ID: 1982-2.21

DATE: 07/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tri-City Tires, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120) concerning the use of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. Specifically, you wanted to know whether a DOT symbol was required to appear on any retreaded tires so used.

Pursuant to your request in a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, he sent you a copy of a March 22, 1978 letter from this agency to Dorsey Trailers. That letter stated that retreaded tires could be used on new trucks and trailers, and that retreaded tires used for that purpose are not required to have a DOT symbol. This conclusion is mandated by the requirement in 49 CFR @ 574.5 that "the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Standard is applicable." Since no safety standard applies to retreaded tires for use on trucks and trailers, it follows that the DOT symbol must not appear on those tires.

In your recent letter, you enclosed a copy of a September 29, 1980 letter from this agency to Elgene Tire Company. That letter states that, for purposes of Standard No. 120, used tires are interpreted to include retreaded tires. As you noted in your phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, an implication of this intrepretation seems to be that retreaded tires are required, as used tires, to have a DOT symbol.

The agency position regarding the presence of the DOT symbol on retreaded tires has been consistent since 1978, i.e., that the controlling provision on that issue is @ 574.5 and therefore the DOT symbol is not required to appear on retreaded truck tires, and, indeed, must not appear on those tires. Retreaded truck tires without the DOT symbol may be used on new trucks and trailers in full compliance with Standard No. 120. To clarify this point, the agency published a proposal on October 30, 1980 (45 FR 71834) to amend Standard 120 so that it expressly permits the installation of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. (A copy of the proposal is enclosed) Final action on that proposal is expected this summer.

I trust that this response clears up the confusion to which you alluded in your letter regarding these requirements. Should you have any further questions in this area, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

ENC.

TRI-CITY TIRES, INC.

June 11, 1982

Steven Kratzke U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Steve,

I am writing, per your request, in reference to our conversation concerning the clarification of correspondence dated Sept. 29, 1980 to Elgene Tire Co. of Union, N.J. This letter is to ask your clarification and determination of paragraph 4, (used tires vs retreaded tires), that are requested by the customer to be installed on new equipment. Per your statement to me on June 11, 1982 there is a misrepresentation of interpretation concerning the use of used tires and retreaded tires. Please send me a clarification of this issue as soon as possible, so this problem can be solved once and for all.

John I. Kitchen

ID: 1982-2.22

DATE: 07/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Regal Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 23, 1983

Regal Tire Corporation 4309 County Line Road Chalfont, PA 18914

Dear Sir:

At the request of the office of the Honorable Peter Peyser, M.C., we are writing this letter to you to explain the significance of certain items of information molded on the sidewall of new tires.

Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping (49 CFR 574), requires that each new tire to be sold in the United States have a serial number molded on one of its sidewalls. That number identifies the tire's manufacturer, date of manufacture, and size. This information is designed to ensure the proper identification of all tires subject to a recall by the manufacturer for correction of a safety-related defect or of a failure to comply with a safety standard. The serial number is not a guarantee of quality or of compliance with any safety standard.

Each new tire is also required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109, New pneumatic tires, and 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.109 and 571.119), to have the symbol "DOT" appear on one of its sidewalls. This symbol is a certification by the tire's manufacturer that the tire fully complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The symbol does not guarantee the quality of a tire in areas of performance unregulated by the safety standards.

Neither the serial number nor the DOT symbol constitute a representation that a tire is free from any safety-related defect.

If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel June 2, 1982

Ms. Carol Walls U. S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Congressional Relations 400 7th Street, SW Room 10408 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Walls:

Attached is the request for certification about which we spoke today. Regal Tire is interested in receiving a letter or other appropriate document on DOT letterhead confirming the intent of the DOT serial number on the tires themselves.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. H. Brewer, III Administrative Assistant to the Congressman

FHB/lb

CERTIFICATE

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

WE CONFIRM THAT TIRES MANUFACTURED IN U.S.A. HAVING D.O.T. SERIAL NUMBERS BRANDED ON SIDEWALL MEANS FOLLOWING:

A. EACH TIRE MEETS OR EXCEEDS U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY STANDARDS.

B. EACH TIRE HAS BEEN TESTED AND GUARANTEED BY MANUFACTURER TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IT IS FREE FROM ANY DEFECT AND OF FIRST QUALITY.

ID: 1982-2.39

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. David N. Cumming Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Cumming

This responds to your recent letter requesting clarification concerning the positioning of vehicles for testing under Safety Standards Nos. 212, 219 and 301. Specifically, you are concerned with a vehicle which is capable of height adjustment by manufacturer design, i.e., a 4-wheel drive vehicle which has one height position for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving.

The safety standards to which you refer do not specify a height adjustment because almost all vehicles have a single, set height. In fact, we have checked the agency's past interpretations for all three standards and determined that this question has never arisen. After careful consideration, it is the agency's position that such a vehicle capable of variable height adjustment would have to comply with the vehicle adjusted to any position that is possible. This is true because the vehicle could be driven on the highway, for example, even if it were adjusted to the off-road position. Consequently, it is important that the vehicle comply with the standards in all positions. To save on testing costs, you should be able to determine the worst case position, particularly with regard to Standard No. 301, and test only in that position. Your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) is to exercise due care to determine that your vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this has been fully responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 11, 1982

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: Test Condition - Safety Standard Compliance Tests On Vehicles Capable Of Vehicle Height Adjustment

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We would like a clarification regarding the position for testing vehicles which are capable of vehicle height adjustment by manufacturer design (for example, a 4-wheel drive vehicle which has one height position for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving).

To determine compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards such as 212, 219, and 301, what height position would NHTSA specify for testing the vehicle.

For example:

(1) highway driving position (2) off-highway position (3) design position, if different than (1) and (2), etc.

Also, please verify whether the manufacturer is responsible for compliance at height positions other than the specified test position.

Your response prior to July 30, 1982 would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

David N. Cumming Engineer

DNC/mjs

ID: 1982-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco -- Robert C. Craig, Quality Control Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 13, 1982, concerning the application of the belt buckle requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to child restraints meeting Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. As explained in the enclosed letters of interpretation of May 12, 1981, and May 21, 1981, the only requirements of Standard No. 209 that apply to child restraint belt buckles are the corrosion resistance requirement of S4.3(a) and the temperature resistance requirement of S4.3(b). The buckle release requirements of S4.3(d) and the buckle latch requirements of S4.3(g) do not apply to child restraints.

Because of reports of problems relating to difficulty in operating child restraint buckles, the agency is considering issuance of a proposal to apply the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) and S4.3(g) to child restraint system belt buckles. Any such proposal would be published in the Federal Register to provide all interested parties with notice and opportunity to comment.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

August 13, 1982

Mr. Steve Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Cosco/Peterson has received notice from Richard Jasinski, Contract Technical Manager, that we had problems on three tests on the 78 Safe-T-Seat.

One was the corrosion resistance. On this portion we agree about the standard.

The other two we do not agree, and we would like for you to review and give us your judgment. One was the size of the push button, that it has to be greater in size than 0.7 sq. in. (Ref: Standard 209 S4.3d). The second was the engagement force of no more than 5 lbs. (Ref: Standard 209 S4.3g).

We feel that both of these refer to a Type 1 or Type 2 automo-bile belt and not to a child restraint system. Our reference is F.R. Vol 44 No. 241 December 13, 1979, N.H.T.S.A. 49 CFR, Part 571, Docket No. 749, Notice 6, page 72135, last paragraph: "Base on its review ... adopt this approach".

We have been tested many times by Cal-Span and the University of Michigan, and this was never a question on size or engagement.

We need your immediate attention to this. If we have made the wrong interpretation of the standard we want to rectify it immediately.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Craig Quality Control Manager

RCC:ch

c.c. Richard Jasinski Roy Schwartzkopf Don Moore

ID: 1982-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ANONYMOUS (CONFIDENTIAL)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked if that standard allows a manufacturer to equip a motorcycle with passenger car tires and rims.

Standard No. 120 permits a motorcycle to be equipped with passenger car tires and rims, provided that those tires and rims meet all the requirements of the standard. Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 requires all motorcycles equipped with tires that meet either the requirements of Standard No. 109, which applies to new passenger car tires, or Standard No. 119, which applies to new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Thus, passenger car tires can be used on new motorcycles, as long as those passenger car tires are certified as complying with Standard No. 109.

Motorcycle rims are subject to two requirements. First, section S5.1.1 requires that the rims be listed by the manufacturer of the tires installed on the motorcycle as suitable for use with those tires. If you use rims which are the proper size for the passenger car tires to by used, this requirement is easily met by passenger car rims. Second, rims used on motorcycles must meet the rim marking requirements, because the rim manufacturers do not mold the required information onto passenger car rims. However, if you can obtain passenger car rims marked with the information set forth in section S5.2 and listed by the passenger car tire manufacturer as appropriate for use with the passenger car tires, those rims could be used on new motorcycles.

A copy of this letter with your name and address deleted, along with your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 120, has been placed in the public docket under interpretations of Standard No. 120. Should you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

This request for interpretation is with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. We would like to confirm that Standard No. 120 permits the use of passenger car tires and rims on a motorcycle.

We believe that the use of passenger car tires and rims on a motorycle is permitted because Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 states that "...each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 ( 571.109) or Standard No. 119 ( 571.119), and with rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires...". In our opinion, this permits the use of passenger car tires and rims on motorcycles, provided the tires comply with Standard No. 109 and the rims are an appropriate match for the tires and also comply with Standard No. 110.

ID: 1982-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/27/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: New York City Transit Authority

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald J. Cameron Director - Technical Support New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11207

Dear Mr. Cameron:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the driver's side window and the front entrance door window of a bus may be equipped with plastic glazing. You desire to use plastics because of the high operating cost of replacing broken glass windows.

The answer to your question is no. Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, was amended in 1977 to permit the use of rigid plastic glazing in all doors and windows of buses, except windshields or windows to the immediate right or left of the driver(42 FR 61465). The reason for this exception is that windows to the immediate right and left of the driver are necessary for driving visibility and typical plastic material used alone is not sufficiently resistant to abrasion. Plastic glazing would not be allowed in a bus entrance door since this would constitute a "window to the immediate right" of the driver. Plastic glazing would be allowed in the rear emergency door, however, if that door was not necessary for driving visibility.

You also ask whether material other than safety glass may be used in either of these locations. I am not sure that I correctly understand your question. If by "other materials" you mean, for example, sheet metal, the answer to your question would be yes. There are no Federal requirements specifying that a vehicle have windows in a certain location. Thus, theoretically, there would be nothing to preclude the installation of a solid metal entrance door in a bus. (Obviously, no manufacturer would likely do this because it would compromise driver vision.) If, however, there is a window and it is equipped with traditional glazing materials, the glazing must be in compliance with the performance and location requirements of Standard No. 205. If I have misunderstood your last question, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff and he will clarify the requirements for you (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

National Traffic and Highway Safety Administration Department of Transportation Office of the Chief Council 400 Seventh Street South West Washington, D.C. 20590

Greetings:

Reviewed of the Automotive Safety Glazing Materials Standard #205 and the 2-25 document, has caused the Technical Support Department some confusion in its interpretation. Your assistance in clarifying the following points would be greatly appreciated.

Replacement of glass on New York Transit Coaches is a major item in our operating costs. My questions are in regard to the driver's side window (immediate left of driver), and the front entrance door glass. Can either of the above-mentioned items be replaced with plexiglass (plastic)? Can material other than safety glass be used in either of these locations?

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Cameron Director - Technical Support

ID: 1983-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT: William Shapiro,. P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs North American Car Operations Product Planning and Development Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter of May 24, 1983, requesting an interpretation concerning the retraction force requirements to Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You are considering a Type 2 seat belt design which includes an emergency locking retractor for continuous loop webbing and an emergency locking retractor for additional webbing at the inboard buckle portion of the system. You state that this inboard webbing is extended only if the belt is used by an extremely large occupant. You ask whether the retraction force requirements of the standard allow testing with the webbing of the entire system extended 75%, i.e., even if this mean; that no webbing is extended from the inboard retractor, so that the retraction force is actually only measured from the retractor for the continuous loop portion of the belt.

Paragraph @4.3(j) of Safety Standard No. 209 specifies that an emergency locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph @5.2(j) shall:

(1) expert a retroactive force of at least 0.6 pound under zero accelaration when attached only to the pelvic restraint: (5) exert a retroactive force of not less than 0.2 pound and not more than 1.1 pounds under zero acceleration when attached only to in upper torso restraint;

(6) exert a retroactive force of not less than 0.2 pound and not more than 1.5 pounds under zero acceleration when attached to a strap or webbing that restrains both the upper torso and pelvis.

The test procedures of paragraph @5.2 (j) specify that these retraction forces are to be measured with the belt webbing extended from the retractor to 75% of its length.

The requirements of @4.3(j) apply to each retractor on a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system. There is no exception in the standard for a system which includes two or more retractors which exert force on the same belt webbing. Thus, both retractors on your proposed system would have to comply with the requirements of the standard independently of one another. Under the test procedure you suggest, the retraction force of the inboard retractor would not be measured. This is contrary to the explicit language of the standard. Both retractors on your proposed system would have to comply with the force requirements of paragraph @4.3(j) (6). This is true because both retractors are attached "to a strap or webbing that restrains both the upper torso and the pelvis." Therefore, the retraction force on your inboard retractor must be not less than 0. 2 pound and not greater than 1.5 pounds when the webbing on that retractor is extended to 75% of its length. The same is true for the retractor on the continuous loop portion of the system.

I hope this has clarified any misunderstanding you might have had concerning these requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 23, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency asking whether you may distinguish between U.S. and Japanese-manufactured lighting equipment subject to Federal Standard No. 108 by marking the lenses "U.S.A. DOT" and "JAPAN DOT", rspectively.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted the SAE standard on equipment marking, J759c. This means that the only marking subject to Standard No. 108 is that which certifies compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the DOT symbol. We believe that the intended proximity of the words "Japan DOT" in your Japanese-manufactured equipment might create the impression that Stanley was certifying compliance to the requirements of the Japanese Ministry of Transport, rather than to those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Therefore, we suggest that you place the word "Japan" at the end of the line rather than adjacent to the "DOT" symbol.

SINCERELY,

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

November 23, 1982

Att.: Marx Elliott Office of Rulemaking

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Elliott,

We, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. corporated in Japan (hereafter reffered to as STANLEY-JPN) have estblished Stanley Electric U.S. Co., Inc. corporated in London, Ohio (hereafter reffered to as STANLEY-US) with 100 % investments, and we are in process of preparing to start producing, beginning with the lighting equipments for 1984 model vehicles.

In the work we are proceeding, we are faced with a problem, the first case for us, which relates to the identification marking to be indicated on the lighting devices. So, we would like to ask you whether or not our view is right.

Honda Motor Co., LTD. (Japan) will manufacture the same type of vehicles both in Japan and in U.S.A (HONDA OF AMERICA). Therefore, their lighting devices of the same design will be manufactured by STANLEY-JPN and by STANLEY-US, and supplied to the Honda plant in each area.

Because these lighting devices are of the same design (STANLEY-JPN keeps the original drawings. And only STANLEY-JPN takes proceedings for their modifications.), we intend to indicate the same indentification making to the products made in Japan and made in U. S. A. However, in order to make a country of origin clear, it is our intention to add the marking "JAPAN" or U.S.A." to the identification marking, though it is not explained in Lighting Identification Code-SAE J759c.

The following is an example:

For products made in Japan : "STANLEY 043-6371 SAE AIST 80 JAPAN DOT"

For products made in U.S.A.: "STANLEY 043-6371 SAE AIST 80 U.S.A. DOT"

Please let us know whether or not the above view has no problem.

Thanking you in advance,

H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ID: 1983-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company -- Tom Caine, Law Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Tom Caine, Esq. Law Department The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316

Dear Mr. Caine:

This responds to your recent letter in which you asked for an interpretation concerning the status of tires which are manufactured by applying new tread to a new casing. Specifically, you ask whether such tires should be considered retreaded tires or new tires subject to the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any tires manufactured by applying new tread to new casings would be considered new tires rather than retreaded tires, and would be subject to the same requirements as any other new tires.

Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR 571.117), defines the term "casing" as follows: "Casing means a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading." In the situation you described in your letter, the casing is not a used tire. It is simply a new tire which has never had any tread attached to it. That casing would not be considered a used tire until the casing and the new tread attached to it had been used on the highway and the remainder of the tread then buffed off the casing to allow the application of another new tread. With the addition of the new tread, the used tire would become a retreaded one.

I would appreciate it if you would forward any factual information you have about the proposed importing of new casing to this agency's office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. This will help us ensure that all imported new casings with new treads attached to them are subjected to the new tire performance tests.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I have been advised that it has been proposed to import into the United States new (unused) tire casing - both auto and truck casings which will then have new treads applied to the casings in a manner similar or identical to existing retreading processes.

If the casing in question are in fact new (unused) and a new tread is applied to the casing, it would seem to me that the finished product is a new tire, not a retread, and subject to the testing and certification requirements of the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. It would also seem to follow that the person or company producing such a finished product for sale to the public would be required to comply in all respects with Part 574 of Title 49 CFR including the obtaining of a new tire manufacturer's identification mark.

Will you please advise as to whether the application of a new tread to a new (unused) tire casing constitutes the manufacture of a new or a retreaded tire.

Sincerely, T. D. Caine Attorney

ID: 1984-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Herbert Jerome Bass

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Herbert Jerome Bass Suite 1410 Number Two Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

This responds to your April 4, 1984 letter to the Secretary of Transportation. In that letter, you requested information on Federal requirements applicable to a commercial operation involving the placement of gasoline engines in used diesel automobiles.

The Department of Transportation is responsible for administering the Federal motor vehicle safety and automotive fuel economy standards programs. No fuel ecomony requirements would apply to the operation you describe since those requirements apply to new vehicles only. In the safety area, the only requirement which might apply to such an operation would be 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That provision prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or private repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. Whether the commercial venture you describe in your letter violates the statutory provision would depend upon whether the venture could be characterized as a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or private repair business and whether the engine substitution process would result in a noncompliance with one of our standards. Based on the information provided in your letter, we cannot definitively answer either question.

There may be issues involving automotive emissions standards which apply to an operation of the sort you describe. We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Environmental Protection Agency to respond to that aspect of your question.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Secretary of Transportation U.S. Government Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

This letter will advise you that I represent several individuals in the State of Pennsylvania who have undertaken an enterprise involving used automobiles.

They are contemplating the purchase of large numbers of vehicles that were designed to operate with diesel fuel. Their intention is to remove the diesel engine from each vehicle and to substitute an engine which used regular fuel exclusively. Subsequent to this operation they intend to advertise these vehicles for sale.

We are aware of the fact that each of the vehicles originally bears the serial number as a diesel engine.

Our question is "Are there any Federal statutes or regulations making such an operation unlawful in any way, and is it fitting and proper to substitute the regular engines in the bodies of these vehicles which were formerly diesel operated?"

I would appreciate it very much if you would reply to this inquiry promptly since we wish to conform properly to the rules and regulations.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention.

Very truly yours, HERBERT JEROME BASS