ID: 8968

Mr. Bernhard Peer
President
Peer Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 580237
Houston, TX 77258-0237

Dear Mr. Peer:

This responds to your letter in which you request "Federal approval and certification" for the "TWIP," the product you plan to import into the United States. You state that this product is a battery driven, two-wheeled electric scooter with a maximum top speed of about 9 miles per hour. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the TWIP will be used in warehouses and for recreational purposes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Based on statements in your letter and in your telephone conversation that the TWIP would be used in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes, it appears that the TWIP is manufactured primarily for off-road purposes rather than for use on the public streets. Therefore, your product would not be a motor vehicle and thus would not be subject to any of this agency's safety standards.

Even if your product is manufactured for on-road use a substantial amount of the time, it appears that the TWIP would still not be a motor vehicle under this agency's statutory definitions. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. These criteria are met by the TWIP. In your letter, you stated that the TWIP has a top speed of approximately 9 miles per hour. The sales material you enclosed show that the TWIP's steering mechanism and driver's seat are attached to elongated bars that fold down apparently to make the scooter more portable. This configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

I wish to clarify this agency's authority to provide "federal approval and certification." As noted above, under the Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, even if the TWIP had been found to be a motor vehicle, the agency would not have approved or certified it. Rather, you, as its manufacturer, would be responsible for certification.

Because your vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," under the Safety Act, none of this agency's standards or regulations applies to it. You may wish to contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply. Their address is:

Office of Chief Counsel 5401 Westbard Avenue Bethesda, MD 20207 Telephone: (301) 504-0980

You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at:

4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 522-4200

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

ref:VSA d:10/5/93

ID: 8975-2

Mr. Maine E. Peace, Jr.
Supervising Revenue Officer
State of Washington
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 1176
Bellingham, WA 98327

Dear Mr. Peace:

This is in response to your FAX of August 3, 1993, to Robert Hellmuth, Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to the disposition of Canadian vehicles seized in the State of Washington for violations of Washington law regarding the possession and transportation of illegal cigarettes. I apologize for the delay in our response. You have requested that we "provide authority for the Department of Revenue to sell the vehicles locally even tho (sic) they were manufactured in Canada, providing of course the vehicles meet most if not all the standards regulated by your agency regarding vehicle safety."

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides, among other things, that no person shall import into the United States any motor vehicle that does not comply with U.S. safety standards. When a vehicle that doesn't meet the U.S. safety standards crosses the border from Canada into the United States, its driver is regarded as the importer, and, unless the driver or circumstances indicate otherwise, we view the importation as a temporary one by a non-resident for his or her personal use, and hence, permissible.

However, if the State of Washington were to seize the vehicle and sell it locally, the action of the State would have the effect of converting the temporary importation of a non- conforming vehicle into a permanent one. We believe that such action would be inconsistent with the Safety Act's requirement that no person import into the United States any motor vehicle that doesn't meet U.S. safety standards.

Non-conforming Canadian vehicles are admitted into the United States on the condition that they will be exported back to Canada within one year. We believe that the most appropriate way for the State of Washington to dispose of the vehicles would be to export them back to Canada.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591#VSA d.2/3/94

ID: 8978

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, Va. 223l4

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We are replying to your letter of August 9, 1993, with respect to your views on the enforceability of a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code.

This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a "semitrailer" whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with "two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable." In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police you stated your assumption that the "two clearance lamps" are the "intermediate side marker lamps" specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps "then it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ." In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations.

Michigan replied on May 16, 1989, that NHTSA had not notified it that "the requirement of an additional 'clearance lamp' as near as to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by section 103(d)", and that "the lamp is not a marker lamp as mentioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations." You indicate that this is a reference to our letter of December 10, 1974, to the California Highway Patrol. You ask for our concurrence in your conclusion that Michigan is preempted from enforcing its requirements.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective devices, and Associated Equipment. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to

the front and to the rear as practicable, and with "intermediate side marker lamps", amber in color, "located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps." All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State "shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard" (emphasis added). In our opinion, the "aspect of performance" covered by Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same "aspect of performance" that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Because Standard No. 108 requires trailers more than 50 feet in length to be equipped with intermediate side lamps located not less than l5 inches above the pavement, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps on the same approximate vertical plane but as near the top of the trailer as practicable is preempted by Table II of Standard No. 108. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a "clearance" lamp rather than a "marker" lamp does not affect this conclusion (in fact, we regard all non-signal lamps other than headlamps as "marker" lamps, including the "clearance" lamps Table II requires on the front and rear of wide trailers). The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones.

The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent

that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Standard No. 108 those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel /BODY>

ID: 8992

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, "requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted." It is clear from your letter that it is the lateral spacing of clearance lamps that concerns you as you believe that it is not uncommon to see them mounted as much as 6 to 8 inches "'inside' the side extremities of huge vehicles."

With respect to lateral spacing, Table II of Standard No. 108 requires clearance lamps to be mounted "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . ." The standard does not require the lamps to be mounted at the widest point of the vehicle, nor does it require them to be mounted as far apart as practicable. We believe that manufacturers generally try to mount clearance lamps to "indicate" the overall width of the vehicle, but we recognize that there may be certain circumstances and/or configurations that require mounting of the lamps at something less than the widest point.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/16/93

ID: 8995

Mr. Thomas Dougherty
C.A.P.S. Inc.
1712 Rudder Industrial Park Drive
Fenton, MO 63026

Dear Mr. Dougherty:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the "E.A.R.S." system. You state that your product contains an LED light and an 82 decibel tone and serves to alert hearing impaired drivers of approaching emergency vehicles. You further state that the part of the system that alerts drivers plugs into the cigarette lighter, while a microphone is placed outside the vehicle. (You did not explain how or where the microphone is placed or whether a hole is drilled through the windshield.)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") 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 ... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the E.A.R.S. system, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that the entire portion of the expected use of the E.A.R.S system relates to motor vehicle operation. That is, the system is intended to alert the vehicle driver about an oncoming emergency vehicle. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, in particular, hearing impaired drivers.

While it appears that the E.A.R.S. system is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer 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 the manufacturer or NHTSA 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.

A commercial business that installs the E.A.R.S. system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 205 might be degraded if it were necessary to drill a hole through the windshield. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the E.A.R.S. system in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:10/12/93

ID: 8998

`

Mr. Joe de Sousa President Safety Pro's International, Inc. 34126 State Road 54 West Zephyrhills, FL 33543

Dear Mr. de Sousa:

We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, as well as your letter to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency and its enclosures.

You are interested in marketing an accessory daytime running lamp (DRL) system, and have asked for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to this product. There appear to be two versions of this system. In both systems, the DRLs are the lower beam headlamps, automatically activated at 77% intensity when the ignition is turned on. The taillamps and side marker lamps are not activated. The systems are deactivated when the ignition is turned off. The systems differ in that one automatically activates the headlamps to full intensity (while activating the taillamps and side marker lamps as well) at a pre- determined lower ambient light level.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, aftermarket lighting equipment may be installed provided that it does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The system you describe is congruent with the DRL systems permitted by Standard No. 108, which allows DRLs to be lower beam headlamps operated at less than full intensity, without activation of the taillamps and side marker lamps. Therefore, the installation of either of your DRL systems would not affect a vehicle's pre-existing compliance with Standard No. 108 or any other standard, and is permissible under our regulations.

We note that the reduced intensity is achieved by a "pulse with modulation" which cycle the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect." S5.5.10(d) of Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning for uses other than flashing. While a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam, as appears to be the case here.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/10/94

ID: 8999

Mr. Toshi Tanaka
General Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept.
Sensor Technology Co., Ltd.
1-3-3 Yaesu, Chuo-ku
Tokyo, 103, JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tanaka:

This responds to your FAX of August 4, 1991, to Ms. Delmas Johnson of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

Is it true that the belt fastening law now goes into a part of the federal law?

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Federal requirements do not, however, regulate the use of vehicles. While there is no Federal requirement mandating safety belt use, a recent final rule will impose penalties on states which do not have both a safety belt and a motorcycle helmet use law by 1994. Currently, all the states and territories have some type of mandatory belt use law except Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Is it true that the cars with airbag do not need to perform "Roll Over Test"?

Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection systems are required to comply with certain injury criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. In addition, the automatic crash protection must either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements or have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly. A passenger car equipped with an air bag does not have to comply with the rollover test if it has a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at that position. To our knowledge, all vehicles currently being manufactured are certified to the automatic crash protection requirement by installing Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies.

A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags and Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. I am enclosing a copy of the recently published final rule implementing these requirements. These requirements will make the option of complying with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements moot.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d:11/5/93

ID: 9016a

Mr. Richard Horian
President
Woodleaf Corporation

FAX 310-326-6965

Dear Mr. Horian:

This is in response to your FAX of August 12, 1993, to Michael Perel of this agency regarding your "sudden brake indicator hazard light."

You were informed on December 7, 1992, by Paul Jackson Rice, then the Chief Counsel, that this auxiliary item of lighting equipment would be permissible as original equipment since it did not appear that it would impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You now ask "[w]hat is the fastest flash rate or range of flash rates expressed in 'flashes per minute' that are allowed by Federal law."

Standard No. 108 does not specify any range of flash rates for items of supplementary lighting equipment, thus, the choice is that of the manufacturer. The standard does specify a flash rate for turn sign and hazard warning signal lamps which are required by the standard. The flash rate for these lamps is 60 to 120 flashes per minute. In addition, S5.6 of the standard specifies a motorcycle headlamp modulation rate of 240 cycles per minute, plus or minus 40 cycles per minute.

The cycling and modulation rates of lighting systems are very important to motor vehicle safety because of a phenomenon known as "photic driving." This issue concerns potential adverse reactions in some people similar to epileptic seizures. The condition is brought on by certain regularly flashing lights, even in some persons not otherwise susceptible to epilepsy. From available studies, it appears that people are most likely to be affected if the flash rate is about ten flashes per second (600 flashes per minute) and/or when the background is very dark.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:9/28/93

ID: 9017

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems. S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard No. 213 specifies a minimum thickness for materials of a certain compression-deflection resistance. You ask whether more than one piece of material may be used to meet the thickness requirement.

The answer is yes. S5.2.3.2(b) does not require the material to be of a single piece, and the final rule that incorporated the requirement into Standard No. 213 did not address the issue. 44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979. Accordingly, more than one piece of material may be used.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:10/7/93

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