ID: GF000906

Mr. Jeff Maharg
Engineering Manager
Tracker Marine Group
P.O. Box 760
Ozark, MO 65721

Dear Mr. Maharg:

This responds to your February 5, 2004, e-mail and phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding certain trailer lighting requirements. Specifically, you ask whether a small (5ft. x 8ft.) trailer must be equipped with front side marker lamps. In short, our answer is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

With respect to your question, Table III of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 lists required lighting equipment for trailers with an overall width of less than 80 inches. [1] Table III requires that each such trailer be equipped with two red and two amber side marker lamps. Table IV specifies the location of the required lighting listed in Table III. With respect to side marker lamps on trailers, Table IV mandates that one red side marker be located as far to the rear as practicable, and one amber side marker be located as far to the front as practicable, on each side of the trailer. Accordingly, your trailer must be equipped with two amber side marker lamps located on each side of the trailer as far to the front as practicable.

From the attached pictures of your trailer, it is unclear whether it is equipped with rear red side marker lamps. Further, the front amber side markers do not appear to be located "as far to the front as practicable." Finally, we note that your trailer

must also be equipped with red and amber reflex reflectors that are either incorporated into side marker lamps or located adjacent to the side marker lamps. The amber reflex reflector that appears to be mounted on the wheel cover does not satisfy this requirement. In order to satisfy FMVSS No. 108, you must install all required lighting in the correct location.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/18/04





---

[1] Your e-mail and attached photos indicate that your trailer width is approximately 5 ft (60 inches).

ID: GF007210

Mr. Jeff Oldham
Performance Tires, LLC
22810 Pennyrile Lane
Katy, TX 77450

Dear Mr. Oldham:

This responds to your e-mail and previous phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding the legality of "knock off" style wheel hubs. You intend to supply these wheel hubs to Factory Five Racing, a kit car manufacturer, who will in turn, sell unassembled kits to consumers. You ask whether "knock off" style wheel hubs satisfy the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

In your e-mail, you describe the wheel hubs in question as follows: "An adapter goes over the existing studs which the wheel would typically mount to. The adapter is held on by lugs, then the wheel is slid over the adapter. The wheel itself is held on by an "knock off" style hub, which screws down onto the adapter on the face of the wheel. The knockoff screws on in a counter clockwise rotation (opposite direction of the wheels when the car is in drive)."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

There is no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard regulating "knock off" wheel hubs. Previously, FMVSS No. 211 (Standard No. 211), Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps (49 CFR Section 571.211), precluded certain wheel nuts, wheel hubs, wheel discs, and hub caps from having "winged projections." We were concerned that the winged projections could catch on clothing or strike legs or other body parts, posing a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. However, Standard No. 211 was rescinded as of June 5, 1996. [1]

We note that despite the fact that NHTSA does not directly regulate wheel hubs, any wheel hub designed to be used on a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" and is subject the recall and remedy provisions of Chapter 310. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:211
d.11/17/03





---

[1] See 61 FR 20172, copy attached.

ID: nht74-2.35

DATE: 07/30/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Excel Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1974, requesting the status of a proposed amendment published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 327), to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," that would have required markings specified for windshields to appear in each windshield's lower left-hand corner.

This proposed requirement was not adopted. Other requirements proposed by this notice, however, were adopted by a subsequent notice published June 21, 1972 (37 F.R. 12237), which amended Standard No. 205. The preamble of this notice referred to the agency's action on the proposed requirements for marking location. A further notice was issued on November 11, 1972 (37 F.R. 24035), which responded to petitions for reconsideration of the amendments of June 21, 1972. Copies of the notices of June 21 and November 11, 1972, are enclosed.

There are presently no requirements regarding the location of markings for motor vehicle glazing materials.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

June 28, 1974

Lawrence Schneider -- National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

On January 9, 1971, page 327 of volume 36, #6 of the Federal Register, a proposed amendment was made to FMVSS#205 at the request of the California Highway Patrol to the effect that after installation of the glazing material in the vehicle, the markings are required to be visible in the lower left corner of each windshield and either the lower left or lower right corner of any other window.

As a manufacturer of windshields and side windows for the recreational vehicle industry, particularly motor homes, we have been trying to comply with this proposed standard by adding two trade marks to our windshields so that in a two part windshield, the glass could be used on either side of the vehicle and still comply; however, in reviewing the Federal Register, we find that no follow-up amendments to the safety standard reflect this change.

With the cost of materials increasing daily, and the fact that we are paying a premium for this added marking, we are going to discontinue this practice since Mr. Douglas Delve of the Department of Transportation has confirmed that this legislation has never been effected. I would like a written confirmation that this pending legislation is either still pending or has been dropped, so that we may proceed with production without any further concern regarding the compliance to the standards.

Very truly yours,

Steve A. Spretnjak -- Chief Design Engineer EXCEL INDUSTRIES

ID: nht75-6.18

DATE: 11/01/75 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: RONALD W. COOKE -- E. EDELMANN AND CO

TITLE: N41-42

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/26/76 FROM RONALD W. COOKE TO JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cooke:

Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1976, to Dr. James B. Gregory, requesting information on aftermarket gas caps as they relate to compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), No. 301. Your inquiry has been forwarded to this office for reply. Apparently your letter of May 26, 1970, was either lost or misdirected, as we can find no record of it in our files, and we sincerely apologize for this delay in responding to your inquiry.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate vehicle fuel tank caps as such; however, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, specifies performance requirements to assure the integrity of the entire vehicle fuel system (which includes the fuel tank cap) in various crash modes.

Thus, if installation of your replacement cap is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the cap or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of S106(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 09-503). That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-292) prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in 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 motor vehicle safety standard (S109(a) (2) (A)). Thus, it is illegal for any of the above named persons to install a fuel tank cap that he knows will cause the vehicle to be in non-compliance with the fuel system integrity standards. Federal Law does not, however, prohibit the owner of a vehicle from purchasing and installing a fuel tank cap of his choice on his own vehicle, even though he may compromise the Fuel System Integrity Standard.

We are interested in any information regarding safety problems associated with replacement gas caps as a basis for further action. If you could provide any such information, we would be most grateful.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-3.33

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emission & Safety, Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.

TO: P.J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Mr. Fukuhara -- ISZ-J, R56; Mr. Sakai -- ISZ-J, R56; Mr. Watanabe -- ITCA-Det.; ISZA -- Washington, D.C.

TITLE: Subject: Rear Seat Requirements - Side Impact (FMVSS 214)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takashi Odaira (A38; Std. 214)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request your agency's interpretation regarding the applicability of the rear seat requirements FMVSS 214, "Side door strength" (55 FR 45722) published on October 30, 1990, in the context of Isuzu 2-door Coupe.

The Standard specifies ". . . the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger-cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures."

The point of our questions is whether Isuzu 2-door Coupe qualifies for this exemption.

In this vehicle, when the SID dummy is seated at the rear outboard passenger position according to the specified positioning procedures, the dummy's head comes into contact with the roof and backlight glass which have steep slopes. To avoid the interference, in our test, the head was tilted forward as much as possible and, in addition, the upper torso was also tilted forward, away from the seat back. Only in this way, could we accommodate the dummy in the seating area without changing the specified orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane, or affecting the H-point. This condition is shown in photographs 1, 2, 3 and Figure 1 attached here.

This condition, however, obviously does not meet the positioning procedure of paragraphs S7.1.3(a) and (b), which provides, "The upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back." In Isuzu 2-door Coupe, the dummy's upper torso must be tilted away from the seat back while adjusting its head forward as the Agency says in the preamble to this Standard (55 FR 45737, first column).

Therefore, our interpretation is that said Coupe cannot "accommodate" the SID dummy and thus the rear seat requirements are not applicable to it.

We would appreciate receiving your view regarding this interpretation and understanding. Your prompt response would be most helpful.

Attachments

Figure 1 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (text and graphics omitted);

Photograph 1 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted);

Photograph 2 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted);

Photograph -- 3 SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted)

ID: nht88-2.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING, MAZDA

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION - 49 CFR PART 512, CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO SADATO KADOYA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; STD 108; ALSO ATTACHED, MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION-FMVSS 108 - LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT - AUXILIARY LAMPS

TEXT: Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc. and its parent company, Mazda Motor Corporation ("Mazda"), request that the attached document, in its entirety, be afforded confidential treatment as specified in 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business Information. In accordance with the guidelines provided in 49 CFR Part 512.4(b), included below is information supporting Mazda's claim that release of the attached document to the public meets the substantive standards of 49 CFR Part 512.5(a).

The attached document requests a NHTSA interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment in regards to Mazda plans to develop new lighting technology. The following supports Mazda's claim of confiden tiality, as required by 49 CFR Part 512.4(d).

1. The information relates to future unannounced product plans, projecting not more than three years into the future. Mazda has determined that the release of such information to the public would likely result in significant competitive harm. The i nformation specifically relates to the standard equipment features which will be made available on a yet unannounced product introduction. Obviously, release of this information will place Mazda at a competitive disadvantage due to the absence of such c lear and first party information regarding the product plans and policies of our competition.

2. The information contained within is known only to Mazda and has not been disclosed or otherwise made available to any person, company or organization outside of Mazda, its agents, and the supplier with which Mazda is working to develop the new tec hnology.

3. Mazda requests that the information contained within be considered confidential until such time as Mazda formally agrees to its public release, makes a formal public announcement or initiates mass production, whichever comes first.

Mazda has made a diligent inquiry to determine that the information contained in the attached document has not been disclosed, or otherwise made publicly available. Should this request for confidential treatment be denied, please contact us prior to the release of this information.

For any further information or clarification of this request, please contact Mr. Sadato (Ted) Kadoya at the letterhead address or telephone number above.

ATTACHMENT

ID: wakley.2.wpd

Mr. Mark Wakley
25919 25^th Lane South, Apt. E-201
Kent, WA98032

Dear Mr. Wakley:

This is in response to your several e-mails in October 2003, concerning your desire to have the daytime running lights (DRLs) on your model year 2004 Chevrolet Cavalier disconnected. I understand that you discussed this issue at length with Eric Stas and other agency staff. You stated that your vehicle is equipped with DRLs that illuminate upon vehicle start-up and that there is no manual on-off switch. You stated that despite repeated requests, General Motors is unwilling to provide a means to disable the DRLs. Further, you described problems this has engendered in your delivery operations to military bases and other federal facilities, which require extinguishment of such lighting as a security measure.

Because DRLs are not required motor vehicle equipment, we confirm that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are free to disconnect the vehicles DRLs or to install an on-off switch, at customer request. As the vehicle owner, you are also free to disconnect the DRLs yourself. However, vehicle manufacturers are not required to provide a means to disable DRLs.

By way of background, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not require vehicle manufacturers to install DRLs on new vehicles; however, if manufacturers choose to install such devices, paragraph 5.5.11 of the standard sets forth certain performance requirements. Paragraph S5.5.11(a) provides that DRLs are to be "automatically deactivated when the headlamp control is in any on position, and as otherwise determined by the vehicle manufacturer." In the context of paragraph S5.5.11(a), "headlamp control" refers to those position(s) of the master lighting switch that cause the headlamps themselves to be turned on.

Because DRLs are not required by FMVSS No. 108, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may disconnect DRLs or provide on-off switches without violating the statutory prohibition against knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 49 U.S.C.

30122. However, these entities may not alter the performance specifications of DRLs in a manner that would make them not comply with the performance requirements specified for DRLs under the standard.

I hope that this clarifies NHTSAs regulations related to DRLs. If you have any further questions regarding our regulations, please contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/22/04

ID: aiam4701

"Dear Mr. Kmiecik: This responds to your January 5, 1990 lette requesting our review of your rear wheel steering system for trucks, buses and special application vehicles. This system is intended to replace one rear axle on these vehicles, and when activated, enables the axle to rotate slightly on its vertical axis. It is intended to improve the maneuverability of these vehicles in low-speed situations such as making sharp turns. During a February 9, 1990 telephone conversation with David Greenburg of this office, you explained that, while your product uses air from the vehicle's compressed air suspension system to operate the axle, it is isolated from the air brake system. You also explained that, as a result of this design, a failure in the air system connected to your product would not affect the operation of the vehicle's braking system. By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards. In this instance, there are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for steerable rear axles. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a product would not have to certify that a steerable rear axle complies with any safety standard before offering it for sale to the public. However, the addition of a steerable rear axle to a vehicle before its first sale to the public could affect the vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. In such a case, the manufacturer or alterer that installed this product on a new vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle, with the steerable rear axle installed, complied with all applicable safety standards. For example, installation of the steerable axle could affect the vehicle's compliance with the applicable braking standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems) or the tire and rim selection standard (FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars). Of course, you will need to consider other safety effects that operation of the steerable axle system could have. Among these considerations would be ensuring that the trailer's gross axle weight rating (GAWR) is not exceeded when the steering system is in operation and the the trailer is supported by only the steerable axle instead of by both the steerable and fixed axles. Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your steerable rear axle are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either: (1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed, or (2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect. Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. In addition, the use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. To avoid a 'rendering inoperative' violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the steerable rear axle and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the steerable rear axle in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. If the installation of the steerable rear axle would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the product can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements. The Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether the installation of this steerable rear axle on vehicles would result in a 'render inoperative' violation on your company. This agency may reexamine your determination in the context of an enforcement action. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that State laws may apply to your product. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4644

"Dear Mr. Duerr: This is in response to your letter requestin Department of Transportation 'approval' of a fitting to be used in air brake systems in conjunction with your company's product, a driveline brake retarder. I apologize for the delay in this response. Your letter explained that your company's brake retarder is designed to be attached to the air brake system on trucks or buses by means of a fitting, and enclosed a sample of the fitting you plan to use. You asked for DOT approval of the fitting. As explained below, whether the fitting and associated air hoses are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) depends upon how the fittings are attached to the vehicle's air brake system. This agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106, copy enclosed), which applies to motor vehicle brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. Your letter did not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion as to whether or not the air lines and end fittings used with your product would be considered 'brake hoses' and 'brake hose end fittings' subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106. It has been NHTSA's long-standing position that accessory air lines and end fittings, such as those used in your product, are 'brake hoses' and 'brake hose end fittings' only if a failure of the line or fitting would result in a loss of pressure in the vehicle's brake system. (See the enclosed June 5, 1987 letter to Albert Schwarz, and the August 3, 1984 letter to Terry Teeter). Accordingly, if a failure of the accessory lines or fittings used with your product could result in a loss of pressure in the brake system, the hoses and fittings are subject to all the provisions of Standard No. 106. In this case, the Safety Act specifies that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any of those hoses or end fittings unless those hoses and end fittings comply with all of the applicable requirements in Standard No. 106. NHTSA has no authority to certify, endorse, or approve in advance any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including the hoses and end fittings used for this product. Instead, under the Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests, the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care when making the certification. Once your company has determined that these hoses and end fittings comply with the requirements of Standard No. 106, the Standard requires you to mark these products with the symbol 'DOT' to show your company's certification of compliance. This agency enforces the requirements of Standard No. 106 by randomly purchasing brake hoses and end fittings that have been certified as complying with Standard No. 106. The certified products are then tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the products pass these tests, no further actions are taken. On the other hand, if the accessory air line running to your product is isolated from the air brake system by means such as a check valve, the hoses and fittings used with your product are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106. In this case, your company would not be required to certify that the hoses and fittings used with your product comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 106. You would, however, be considered a 'manufacturer' of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either: (1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed, or (2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect. Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. Similarly, if this product were subject to Standard No. 106, your company would be required to notify owners and remedy without charge to those owners any noncompliance of your product with the requirements of Standard No. 106, as well as remedying any safety-related defect. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5250

"Dear Mr. Wennerberg: This responds to your request for a lette 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";