ID: 19825-1.pja

Jason Backs, Vice President
Travis Body and Trailer
13955 F.M.. 529
Houston, TX 77041

Dear Mr. Backs:

This responds to your letter asking whether a flexible rear apron on the rear of a trailer that your company is interested in building constitutes a "nonstructural protrusion" within the meaning of our rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Our answer is no.

You provided a drawing and a description of a trailer your company is thinking about manufacturing. The steel body of this trailer extends eight inches behind the rear most point of the rear tires. However, bolted on to the rear of the steel body is a flexible rear apron extending 27 inches behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires. The apron's purpose is to support asphalt as it is transferred backward out of the trailer body and into a paving machine. You state that the apron could be composed of inch thick plastic. You state that the apron would be "substantial enough to support the asphalt load, yet would be extremely flexible in a rear impact." As explained below, the flexible rear apron would not be considered a nonstructural protrusion.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard complying with Standard No. 223. Paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard specifies that "the rearmost surface of the horizontal member of the guard shall be located as close as practical to a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle, but no more than 305 mm [about 12 inches] forward of that plane." S4 defines the rearmost extremity, in pertinent part, as

the rearmost point on a vehicle that is . . . below a horizontal plane located 1,900 mm above the ground . . . when the vehicle's cargo doors, tailgate, and other permanent structures are positioned as they normally are when the vehicle is in motion. Nonstructural protrusions such as taillights, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches are excluded from the determination of the rearmost point.

Merely because something is attached to the body does not mean that an object is nonstructural. The definition of rear extremity refers to the "rearmost point on the vehicle" (emphasis added), not the rearmost point of the chassis, or the rearmost point of the steel structure. The attributes that the examples of nonstructural protrusions listed in S5.1.3 have in common are that they are relatively small and localized and would not have a major impact on a colliding passenger vehicle.

We do not consider your apron design to be nonstructural. We have previously determined that "[a] 0.19 inch thick aluminum (or 7 gauge steel) [deflector] plate extending across the entire width of the trailer is part of the vehicle, and is not a "nonstructural protrusion." ⁽¹⁾ We believe that your proposed plastic apron is indistinguishable from a deflector plate, for the purposes of the regulation. As with the deflector plate, your apron is rigidly attached to the rear of the trailer. It seems to wrap around the tailgate, so it is probably full-width and could not be considered relatively small or localized. The distinction that you seem to be urging upon us, that an apron constructed of inch thick plastic is more flexible than steel and thus not harmful if impacted by a colliding vehicle, is not likely to be true in most highway crashes. Plastics can vary greatly in their rigidity and strength. If your flexible rear apron did not contact any metal structure of the colliding passenger vehicle but instead penetrated the windshield, it could be harmful if its lower edge struck the head or neck of the front seat occupants as they are thrown forward by the force of the crash. We conclude that the rear edge of the apron would be considered the rear extremity of the vehicle, and an underride guard would have to be mounted no more than 12 inches forward from it.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:224
d.10/7/99

1. Letter of October 20, 1997 to Mr. Michael L. Ulsh. That letter addressed a similar situation in which a full width deflector plate helped to transfer the trailer's load outboard from the vehicle.

ID: 1982y

Mr. Russell Storms
Luke Grimm
2140 SW Pallatwe Street
Portland, Oregon 97219

Dear Mr. Storms:

This responds to your letter asking that this Department "approve" or otherwise "recognize" your newly invented warning device. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you described your invention as a seven inch high, tetrahedral reflective traffic marker that is non-flammable and easily stored. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125; copy enclosed). This standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures for warning devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle. Based on the description in your letter, your newly invented product appears to be a warning device subject to Standard No. 125.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 125, it must conform to all the requirements of that standard.

You are not required to get some "approval" or "recognition" from this agency before selling this product. In fact, NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, the manufacturer of this new product must certify that it conforms to all applicable standards. Section 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires the manufacturer of this new warning device to exercise "due care" in certifying that it conforms to Standard No. 125. To comply with these legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 125 and determine if this new product conforms with those requirements. As you will see, Standard No. 125 contains specific requirements related to a warning device's material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability. In particular, you should be aware that section S5.2.2 of the standard requires that:

each of the three sides of the triangular portion of the warning device shall not be less than 17 and not more than 22 inches long, and not less than 2 inches and not more than 3 inches wide.

Your letter states that your new warning device is seven inches in height. If that is the case, the new warning device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 125. You should further compare your proposed design with the other requirements in Standard No. 125 to determine if your new warning device complies with all of the other provisions.

You should be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:125#VSA d:8/l7/89

ID: 1983-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/83 EST.

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard R. Kelm -- Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services, Libby-Ownes - Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 24, 1983, regarding the certification and marking requirements for glazing under S6 of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated that you are interested in "out-sourcing some of your replacements auto glass requirements" to other manufacturers and sought clarification on four points concerning glazing identification.

Section 6 of Standard No. 205 deals specifically with the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). You ask whether it is permissible under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to allow another manufacturer, using its own DOT code mark, to put an LOF trademark and logo on its glass.

Section 6 of ANS 226 states that a manufacturer shall mark safety glazing materials with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." The purpose behind these markings was to aid in the tracing of glazing materials and the enforcement of applicable standards. Your letter states that the other manufacturer will place their DOT code mark on the safety glass. Since the other manufacturer is using its own DOT code mark, the tracing and enforcement policies will not be circumvented. Therefore, under these circumstances, the use of LOF's logo and trademark is not violative of Standard No. 205.

Further, you ask whether another glass manufacturer can use LOF's "M" number on his glass with LOF's permission. As long as the model number is an accurate description of the specified glazing material being produced, the other manufacturer may use it.

Lastly, you ask if the name of the country of manufacture must appear on the safety glass if not manufactured in the United States. The standard does not mandate that the country of manufacture be marked on the safety glazing materials.

Original Signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 15, 1982 letter regarding the applicability of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, to two proposed cowl designs.

FMVSS 219 provides that no part of a vehicle outside the occupant compartment, "except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield," may penetrate a specified protected zone template on the windshield during a vehicle test crash. In your letter, you present two possible vehicle designs in which the cowl would directly contact the windshield. In one design, the contact would occur across most of the width of the windshield, while in the other, the contact occurs only at the outside edges of the cowl.

Both designs appear to fall within the exception in the standard for components "designed to be normally in contact with the windshield," and therefore the cowl would be permitted to penetrate the protected zone template. Nevertheless, I should mention that your second design does raise some concerns. It is difficult to determine from the drawings enclosed with your letter the extent of the windshield-cowl contact in your second design. If this contact were for such a short distance that it would be apparent that the design was intended to circumvent FMVSS 219 by establishing only minimal contact, the agency would consider taking appropriate action to assure that the intent of the standard is carried out.

SINCERELY,

MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC. Detroit Office

November 15, 1982

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda respectfully submits this letter to request an interpretation of the requirements (S5.) of FMVSS 219, Winshield Zone Intrusion. The requirement states, ". . . . .No part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, . . . . . . . . . . ."

Mazda is developing a new model in which the cowl, by design, contacts the lower portion of the windshield. There are two designs being considered, as shown in the attached sketches.

According to our interpretation of the standard, the cowl would be part of "other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield".

We would appreciate your interpretation with regard to this matter at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

H. Nakaya Manager

CASE I - Complete contact with windshield

Windshield

CASE II - Partial contact with windshield (contact at left and right side)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1983-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 31, 1983

FROM: BINICHI DOI -- NSK

TO: ROBERT NELSON -- NHTSA

TITLE: SAFETY BELT RETRACTORS

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-7-83 TO BINICHI DOI FROM FRANK BERNDT, REDBOOK A24, NOA-30

TEXT: On January 12th, I asked you this question and was told to submit the question in writing.

This question is from NSK-Warner K.K. of Japan which is one of the safety belt manufacturers of Japan and for which I work as its representative in North America.

Attached sketches are: 1. One type of adjust tongue installed in Japanese automobiles; 2. Another type of same; 3. GM's tongue called "One way friction D ring". The second sheet shows the general arrangement of our seat belt system.

Our question is as follows:

Is it required by regulation(s) that a safety belt system with tension reliever (such as GM's window shade type) should have adjust tongue of Type 3 of attached sketches (one way locking)?

Your kind attention to this inquiry will be appreciated by us.

Attachments

ID: 1983-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pulse Marketing Group, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 3, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Thomas A. Kenny Secretary/Treasurer Pulse Marketing Group, Inc. P.O. Box 1324 Elkhart, Indiana 46515

Dear Mr. Kenny:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You are considering marketing a "fiberglass reinforced plastic part" that would replace rear windows in buses. You ask whether the standard would be applicable.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for all glazing materials used on motor vehicles, whether as original equipment or replacement parts. As a manufacturer or fabricator of glazing you would have to certify that your fiberglass product complies with all applicable requirements of the standard. Standard No. 205, and the ANS Z26 standard which is incorporated by reference, specifies three types of plastic materials which may be used in the rear windows of buses (including rear side windows). These are Items 4, 5, and 12 glazing materials. Your fiberglass window may only be used in the rear windows of buses if it complies with the performance requirements of one of these glazing types (Items), i.e., if it passes all of the tests specified for one of these Items. The fact that your product is opaque does not preclude its use, since Items 4, 5, and 12 glazing materials do not have to comply with any luminous transmittance requirements.

You also asked if any approvals are necessary before you market this product. The answer is no. The agency does not grant prior approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that it is the responsibility of the glazing manufacturer or fabricator to determine compliance and to certify that its product complies with all applicable requirements of Safety Standard No. 205. The certification and marking requirements are prescribed in paragraph S6 of Standard No. 205. (I am enclosing a copy of section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act, which is referenced in paragraph S6.)

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 23, 1982

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

PULSE, INC. represents a mnaufacturer of fiberglass reinforced plastic applications who is currently considering manufacturing and marketing a fiberglass reinforced plastic part that would essentially replace rear windows on buses in the aftermarkets.

Prior to the manufacture and marketing of this application, it is essential that we obtain all information pertaining to any legal requirements which may apply.

Our initial investigation resulted in contacting Mr. Doug Delve, Safety Compliance Engineer for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Mr. Delve forwarded a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205 which refers to window glazing materials under ANSI Z26.

After thoroughly evaluating STD 205 and ANSI Z26, we do not believe that they apply to our specific application.

As mentioned previously, the part would replace window glass located in the rear of various types of buses. We are also investigating side windows located near the rear of most buses. Unlike window glass, fiberglass reinforced plastic is opaque, eliminating rear window vision.

In our opinion, the applicability of STD 205 to our application is questionable due to the problems associated with defining a window.

In order that we may continue our manufacturing and marketing efforts, we would appreciate a legal interpretation outlining any Federal or state laws, regulations, or specifications which apply to the aforementioned application. If any approvals are required, please advise the necessary course of action and appropriate timing associated with gaining such approvals.

Thank you,

PULSE, INC.

Thomas A. Kenny Secretary/Treasurer

slj

ID: 1983-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Empire Construction Co. Inc. -- H.J. Lindekugel, Consultant

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. J. Lindekugel Consultant Empire Construction Co., Inc. East 10310 Montgomery Box 11012 Spokane, Washington 99211

Dear Mr. Lindekugel:

This responds to your recent letter asking if the rim marking requirements of Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle Other Than Passenger Cars, apply to "remanufactured truck wheels." They do not.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 sets forth rim marking requirements applicable to all new rims manufactured on and after September 1, 1977, and designed for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Remanufactured wheels are considered used wheels instead of new wheels for purpose of Standard No. 120, and so are not subject to the rim marking requirements.

Should you need any further information or have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202)426-2992.

Sincerely, Original Signed by Frank Berndt

Attention: Attorney for Rulemaking

Re: DOT number for remanufacturing process

Greetings: This writer was referred to you by Lauretta Carlson, Highway Safety Program Area Director, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Seattle, WA.

The point of inquiry is whether or not a DOT identification number is necessary for a re-manufactured truck wheel, not a repaired wheel. The review made with Lauretta Carlson showed no such standards as a pre-requisite. She sent me a copy of the Code of Federal Regulations, 57-119 and 57-120 which confirmed her judgement she suggested this letter.

Please advise the writer if the position she has taken is correct.

Very Truly Yours,

H. J. Lindekugel, Consultant

ID: 1983-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Eldon Rudd; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Rudd:

This responds to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Jan Wilson, asking whether Federal law restricts motorists from having darkly tinted films installed on the window of their automobiles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. Seventy percent transmittance is required in all areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield and all windows in passenger cars. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, use of such films on motor vehicles in certain cases would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance requirements of the standard (most of these films do reduce light transmittance below 70%). If a vehicle manufacturer or dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205 (i.e., has to certify that the glazing still has transmittance of at least 70%).

Regarding vehicles that have already been purchased, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381) provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if the vehicle glazing would no longer meet the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this provision could subject the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business th civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note, however, that under Federal law the vehicle owner may alter his or her vehicle as is desired. This agency does not govern use of vehicles by owners; this is left to the States. Thus, under Federal law, an owner could install solar film on his or her vehcile whether or not such installation affected compliance with Standard No. 205.

In summary, Federal law does not preclude Mrs. Wilson from having darkly tinted film on her passenger car, provided she installed the film herself. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business (including an auto tint shop) installed the film for Mrs. Wilson, they are in violation of Federal law if the glazing no longer meets the 70% light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. The State of California is, of course, free to prohibit vehicle owners from operating vehicles with darkly tinted glazing in its jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DATE DETAILS

1/3/83 Mrs. Wilson is the daughter of Saxton Pettit whom she says was a very good friend of the Congressman. He used to own the Basket House in Scottsdale. Mrs. W. said the Basket House was America's largest basket store. Her father is now deceased. Mrs. Wilson would like the Congressman' help in acquiring a special pass to enable her to drive from Arizona to California with tinted windows on her car. Apparently Mrs. W. goes through an extension of UCLA for medical treatment. She was stopped on the highway and given a citation for driving in California with tinted windows as the law in California is such that you cannot drive with tinted windows if they don't comply with the designated degree of tint. The ticket amount is $75. She said she called the courthouse in California and explained her situation and asked for a special pass to drive in California. She doesn't think she should have to take off the tint just to drive in California. She said she was told that she could remove the tint, but still have to pay the citation or she would have to drive with her windows rolled down while in California. She thinks these answers are absurd and she doesn't think it fair that she was slapped with such a high fine without even getting a warning first. She said the highway patrolman told her he was just doing his job. She tried to explain that she was unaware of the law and that she only travels to California for treatment. Mrs. W. also said her lawyer tried to talk to the courthouse, but to no avail. I explained to Mrs. W. that this is a state law of California and that there is nothing the Congressman can do as he handled matters on the federal level. I said she would have to comply with our laws. She then said that the highway patrolman told her that this is a federal law. I said I didn't think so, but would forward this to our W.O. for verification. I also suggested she write the Cong. a letter asking him to contact the State of California as it is policy to have a request such as that in writing. She said she is a very sick woman, and doesn't want to take the time and effort if she doesn't have a valid case.

ID: 1983-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Talbott Engineers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 11, 1983, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. The specific question you asked was:

Does S4.1.2 require that multi-purpose passenger cars, trucks, and buses meet the effective wiped area requirements, or does S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars?

The requirements of section S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars. Standard No. 104's section S2, Application, provides that the standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The requirements of certain sections of the standard, however, only apply to some of those vehicle types. Section S4.1.2, Wiped Area, provides:

When tested wet in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, and C of the windshield. . . . [Emphasis added]

The above language limits the applicability of that specific requirement to passenger cars, and the section does not have any other requirements applicable to other vehicle types.

We would note that your letter used the term "multi-purpose passenger car" rather than multipurpose passenger vehicle, the term used in the standard. We assume that your use of the former term was a typographical error, and we note it only to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

We have enclosed a copy of the most recent revision of Standard No. 104, as you requested.

ENC.

TALBOTT ENGINEERS INC.

January 11, 1983

Legal Counsel NHTSA U.S. Dept. of Transportation FMVSS 104

Dear Sirs:

I would like the legal interpretation of FMVSS 104, S4.1.2, Wiped Area.

Specifically, my question is

"Does S4.1.2 require that multi-purpose passenger cars, trucks, and buses meet the effective wiped area requirements, or does S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars."

In addition, could you please send the latest revision of FMVSS 104.

I am working in behalf of a concerned client with a large commercial fleet. Expediting your response will be appreciated.

Terry D. Day, P.E.

ID: 1983-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. A. Forbes Crawford

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1983, to Secretary Lewis recommending that he make an "administrative decision" that would exempt foreign manufacturers from compliance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations for vehicles conforming to standards of their country of origin, and which are produced in quantities "up to 50,000 per year with engines not exceeding 65 cu. in. or 1100cc."

The Department does not have the legal authority to issue a directive of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless temporarily exempted. No permanent exemption is authorized for any type of vehicle, and no discretionary power is provided for this purpose. Authority of a nature responsive to your request could be provided only by a Congressional amendment to the Act.

As a former principal of Jet Industries which was the beneficiary of one of the NHTSA temporary exemptions (No. 76-1) and an extension of it, you are aware that a mechanism exists by which you may participate in the American market in a manner that takes into account both your economic realities and our safety concerns.

SINCERELY,

PERSONAL

January 10, 1983

Drew Lewis, Secretary of Transp. U.S. Government

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I am one of millions of U. S. Citizens who are sorry you are leaving the Government. We understand and wish you every success in your new career. I occassionally "kid" myself into believing I helped you solve the Air Controllers Strike by sending you a telegram suggesting that unemployed Commercial Airline Pilots be hired as controllers. At least Percy Woods, President of United phoned to thank me because I had suggested the idea to him (My having help start United in 1931).

The purpose of this communication is to ask you to make an administrative decision, before leaving the Government, which can be very helpful in relieving a small segment of unemployed Automobile workers. Based on my having been involved in the Tractor and Truck business for many years, I had tried to obtain permission from the NHTSA and EPA to start the manufacture in the U. S. of two models of Foreign made small vans (not made in the U. S.) on the condition that they be excluded from NHTSA requirements for up to 50,000 units per year. I was offered 10,000 units but the Foreign manufacturers would not commit on less than 50,000 units. I didn't press EPA for that reason but their Washington, D. C. and Flint, Michigan offices could not give me a simple answer on whether a 1600 cc engine could be exempted. After 30 days I received regulations the size of a telephone book in which I couldn't find the answer. In California, where anti-pollution requirements were tougher than Federal, a five minute phone call elicted a direct answer that such size motor was exempted.

If you could give an Administrative Directive which enabled Foreign manufacturers to assemble up 50,000 units per year of vehicles that meet their conutries' safety and pollution requirements, and get EPA to confirm the action, there is a strong possibility that I can arrange for the following assembly in the U. S.:

1. Fiat Motors Citivan 980 CC This is a van version of Light carriers as exemplified by imported Japanese Pickups. It is 30 Inches shorter and has a 12" longer & 2" wider carrying area protected from weather and pilferage.

Fuji Heavy Industries Subaru 600 CC Also a van version of light carrier 52 inches shorter than the Ford Courier.

Attached is a possible Administrative Directive for NHTSA & EPA approval.

A. Forbes Crawford

PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE

Amendment to NHTSA & EPA Regulations

"The Regulations are hereby amended to exempt manufacturers (or assemblers) of Automotive Vehicles (Cars & Trucks) from NHTSA (Also EPA) regulations as long as such vehicles comply with traffic and anti-pollution requirements in the Countries where they are currently produced, or have been produced within current regulations of such country at any time during the past five years. In addition, such exemption shall apply to such vehicles designed, engineered and committed for production in the U. S. at the discretion of the Administrator. Such exemptions shall apply for units production up to 50,000 per year with engines not exceeding 65 cu. in. or 1100 cc."

COMMENTS

In connection with the proposed exemption of U. S. vehicles up to 50,000 Units per year. U. S. Manufacturers may want to come out with a new type of vehicle. It used to be that major manufacturers would not go into production unless they could predict a market of at least 40,000 per year.

Added to the proposed amendent should be: -"Proposed manufacturer of such vehicles shall be allowed to import 10,000 per year of the vehicle proposed for production in order to establish a dealer market for such vehicles. This exemption should apply for at least two years or longer at the discretion of the agency - depending on the variables involved in getting into production - such as arranging for U. S. manufacturers to tool up to manufacture components or joint venture manufacture of sub assembly units.

Larger manufacturers in the U. S. are automating many of their operations and causing many existing plants to become obsolete. These plants and unemployed workmen in the communities would be ideal for this program.

January 10, 1983

To: Drew Lewis

From: A. Forbes Crawford

Subject: Possible Accelerated Action

In the event of the proposal I have made for an amendment to the regulations is an action that could take a lot of time, will you consider just making an administrative decision on the two companies -- Fiat and Fuji Industries. I believe this can be done. Then if you can write letters to the following giving them exemptions as suggested (including a commitment from EPA), we can accelerate the projects:

Fiat Motors - Torino, Italy (Attention Giovanni Agnelli, Pres.)

Fuji Heavy Industries - Tokyo, Japan (Attn: S. Kikuchi, Director)

International Vehicles Ltd. - Vancouver, B. C. (Attn: A. F. Crawford, Pres.)

I have already received tentative consent from the first two and of course control the last one covers a newly designed vehicle (Four Wheel Steered) which I will manufacture in the U. S. if I can receive the exemptions. Upon receipt of letters for the first two I will go to Japan and Italy to work out plans for starting each project - because they do not conflict with each other. In fact, each compliments the other.

[Attachments in file in Chief Counsel's Office]

MIDDLEKAUFF, INC.

September 27, 1982

Frank Berntt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berntt:

This is in reply to your letter to us as of August 12, 1982 regarding our petition of July 16, 1982 for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #301. As we pointed out to you in our letter of July 16th, it is necessary that we do make some slight alteration on the vehicles as we are forced to relocate the filler cap on the vehicle, and extend the filler hose from the gas tank which is mounted between the frame members at the front of the vehicle to this gas cap. While all due care has been exercised by us in this operation in duplicating the hose and clamps used by the original manufacturer, it is necessary for us to furnish the gas cap mounted on the side of the vehicle for filling purposes. This is the point that disturbed us in some degree.

Since writing you, we have been furnished with a print outlining the complete installation of the utility body as required by AM General Corporation on their vehicles which includes a recessed cup for the gas cap itself on the side of the vehicle. While our engineering studies reveal that this installation is in compliance with 301-75 inasmuch as the complete installation is done in accordance with the print furnished by AM General, it is their feeling that rather than have us Certify the vehicle as the final manufacturer, they would consider us as a sub contractor completing certain phases of the work for them. Therefore, they would prefer to Certify the vehicles themselves as a complete truck after our work, and for this reason would like us to have the exemption referred to in our files for safety as well as legal reasons.

In order to satisfy AM General Corporation, and as we can see no hardship on the part of the Department of Transportation as well as the small number of vehicles involved, we would very much appreciate having you see your way clear to issue such exemption for a three year period to us. We would appreciate having you review our request as we believe the possession of this exemption would help cement our position with AM General and allow us to comply with their thinking as outlined in paragraph two above.

Thanking you for your consideration.

F. E. Bettridge Board Chairman

cc: JIM FORRESTER