ID: nht74-1.26

DATE: 05/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mazda; Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 9, 1974, requesting an interpretation of the test procedure specified in Standard No. 301 (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2) concerning the operation of the vehicle's fuel pump during testing.

Paragraph S7.1.3 of the standard requires that electrically driven fuel pumps be in operation during the barrier crash tests if they normally operate with the activation of the vehicle's electrical system. If the pump is incapable of functioning with the independent activation of the electrical system and requires the operation of the vehicle's engine, then the pump should not be running during the barrier crash tests.

Based upon the description you provide in your letter, it appears that you should conduct your barrier crash testing without operating the fuel pump.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

May 9, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Re: MVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity

In section 7.1.3 of Docket 73-20; Notice 2, we can find, "If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump, that normally runs when the vehicles electrical system is activated, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash."

The underline was added to the Docket 73-20; Notice 1.

Although we feel NHTSA has granted our attached comments on February 8, 1974, hereby we confirm it again.

Our electrical fuel pump works only when the engine runs, and usually does not work when the ignition is in "on" position except that the engine works. In other words, our electrical fuel pump is connected to the engine and there's no relation directly from our electrical system in "on" position. Nevertheless, we will find that the vehicle's electrical system without fuel pump is activated, when the ignition is in "on" position and the engine is not in "running."

Our question is as follows: In the above system, we believe we may test the barrier crash without operating the electrical fuel pump. If its not so, we have to test it with another special connection between battery and fuel pump, "only on test."

Your opinion will be highly appreciated.

Always warmest,

Goro Utsanomiya -- Branch Manager, TOYO KOGYO U.S.A. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

cc: Mr. Williams; Mr. Makino

February 8, 1974

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Although the comment closing date is already over, we would like to submit the following comment, because we have a new problem by further review.

It would be appreciated if you consider this comment.

Sincerely yours,

Gorou Utsunomiya -- Branch Manager,

TOYO KOGYO U.S.A. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

cc: R. N. Williams

enc.

DOCKET 73-20, NOTICE NO. 1

COMMENTS OF TOYO KOGYO CO., LTD. ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY PASSENGER CARS, MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES TRUCKS AND BUSES (OF 10,000 GVWR OR LESS)

Comment

"S.7.1.4 - If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash test" should read as, "S.7.1.4 Ignition switch is at "On" position at the time of barrier crash tests."

Discussion

As you know, electrically driven fuel pumps are used on many cars. As far as we assume, this S 7.1.4 is established so as to minimize possibility of fire at the crash accident because electrical pump will keep working as long as ignition switch is at "On" position.

However, if we develop a system where the electrical fuel pump stops at the moment of impact in spite of ignition switch being in "On" position, this possibility will no longer exist.

As long as S 7.1.4 exists, we have to make the pump work by other means, such as direct connection between battery and pump, when we conduct a compliance test, and this S 7.1.4 will close the way of possibly developing a new safety device. We think that this situation is far apart from the actual one and this test is impractical.

Judging from the fact that there is no requirement, "Mechanical fuel pump is operating", we think S 7.1.4 can be changed. Needless to say, we recognize that we should minimize the possibility of a fire with electrical pumps. We would suggest S 7.1.4 should read, "Ignition switch is at "On" position.

ID: nht87-3.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ellen A. Lockwood -- Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Guam

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ellen A. Lockwood, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney District of Guam Suite 502-A PNB 238 O'Hara Street Agana, Guam 96910

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1987, to Jim Marquez, the former General Counsel of this Department. You have asked about the applicability to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) of 15 U.S.C. 1381, and 19 C.F.R. 12.80. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., as you have noted, applies to the CNMI through Section 502(a)(2) of the "Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States," and is a "State" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1391. This means that it is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1) (A) to import into the CNMI any motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

As authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (3), the Departments of Tranportation and Treasury issued joint regulations to enforce the importation prohibition of 1397 (a) (1) (A). As the authority of the Customs Service is limited to the Customs Territory of the United States, these regulations apply only to "States" within this Territory. They do not apply to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the CNMI, "States" that lie without the Customs Territory of the United States. It is our understanding tha t each of these "States" enforces 1397 (a) (1) (A) within its borders through an Executive Order issued by the Governor, designating an appropriate local agency for this task. In the Virgin Islands, for example, the Department of Public Safety will not r egister any vehicle that lacks the label required by 49 C.F.R. Part 567 Certification certifying compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose representative copies of correspondence that the National Highway Traffic Sa fety Administration has had with the Virgin Islands and the CNMI on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

September 24, 1987 Jim J. Marquez General Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Marquez:

I am an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. We were recently asked by local officials if Title 15, U.S.C. Section 1397, which prohibits the manufacture, sale or delivery into the United States of ve hicles which do not conform to DOT safety standards, applies to the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Northern Mariana Islands, formerly part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, became a Commonwealth in Political Union with the United States on November 3, 1986. The relationship of the United States with the Commonwealth of the Northern Ma riana Islands (CNMI) is defined in the "Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States", (the Covenant), which was approved by Congress in 1976 and placed into effect by Presidential procl amation on November 3, 1986. Article V of the Covenant concerns the applicability of federal laws to the CNMI. Section 502(a)(2) provides that all federal laws, in existence on January 9, 1978, which are applicable to Guam and of general application to t he several states, also apply in the CNMI. This legislation was originally enacted in 1966. Therefore, it was in existence prior to January 9, 1978. The term "state", as it is used in Subchapter I, is defined in Section 1391 to include Guam. Therefore, it appears that the law applies to Guam and is of general application to the several states. Based on this analysis, we have concluded that the law applies both to Guam and the CNMI. J. J. Marquez Sept. 24, 1987 Page 2

In our review of provisions of the C.F.R., however, we note that 19C.F.R. 12.80 prohibits the importation of non-conforming vehicles or equipment into the customs territory of the United States. (emphasis added). Neither Guam nor the CMNI are in the cust oms territory of the United States. Therefore, although the law seems to apply to both, the scope of the law has, it appears, been limited by the C.F.R.

We would very much appreciate your views on the applicability of this law to the CNMI and Guam and whether any enforcement actions are contemplated. This is a very important issue in the CNMI at this time. A prompt response would be greatly appreciated. I can be reached at 671 (country code) 472-7332 or FTS 550-7332. My home number, for your convenience, is 362-4218. We are 14 hours ahead of Washington, D.C. time. Thanks for your help.

Very truly yours,

ELLEN A. LOCKWOOD Assistant U. S. Attorney

ID: nht94-3.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack, letter dated 5/12/89 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Billy Mohr, and letter dated 5/16/89 from Billy Mohr to Donald W. Vierimaa

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning whether a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code is preempted by Federal law. I apologize for the delay in our response.

This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a "semitrailer" whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with "tw o clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable." In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police you stated your assumption that th e "two clearance lamps" are the "intermediate side marker lamps" specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10*8, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps "then it would appear that your requirement is inval id as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ." In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations.

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

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to the front and to the rear as practicable, and with "intermediate side marker lamps", amber in color, "located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps." All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length.

Section 1O3 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State "shall have any authority either to

establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard APPLICABLE TO THE SAME ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE OF SUCH VEHICLE. . . which is not identical to the Federal standard" (emphasis added). In our opinion, the "aspect of performance" covered by Section 719 (8) (c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same "aspect of performance" that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Because Standard No. 108 specifically addresses what lamps must be provided on trailers more than 50 feet in length for purposes of side conspicuity, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps for purposes of s ide conspicuity is preempted by Federal law. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a "clearance" lamp rather than a "marker" lamp does not affect this conclusion, since the relevant aspect of performance addressed by the lamps in question is side conspic uity. The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones.

The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Stand ard No. 108 those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

ID: nht76-4.9

DATE: 09/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Atkinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your June 18, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, to passenger car tires that are retreaded from bead to bead.

I understand that in this process, the labeling information molded on the sidewalls of the tire to be retreaded is buffed off prior to the application of new rubber. You have requested our assurance that "it is permissible to do bead to bead retreading, removing the present labeling and remolding all the pertinent information on the tire."

The requirements for casings to be used in retreading are set out in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 117:

Each retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing that bears, permanently molded at the time of its original manufacture into or onto the tire sidewall, each of the following:

(a) The symbol DOT;

(b) The size of the tire; and

(c) The actual number of plies or ply rating.

This section requires the above information to be present on the casin at the beginning of the retreading process, to ensure both that the carcass was originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, and that the retreader has reliable information on which to base the labeling of the completed tire. The section does not, however, require that this originally molded information be retained on the completed tire.

Certification and labeling requirements for completed retreaded tires are set out in S6 of the standard. The DOT symbol required by S6.1, however, is not a "remolding" of the original DOT symbol (certifying compliance with Standard No. 109) that may have been buffed off. It is a new certification by the retreading party that his product complies with Standard No. 117. Further, this new DOT symbol must be followed by the letter "R", as indicated in 49 CFR @ 574.5, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. "Remolding" of the original DOT symbol is neither required nor permitted. Finally, the information required by S6.3 to appear on the completed tire is permitted, but not required, to so appear through retention of the original labeling.

In conclusion, bead-to-bead retreading is not prohibited by Standard No. 117, provided that the casings satisfy S5.2.3 at the beginning of the retreading process, and all other requirements of the standard are met.

YOURS TRULY,

PAUL ATKINSON TIRE RETREADING CONSULTANT

June 18, 1976

Frank Berndt, acting chief council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I visited with Mr. Arturo Casanova and Mr. David Snyder on Tuesday, June 15. I brought some questions to them that they felt should be directed to you for a decision, and if necessary, a ruling.

I have a firm that I represent in Pennsylvania, that is planning to enter the passenger tire retreading field. They will be different in their operation in that they plan to retread tires from bead to bead. Both sidewalls will be buffed, and a thin venier of rubber applied. The sidewall mold plates will be engraved to contain all of the information required by your department.

I raised the question to Mssrs. Casanova and Snyder about any objections that your department might have to these plans. It was their feeling that their was no objection, other than the possible objection to the removal of the DOT certification, proving that the casing used was in fact a DOT casing.

As this process involves a very advanced cost in federal excise taxes, and advanced cost in processing, materials, and equipment, it will not be competitive with customary retreading. It will have to be sold at a very premium price.

Also, it has been eight years since the incorporation of the DOT symbol. Tires without this symbol have been for all practical purposes, have been used up, and are no longer on the casing market. I do not feel that any reputable dealer would accept a casing of this age, regardless of DOT rulings.

I am requesting a ruling from you that it is permissible to do bead to bead retreading, removing the present labeling and remolding all the pertiment information on the tire. This is with the understanding that all tires used for passenger use will be DOT casings. The DOT would be returned by molded labeling.

I would add for your consideration that this system is widely used throughout Europe. There is also a dealer in Minnesota who is advertising this type work in magazines. I am also informed that it is being done by at least one company in California.

I would appreciate your favorable ruling on this matter at your earliest convenience.

Paul Atkinson

ID: nht75-1.23

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of March 24, 1975, to Mr. Schwimmer of this office concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to new brake hose assemblies whose end fittings are partially disassembled by vehicle manufacturers.

You have described brake hose assemblies equipped with permanent end fittings containing sacrificial sleeves. Although the assemblies are complete when delivered by you to a vehicle manufacturer, they must be partially disassembled by him (because they lack swivel fittings) to facilitate installation in vehicles. At this point the vehicle manufacturer does, as you have suggested, become the hose assembler, assuming responsibility for the assemblies' compliance with the standard and relieving you of responsibility for their continued compliance. He is not, however, required to remove the assembler's band which you have installed pursuant to S5.2.4 (as incorporated by reference in S7.2 and S9.1), although he is free to do so; nor is he required to install his own band, because of the exception in S5.2.2 for assemblies which are assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in his own vehicles. Furthermore, he is not required to replace the sacrificial sleeve in the end fittings, because that sleeve has not yet been used.

An aftermarket purchaser who disassembles and then reassembles one of your assemblies also relieves you of responsibility for its continued compliance with the standard. He is not required to remove your assembler's band, nor is he required to replace the sacrificial sleeve.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

POWER CONTROLS DIVISION Midland-Ross Corporation

March 24, 1975

Mark Schwimmer -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106-74, Brake Hoses

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

We manufacture air brake hose end fittings and make hose assemblies for original equipment and aftermarket applications. We produce two basic sytles of end fittings; the type that are crimped or swaged onto the hose, and the type that utilizes a sacrificial sleeve or ferrule. These fittings are assembled on fabric reinforced rubber air brake hose (S.A.E. types A and B) only. We are aware that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, regards both of these designs as permanent end fittings. Several questions have arisen regarding technicalities and responsibilities as interpreted through Standard No. 106-74. Rulings by you or your office are requested on the following specific questions:

1. Hose assemblies are produced for sale to a vehicle manufacturer. The end fittings used are of the sacrificial sleeve type construction. These end fittings do not contain a swivel, as in the crimped fitting design. When we produce these assemblies, they are complete, finished and tagged assemblies, meeting the requirements of Standard No. 106-74. Representative samples of our production are audit tested to verify the compliance. After the hose assemblies are received by the vehicle manufacturer, he must partially disassemble the end fittings (due to the lack of a swivel fitting) in order to secure the hose assembly to the air brake system component. At this point we seek interpretations of the following questions.

a. Does the vehicle manufacturer now become the "hose assembler" and therefore assume all responsibilities of Standard No. 106-74 as the assembler, as well as exonerate us of all the responsibilities as the assembler?

b. If "a" above is answered affirmatively, then should the vehicle manufacturer be obligated to remove our assembler's compliance and identification tag?

c. Is the vehicle manufacturer obligated to replace the sacrificial sleeve in the fittings, even though the hose assembly has not been "used" prior to his installation of the assembly?

2. This same situation could occur in the aftermarket, but with little or no control from our standpoint. We are required by Standard No. 106-74 to tag each assembly. If your ruling to questions 1.a. and 1.b. above is affirmative, then we have no way of knowing if the aftermarket purchaser removes our tag as the vehicle manufacturer would be compelled to do. We can check on an original equipment manufacturer's procedures relatively easily, but it would be virtually impossible for us to police the aftermarket to determine if our compliance and identification tag were wrongfully attached to the assemblies in question. Therefore, in the aftermarket situation we request a ruling to the same three questions as asked in 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c above as they apply to aftermarket sales.

Very truly yours,

Leon C. Huneke -- Chemical Engineer

ID: nht74-5.51

DATE: 04/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Law Ofices of William and Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 29, 1974, requesting information and documentation concerning Fuel System Integrity Standards.

The GSA 515/26 Standard which you mentioned was published July 15, 1966, and was effective October 13, 1967. This standard was effectively supplanted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 which was effective January 1, 1968. A copy of this original Standard No. 301 is enclosed for your information along with a recent amendment (F.R. 39, 10586, March 21, 1974) that substantially upgrades the requirements of this standard.

We do not consider it appropriate to give advice concerning private incidents or controversies, beyond what is contained in our regulations and other public issuances. You may find it helpful to contact private-sector groups such as the Society of Automotive Engineers for further information.

ENC. (3)

Williams and Black

March 29, 1974

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration OFFICE OF CRASHWORTHINESS

Attention: Guy Hunter

Re: KLANN vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

I had a very lengthy conversation with Mr. Koschak in the Los Angeles Office of the General Services Administration. He very kindly referred me to you for help needed in this matter.

We presently have an action pending against the Ford Motor Company for the deaths of two adults following a collision while they were driving a 1965 Model P-250 pick-up truck. This pick-up truck had a camper installed on the bed.

The accident would be a barrier-type crash in which a vehicle went out of control on the opposite side of the road, came into the lane of the subject vehicle and the crash ensued.

The husband and wife occupying the pick-up truck were burned to death. We have had several experts examine this vehicle and have described the mechanism of their incineration as a shearing of the neck of the gas-tank filler pipe, along with some displacement of the cab of the vehicle itself. Between the shearing of the neck, as well as the displacement, the fuel in the tank was forced into the driving compartment, and a fire of great intensity developed.

This fire was of sufficient intensity to melt the interior fittings of the vehicle, as well as causing fatal injuries to the occupants.

During the process of our litigation with Ford Motor Company, we have had occasion to examine, but not photocopy certain of their crash tests. These crash tests make reference to a publication specifically referred to as "1968 GSA Standard 515/26-53.2." This reference was contained in test No. D-5192 performed on October 15, 1966. This was a sixteen mile per hour crash into a movable barrier. I further note that in one of the additional tests, more particularly, No. D S126 performed on August 5, 1966, which was a 29.5 m.p.h. crash into a barrier, the test results indicated that the fuel tank displaced; however, no photos of the crashed vehicle were attached to the Ford test.

We are interested in learning the specifications or directions from the Department of Transportation to auto manufactuers and, more particularly, as relates to the fuel systems and locations in 1965 and 1966 model vehicles -- i.e., pick-up trucks. We would also like to know whether or not the Department of Transportation directed any recall or modification campaigns, either by direction or by suggestion to the automobile manufacturers, especially Ford Motor Company.

We have been advised by our own automotive engineers that the location of the gasoline tank is a defect in design. We believe that our position would be further fortified by some communications or directions from the Department of Transportation directed to the various automobile manufacturers as relate to the location or stability of gasoline tank systems.

I am uncertain as to what we are looking for is adequately described within this letter; however, I believe the brief description I have given may be sufficient for you to determine specifically what we are looking for.

We would certainly appreciate any copies of correspondence or any other documents you may have as pertains to this problem and, more particularly, communications directed to the Ford Motor Company referring to their fuel system in their pick-up trucks.

Thanking you in advance for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation, I remain,

ROBERT S. PRIVER

cc: Mike Koschak c/o General Services Administration Motor Pool 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 3124 Los Angeles, California 90012

ID: nht75-3.8

DATE: 09/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Hardy Heater Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, in which you inquire as to any rules and regulations to which you may be subject with respect to your pre-heater defroster. Your letter was referred to this office by the Environmental Protection Agency.

We assume, from the material submitted with your letter, that your pre-heater is sold for installation in used cars and supplements the vehicle's existing defrosting system. If our assumption is incorrect, please advise us. If your pre-heater is installed in a motor vehicle prior to its first purchase or if it replaces an existing defrosting system, you will be subject to regulations in addition to those mentioned in this letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop may not render inoperative any safety device or design in a motor vehicle after its first purchase by the owner. This means that the installation of the pre-heater must not take the vehicle out of compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The standard with which you will likely be most concerned is Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems (copy enclosed).

(Graphics omitted)

In addition, if the fuel used in your pre-heater has a boiling point greater than 32 degrees F, you must ensure that the pre-heater fuel system complies with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed).

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

YOURS TRULY

THE HARDY HEATER COMPANY

July 30, 1975

Director E. P. A.

I am having manufactured and will market a pre-heater defroster for auto's as shown in the attached documents which are a part of my (Illegible Words).

Please advise me if I am required by rules, regulations or otherwise to obtain any (Illegible Word)) permits to prior to marketing my heater nationwide.

As you (Illegible Words) cylinder of L. P. (Illegible Words) am primarily concerned with any legal requirement with respect its use in automobiles.

I will appreciate any information on the subject.

Frank Hardy

Teddy's drivers in cold climates are not satisfied each day entering a miserably cold auto, with limited or no vision because of condensation, frost, ice, snow, build-up on the glassed areas.

A majority of the over 80 million cars on our highways, and the over 10 million being built each year, need this heater to provide a warm, safe comfortable car from the start. This device fills a gap that has been completely overlooked in automotive engineering.

Please note how many vehicles you see on the highway, especially in the morning, in cooler climates, driving virtually blind, until the standard heater defroster clears the glass area. My heater eliminates this dangerous condition, and provides a comfortable temperature inside the car from the start.

A common cold weather practice is to start the auto engine on cold mornings and let it set and run until the conventional heating process warms and defrosts the car. This practice causes excessive engine wear and long periods of cold engine idle, which is a major factor in air pollution by automobiles. This inconvenience, wear, and pollution can be eliminated with the use of my heater.

Volume sales will be to gasoline powered vehicles; however, it will be a natural as an inducement for all who are thinking of conversion or have converted to propane from gasoline as a motor fuel, as certain basic components such as fuel tank controls, etc., could serve both installations.

Attached is information on a unique gas fired auxiliary and independent automobile heater, that will eliminate the misery and danger of a cold automobile, with frosted glass area, when you first enter it in cold weather. It can provide home-like comfort 24 hours a day, or may be shut off to automatically come on several hours before returning to the car, at which time it will be heated and frost free for safe and comfortable driving from the start.

I have a patent pending for this heater, and am interested in working with a manufacturer for mutual benefits in the production and sale of this item.

I am available for an interview to discuss any ideas or interest you might have concerning my situation.

Warren Frank Hardy

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-4.35

DATE: 06/28/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crown Coach Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1973, concerning Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release." You raise two questions regarding the standard: the first concerns the incompatibility of the standard with buses designed to transport convicts or other persons under physical restraint; the second, the possibility that the standard may preclude the use of a push-button release mechanism for emergency exits which you apparently presently use in many buses you manufacture.

We have received other communications regarding the incompatibility of Standard No. 217 with buses designed to transport convicts and are presently considering requests that these buses be exempted from the standard.

With respect to the use of push-button emergency exit release mechanisms, Standard No. 217 does not specify the design of emergency exit release mechanisms but, rather, specifies requirements which these release mechanisms, regardless of design, are required to meet. These requirements essentially specify the magnitude and direction of release forces necessary to operate the emergency exit release mechanism. If these requirements do preclude the use of a push-button release mechanism you wish to use, the appropriate procedure for you to follow is to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard, in accordance with NHTSA regulations (49 CFR @@ 553.31 et seq., copy enclosed). We recommend that you include detailed information on the type of release you wish to use as part of any such petition.

ENC.

Crown COACH CORPORATION

June 1, 1973

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Attention Office of Legal Counsel

We at Crown Coach Corporation are currently in the process of bidding on several bus units for GSA for the Atomic Energy Commission. We also are in the process of working on future bids for Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and the California State Department of Corrections. Some of these vehicles must have maximum security as they transport people who are dangerous criminals and we are of the belief that an exemption should be granted on Motor Vehicle Standard #217. If we are forced to comply with this Standard, we may as well not install any security measures on the vehicles because with the least effort all the prisoners would push out the side windows and escape.

We have been building maximum security vehicles for approximately 18 to 20 years, and last year we delivered our first two units to the U. S. Government.

We currently have two maximum security vehicles approximately four to five weeks away from completion for the U. S. Bureau of Prisons.

Our question would be can we consider these maximum security vehicles as exceptions, as they are not being used as a passenger bus in the true sense of the word in that they are not transporting people for hire. It is my understand from communications that we have had with GSA, at our request, several weeks ago that this question was put before you people in regard to the above questions.

A further question. There are several manufacturers of buses, including Crown, who use bus sash that are not push-out type sash. This type is not mentioned in #217. We currently are producing buses with this type sash for the Federal Government, and for sightseeing purposes and charter use for use within the United States, including Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands. We are using large fixed by-pass sash where we exceed the number of square inches escape opening as set forth in Standard #217, Section S5.2 "Provision of Emergency Exits".

2

Our by-pass sash have an emergency button that is operated to obtain the required increased emergency exit opening at each window. We have three different sizes of sash, depending on the customer's requirements, all of which exceed your requirements in S5.2 for emergency exits opening without the kickout feature.

We would like to request your opinion on the above questions and if we are not clear we would be more than pleased to answer any questions you have and send photographs or drawings showing the type of product that we are talking about, and the individual items upon request.

We will be looking forward to an early reply to the above as this affects a current bid for a considerable number of buses for the U. S. Government, and can also mean further savings to the U. S. Government on maximum security vehicles and other types.

Kay Partman Vice President-Engineering

ID: nht88-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/09/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nolan and Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

President Nolan and Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc. 5 Laurel Avenue Northport, NY 11768

Dear Mr. Nolan:

This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1988, enclosing a letter you have received from the Department of Motor Vehicles, New York State, advising you that your 1987 Cadillac hearse requires a center high-mounted stop lamp. You have asked for the sp ecifications of such a lamp.

The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars. A passenger car is defined as a motor vehicle "designed for carrying 10 persons or less." A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is one "designed for carrying 10 persons or less which is c onstructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off road operation." A "truck" is defined as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The agency recognizes chassis constructed for commercial use, such as a hearse, as the equivalent of a truck chassis. The determination of vehicle category is initially that of the manufacturer or final stage assembler who certifies compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety st andards applicable to the category of vehicle selected. In our opinion, a hearse could be properly certified as a either a "multipurpose passenger vehicle," or a "truck."

In a conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on April 29, you informed us that the first six characters of the VIN of your hearse are "1GEDO9", and that its final stage assembler, Superior, had certified it as an "MPV" (multipurpose passenger vehi cle). The "G" in the VIN identifies it, according to internal documents of the initial stage manufacturer, General Motors, as "Cadillac Incomplete Coaches" (meaning, it would appear, funeral coaches), and the "9" as "Cadillac Commercial Body/Chassis." Th is chassis does not form the basis of any passenger car completed by Cadillac. The letter from New York State states "The manufacturer claims that funeral cars are classified as multipurpose vehicles and do not require the lights." This is correct, as yo u have told us that Superior has classified it as an MPV, and certified its compliance to all standards applicable to that vehicle category. As the center high-mounted stop lamp standard is not one of those applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles, there is no Federal requirement that your hearse be equipped with such a lamp.

We appreciate your interest in safety, and trust that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief counsel

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Standards Compliance 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: 1987 CADILLAC HEARSE AND THIRD BRAKE LIGHT

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find a copy of the letter we received from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated March 16, 1988. They have determined that the above vehicle should be required to have a third brake light.

I would like to know what the requirements are as to its specific location, size. etc.

Please forward any and all pertinent information regarding the above to this office.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Yours truly,

NOLAN & TAYLOR-HOWE FUNERAL HOME, INC. James P. Nolan, Jr. President

JPN:plg ENC:

Mr. James P. Nolan, Jr. Nolan & Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc. 5 Laurel Avenue Northport, L.I., NY 11768

Dear Mr. Nolan:

In your letter dated February 22, 1988, you asked if a third taillight is required on a 1987 Cadillac hearse. The manufacturer claims that funeral cars are classified as multi-purpose vehicles and do not require the lights.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require a third brake light on 1986 and newer passenger motor vehicles. Multi-purpose passenger vehicles are exempt from this requirement. A multi-purpose passenger vehicle is a vehicle which is built on a truck cha ssis and has certain features making it suitable for off-road operation. I do not believe a hearse can quality as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. Therefore, I believe your hearse requires a third brake light.

The Department of Motor Vehicles' has no control over a manufacturer located in another state. I suggest you write to the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Standards Compliance, 400 Seventh Stree t, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to require the manufacturer to recall every vehicle to bring it into conformity with the standards.

I trust this information will be of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR L. ALOWITZ Assistant Counsel

ID: nht88-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Auto Chek, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard J. Matysiakh President Auto Chek, Inc. P.O. Box 258 Stone Mountain, GA 30086-02581

Dear Mr. Matysiak:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Frank Ephraim of our Office of Plans and Policy, asking about the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541; copy enclosed) on certain body repair processes. Specifically, you aske d how the theft prevention standard would affect the body repair process of "clipping" body sections from one vehicle and attaching the clipped section to a different vehicle. This repair process is not prohibited or regulated by the theft prevention sta ndard, as explained below.

The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. To achieve this purpose, the theft prevention standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe identification markings onto 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft cars. Dealers and repair shops are prohibited from removing, obliterating, tampering with, or altering these identification markings, unless the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary to repair the part or vehicle; see 18 U.S.C. 511.

These requirements should not significantly impact the repair process of "clipping" described in your letter. Nothing in the theft prevention standard or the law prohibits a repair shop from clipping sections from wrecked vehicles. The repair shop would be required by law to leave in place any identification markings on the "clipped" section that were not damaged in the "clipping" process.

As noted in your letter, the repaired vehicle might have two different vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) marked on its major parts, with some parts marked with the VIN assigned to the repaired vehicle and other parts marked with the VIN assigned to the damaged vehicle from which the section was "clipped." The Motor Vehicle Theft Law enforcement Act of 1981, which ordered this agency to promulgate the theft prevention standard, clearly contemplates that vehicles undergoing repair could wind up with some parts numbered differently than the parts originally on the car. That law is based on the idea that some major parts are likely to survive a crash undamaged and that those parts can legitimately be used to repair other vehicles. Such repairs would n aturally result in repaired cars having some parts numbered differently than the rest of the car. Since the law enforcement community vigorously supported this law, they must not have believed that cars with some parts numbered differently than the other parts of the car would pose particular problems for them.

You also asked how the "clipping" process would affect our disclosure and titling requirements. We answered the question of how the disclosure requirements apply in an October 15, 1980 letter to Mr. John Relly of the Iowa Department of Transportation. In the letter to Mr. Kelly, we said, "... if a vehicle is constructed from the parts of several vehicles, the odometer statement must still be completed at the time of sale. If the seller knows the mileage on the various components used to construct the ve hicle, he should inform the purchaser of the highest mileage that he knows, or the mileage on the chassis if he knows it. If he does not know the mileages, he will be required to state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. Titli ng requirements and designations such as "salvage" and "rebuilt" vehicles are determined by State law, not Federal law.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 2, 1987

Mr. Frank G. Ephraim Director, Office of Standards Evaluation Plans and Policy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5208 400 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Ephraim:

Relative to the implementation of the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act, Title VI, which inpart pertains to the Inscribing or affixing of identification numbers onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts for passenger car lines wit h high theft rates: How will this law impact the body repair process of clipping and/or sectioning of vehicles that are created by different components with conflicting identification numbers?

Enclosed for your review and consideration are several articles that relate to this problem. Your comments as to disclosure. titling and compliance will be most appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Richard J. Matysiak President, Auto Chek, Inc.