ID: nht93-5.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: Joel Trim -- Manager - Mechanical Service Dept., Neal and Massy Motors

TO: The Secretary -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Joel Trim (A41; Part 567)

TEXT:

Within recent times various owners of motorcars who have had their vehicle bodies modified (extended) in the main for Limousine Service have solicited my assistance in inspecting the modifications before inspection for licensing by our Road Transport Authorities. However, our country does not have any laws or regulations pertaining to the inspection and certification of these vehicles, nor for vehicles falling under the categories: Kit Cars or Homemade Vehicles.

As a result of this the owner of such vehicles are unable to obtain a license from the Transport Department to operate them legally on the roads. There are however a number of private modified (extended) vehicles on our roads.

I have discussed this matter with several persons some of whom are directly related to the Transport Department and it is in the general view that if proof is shown where these vehicles are modified, assembled, built and inspected according to certain National or International Standards, the Licensing Department of the Ministry of Transport may be willing to license these vehicles.

Could you be so kind to assist in obtaining copies of any existing regulations/standards which govern the certification and operation of such vehicles on highways.

Thanks very much for your assistance. I look forward in anticipation to your favorable response.

ID: nht93-5.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from Thomas Luckemeyer to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your FAX letter of June 25, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our FAX letter to you of May 28, 1993, provided an interpretation of SAE J588 NOV84, incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You mention the 1990 SAE Ground Vehicle Lighting Manual which refers to SAE J588 September 1970, and ask which is the correct SAE reference.

Standard No. 108 was amended with an effective date of December 1, 1990, to substitute "SAE J588 NOV84" for "SAE J588 September 1970" as the U.S. Federal requirement for turn signal lamps used as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles with an overall width of less than 80 inches overall width. Turn signal lamps may still be manufactured to the requirements of "SAE J588 September 1970" if they are intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps that were manufactured in accordance with "SAE J588 September 1970." We understand that your earlier letter asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it related to the design of lamps for future production, and trust that this answers your question.

As you have requested, we are also FAXing a copy of Table III.

ID: nht73-2.21

DATE: 04/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Arthur H. Davis

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter which we received April 5, 1973, which asks if you, as a dealer of tires, may register all new and retreaded tires sold to first purchasers on a single form and send that form to a tire registry service.

Under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) dealers selling cars to first purchasers must record the sale and forward the required information to the manufacturer or his designee. Therefore, you can only record all the tire sales from various manufacturers and retreaders on a registry service form if that registry service is the designee of all of the manufacturers and retreaders whose tires you sell.

For your information we have enclosed a copy of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (Notice No. 5) and a copy of an interpretation of the regulation dealing with the question of manufacturers' designees (Notice No. 10).

Thank you for your interest in auto safety.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

Sir

RE: D.O.T Registration

I am in the wholesale tire business. It has come to my attention twice that a dealer may register all this not only mine but all this on one simple registration form. That being Axican Systems hire.

Can a dealers register all new turn' and all retracks on the form that Axican Systems he use, mail it to Axican and be legally within the bainclouir of the federally law.

Sincerely,

(Illegible Word) --

RFD 2 Box 174A.,(Illegible Word). Mc 04401

ID: nht68-3.45

DATE: 07/29/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Lotus Cars Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Bridwell has asked that I reply to your letters dated November 18 and July 3 which ask if Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 requires your company's "Elan Convertible" to have sun visors.

The National Highway Safety Bureau recognizes that the requirement for every passenger car to have two sun visors of energy-absorbing material with mountings that have no rigid material edge radius of less than 0.125 if statically contactable by a 6.5 inch diameter head form, may create a problem for manufacturers of certain types of vehicles. However, the requirement will, on balance, contribute to the safety of the general public.

Compliance with the requirement can and should be made in a manner so as to increase occupant protection.

LOTUS

JULY 3, 1968.

Lowell K. Bridwell, Federal Highway Administrator US Department of Transportation,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 201: Sunvisors

We despatched a petition to you on 28th November 1967, requesting that we be permitted to substitute increased header padding for the sunvisors stipulated in F.M.V.S.S. 201 on our model: ELAN CONVERTIBLE.

On 19th January we sent further information to back up our earlier submission. We felt, for reasons given in our letter of 28th November 1967, that the spirit of F.M.V.S.S. 201 would be met, on this particular model, better, by increased padding, than by the addition of sunvisors.

We would be extremely grateful for some indication of your view of our petition.

B.A. Luff General Manager

ID: aiam4288

Dear Mr. Ziwica: This letter concerns your request for an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*, as it applies to the antitheft device BMW intends to install on the Carline 7 passenger car line for model year 1988. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.; On October 9, 1986, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Registe granting BMW's petition for an exemption from the marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard, based on its determination that an effective antitheft device will be installed on those lines as standard equipment. (51 FR 3633.) However, because NHTSA wished to further consider the compliance of the double- lock aspect of the central locking system with Standard No. 206, we granted the petition while reserving decision on that issue. We have completed our evaluation of the double-lock system and have determined it is permitted by the standard.; In its petition for exemption from the marking requirements of th Theft Prevention Standard, BMW described an antitheft device which, among other things, prevents entry into the vehicle by affecting the door locks in the following manner:; >>>The inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical plunge on each door, and the plungers on the front doors override the two rear door plungers. To prevent locking the keys in the car upon exiting, the front doors can only be locked with a key. For Convenience, this also locks all other doors, if they are open at the time of locking, they lock when closed.<<<; >>>The locks in the front doors have three-positions cylinders - off 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees and removed from the lock, the doors, trunk and gas filler door are locked. If, however, the key is rotated 90 degrees and removed, the car's burglar alarm is armed and the doors are 'double locked', after the plungers move downward, the central locking system is deactivated and the door locks are mechanically inhibited. Thus locked, neither an outside nor inside handle, nor a locking plunger can be used to unlock a door - the doors can only be unlocked and the alarm disarmed using a key in a front door lock... Disconnecting the battery does not unlock the doors or change the 'double locked' mode... In the event of an accident, an inertia switch automatically unlocks all doors.<<<; The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows: >>>S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a lockin mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism i engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpos passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.<<<; The standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door loc requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.; Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1. through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the operating means to disengage requisite door locking mechanisms. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past NHTSA interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only additional locking systems which interfere with the capability of the operating means to *engage* the locking system required by the standard. Since, according to your letter of September 24, 1986, BMW's double-lock feature does not interfere with the interior operating means' engagement of the required door locks, the secondary locking system is permitted.; The answer to your question about the double lock system is dependen on whether the system interferes with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 of the standard are written in terms of what must occur when the required locking system is engaged and impose no requirements for the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of *engaging* the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is *engaged.* Since we have determined that S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks, we conclude that the required aspect of performance in S4.1.3 for door locking mechanisms is that the interior operating means be capable only of engaging the locks. We thus conclude that the standard permits an additional door locking device which might interfere with the disengagement of the required locking system. The additional system, however, must *not* interfere with the capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks.; In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 20 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to 'minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.' Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibit a device which negates the capability of the inside operating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.; This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies pas agency statements on issues raised by secondary locking systems. To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations issued in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3862

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in further response to recommendations H-83-44 and H-83-4 which your agency made to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Highway Accident Report, 'Jonesboro School District Schoolbus Run-Off-Road and Overturn, State Highway 214 at State Highway 18, near Newport, Arkansas, March 25, 1983' (NTSB/HAR-83/03).; NHTSA agrees with the National Transportation Safety Board tha properly inspected and repaired school buses are essential to the safe transportation of school children. We also believe that the current provisions in Highway Safety Program Standard 1, Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection, and Highway Safety Program Standard 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, as well as the relevant Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, provide for an adequate level of safety when children are transported to and from school.; Of the 15,840 school districts in the United States, about 15,00 provide pupil transportation. Over 400,000 buses are involved in transporting the nation's 22 million public, private and parochial school children to and from school each day. These buses are maintained by a number of persons having diverse backgrounds ranging in skill from 'grease monkey' to those certified by the national institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE). This fleet travels over three billion miles a year, and is remarkably free of problems. Information reported at national meetings indicates that accidents due to mechanical failure are estimated to be between three and five percent and very few result in injury or death.; With respect to the specific recommendations, we have the followin comments:; >>>*RECOMMENDATION H-83-44* (Class II, Priority Action) *Include in Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) 17--Pupi Transportation Safety and in the Program Manual' for HSPS 17 the requirement that the States institute quality control procedures for schoolbus repairs to determine if needed repairs have been performed adequately or if major repairs are required.; COMMENT* State Directors of Transportation, school business officials and flee supervisors with whom NHTSA has talked agree that school buses should be kept in good repair. They questioned, however, how quality control procedures could be applied to the repair of school buses when almost every repair is different. Most school buses currently undergo at least two inspections a year, as suggested by Standard 17, which procedure helps to detect major defects that require repair. In addition to this inspection, we understand that most drivers conduct a daily inspection which identifies the need for minor repairs. One supervisor observed that school bus drivers act as a form of practical quality control because they check to determine if the school bus is operating safely after the repair has been made.; A survey of almost 1,000 fleets by the National School Transportatio Association revealed that 49 percent operated fewer than 10 buses. To institute quality control procedures for these small fleets would quickly exhaust the limited resources of most States. Instituting formal quality control procedures would be costly to the States, no matter whether facilities were built and equipment purchased, or alternative checking procedures were utilized.; *Recommendation H-83-45* (Class II, Priority Action) This five part recommendation would include in the Program Manual o Highway Safety Program Standard 17-Pupil Transportation Safety, the program areas listed below.; *1. Specific, well-defined qualifications for hiring schoolbu mechanics,; 2. Specific skill areas for schoolbus mechanics for which certificatio of proficiency is required,; 3. A bibliography of available courses that can be attended or cours curricula that can be used as an example to obtain certification of proficiency in the required skill areas, *Comment*; NHTSA plans to use a portion of staff resources to review th literature that pertains to school bus mechanic qualifications and skill areas needed for certification. Upon completion we will disseminate the appropriate information to State and local governments.; Many schools, colleges and vocational training centers offer variou courses in auto-mechanics, but few people ever master all the major areas of vehicle repair and become master-mechanics. The majority of small fleet operators could not afford to hire such a skilled mechanic. Car dealers employ many skilled mechanics but many are neither equipped nor do they desire to repair school buses. It is highly unlikely that owners of small fleets would or could hire an ASE certified mechanic. It is also unlikely that most of the garages or service stations that maintain school buses have such a person in their employ because they are small independent private entrepreneures (sic). The extreme diversity of the school bus fleet in the United States would be a major complication for a practical certification program.; In 1978, hearings were held by the House Subcommittee on Consume Protection and Finance, of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to examine State and local as well as private sector approaches to the problem of unnecessary, incompetent, or fraudulent repair practices. Senator Philip Hart also held hearings in the late 1960s on Mechanic Training and Licensing. In spite of the adverse findings by these two committees, neither the Federal Government nor any State has gone so far as to require certification of mechanics doing work on cars or school buses. Because of the complexity of this problem, and the lack of Congressional action, NHTSA is of the opinion that it cannot go beyond publishing qualifications for school bus mechanics and identifying available training centers.; States whose accident records show the need for better maintenance car can be expected to take remedial action. Michigan, for example, provided workshops especially designed for school bus mechanics for over 10 years.; *4. A requirement to institute and enforce procedures to prevent schoo activity groups from organizing, beginning, or continuing trips in mechanically unsafe vehicles,; Comment* A requirement to institute and enforce procedures to prevent schoo activity groups from organizing, beginning or continuing trips in mechanically unsafe vehicles is commendable. Such a requirement, however, would be effective only if it were enforced. Standard 17 currently suggests pre-trip inspections and a written report of any defect or deficiency discovered. We believe a reminder to the States of this suggestion would encourage them to give the proper attention to this safety area.; *5. Requirements to place fire extinguishers at the front and rear o school buses, post signs in school buses on the location and use of emergency equipment, and brief passengers on the location and use of emergency equipment, both periodically and before beginning activity trips.; Comment* The placement of additional fire extinguishers outside the bus driver' compartment has led to increased theft and vandalism. These essential pieces of emergency equipment need to remain under the watchful eyes of the bus driver. The benefits of placing a second fire extinguisher in the rear of the school bus are so few as to make this requirement unwarranted. In case of a fire, a bus driver's first responsibility is to get the pupils to a place of safety. Having the personal skill and the equipment to handle a small fire are helpful, but not a necessity.; NHTSA suggests that all pupils who ride school buses should hav instruction twice a year in safe riding procedures and emergency drills. This should provide sufficient information to students concerning the location and use of emergency equipment carried on the school bus. The location and use of fire extinguishers should be a part of this instruction.; Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these safet recommendations. If NHTSA can supply any additional information, please let me know.;

ID: aiam3078

Dear Mr. Lyford: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of m office when you telephoned on June 4, 1979, on behalf of your clients who intend to manufacture auxiliary gasoline tanks, to sell the tanks as part of a universal kit with all parts necessary for installation, and in some instances to install the tanks in vehicles. you inquired as to the meaning of the word 'integrity' as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75 (49 CFR 571.301-75) and the applicability of the standard to your clients' proposed activities. You also inquired as to the meaning of the phrase 'render inoperative' as used in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act) and its applicability to your clients' proposed activities.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, is a vehicle standard that applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. The word 'integrity' as used in FMVSS 301-75, refers to the fact that compliance with the standard requires that fuel spillage from a vehicle subjected to a fixed or moving barrier crash not exceed the limits established by FMVSS 301-75, S5.5 and S5.6.; Since FMVSS 301-75 is only a vehicle standard and does not specif performance standards for fuel tanks, it does not directly apply to your clients' proposed manufacturing activities. However, as will be discussed later, it does apply when an auxiliary fuel tank is installed in a vehicle by either the manufacturer of the tank or other persons specified in the Act.; Despite the lack of a specifically applicable safety standard auxiliar fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. The defect responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151-153) authorize the Secretary of Transportation (or his delegate the NHTSA Administrator) to make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer of the equipment to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. In addition, these provisions also require that a manufacturer who discovers a safety-related defect in his product notify the Secretary of Transportation (or NHTSA Administrator) and then provide notification and remedy to purchasers. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(A) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.; Since auxiliary gasoline tanks are items of motor vehicle equipment, a defined in section 102(4) of the Act, your clients as manufacturers of such equipment would be required to provide notification and remedy should their auxiliary gasoline tanks prove to be defective in design, materials, manufacture, or performance. (See 49 CFR Part 597).; FMVSS 301-75 would apply to your client's installation of auxiliar fuel tanks in new motor vehicles. Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with the safety standrds (sic) applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone, for purposes other than resale. The purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate customer. Any person who, prior to the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, alters that vehicle by making more than minor finishing operations, is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all safety standards applicable to it. Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act).; Under these provisions, your clients would be considered to be alterer if they installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, and they would be required to recertify the vehicle as complying with applicable safety standards, including FMVSS 301-75. With respect to FMVSS 301-75, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary tank added by an alterer must meet them also.; It should also be noted that the defect responsibilities imposed b Section 151 *et seq*., mentioned earlier with respect to the defective design, composition, manufacture or performance of auxiliary tanks also apply to safety defects in the installation of such tanks in new vehicles. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation. Acting, as both manufacturers and installers of the tanks, your clients would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both the production and installation of the tanks.; FMVSS 301-75 as well as the 'render inoperative' provisions of sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply to your clients' activities in installing auxiliary gasoline tanks in used vehicles. After the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle (referred to here as a used vehicle) is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai 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 words 'render inoperative,' in the context of section 108(a)(2)(A) in essence prohibit certain listed entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards.; A listed person or entity found to have violated section 108(a)(2)(A would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Should your clients begin producing auxiliary gasoline tanks they woul be encompassed by the term 'manufacturer' as that term is used in section 108(a)(2)(A) and defined in section 102(5) of the Act. Therefore, if your clients added an auxiliary gasoline tank to a used vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 and in the process knowingly reduced the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, they would be deemed in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). Such reduction of performance could occur for example, if the gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, or if the design materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; I hope you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4349

Dear Mr. Negro: This is in response to Mr. Rossi's request for an interpretation of th Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541), which he asked that I direct to you. That standard requires that certain parts of high-theft carlines, including the engine and transmission, be marked with the vehicle identification number, if the part is an original equipment part, or with the letter 'R' and the manufacturer's trademark, if the part is a replacement part. Mr. Rossi stated that it is occasionally necessary to remove the original equipment engine or transmission from one of these cars and install a replacement engine or transmission in the car. The original equipment engine and/or transmission is then sent to the factory to be repaired and reconditioned. Following such repair, the engine and/or transmission is then put into the replacement parts network.; Mr. Rossi stated his belief that the original equipment part shoul have the original equipment identification removed and a replacement marking put onto the part. He then asked whether Ferrari was required to remove the footprint left by the original equipment identification marking or if that should be left on the part. The answer is that Ferrari and all other reconditioners are *not* permitted to remove from any reconditioned part the original equipment identification marking inscribed or affixed to the part in compliance with Part 541. Further, reconditioners are not required to inscribe or affix any additional markings to parts they have reconditioned. Title II of the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-547, the Theft Act) includes a provision that addresses this question. This section (18. U.S.C. 511) reads as follows:; S511. *Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers* >>>(a) Whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alter an identification number for a motor vehicle, or motor vehicle part, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.; (b)(1) Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a removal obliteration, tampering, or alteration by a person specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection (unless such person knows that the vehicle or part involved is stolen).; (2) The persons referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection are - (A) a motor vehicle scrap processor or a motor vehicle demolisher who complies with applicable State law with respect to such vehicle or part, (B) a person who repairs such vehicle or part, if the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary for the repair, and (C) a person who restores or replaces an identification number for such vehicle or part in accordance with applicable State law.<<<; None of the exceptions set forth in 18 U.S.C. 511(b)(2) would permi Ferrari to routinely remove original equipment markings from reconditioned engines and transmissions. The first exception is not applicable, since Ferrari is clearly not a motor vehicle scrap processor or demolisher. The second exception would be applicable only in rare instances, since it is not usually necessary to remove the original equipment identification marking in order to recondition engines or transmissions. The third exception was explained as follows in the House Report on the Theft Act (H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 24 (1984)): 'The exemption also applies to persons acting under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation or State law to restore or replace such markings.' For the policy reasons discussed below, we will not give reconditioners authority to routinely remove original equipment identification markings from engines and transmissions. Assuming Ferrari does not have authority under applicable State law to remove such markings, the third exception does not apply to Ferrari when it is reconditioning engines and transmissions.; If reconditioners of engines and transmissions were allowed t routinely remove the original equipment identification markings, the law enforcement purposes of the Theft Act would be seriously undermined. In response to some comments received on the proposed Part 541, a new S541.6(b) was added to the final rule. This section expressly prohibits covered major parts from being marked as both original equipment and replacement parts. The preamble to the final rule explained the reasons for prohibiting such 'dual markings' as follows:; >>>Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stole original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. Once the original equipment identification (the VIN) had been obliterated from those stolen parts, a legitimate replacement part marking would remain. Assuming that the obliteration of the VIN were performed reasonably proficiently, repair shops and investigators would have little reason to suspect that this part was anything other than a properly identified replacement part. 50 FR 43178, October 24, 1985.<<<; These same law enforcement concerns would arise if Ferrari were t remove the VIN markings from its reconditioned engines and transmissions. If those parts were marked as both original equipment and replacement parts, the problems associated with dual markings would arise. If, on the other hand, Ferrari were to try to obliterate the footprint from the original equipment, law enforcement officials would have no means of distinguishing engines Ferrari had reconditioned from stolen engines on which thieves had obliterated the original equipment marking and added a counterfeit replacement marking. In either case, it would cause confusion and uncertainty for law enforcement officials if Ferrari and the large number of other reconditioners were legitimately and routinely to remove the original equipment identification from reconditioned parts and add a replacement part marking to those parts.; Indeed, such action by reconditioners would serve to defeat the purpos of the Theft Act, which was to 'decrease the ease with which stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced.' If reconditioners routinely removed the original equipment markings from the engines and transmissions they reconditioned, car thieves could also remove those original equipment markings with impunity. If the thieves were ever questioned by law enforcement officials about the obliterated original equipment marking, they could respond that the marking must have been obliterated during reconditioning. If obliterated original equipment markings on parts do not provide law enforcement officials with evidence of illegal activity, there would seem to be no reason to require the original equipment markings on the parts.; Further, a requirement that all persons reconditioning engines an transmissions obliterate the original equipment marking and add a replacement part marking would impose significant additional costs and burdens on those persons. This would be inconsistent with the Theft Act's stated purpose of minimizing regulation of the aftermarket motor vehicle industry.; All of these potential problems can be avoided if reconditioners simpl leave the original equipment marking on the parts after reconditioning. When those markings are left in place by reconditioners, thieves cannot claim that an engine or transmission that has a 'footprint' in the area where the original equipment identification is placed is just a reconditioned part. Instead, the 'footprint' would alert law enforcement officials to the likelihood that the original equipment marking had been unlawfully removed from the part. Further, no burdens are imposed on reconditioners if they must leave the original equipment markings in place and are not required to add any markings of their own. Therefore, we conclude that the Theft Act and Part 541 require that businesses that recondition any major parts required to be marked pursuant to Part 541 leave those markings in place on the reconditioned parts. Part 541 does not require reconditioners to add any further identification markings to these parts.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/87

FROM: DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN -- VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 205

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DIETMAR K HAENCHEN; REDBOOK A32 (2), STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The design of passenger cars has changed in recent years to reduce aerodynamic drag and increase fuel efficiency. Volkswagen is planning to improve interior comfort and reduce energy consumption in future car models by introducing selected areas with re duced energy transmission via ceramic dots on the car's glazing. The reduced energy radiation into the interior increases driver's and passenger's comfort and results in increased active safety. We believe that the application of shaded areas on the wi ndows complies with the applicable safety standards. Different methods exist for shading those areas; the glass may be tinted like shade bands applied to windshields, or small ceramic dots can be applied on the glass surface having the same effect on th e reduction of energy transmission. The sections of glass selected for the application of the ceramic paint could, if not for styling aesthetics, be covered with sheet metal in order to avoid questions of interpretation of FMVSS 205. However, the styli ng incentive is compelling and driver visibility with the proposed configuration is better than total blockage with sheet metal, which would clearly be allowable. We are, therefore, seeking the agency's opinion of this concept which we are considering fo r the next new model line. While the agency does not give advance approval of specific product designs, the agency's opinion of whether the configuration proposed herein appears to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will a id manufacturers in determining whether the numerous variations of the concept applied to various vehicles will comply with the standards.

Volkswagen has reviewed Standard 205 which in turn refers to ANS z26.1 (1980) which establishes requirements for safety glazing material for use in passenger cars. In Section 4.2 of ANS z26.1, specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which VW intends to apply to the windshield and side/rear glass respectively refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the "leve ls required for driving visibility".

The term "levels requisite for driving visibility" has been used by the agency in interpretations and on several occasions has been addressed more precisely such as the interpretation to Mr. G. Nield on 15 February, 1974 as follows: "We (the agency) cons ider the word 'levels' in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to driver's eyes." To our knowledge the agency has not gone beyond the above interpretation in further defining "levels requisite for driving visibility".

In order to comply with FMVSS 205 Volkswagen deems it appropriate to use engineering judgement, applicable standards and technical recommendations to define these "levels" so that driving visibility is properly maintained with the installation of glazing material having areas within a single sheet of less than 70% light transmittance.

Footnote 1 of ANS z26.1 - 1980, although not expressively stated, refers mainly to shade bands and has been so construed and treated by the industry. The automobile industry so far has determined which areas are "requisite for driving visibility" and ha s marked the shaded areas as required. In these cases the industry determined how far shade bands can extend donward from the upper edge of the window and still be in compliance with FMVSS 205.

SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands) also refers to ANS z26.1 when defining "glazing shade band" as "an area of the vehicle glazing through which light transmission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by USAS z26.1". The SAE recommends shade bands above the 95th eyellipse only, but acknowledged at that time that substantial research to establish the driver's field of view did not exist. Volkswagen also believes that these data do not exist currently.

Guidelines for a determination of "levels" which extend upward from the bottom edge of the vehicle glazing are addressed in Directive 77/649 as amended in 81/643 of the European Economic Community (EEC). The directive specifies levels requisite for driv ing visibility in the driver's 180 degrees forward direct field of vision. Section 5.1.3 specifies the boundaries for the driver's forward direct field of vision by a horizontal plane through V[1] (upper boundary) and by three planes at downward angles of 4 degrees through V[2] (lower boundary). The latter describes the minimum field of view for small persons through the lower portion of the glazing.

The EEC in its effort to set angular limits for the driver's forward direct field of vision used anthropometric data of horizontal head and eye movement to arrive at the 180 degrees limit. The SAE in its information report J985 arrives at the same figur e when the angles of "maximum head movement (is) 60 degrees left and 60 degrees right" and "the eyes can turn 30 degrees to the right in one rapid, smooth movement", are combined.

For the rear visibility in the U.S., the "levels requisite for driving visibility" are not specified if a passenger side rearview mirror is used according to FMVSS 111. Technically, the complete rear glazing can be blocked by a vehicle manufacturer if a passenger side rearview mirror is installed as standard equipment. Volkswagen intends to install a passenger side outside mirror as standard equipment in conjunction with the subject shading configuration and also to provide an area in the rear glazing with transmissability of greater than 70%.

With this background, Volkswagen is planning to include either tinted bands or ceramic dots on glazing as described in Attachments I and II. Volkswagen believes that this concept clearly allows light transmittance in excess of 70% in the areas requisite for driving visibility and consequently should adequately satisfy the safety needs for overall driving visibility.

Volkswagen has tested these boundaries according to the specifications of 77/649/EEC and concluded that ceramic dots in the area defined in 5.1.3 very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small driver's eyes, which are "requisite for drivi ng visibility". In addition we have designated the area adjacent to the right and left hand outside mirrors as requisite for driving visibility.

This proposal has been approved by the German government (KBA) as recommended by the Technical Service Hannover. This approval was based on the fact that it complies with the driver's direct field of view (forward 180 degrees) and that unobstructed outs ide rearview mirrors are used on both sides to supplement the inside rearview mirror for the driver's indirect field of view. This approval is based on compliance with the applicable EEC Directive and therefore will likely be acceptable to all Common Ma rket countries.

Volkswagen requests the agency's opinion of this proposal and an interpretation of whether the markings described in Section 6 of ANS z26.1 would be required to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with the 70% transmittance requirement . If required, Section 6 states that the glazing "shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with Test No. 2" (70% transmissability). Interpretation is requested of where these markings should be placed for the configurations shown in Attachments I and II if they are required. Since this is under consideration for the next model year, a timely response is requested.

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT I

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% and 82% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 82%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% , 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit 30% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE 30%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 77% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 77%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 72% und 75% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 72% AND 75%

Warmeschutzverglasung HEAT ABSORBING GLASS

E/KK - AA 87.01.

ATTACHMENT II

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 82% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 82%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit 30% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE 30%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 77% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 77%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 72% und 75% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 72% AND 75%

Warmeschutzverglasung HEAT ABSORBING GLASS

E/KK - AA 87.01.

ID: 1985-03.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edgar E. Clark

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edgar E. Clark 1900 24th Avenue No. St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

Thank you for your letter of May 13, 1985, concerning the effect of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, on fuel tank repairs. You explained that you have a 1977 Dodge Concord motor home in which a leak in a plastic fuel tank was apparently repaired by a dealer. You noted that a 1981 article in Popular Mechanics magazine stated that repairs to plastic fuel tanks are not permitted by Standard No. 301, and ask us to clarify the effect of our regulations. As explained below, the magazine article is not correct; a dealer can make repairs to plastic and other types of vehicle fuel tanks. As I am sure you understand, I cannot offer an opinion on the possibility of successfully repairing a damaged plastic fuel tank.

The agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, which sets safety performance requirements for vehicle fuel systems in new vehicles; a copy of the standard is enclosed. The standard applies to passenger cars, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV), trucks, buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. In addition, it applies to school buses with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds. If your motor home carries 10 or less persons and is mounted on a truck chassis, it would be considered a MPV under our regulations. Thus, if your motor home has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and was manufactured after September 1, 1976, the effective date of Standard No. 301 for MPV's, then the fuel system in your vehicle would have had to meet Standard No. 301.

For the basis of this response, I am assuming that the damage, such as a puncture or crack, that caused the leak occurred after the sale of the vehicle to its first owner. Our safety standards only apply to new vehicles prior to their first sale. The only effect our safety standards have on used vehicles is through the application of 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section provides, in part, 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....

Thus, if a dealer knowingly alters the fuel system in a used vehicle, such as by adding an auxiliary fuel tank, the dealer would have to take sure that it did not render inoperative the tank's compliance with Standard No. 301. However, if after the first sale of a vehicle to the consumer its fuel tank is damaged, such as being punctured by an object in the road, so that the tank's compliance has been rendered inoperative, then neither our standards nor section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act applies.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

May 13, 1985

Natl Hiway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7 St SW Washington, DC 20590

Attn: Vehicle Safety Compliance Office

Gentlemen:

I recently purchased a used motor home - a 1977 Dodge Concord made by Champion and found that the gasoline tank had a leak. The tank is made of plastic and had been repaired by the dealer according to the former owner.

Now, according to a magazine article which I am enclosing I see that repairs to plastic tanks violate Safety Standard 301.

My question is: under the terms of this order do I have any recourse against the dealer who probably didn't even know there was such a regulation?

I feel the tank is very dangerous and should be replaced. So I would like to have your opinion and suggestion.

Thank you for your early attention.

Yours very truly,

Edgar E. Clark Phone 813-822-9139 1900 24th Ave. No. St. Petersburg, FL 33713

"My rupture," Fred writes. "I have had to replace my heater, and I know of several other GM owners who have replaced theirs because of trouble with the GM coolant-recovery tank to the COLD-level mark on the tank."

Fred became aware of trouble when he noticed coolant dripping from the heater case of his Vega. He removed the case and found the heater had ruptured.

"Fortunately, I did not have the heater on," Fred continues. "But my friend wasn't so lucky. One day, with the heater on, he smelled antifreeze, investigating, he found an inch-deep puddle of coolant on the floor of his Corvette."

According to Fred, the siphoning process of the recovery system doesn't work in correct proportion to the ejection process. When the radiator cools off, it draws in more coolant from the recovery tank than it expels into the tank when it's hot. Someone who constantly fills the recovery tank to make up for the drop in level is only adding more fuel to the fire, so to speak, by allowing the radiator to overfill.

Fred says excessive coolant in the radiator causes extraordinary pressure on the heater and heater hoses. Early evidence of this pressure is often seen as coolant seeping past tightly clamped heater hoses.

Fred's solution is to check the coolant level in the radiator with the engine cold. It should be 2 inches below the neck of the radiator. If it isn't, drain it until it is. Then keep it there.

Every few months, do check the radiator and add coolant, if necessary. In other words, forget about checking levels on the coolant-recovery tank.

Negative response

I have a 1976 Dodge W100 pickup truck. Its plastic gas tank has developed a leak in an easy-to-reach spot. Can you tell me how to repair it?--Jon Wilbur, Carlisle, Iowa.

Nope. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 stipulates that it is illegal to repair plastic gas tanks. Your only choice is to install a new one. Sorry.

GOT A PROBLEM WITH YOUR CAR?

Just ask Mort about it. Send your question to the Car Clinic, Popular Mechanics, 224 West 57th St., New York, N.Y. 10019. While letters cannot be answered individually, problems that are of general interest will be published in the column.

SERVICE TIPS

Ford Motor Co. tells us there may be a vacuum leak between the base of the carburetor and carburetor spacer of some 1977-78 Granadas, Monarchs, Fairmonts and Zephyrs with 200- and 240-cu. in. engines. A vacuum leak at this point leans out the fuel mixture and causes stalling and rough idling. The leak can usually be stopped by installing flat washers under each carburetor retaining nut and torquing retaining nuts 12 to 15 ft.-lb. Washers should have an inside diameter of 3/8 in. and be 1/16-in. thick.

If your 1981 Chrysler K-car makes a growl at low speeds, don't panic. Check to see what kind of tires are on the car. If they are Goodyear Viva fiberglass-belted tires, the growl is normal. According to Chrysler, growling noises are caused by "aggressive tread design which offers increased traction and improved handling characteristics."

GM cautions that starting-aid fluids, such as ether or gasoline, must not be injected into the air-intake system of cars and trucks having diesel engines. Their use will cause "severe internal engine damage."

Five Keys to Better Tire Mileage and Safety is the title of an informative pamphlet you can get free by sending a self-addressed, business-sized envelope to: Keys, Tire Industry Safety Council, Box 1801, Washington, D.C. 20013.