with the bumper standard's pendulum requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-6.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Burgess -- Engineering Manager, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JIM BURGESS TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10931)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Burgess:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system.

You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no.

FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states:

Side doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard.

FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion.

While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude wheelchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriate.

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

ID: nht95-3.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Burgess -- Engineering Manager, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JIM BURGESS TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10931)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Burgess:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door rete ntion components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system.

You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no.

FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states:

Side doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not confo rm to this standard.

FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion.

While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude whe elchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriat e.

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

ID: aiam4362

Dear Mr. Murtha: Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Offic of Congressional Affairs, which has been referred to me for a response. In an addendum enclosed with your letter, you note that one of your constituents, Mr. Gene Bird, would like information on the Federal regulations addressing 'completing the finishing work on automobiles.' Apparently, another manufacturer would send small sports cars to Mr. Bird's business. Your addendum states that these sports cars 'will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.; By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) requires *every* new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act also specifies that the manufacturer *itself* must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not 'approve' any vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.; Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer' certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all. The Safety Act only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of 'due care' on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the safety standards. We would certainly recommend that a new manufacturer test some of its vehicles for compliance with the applicable safety standards.; It is not entirely clear from your addendum whether Mr. Bird would b classified as an 'alterer' or a 'final stage manufacturer' under our regulations. His company would be considered an 'alterer' of motor vehicles, if the second company referred to in your addendum furnishes completed and certified sports car to Mr. Bird's company, and Mr. Bird's company changes the engine and other components on those vehicles. If this is the contemplated action, Mr. Bird's company would be treated as an alterer under our regulations.; The certification requirements for alterers are set forth in 49 CF S567.7 (copy enclosed). Generally speaking, that section requires a person who alters a vehicle before its first purchase to supplement the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer with its own certification label. The alterer's certification label must include all of the information set forth in Part 567, including a statement that the altered vehicle complies will all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the vehicle was altered. In the case of sports cars, an alterer must certify that the altered car complies with all of the following:; >>>49 CFR S571.101 *Controls and Displays*, 49 CFR S571.102 *Transmission Shift Level Sequence*, 49 CFR S571.103 *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems*, 49 CFR S571.104 *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*, 49 CFR S571.105 *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, 49 CFR S571.106 *Brake Hoses*, 49 CFR S571.107 *Reflecting Surfaces*, 49 CFR S571.108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, 49 CFR S571.110 *Tire Selection and Rims*, 49 CFR S571.111 *Rearview Mirrors*, 49 CFR S571.112 *Headlamp Concealment Devices*, 49 CFR S571.113 *Hood Latch System*, 49 CFR S571.114 *Theft Protection*, 49 CFR S571.115 *Vehicle Identification Number*, 49 CFR S571.116 *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*, 49 CFR S571.118 *Power-operated Window Systems*, 49 CFR S571.124 *Accelerator Control Systems*, 49 CFR S571.201 *Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts*, 49 CFR S571.202 *Head Restraints*, 49 CFR S571.203 *Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steerin Column*,; 49 CFR S571.204 *Steering Control Rearward Displacement*, 49 CFR S571.205 *Glazing Materials*, 49 CFR S571.206 *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*, 49 CFR S571.207 *Seating Systems*, 49 CFR S571.208 *Occupant Crash Protection*, 49 CFR S571.209 *Seat Belt Assemblies*, 49 CFR S571.210 *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, 49 CFR S571.211 *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps*, 49 CFR S571.212 *Windshield Mounting*, 49 CFR S571.214 *Side Door Strength*, 49 CFR S571.216 *Roof Crush Resistance*, 49 CFR S571.219 *Windshield Zone Intrusion*, 49 CFR S571.301 *Fuel System Integrity*, and 49 CFR S571.302 *Flammability of Interior Materials*.<<< Alternatively, Mr. Bird's company may be treated as a 'final stag manufacturer,' as that term is defined at 49 CFR S568.4. A final stage manufacturer means a person who finishes the manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle. Thus, if the second company referred to in your addendum is planning to furnish Mr. Bird's company with sports cars that have no engine, radiator, and so forth, the vehicles provided to Mr. Bird's company would be considered 'incomplete vehicles' and Mr. Bird's company would be considered a 'final stage manufacturer.'; If this is the case, Mr. Bird's certification responsibilities depen on the information he is provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle, i.e., the second company referred to in your addendum. Part 568 (copy enclosed) requires the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle to furnish Mr. Bird's company with a document that states one of three things for the incomplete vehicle. These are:; >>>1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of th applicable safety standards *if* no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives such a document and does not make any of th specified alterations, his company could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(C)(7). Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.; >>>2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of th applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final stage manufacturer.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his situation will be ver similar to that described above. That is, if his company follows the specific conditions, it could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Again, Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.; >>>3. Conformity with some or all of the standards is not substantiall affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his company would b required to certify compliance with the standards identified in the document on its own. This type of document would put Mr. Bird's company in the same position as an alterer for the listed standards.; I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturer of motor vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations that may apply and explains how to get copies of our regulations. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please contact this office.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: crull.jeg

Ms. Lynette Y. Crull
1061 Greendale Road
Harrisonburg, VA 22801

Dear Ms. Crull:

This responds to your faxed letter of August 29, 1996, requesting special permission to have the passenger air bag of your 1996 Ford Taurus station wagon deactivated or a cutoff switch placed in it. You explained that you have a five-and-a-half-month old daughter who was born three weeks premature. She had an apnea spell in the hospital and went home on an apnea monitor. You stated that you need to be able to reach her within 10 seconds if the monitor should go off. You stated that this would be impossible if she is in the back seat of the car, since it would take far longer than 10 seconds to pull off the road if you were in traffic. You also stated that your dealership is not willing to deactivate the air bag due to a law that forbids the disabling of safety equipment.

As discussed below, we would consider the special needs of your child as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that either temporarily deactivates the passenger-side air bag to accommodate your child, or places a cutoff switch in the vehicle for the same purpose.

Federal law now requires that new cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as a means of complying with that requirement.

The law also prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. However, in very limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate a person's special physical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that we would consider violations of the "make inoperative" provision as technical, justified by public need, and that we would not institute enforcement proceedings.

We would regard a temporary deactivation of the passenger-side air bag in your car, or the addition of a cutoff switch, in the same way. Infants riding in rear-facing child safety seats should never be placed in the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger-side air bag. Since you need to place your daughter in the front seat of your vehicle in order to be able to quickly respond to an possible apnea spell, we would consider your situation as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that temporarily deactivates the passenger-side air bag, or installs a cutoff switch, to accommodate your child.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you have the air bag deactivated, we strongly encourage you to have the air bag reactivated by the dealer when your daughter can ride in the rear seat.

In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that passengers in your vehicle use their safety belts.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:9/13/96

ID: aiam3180

Dear Mr. Runnels: This further responds to your November 14, 1979, letter to th 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 an 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) ha 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 fuele 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 prio 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 a 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 th 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 you constituent have any further questions on this issue, I will be happy to answer them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4898

"Dear Mr. Bates: This responds to your letter of July 12, 1991. In th letter, you ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has regulations concerning the construction or testing of compressed natural gas (CNG) automotive fuel tanks. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment nor endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, (49 CFR 571.301) specifies requirements for the integrity of motor vehicle fuel systems. However, that standard does not apply to vehicles that use only fuel with a boiling point below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Since CNG has a boiling point well below this level, vehicles manufactured to be fueled only by CNG are not covered by the standard. You should be aware, however, that NHTSA recently discussed the possibility of establishing a fuel system integrity standard for vehicles using CNG in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 1990 (55 FR 41561). There are some requirements that are applicable to manufacturers of CNG automotive fuel tanks. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . Since your product would be manufactured for use as an automotive fuel tank, it would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. If either your company, as the equipment manufacturer, or this agency were to determine that your product contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the ANPRM concerning possible fuel system integrity requirements for vehicles using CNG and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";