ID: nht80-1.16

DATE: 02/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BF Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 29, 1979, letter asking about brake adjustments prior to testing for compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In your letter, you ask that the agency permit up to three adjustments during the burnish for dynamometer testing.

By letter of interpretation and by preamble to our November 1974 Federal Register Notice (39 FR 39880), adjustments were permitted during the burnish procedures in S6.1.8 and S6.2.6 for the purpose of controlling brake temperature. According to agency information at the time of those interpretations, controlling brake temperature was the only reason that would require the use of brake adjustments during burnish. In a subsequent letter to the agency, you requested that we modify that position in light of your experience with disc brakes and their need for adjustment during burnish for dynamometer testing for reasons other than temperature control. The agency denied that request in April of 1979 while suggesting that the NHTSA would reconsider if more supporting data were supplied.

In response to the agency's request for more data, you have submitted another request for interpretation. To support this request, you have provided information in your letter and have also provided other information directly to our technical staff. As a result of this information, the agency agrees that adjustments during the burnish procedures may be necessary for reasons other than temperature control. Accordingly, the agency will permit adjustments during the burnish procedures for the sections cited above for any reason.

The standard presently is silent on the issue of how many brake adjustments may be made during burnish. As discussed with you and your staff we are considering limiting the number of adjustments to three during the burnish tests. However, no limitation is in effect at this time. The agency will undertake rulemaking shortly to limit the number of adjustments during burnish and encourages manufacturers to limit adjustments to three in the interim.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 29, 1979 FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter comments on and is in regard to your correspondence of April 27, 1979 to Mr. D.L. Haines; the Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. letter dated January 24, 1979 also to Mr. D.L. Haines; the BFGoodrich letter of January 15, 1979 to Mr. Tad Herlihy; and the BFGoodrich letter of November 8, 1978 to Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

BFGoodrich reviewed your interpretation of FMVSS 121, Paragraph S5.3, S5.4, and S6.1.8 and S6.2.2 regarding brake adjustment during burnish. In summary, you state that brake adjustments may be made during burnish, but only to control brake temperature.

In reference to that interpretation, BFGoodrich submits the following observations and comments.

1. The intent of our original inquiry, dated November 8, 1978, was to ensure that the BFGoodrich interpretation of FMVSS 121 with regard to adjustment during burnish was correct.

2. Mr. Levin's response of January 24, 1979, which postdated our letters of November 8, 1978 and January 15, 1979, was originally thought to be a reply to BFGoodrich correspondence and was interpreted as supporting our position that adjustment during the burnish sequence is not restricted.

3. Your letter of April 27, 1979 declined to support our position but suggested that NHTSA would consider data and information that would indicate that the NHTSA position on this matter might be too narrow.

4. Your letter of April 27, 1979 also stated that "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unaware of a reason other than control of brake temperature which would justify adjustments during burnish." BFGoodrich establishes that reason for adjustment by means of the information presented in the following paragraphs.

A. A review of our Vehicle testing in compliance with procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 (including sections recently deleted for trucks and trailers in response to the 9th Circuit remand) has shown that vehicles using the BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake can meet all performance criteria without brake adjustment during the burnish sequence.

B. A review of BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake dynamometer testing in compliance with procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 has shown that the dynamometer tests can be completed and meet all performance criteria. However, during burnish, as a flat and fully mated lining/disk interface is established, a maximum of three brake adjustments is required to maintain burnish decelerations.

C. The burnish procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 appear to be tailored to the needs of drum brakes equipped with organic linings. The primary need is to cure the "green" organic lining in preparation to meeting the actual performance requirements of the standard.

D. The burnishing requirements for the BFGoodrich disk brake are significantly different due to the fact that its metallic lining material requires minimal conditioning. For example, the BFGoodrich disk brake lining can be conditioned after 100 dynamometer burnish stops (and many times with as few as 50) to successfully complete the performance requirements. Such an abbreviated burnish sequence requires no brake adjustments between any burnish stops.

In presenting the foregoing data, we feel we have established a reason for an interpretation which is supportive of our position that adjustment during burnish is acceptable. In our particular case, the reason and need is limited to the dynamometer burnish in which we require a maximum of three burnish adjustments in order to complete a full burnish sequence. Parenthetically, it should be noted that an abbreviated dynamometer burnish sequence of 100 stops can be accomplished with our disk brake without brake adjustment between burnish stops. In either case, the actual performance testing following the dynamometer burnish can be successfully completed.

Listed below is a summary of the BFGoodrich viewpoints on this matter:

* There is no clear basis for the no-adjustment-during-burnish interpretation in the wording of FMVSS 121 as applied to disk brakes.

* The above position is strengthened by the interpretive precedent. established in November of 1974, which allowed adjustment during burnish to control brake temperature (reference the Joseph J. Levin, Jr. letter of January 24, 1979).

* The burnish procedure is preceived as a preparation for testing and not a performance requirement in itself.

* Technical criteria used in establishing the burnish sequences appear to be based only on drum brake experience and requirements, and that criteria is not necessarily representative of the burnish requirements of other braking technologies such as the BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake.

* No degradation of performance requirements are suffered by allowing adjustment during burnish.

In light of the above and for the reasons noted earlier, BFGoodrich requests a reconsideration or modification to the previous interpretation which would allow up to three brake adjustments during the burnish for dynamometer testing.

If the Department still feels that there is insufficient reasoning to reconsider the current interpretation and additional discussion is required, please advise me as to a date that you will be available to review this issue.

Sincerely,

THE B F GOODRICH COMPANY -- Engineered Products Group;

Jack D. Rainbolt -- Chief Engineer, Air Disk Brakes, Transportation Division

cc: K. M. Ryan

ID: nht80-1.17

DATE: 02/26/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in several Toyota vehicle models (Corolla Sedan, Corolla Coupe, Corona Sedan and Starlet). You assert that the rear seat hip room in these models ranges from 39.4 inches to 42.6 inches, and ask whether the vehicles would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.

Under the strict measurement technique specified in the amended definition of "designated seating position" (SAE J1100a), the Toyota vehicle models in question would have the hip room dimensions you state. This is due to the fact that the SAE procedure specifies that hip room is to be the minimum dimension of the seat cushion. The Toyota designs include wheel wells and contoured side paddings at the intersection of the seat back and seat cushion that establish the minimum dimension of the seat. However, these structures only extend out 4 to 5 inches (approximation) from the seat back. If the hip room of the rear seats is measured midway of the seat cushion, all of the designs have greater than 50 inches of hip room, and ostensibly should have three designated seating positions. Nevertheless, since according to the measurement technique specified in the definition these seats have substantially less than 50 inches of hip room, the agency must conclude that the rear seats could qualify as having only two designated seating positions. This opinion is accompanied with several candid remarks, however.

The effective hip room of the Toyota seat designs is much greater than the approximately 40 inches that is obtained by the technical measuring technique specified in the definition. If two outboard occupants move their hips several inches forward from the seat back in these vehicle designs, the wheel-wells and contoured side paddings are no longer impediments and there is over 50 inches of hip room, as noted above. Moreover, the design of these rear seats is such that use of the center position is "invited." There is at least 10 to 12 inches of well-padded hip room at the center portion of the seat between the inboard ends of the two seat belt assemblies installed in the seats. The manufacturer has given no indication that this space is not intended for occupancy. The agency is also concerned that this center position has no belt assembly to secure a child restraint system, particularly since the rear-center seat is statistically the safest position in a vehicle.

Frankly, with the wide center space that is available in these rear seat designs, we do not believe the manufacturer has made a sincere attempt to indicate to vehicle occupants that the seats are intended for use by only two occupants. It would be a simple matter for the manufacturer to make this obvious by use of a fixed armrest or some other impediment to use of the position. Furthermore, we believe that this message can be given to occupants without otherwise compromising the design the manufacturer wishes to achieve. If the manufacturer does not in fact wish to market the vehicles as having three-passenger rear seats, we do not understand why wide, well-padded center positions are present.

Finally, I am enclosing a copy of an earlier interpretation which discusses the measurement procedure included in the definition of "designated seating position." As that interpretation pointed out, the agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition by finding "loopholes" in the specified measurement procedure. If designs such as those displayed in the Toyota vehicles persist, without some clear indication that the center position is not to be used, the agency may find it necessary to amend the definition to provide that the hip room measurement is to be taken at the midpoint of the seat cushion. We hope that manufacturers will voluntarily alter designs of this type to conform to the intent of the definition, so that such an amendment is not necessary.

SINCERELY,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

January 17, 1980

Ralph Hitchcock Chief, Crashworthiness Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

This is to confirm our request, made by Mr. Donald Schwentker, Attorney-at-Law, for a meeting with appropriate National Highway Traffic Safety Administration personnel on Tuesday, January 29, 1980, to seek an interpretation of the designated seating position definition as it applies to several specific Toyota vehicles, as follows:

* Corolla Sedan

* Corolla Coupe

* Corona Sedan

* Starlet ('81 Model)

As you requested, Toyota will bring all vehicles to NHTSA's office on that date.

Our Attorney will contact you by telephone to work out the arrangements.

J. Kawano General Manager

ID: nht80-1.18

DATE: 02/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hugh A. West, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 22, 1979, addressed to Mr. Nelson Erickson. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of our reply. Your letter asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, was intended to prevent a small child or animal left unattended in a parked automobile (model year 1973) from which the keys have been removed, from intentionally or accidentially moving the gear selection level from the "Park" position. The answer to your question is no, for the reasons noted below. You also requested a copy of any technical analysis that may have been done in the development of Safety Standard 114. Although the public docket contains analyses pertinent to later versions of Safety Standard 114 it contains none pertinent to any version of the standard applicable to passenger cars manufactured in 1973. The only analyses pertinent to these earlier versions of the standard are contained in documents which contain internal agency opinion and recommendations and thus are not publicly available.

When Safety Standard 114 was adopted in 1968 its stated purpose was to "reduce the incidence of accidents resulting from unauthorized use." (33 FR 6471, April 27, 1968). This goal was based on evidence which showed that: "cars operated by unauthorized persons are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury and death than those which are driven by authorized individuals," (33 FR 6471, preamble). Neither the rule nor the preamble states that the standard was intended to accomplish any other goal.

As adopted, the standard required that all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1970, be equipped with a key locking system that (upon removal of the key) would prevent "activation of the car's engine or other main source of motive power; and either steering or self-mobility or both." Safety Standard 114 in its current form also provides manufacturers with this option. The preamble to the standard simply stated that a steering or self-mobility lock was needed in order ". . . to defeat car thieves who start cars with so-called 'master keys' and devices which bypass the [ignition] lock . . ." (33 FR 6471).

In light of the compliance option described above and the purpose of Safety Standard 114 as expressed both in the standard itself and in the preambles of various Federal Register notices, it appears that Safety Standard 114 was not intended to apply to the situation described in your letter.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

HUGH A. WEST, INC.

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

October 22, 1979

N. F. Erickson -- Safety Standards Engineer, U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #114

Dear Mr. Erickson:

I thank you for your letter of October 12, 1979 and the enclosed copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #114 as I requested.

The purpose of my inquires have been to determine whether there was any Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which would require an automobile manufactured in 1973 (1973 Chevrolet Vega) to have as part of its safety equipment, a device which would lock the gear selection lever in the "Park" position when the key was removed from the ignition switch after the lever had been locked. I understand that automobile manufacturers would have little difficulty in having such a locking system as part of the steering column gear-selection method.

The particular gear-selection lever on the car in question was a console model. The car was parked on an incline, the gear selection lever being placed in the "Park" position, the ignition key removed after the ignition system had been placed in the locked position, and the driver exited the vehicle. Thereafter, the car rolled down the incline and a 5 year old child within the car was drowned. When the car was recovered, the gear selection lever was in the "Neutral" position. It is unknown whether the gear selection lever was intentionally or accidentally removed from the "Park" position.

We are particularly concerned as to whether or not this problem was a recognized hazard which the standard was trying to correct. It is obvious that if the steering column were locked so as to prevent the steering of the vehicle, and any child, or an animal, left unattended in the vehicle could move the gear shift lever, the vehicle would obviously be set into motion on an incline with absolutely no control over its movement. It would then become an extreme hazard not only to a small child, as here, being within the vehicle, but other users of the highways and streets toward whom the uncontrollable mass of metal was moving.

If there are other standards which may be applicable to our particular situation, I would appreciate your forwarding a copy of the same to me. We would also appreciate your sending to us a Technical Analysis Study, if any were done, on Standard #114.

We sincerely appreciate your kind assistance.

Very truly yours,

Walter S Felton

cc: Thomas L. Woodward, ESQ.

ID: nht80-1.19

DATE: 02/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1980, asking whether a partial vehicle identification number (VIN) may be stamped into the frame of the Suzuki motorcycles under the certification label.

The answer is yes. The use of identifying numbers other than the VIN is allowed if the numbers cannot be confused with the VIN. In the situation you described, the identifying number would be hidden from view by the certification label. Since the label is required to be riveted or permanently affixed to the vehicle (Part 567 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations), the hidden identifying number is not likely to become visible during the life of the vehicle. Therefore, there appears to be no chance that the number would be confused with the VIN.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 7, 1980

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS No. 115 - Vehicle Identification Number

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request an interpretation by your Agency regarding Section S4.3 of the Standard.

Suzuki as required by Part - 567 Certification (@ 567.4(g)(6) ) will place the Vehicle Identification Number on the Motorcycle Certification Label.

Suzuki wishes to also stamp, using 5mm Sans Serif characters, the Vehicle Identification Number minus the check digit onto the headpipe of the motorcycle (at the intersection of the steering post with the handlebars). This second placement of the Vehicle Identification Number would be for internal use by the Company prior to the Certification label being affixed on the headpipe of the motorcycle.

This second placement of the Vehicle Identification Number would be entirely covered by the Certification label when it is affixed to the motorcycle.

We wish to obtain your interpretation if such a plan would be permissible under the standard, by not including the check digit in the second application of the Vehicle Identification number, whereas it would not be visible to either the consumer or Law Enforcement Personnel unless the label had been removed from a motorcycle. We believe that this number, even though it was missing the check digit, would be helpful in identifying such a motorcycle.

We would appreciate being advised of your opinion at the earliest possible date regarding this request.

Sincerely,

SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD.;

F. Michael Petler -- Manager, Government Relations Department

ID: nht80-1.2

DATE: 01/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Haynsworth

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telephone conversation with Kathy DeMeter of my staff on Friday, December 21, 1979. You asked for the status of section 580.5(a)(1) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. That section exempts from the odometer disclosure requirements anyone transferring a vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 16,000 pounds. That exemption is part of the regulation, originally issued in January 1973, which prescribes rules requiring a transferor of a motor vehicle to make a written disclosure to the transferee concerning the odometer reading and its accuracy.

In January 1977, the exemption was declared void by the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on the grounds that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has exceeded its authority in fashioning the exemption. Notwithstanding the court's decision, the NHTSA believes that it has the authority to create exemptions for vehicles for which the odometer reading is not relevant. The exemption, consequently, remains a part of the odometer disclosure regulations.

For your information, I have enclosed copies of the statements submitted by Freightliner, White, and the National Association of Motor Bus Operators, which support the exemption for larger vehicles.

SINCERELY,

ENC.

FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION

January 8, 1973

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Docket No. 72-31; Notice 1 Odometer Disclosure Requirements

Gentlemen:

Freightliner Corporation manufactures the White-Freightliner truck which is a cab-over vehicle generally used in over-the-road transportation. This vehicle is marketed by the White Motor Corporation. We represent 10% of the Class 8 diesel vehicles and over 25% of the Class 8 cab-over vehicles. 94% of our vehicles pull a semi-trailer; an additional 5% plus are full trucks pulling a pull trailer.

The basic intent of this proposed rule is to provide the purchaser with an accurate measure of the life already expended in a given vehicle so that he may judge the potential remaining life against the dollar value asked for the vehicle. It is apparent from the writing of this proposed rule that it is aimed primarily at the passenger car industry although there are no exclusions of vehicles of over 10,000 pounds weight rating.

There is a unique situation, however, involved in the original sale of this class of vehicle in that it is not normally handled by truck or train transport. The majority of vehicles, particularly in the Class 8 category, are delivered via driveaway and over 25% of our vehicles travel 2,000 or more miles before they reach the hands of the first purchaser. 2,000 miles may be significant mileage for a passenger car requiring reporting; however, in a commercial vehicle which will operate well in excess of 100,000 miles per year, the 2,000 delivery miles are insignificant, particularly since they are under a no-load condition or under a light load condition if a piggy back operation is used in delivery.

In our operation we have two title changes prior to the vehicle reaching the customer and this proposed regulation would put an undue burden on us as a manufacturer. Freightliner Corporation sells its vehicles to the White Motor Corporation who in turn sell them to the individual White Motor dealer who then sells the vehicle to the customer. The vehicle is given a road test by Freightliner which may be anywhere from 10 to 100 or more miles. The White-Freightliner Division of White Motor, in delivering the vehicle to the dealer, may put as much as 3,000 miles on the vehicle, for instance from Portland to Florida. The receiving dealer may put another 10 to 100 miles on the vehicle-in pre-delivery road testing, and then another 100 or so miles in making the actual delivery to the customer. The paperwork in keeping track of all of these incremental mileages in the normal process of delivering a vehicle seems burdensome and unnecessary, and certainly does nothing to influence the customer in deciding whether or not to purchase the vehicle. The customer has consumated the purchase with a downpayment or other financial arrangements prior to its manufacture (as is customary in this custom building industry) and fully recognizes the mileage difference between the point of manufacture and his planned point of use.

Even in dealing with the used truck, there is a serious question as to the need of this certified mileage since it refers to the chassis as a total and the engine and other major components of the vehicle are normally changed and serviced during the time of first ownership. It is more important for the potential used truck buyer to know when the engine was changed and overhauled and what work was done to the axles, transmissions and other major components rather than knowing how many miles were actually on the chassis.

Thus, we believe the total exclusion of vehicles over 10,000 pounds is warranted and that it be imperative to exclude this requirement on any vehicles to the first customer.

Norman B. Chew

WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

January 5, 1979

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Docket No. 72-11, Notice 1 Odometer Disclosure Requirements

Gentlemen:

In response to the subject Notice, White Motor Corporation is (Illegible Words) submit its comments on the proposed requirements dealing with odometer disclosure. Since White manufactures and/or distributes heavy motor trucks with a gross vehicle weight of more than 24,000 pounds only, our comments are necessarily limited in their application to such vehicles.

Our comments on specific sections of the proposed requirements are as follows:

680.4 Disclosure of Odometer Mileage

(b) In many cases the transferer may not know that the odometer reading differs from the number of miles that the vehicles has actually traveled, but may have some reason to believe it is incorrect. It is believed that it would be desirable, therefore, to change the word "knows" to "has reason to believe".

(c) In the case of heavy trucks, many such vehicles are used in fleet operations and transferred from terminal to terminal. When traded (Illegible Word) they are often turned over to the vehicle manufacturer, distributor (Illegible Words) dealer at various locations. The (Illegible Words) kept at a central location and as a result a serious problem would be involved in obtaining the mileage (Illegible Word) shown on the vehicle odometer and adding this information to the (Illegible Words) (Illegible Lines)

Exactly the same problem as discussed under (Illegible Word) with respect to Certificate of Title would be encountered in requiring that the vehicle odometer reading be shown on the document transferring ownership to the transferee where no Certificate of Title is in effect for a motor vehicle.

1.5 Recommended Form for Disclosure

is our recommendation that consideration be given to a separate meter disclosure form at least in the case of heavy trucks. We commend that the wording "the odometer reading shown above is known to differ from the actual mileage" be changed to reflect the comments made above under Section 580.4 (b).

other problem that is presented is the determination of the "Transferor's present address" due to the fact that the odometer reading (Illegible Words) have to be added to the disclosure form at the truck's location rather than at the main address for the fleet operation. Therefore an indication would be given as to which address should be shown on the disclosure form.

our opinion, the proposed regulation is completely impractical for (Illegible Word) trucks. Many of these vehicles operate between 100.000 to (Illegible Word) les per year and the reliability of the highest quality odometers and odometer drive cables is such that failures are often experienced at (Illegible Word) substantially below the annual mileage operated. Our estimate that not more than 25% of the heavy trucks which we receive in trace (Illegible Word) the true vehicle mileage on the odometer. In fact, a retail buyer rely assumes that the odometer reading is the correct mileage, since in many cases a typical vehicle runs for months without a working odometer (Illegible Word) time during its useful life.

(Illegible Word) many cases, heavy trucks are equipped with hubodometers, particularly on vehicles are used in fleet operations. However, most such instruments are removed from the vehicle prior to trade in, and therefore cannot be (Illegible Word) to show the vehicle odometer reading, particularly when subsequently transferred.

(Illegible Words) our recommendation that the odometer disclosure requirements do not (Illegible Words) such vehicles due to the extremely high mileage (Illegible Word) (Illegible Words) by a very large percentage of such vehicles, which (Illegible Word) the (Illegible Words) of little value due to the fact that it probably (Illegible Words) indicate that there would be a greater variation (Illegible Lines)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

January 10, 1973 (Illegible Text)

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[49 CFR Part 580]

[Docket No. 72-31: Notice No. 1]

Odometer Disclosure Requirements

Notice of Proposed (Illegible Words)

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF (Illegible Words)

This statement is filed by the National Association of Motor (Illegible Words) (Illegible Words) (Illegible Lines) city motor bus industry (Illegible Words) all companies affiliated with the National Trailways Bus System and more than 400 other carriers not affiliated with either system. Collectively, these members of NAMBO provide more than 90 percent of the intercity motor bus transportation in the United States. In addition to its operator members, NAMBO has numerous associate members engaged in the manufacture of buses and other bus equipment.

For the reasons hereinafter stated, NAMBO is convinced that Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, does not apply to transfers of ownership of intercity coaches. Accordingly, intercity bus operators, in our opinion, would not be affected by the proposed odometer disclosure regulations even though transferors of intercity coaches are not specifically exempted.

Many motor carriers of passengers do not have odometers on their buses. Such carriers use an electronic speedometer which they feel has greater accuracy and durability. Obviously, Title IV of the Act and any odometer disclosure regulations issued thereunder would not apply to intercity bus operators who do not use odometers.

With respect to intercity bus operators who have odometers on their buses, such odometers are set to record mileage up to 99,999 miles. However, the typical intercity coach is operated more than one million miles prior to its sale as used equipment. When such buses are equipped with an odometer, the odometer would have made ten complete cycles. Obviously, purchasers of intercity buses are not entitled, in the language of Section 401 of the Act, "to rely on the odometer reading as an accurate reflection of the mileage actually travelled by the vehicle . . .". When the Congress found in Section 401 of the act that "an accurate [odometer] indication of the mileage travelled by motor vehicles assists the purchaser in determining its safety and reliability . . .", it could not have been thinking about purchasers of used buses who know that the odometer readings are usually at least ten times less than the actual mileage of the vehicles. Since the purpose of Title IV of the Act, as stated in Section 401, is "to establish certain safeguards for the protection of purchasers with respect to the sale of motor vehicles having altered or reset odometers . . .", and since that purpose is clearly inapplicable to transactions between buyers and sellers of intercity coaches, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should make clear in its proposed regulations that buyers and sellers of intercity coaches are not covered.

A further reason for excluding intercity buses from the proposed regulations is that the Congress did not intend to impose on the intercity bus industry requirements which it would be literally impossible to satisfy. For example, Section 407 of the Act provides that odometers which have been repaired or replaced --

"shall be adjusted to read zero and a notice in writing shall be attached to the left door frame of the vehicle by the owner or his agent specifying the mileage prior to repair or replacement of the odometer and the date on which it was repaired or replaced."

Intercity coaches, unlike passenger automobiles and trucks, have no left door frame to which the required notice could be attached.

Section 408(a) of the Act, pursuant to which the proposed odometer disclosure requirements would be issued, provides that the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe rules requiring any transferor to give the following written disclosure to the transferee in connection with the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle:

"(1) Disclosure of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer;

(2) Disclosure that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is known to the transferor to be different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled."

Section 580.4(b) of the proposed regulations would implement Section 408(a) of the Act by requiring the transferor, if he knows that the odometer reading differs from the number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled, to inform the transferee by a notation on the document transferring ownership that the actual vehicle mileage is unknown. It is impossible for transferors of intercity coaches to comply with that provision of the statute and the implementing regulations, which is a further reason for concluding that intercity bus operators were not intended to be covered by the Act.

Compliance by intercity bus operators is impossible because in most instances the transferor of an intercity coach knows that the odometer reading differs from the number of miles the bus has actually travelled and because he also knows from his accounting and maintenance records the actual mileage the vehicle has accumulated. Thus, for an intercity bus operator to state that the odometer reading does not correspond with the actual mileage of the bus and that such actual vehicle mileage is unknown would be a false statement of a material fact.

Intercity bus operators maintain accurate records respecting accumulated mileage on vehicles. An operator's accounting department or bookkeeper collects and retains such information because of its importance in developing cost and other statistical data and also because the mileage data, which is derived from the trip reports of bus drivers, is the basis on which drivers are paid. Therefore, purchasers of used buses have no interest whatever in odometer readings but they are interested in the accounting and other records of the vendor which show the accumulated mileage on used vehicles.

In addition, intercity bus operators are required by Part 396 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety to systematically inspect and systematically maintain buses and to keep records on such systematic inspection and maintenance. Accordingly, the maintenance departments or shop foremen of intercity bus operators also have accurate information respecting the actual miles travelled by a used bus.

"Motor vehicle," as used in Title IV of the Act, is defined in Section 2(15) thereof to include any vehicle "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . .". Of course, intercity coaches are included within that definition of "motor vehicle." However, the term "odometer" as used in Title IV of the Act does not include odometers used on buses. Section 402(1) of the Act defines the term "odometer as an instrument for measuring and recording the actual distance a motor vehicle travels while in operation . . .". Congress' obvious intent was to require disclosure of the readings of odometers which are installed in vehicles for the purpose of informing owners, prospective purchasers, and others concerned about the accumulated mileage of the vehicle. Since odometers installed in intercity coaches are not intended to serve that purpose, they are not within the definition set forth in Section 402(1) of the Act.

Purchasers of intercity buses are sophisticated buyers and do not need the protection accorded by the Act to purchasers of automobiles and pick-up trucks. Accordingly, we believe the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should amend its proposed regulations to state, in effect, that buses used in intercity service are not covered in the proposed regulations because such coverage clearly was neither authorized nor intended by the Congress.

On the other hand, if the Administration believes that the Congress intended to protect purchasers of intercity motor coaches and that such purchasers should be provided with information concerning the actual mileage of used buses, we suggest that such disclosure be the subject of a separate regulation. Intercity bus operators would be willing, if the Administration believes it necessary or desirable, to provide every purchaser of a used intercity bus with a statement of the actual accumulated mileage of the bus to be sold. Such information would be derived from accounting and maintenance records of the transferor. If for any reason, the transferor does not have accurate accounting or maintenance records concerning actual vehicle mileage, he could be required to advise the transferee that such records do not exist and that the actual mileage of the vehicle offered for sale is unknown.

In conclusion, we would be happy to consult with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in regard to the language of a proposed regulation applicable to sales of used intercity coaches if the Administration concludes that such a regulation is necessary or desirable

For the reasons set forth above, we do not believe Congress included intercity bus operators within the scope of Title IV of the Act and that any regulation on the subject which the Administration might adopt would not give purchasers of used buses any more information than they already receive from sellers of used buses.

CHARLES A. WEBB, President National Association of Motor Bus Owners

Due date: January 11, 1973

ID: nht80-1.20

DATE: 02/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 24, 1980, to Mr. Schwartz of my office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.

I understand from your letter that Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, intends to comply with S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 115 by placing the vehicle identification number (VIN) on the certification label of the motorcycles it manufactures. Since the standard specifies the precise placement of the VIN only for passenger cars and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.4), placing the VIN on the certification label of motorcycles is authorized.

You also wish to know whether Standard No. 115 precludes Kawasaki stamping a model designation and production sequence into the frame near the certification label. As long as the number which you stamp into the frame cannot be mistaken for the VIN because of its length or other factors, this would not be prohibited.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Research & Development Center

January 24, 1980

Frederic Schwartz -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 115 V.I.N. Requirements

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter requests your confirmation that Kawasaki's interpretation of, and action to be taken under, the requirements of 49 CFR 571.115 is correct.

The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) regulations promulgated by NHTSA at 49 CFR 571.115 (FMVSS 115) require vehicle manufacturers to assign to each motor vehicle a unique vehicle identification number, consisting of 17 digits (16 plus check). This VIN is to be used in defect recall and information retrieval efforts where accuracy will benefit the goal of motor vehicle safety. As required by 571.115 S4.3:

"The vehicle identification number and check digit of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such part." Standard 115 is silent as to the specific location of the VIN. However, 49 CFR 567, Certification, specifies content and location of the required label certifying compliance with applicable NHTSA requirements. In addressing content, @ 567.4 (g) (6) requires the label to contain the vehicle identification number, while @ 567.4 (e) specifies the location of the label on motorcycles. Finally, @ 567.4 (b) requires that "(t)he label shall, unless riveted, be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it."

Our current VIN appears on a non-removable, per @ 567 (b), label located on the portion of the main frame through which the steering assembly pivots, meeting the applicable location requirements of @ 567(e). To accommodate the 17 digit VIN of @ 571.115, we shall simply modify the labels with the new VIN format.

At the present time, we also stamp our model designation and production sequence into the frame near the certification label, although this stamped number is more difficult to see than the VIN as it does not contrast with its background. In order to facilitate our production control we wish to continue stamping this information into the frame, while placing the new VIN on the label in the location it currently occupies. We believe the visual prominence of the VIN and its recognizable format will prevent confusion of the VIN with our internal control system identifier.

We do not interpret Standard 115 as prohibiting placement of other forms of information in a location near the VIN. We ask if you concur with this interpretation.

We are in the process of designing our VIN system and integrating the VIN into our other information control systems. Your timely response to this letter would thus be greatly appreciated.

Please contact the undersigned if more information is required.

Sincerely, KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.;

Roger Hagie -- Government Relations Manager

CC: L. Yurikusa; N. Murakami

ID: nht80-1.21

DATE: 03/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Debra Weiner; NHTSA

TO: Delta Inc. of Arkansas

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

ENCLS.

ID: nht80-1.22

DATE: 03/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Diesel Fuel Saver, Jay Blanchard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

SINCERELY,

D.F.S.

DIESEL FUEL SAVER

February 8, 1980

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

Dear Mrs. Winer:

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

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

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

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

I shall look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

Jay Blanchard Administrative Assistant

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht80-1.23

DATE: 03/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ross Frame & Axle, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

SINCERELY

Jan. 8, 1980

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Attn: Office of Administration

Dear Sirs:

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

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Joe Cain Ross Frame & Axle, Inc.

ID: nht76-3.2

DATE: 07/16/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to Jeep Corporation's March 9, 1976, petition for rulemaking as supplemented by its letter of April 1, 1976. The petition requested an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, that would add the following sentence at the end of S7.1.6(b):

For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories.

The supplement to the petition included a list of 15 examples of such work-performing accessories. The amendment would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove these accessories before performing compliance testing pursuant to the standard.

In Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, (15 U.S.C. 1392 note), Congress directed that the fuel system integrity standard take effect in the form in which it had been most recently published. Conditions for amending the standard were specified in Section 108(b) as follows:

Amendment or Repeal of Standard. -- The Secretary may amend the standard described in subsection (a) in order to correct technical errors in the standard, and may amend or repeal such standard if he determines such amendment or repeal will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.

The practical result of the amendment requested by Jeep would be that certain vehicles would not, as is presently specified, be required to conform to the standard in the form in which they are actually delivered to purchasers and used on the highways. In fact, the presence of work-performing accessories could seriously degrade a vehicle's performance in the standard's barrier crash tests. We therefore cannot conclude that the requested amendment "will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety." Furthermore, the amendment goes beyond the mere correction of technical errors in the standard. Consequently, Jeep's petition must be and is hereby denied.

Despite this denial, however, the NHTSA interprets the term "unloaded vehicle weight" in a manner that provides some of the relief that Jeep has requested. The term is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as follows:

'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

The "weight of a vehicle" includes the weight of those accessories that are installed on a vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily removed. Among such accessories are the following: air bag suspension systems

draw bars

headlamp and radiator protectors

helper-springs

hitches

pintle hooks

power take-offs

push bumpers

step bumpers and side steps

tire carriers

wreckers

The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the "weight of a vehicle". Consequently, accessories in this latter group would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75. Among these are the following:

snow plows

spreaders

tow bars

Categorization of winches, the remaining accessory that you have listed, depends on the nature of the particular winch. One that is generally removed only when its presence interferes with other vehicle functions would be included in the evaluation of "unloaded vehicle weight". A portable winch that is ordinarily removed after use, however, would not be included in that evaluation.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

April 1, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

On March 9, 1976 the Jeep Corporation petitioned the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for rulemaking to exempt work-performing accessories from the test requirements of FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, as the standard applies to multi-purpose vehicles and light trucks. This letter transmits additional information to supplement our March 9 petition.

It has occurred to us that a summary of the types of available work-performing accessories referenced in our petition might be of benefit to you in your efforts to evaluate the merits of the Jeep petition. We, therefore, submit the following list of work-performing accessories, or work-related accessories, for your information and review:

Air bag suspension systems

Draw bars

Headlamp and radiator protectors

Helper springs

Hitches

Pintle hooks

Power take-offs

Push bumpers

Snow plows

Spreaders

Step bumpers and side steps

Tire carriers

Tow bars

Winches

Wreckers

In addition, we have attached copies of the booklet "Jeep Vehicle Special Equipment and Jeep Vehicle Accessories Catalog" which includes illustrations of the type of accessories and devices discussed above as well as descriptions of other factory-approved equipment and accessories that are available on these unique vehicles.

We request your prompt and favorable acceptance of this petition since less than five months remain before FMVSS No. 301 becomes effective as applied to MPV's and light trucks.

George E. Brown Executive Director - Vehicle Emissions & Safety

ATTACHMENTS Jeep Corporation

March 9, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Petition For Rulemaking Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity

On October 16, 1975, Jeep Corporation submitted a petition to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" so that work-performing accessories would not be included. That petition was subsequently denied (your letter N40-30) on the grounds that the NHTSA has adopted a policy of evaluating potential dynamic testing problems with heavy or protruding accessories on a "standard-by-standard" basis.

In accord with that stated NHTSA policy, Jeep Corporation, herewith, submits the attached petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include the work-performing accessories used on trucks and multi-purpose vehicles.

George E. Brown Executive Director Vehicle Emissions and Safety

March 9, 1976

PETITION TO AMEND FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD (49 CFR PART 301) FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include work-performing accessories for trucks and multipurpose vehicles. Thus, the test conditions for Standard No. 301 would then be consistent in this respect with those for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

The Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator's consideration of this petition for the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, for the following reasons:

Currently, the Test Conditions of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, Are Not Consistent with Those of Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion

In the preamble to the proposal for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, Docket No. 74-21; Notice 2, the Administrator stated:

"Finally, the NHTSA is continuing to promote compatibility and economy in barrier crash testing by adopting vehicle loading and dummy restraint requirements in Standard No. 219 identical to those set out in proposed amendments to Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, 49 CFR 571.301 (40 FR 17036, April 16, 1975)."

Jeep Corporation fully supports the Administrator's efforts to promote compatibility and economy in barrier testing; however, the requirements for Standard No. 219 and 301 do not provide the desired compatibility or economy.

Section 7.7b of Standard No. 219 referring to the test loading and dummy requirements for multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses states:

"For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work performing accessories."

Standard No. 301 does not provide for the exemption of work-performing accessories and, therefore, is not compatible with Standard No. 219 and thus requires clarification regarding the loading conditions for barrier testing.

Barrier Tests Including Work-Performing Accessories Would Not Be Representative of Normal Production Vehicles

Multi-purpose vehicles, because of their nature, are used in many ways with equipment not typical of normal passenger car usage. Barrier tests involving work-performing accessories would not be representative of most production vehicles. For example, the barrier test results of a truck with a snow plow on its front and carrying a salt spreader on its rear should not be used to depict base vehicles because of the possible protection offered to the base vehicle by its work-performing devices.

Excessive Barrier Test Requirements May Cause Some Accessories Specifically Engineered for Jeep Vehicles to be Removed From the Marketplace

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as Jeep Special Equipment, are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory-installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modifications which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle.

Marketing of these engineered accessories may not be possible, however, if the dynamic testing procedures of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, differ from the test procedures specified for other standard such as Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, and require multi-purpose vehicles to be tested with a myriad of special equipment accessories. Programs to assure compliance to any Federal Safety Standard specifying barrier testing with all possible equipment combinations would create a testing and financial burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which may not be in the best interest of public safety.

Summary

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator to amend Section 7.1.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, by adding the sentence underlined here:

". . . same. Each dummy shall be restrained only by means that are installed in the vehicle for protection at its seating position. For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

Jeep Corporation submits that such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.