ID: nht87-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert J. Heath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert J. Heath Manager, Compliance Department Panasonic Matsushita Technology Group One Panasonic Way

Dear Mr. Heath:

This responds to your letter asking whether the installation of television receivers, in passenger cars and buses, is permitted under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a consumer products sales company, you indicated that you are considering four proposals: (1) a small television receiver mounted in the dashboard of an automobile on the passenger side and only operational when the automobile gearshift lever is in neutral, (2) a small television receiver mounted above and slightly to the right of the driver with the screen facing the rear and where operation is controlled from the rear seat only, (3) a television receiver mounted between the two front seats on the console and facing the rear, and (4) a large-screen projection television or television monitor mounted in the front of a commercial bus.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers. However, it is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your television receivers are installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Pact 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative 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 your television receivers are installed in used vehicles, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment hive responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under sections 151 et seq., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge.

You asked, by way of example, whether your second proposal would be acceptable provided that it meets the standards for crash protection and windshield intrusion. In order to determine how installation of your television receivers could affect the compliance of vehicles with safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those for crash protection and windshield intrusion. We note that another standard that might be relevant, particularly with respect to your first proposal, is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

I am enclosing a copy of an information sheet which provides general information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Room 5219 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: Inquiry and Request for Clarification of Regulations for Use of Broadcast Television Receivers in Automobiles and Buses

Dear Ms. Jones:

Panasonic Company, a consumer products sales company, is investigating the potential sales of broadcast television receivers for installation into automobiles and buses. The following proposals are under consideration at the present time, and we are seeking guidance as to the acceptability and feasibility of these proposals:

1) Small television screen mounted in the dashboard of an automobile on the passenger side and only operational when the automobile gearshift lever is in neutral. The use of a specially-designed relay is necessary upon installation of the television receiver. (See attachment 1)

2) Small television receiver mounted above and slightly to the right of the driver with the screen facing the rear and where operation is controlled from the seat only. (See attachment 2)

3) Television receiver mounted between the two front seats on the console and facing the rear. (See attachment 3)

4) Large-screen projection television monitor mounted in the front of a commercial bus. (See attachment 4 and 5)

Each of the four (4) proposals should be considered separately for conditions of acceptability and/or prohibition within the NHTSA regulatory standards activity.

The results of a 1984 Electronics Industry Association (EIA) state survey indicated that only one (1) state, Rhode Island, prohibits televisions in automobiles. Thirty-seven (37) states restrict its use while the automobile is in motion. The remainder have no laws. The only other federal regulation of which we are aware is the Federal Highway Administration's requirement for large commercial trucks (49 CFR 393.88) where the television viewing screen is required to be located to the rear of the driver, and control be prohibited while the driver is in his seat.

Therefore, Panasonic Company seeks your guidance, interpretation, and suggestions regarding the investigation of the four proposals stated above. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Heath Manager Compliance Dept.

RJH/ab Attachments cc: L.E. Levine/Legal Div.

ID: 1985-04.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber -- Vice President, Product Compliance and Service, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale, NH 07645

I am writing in response to your letters about the headlamp cleaning systems you intend to install on certain 1986 model year vehicles. Your letters provide information about these systems and their performance. My staff has carefully reviewed the information and how it relates to Standard No. 108. "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Our finding is that headlamp cleaning systems as proposed would be governed by paragraphs S4.1.1.36(b)(3), S4.1.3. and S4.3.1.1. The intent of the requirements in these paragraphs is 1) to assure mechanical aimability of the lamp as installed in the vehicle, and 2) to assure that all photometric performance requirements are met with and without installation of auxiliary vehicle parts or accessories, (and if performance degradation must occur, to assure that an auxiliary lighting device is provided). Additionally, the "fail safe" requirements of Standard 112, "Headlamp Concealment Devices" provides a precedent for a requirement that a headlamp should meet all photometric performances requirements, should a wiper fail.

In viewing your company's systems relative to the requirements, it appears possible to design a replaceable bulb headlamp for a specific vehicle application which includes a wiper type headlamp cleaning system, that meets the intent of the law. This could occur if the headlamp system and cleaning system were designed to meet the requirements together: i.e., the photometric performance requirements of FMVSS No. 108 could be met with the wipers in any achievable position and with any standardized replaceable light source. The system would also have to provide for the wiper to accommodate mechanical aiming. The information presented by you appears to show that the design of your system has taken these needs into account. NHTSA would anticipate that any replaceable bulb headlamp system in such an application would be certified by the vehicle manufacturer to meet the performance requirements using a standardized replaceable light source which has minimum lumen output and which has the filament at the maximum out of position tolerance, any replacement headlamp, and any headlamp cleaning system parts. This would be necessary to ensure that the vehicle would remain in compliance when replacement parts are used.

In consideration of the above, NHTSA believes that replaceable bulb headlamp systems with wiper type cleaning systems designed to be compatible and designed to conform to Standard 108 are permissible under the present Standard.

In summary, NHTSA views the use of the wiper type headlamp cleaning system in conjunction with replaceable bulb headlamps as permissible so long as due care is taken to ensure that the systems are designed to conform together, and can remain in compliance in the event of parts replacement.

Sincerely, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ID: nht76-5.23

DATE: 06/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 6, 1976, request for confirmation that the Honda "MPV" qualifies as a multipurpose passenger vehicle although it is constructed on a "modified" truck chassis.

In our letter to you of April 30, 1976, we concluded that the Honda "MPV" would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, based upon the assumption that the "MPV" is constructed on a truck chassis. You responded that the "MPV" is constructed on a "modified" truck chassis, and questioned whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered this fact in its previous interpretation.

The reference to "truck chassis" in the definition of multipurpose passenger vehicle, 49 CFR Part 571.3(b), is intended to include chassis that were designed and developed for trucks, but which have been produced in a version for use in passenger carrying vehicles. According to your letter and drawings of March 1, 1976, the Honda "MPV" is a passenger version of the Honda TN500 light truck. Since the modification of the chassis in the production of the "MPV" does not appear to be so great that the major characteristics of the truck chassis are destroyed, we confirm our previous determination that the Honda "MPV" qualifies as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.

May 6, 1976

Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wood:

Your Ref: N40-30

Thank you for your letter of April 30, regarding the Honda "MPV."

I would like to point out that the chassis upon which the "MPV" is constructed is a modified truck chassis. This is clearly shown in the drawings which I sent to you.

I would like to confirm that this fact was considered in your assumption that the "MPV" is constructed on a truck chassis, and if not does it make any difference to your opinion.

Please call me at the telephone number shown above if you have any questions about this matter.

I look forward to your early response.

Yours truly,

Brian Gill -- Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities

ID: nht93-6.27

DATE: September 1, 1993

FROM: Carolyn McDaniel -- Attorney at Law

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Carolyn H.

McDaniel (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Your name was given to me to contact regarding a traffic accident involving prisoners being transported in vans. I was retained by a group of prisoners being extradited by a company called Extradition Services Inc., or ESI, out of Michigan. They were involved in an accident in the state of Texas. The driver fell asleep at the wheel and ran into the back of a truck. They were extraditing prisoners from Texas and other parts of the U.S. to several other states including Colorado and Florida. However, their primary destination was Michigan.

They were in an extended Dodge van, bars over the windows, handles off the doors, one bench in a wire cage, two more bench seats and a bench seat across the back of the van. The aisle ran along the passenger side of the van. The seats appeared to be the original seats and seat belts apparently had been removed because none were present.

The number of prisoners the van was carrying ranged from 10 to 12 on the average, but was frequently up to 14 or more. Sometimes prisoners had to sit on the floor.

The two drivers would often drive in excess of 48 hours without rest stops. The drivers would sleep for only 2 hours each. They were also seen taking some type of pills.

My clients were denied food and restroom stops. It became so bad at times, they had to urinate on the floor.

The insurance company for ESI, Amerisure, has tried to force them to sign NO-FAULT Insurance forms. We have not done so because Texas is not a no-fault state. These people have not even paid the hospital for the prisoners medical treatment at the time of the accident.

I do not like to see anyone treated the way these people were treated. Any company conducting themselves in this manner should be fined and have their licenses revoked.

I would appreciate any help or direction you can give me regarding the regulations ESI and their people would fall under as I am not familiar with those regulations. It is my understanding you are the expert on these types of complaints.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

ID: nht88-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/12/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Sheila Broderick -- Baker & Botts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ms. Sheila Broderick Baker & Botts 555 13th Street/ NW Suite 500 East Washington, DC 20004-1109

This responds to your letter asking for information on some provisions of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208). You posed two questions, as follows:

1. How many States have safety belt use laws in effect at this time? RESPONSE: As of March 14, 1988 (the date of your letter), 32 States and the District of Columbia had safety belt use jaws in effect. 2. Which States, if any, meet the criteria set forth in Standard No. 208?

RESPONSE: The Department has already stated that the belt use laws in California and the District of Columbia cannot be counted towards rescission of the automatic restraint requirements, according to the terms of those particular laws. Beyond that, Secr etary Burnley has explained that he does not want to risk impeding the national trend toward enactment of State safety belt laws by premature rulings of whether or not particular State laws meet or do not meet the criteria set forth in the Standard. Secr etary Burnley has also stated that when and if it becomes apparent that we may be approaching the point where two-thirds of the population is covered by laws that may meet the criteria, he will rule on the individual State laws. That currently is not the case.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 14, 1988 Mrs. Erika Jones Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. 20540

Dear Mrs. Jones:

I was referred to you by Judith Kaplan-Weiner of the Occupational Protection Division. She explained that you may be able to provide some written information on questions I have regarding safety belt laws:

1) How many states have safety belt laws in effect at this time? 2) Which states, if any, meet the criteria set forth in safety standard No. 208?

Any information you can provide on these questions will be very helpful. Due to the urgency of this request, I would appreciate it if you call me at 639-7936 upon completion of your response. I will arrange to have it picked up by messenger.

Sincerely,

Sheila Broderick

ID: aiam5356

"Dear Mr. Ozols: This responds to your February 8, 1994, letter askin about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Serv-o-tray. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. It appears from the enclosed technical description and photograph that the Serve-o-tray is a folding adjustable table designed to mount between the driver and passenger seats of a vehicle, and hold food, drinks, etc. As depicted, the Serv-o-tray is secured to the center console with an adhesive pad. The table is mounted on a swiveling, articulated, lockable arm that is composed of two horizontal and two vertical tubular support members. The Serv-o-tray is made of injection molded plastic and is capable of supporting up to 20 pounds, including a laptop computer. You explain that your product is intended to be used while the vehicle is stationary or moving. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 'Safety Act') defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added). In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to the Serv-o-tray, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Serv-o-tray relates to motor vehicle operation, by allowing the occupants to eat while operating the car. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. While the Serv-o-tray is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. This agency is very concerned about the safety implications of the Serv-o-tray, especially if it is swiveled in front of the occupants in an air bag-equipped vehicle. Under the provisions of FMVSS No. 208, 'Occupant Crash Protection,' all new cars and trucks must be equipped with a driver side and passenger side air bag by September 1, 1998. Manufacturers are already producing ever increasing numbers of air bag-equipped cars and trucks. The enclosed document entitled 'Sudden Impact' describes the speed with which an air bag deploys. Should the Serv-o-tray be installed in an air bag-equipped vehicle, the occupants could be at risk of injury or death from the interaction of the deploying air bag and the Serv-o-tray or its contents. To protect the occupant, this agency will require that every new vehicle with an air bag be provided with a caution label that states, among other things, 'TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY . . . Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag and yourself.' As you can see, the installation of a Serv-o-tray could be contrary to this warning. There are other potential safety problems associated with the Serv-o-tray. Even without being propelled by an air bag, the Serv-o-tray or its contents could impact the occupant's head, abdomen or lower extremities during a collision. It also seems possible that the Serv-o-tray could interfere with the driver's use of the vehicle's transmission shift lever in an emergency situation. We ask that you consider these and all possible safety impacts of the Serv-o-tray. If the Serv-o-tray were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Serv-o-tray installed, complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by the Serv-o-tray installation are Standard No. 201, 'Occupant Protection in Interior Impact' (copy enclosed), and Standard No. 208. A commercial business that installs the Serv-o-tray would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your product if the Serv-o-tray renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, installing the Serv- o-tray in front of the driver or passenger could degrade the performance of an air bag or the seat belts in the vehicle. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Serv-o-tray in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your product would be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht75-1.22

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 12, 1975, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to an anchor coupling.

You enclosed a diagram depicting the installation of two of these couplings, and suggested that they are not subject to the labeling requirements of the standard. This interpretation is correct. "Brake hose end fitting" is defined in Standard No. 106-74 as:

a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose.

The anchor couplings which you have described are attached to the ends of completed brake hose assemblies, rather than to the ends of brake hoses. Therefore, they are not "brake hose end fittings" subject to the standard's requirements.

It appears from your letter that you might not consider the nylon tubing to be "brake hose." If the nylon tubing is flexible, however, such an interpretation would be incorrect. "Brake hose" is defined in the standard as:

a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

Thus flexible chassis plumbing and other flexible conduits, in addition to rubber brake hoses, are subject to the standard's requirements.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

American Trailers, Inc.

August 12, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. To - Docket 1 - 5, Brake Hoses

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: Anchor Couplings

In a sliding suspension condition we use an anchor coupling fitting to join the nylon tubing assembly to the rubber air hose assembly. See the attached sketch. Our question is, whether or not the anchor coupling must meet the labeling requirements of FMVSS-106? Fitting manufacturers to-date have indicated that labeling is not required at this point since the coupling is not part of the air hose assembly.

Your earliest reply would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jerry W. McNeil Director Of Engineering

cc: D. Wieriman; TTMA

(Graphics omitted)

AMERICAN TRAILERS, INC. OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

Name ANCHOR COUPLING LOCATION

Drawn By: McBay

Date: 8-11-75

Drawing No. 1-32-0006

ID: aiam1031

Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1973, concerning the us of a 'comfort clip' on the shoulder belt portion of GM's 1974 seat belt system.; In response to questions from other manufacturers concerning the use o high friction buckles in continuous loop belt systems, we have indicated that the requirement of Standard 208 that the belts adjust to fit specified occupants precludes the use of such buckles. In the case of systems with separate lab and shoulder retractors, however, the shoulder belt does not affect the tension in the lap belt and therefore does not present the risk of submarining that exists with the single loop systems. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1.; At a meeting with you on this subject on January 24, 1973, the NHTS expressed its concern about possible reductions in shoulder belt effectiveness due to excessive belt slack. On the whole, we find that this possibility is more than offset by the prospects of greater usage due to the added convenience of the system with the clip. However, we strongly support your proposal to include instructions for the use of the clip both on the clip itself and in the owner's manual.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: 06-003795as

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.