ID: nht79-1.49

DATE: 12/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 29, 1979, request for an interpretation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You asked whether vehicles equipped with space-saver spare tires must be tested for compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards with that spare tire actually used as one of the four tires mounted on the vehicle during the tests. Our interpretation is that the spare tire need not be used during those tests.

This agency does not currently require that a motor vehicle be equipped with a spare tire. If a spare tire is included with the vehicle, it must, of course, comply with all standards applicable to tires.

ID: nht79-1.5

DATE: 11/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Honorable S. I. Hayakawa United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Hayakawa:

This responds to your October 25, 1979, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr. Morrill N. Farr asking about the agency's air brake standard. Mr. Farr also asked about the highway use tax. We understand that the Federal Highway Administration will respond to you directly with an answer to that question.

With respect to the air brake standard, Mr. Farr asked whether the Government would reimburse him for a portion of the costs of installing the no lockup portion of his air brake system. Mr. Farr stated that a court has held the no lockup requirement of the air brake standard invalid, and accordingly, the Government should reimburse vehicle owners for the installation of no lockup systems that have been proven to be faulty.

The court in PACCAR v. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1978) cert. den'd 439 U.S. 862 (October 2, 1978), stated that the no lockup portions of the standard were invalid because some of the systems constructed in accordance with the requirements were unreliable. The court also indicated that a proper no lockup device could substantially improve the safety of vehicles. Our air brake standard does not specify a particular design or construction of brake system. It is a performance standard, and manufacturers are free to choose any design or construction that complies with the performance requirements. The fact that some manufacturers chose faulty systems is unfortunate. If the system on Mr. Farr's truck is faulty, his remedy lies with the manufacturers of the truck and the system, not with the Government.

This agency has attempted over the past several years to address the problem of faulty systems by initiating several investigations under the statutory provisions requiring manufacturers to recall and remedy defective vehicles and equipment. Those investigations contributed to the decisions of a number of manufacturers to conduct recalls.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence

October 25, 1979

Department of Transportation Congressional-Liaison 400 Seventh St. SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Enclosed is a copy of correspondence I received from Mr. Morrill Farr. I would appreciate any information you could provide regarding this matter.

Please forward your reply, in duplicate, to the attention of my staff assistant, Samuel R. Buck, Room 6217, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.

Sincerely,

S. I. Hayakawa

SIH/pw Enclosure

ID: nht79-1.50

DATE: 11/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo U.S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This letter is in response to your October 19, 1979, request for an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 and 49 CFR Part 575. Specifically, you inquired if it is permissible for Mazda to place information concerning the 185SR13 tire size on the tire placard, as required by section 4.3(d) of Standard No. 110, and in the consumer information booklet, as required by 49 CFR @ 575.102(c)(2), for vehicles which may have 185HR13 tires installed by dealers at a customer's request. This would be permissible.

A 185SR13 tire and a 185HR13 tire are the same size and have the same load-carrying capacity. The "S" and "H" only denote different high-speed capabilities for what are, otherwise, identical tires.

This agency requires the manufacturer to list recommended tire sizes on the tire placard and in the consumer information booklet for two reasons. First, the information is required to ensure that any replacement tires installed on the vehicle will be a proper size for the rims mounted on that vehicle. Second, the information helps to ensure that the tires installed on the vehicle will have sufficient load-carrying capacity to be used safely on that particular vehicle. Neither of these safety concerns would be frustrated by a manufacturer putting information on the placard and in the booklet about a tire with a lower speed rating. Therefore, your proposed plan would not violate any of our consumer information regulations.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 19, 1979

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

RE: Request for Interpretation on MVSS 110 & Part 575

MVSS 110 Sec. 4.3 (d) requires the vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation on the tire placard and also Sec. 575.102 (c)(2) requires recommended tire size designations in the consumer information booklet. One of our MAZDA models has 185SR13 as the standard tires. Currently, we are considering 185HR13 as a dealer option because some customers want a higher performance tire on their cars. We do not believe that we should put 185HR13 as the recommended tire on the tire placard, for it is a higher performance than 185SR13 and it is not installed at our factory. Please grant us your interpretation.

Your earliest response would be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

M. Ogata -- Branch Manager, TOYO KOGYO U.S.A. OFFICE

ID: nht79-1.6

DATE: 12/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Manning Equipment, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Mr. Denis Urban Manning Equipment, Inc. P.O. Box 23229 Louisville, Kentucky 40223

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to the questions raised in your December 5, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the application of Federal safety standards to devices designed to aid the handicapped. In your conversation, you indicated that you will manufacture some devices that enable the handicapped to operate their own vehicles. These would be sold by you to individuals and installed in either new or used vehicles. You also will install lifts in vehicles.

The agency has no specific safety standards applicable to handicapped control devices or other devices designed to aid the handicapped. Therefore, we have no special guidelines that you must follow in constructing these devices. However, other Federal agencies, such as the Veterans Administration, have guidelines for such devices and we suggest that you comply with those guidelines.

The agency requires new vehicles to comply with all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, if you manufacture and install handicapped devices in new vehicles, those vehicles should comply with the standards. However, the agency has long realized that, in the instance of handicapped driver controls, it may be difficult to comply with some safety standards, particularly Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (copy enclosed). As a result of compliance problems and the need for these devices to promote the mobility of the handicapped, the agency has stated that it will not enforce standards whose compliance may be impaired as a result of the installation of handicapped driver control devices. Nonetheless, the agency encourages manufacturers to try to comply with all of the safety standards.

The compliance of vehicles with the safety standards, however, should not be affected by the installation of lifts. Many companies now install lifts in regular vans and in school buses. In all instances the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards is maintained. Therefore, the agency will not allow any noncompliances to result from the installation of lifts in vehicles.

For used vehicles that you modify by the addition of devices to aid the handicapped, you need not ensure that the vehicles comply with all safety standards. You should not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards, however. As in the case of new vehicles, if the addition of handicapped driver controls interferes with the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards, the agency would not enforce the noncompliance.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: nht79-1.7

DATE: 10/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: VDO-ARGO Instruments Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. H. A. Ritzenthaler VDO-ARGO Instruments Inc. 980 Brooke Road P.O. Box 2630 Winchester, Virginia 22601

Dear Mr. Ritzenthaler:

This is in response to your letter of January 25, 1979, in which you stated your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 127, Speedometers and Odometers, and asked that we advise you if action taken in accordance with this interpretation would place your company in violation of the standard. This letter is to confirm that your interpretation is correct.

According to your interpretation of Safety Standard 127, those provisions which become effective for new motor vehicles on September l, 1979 and September 1, 1980 are not applicable to speedometers and replacement parts produced for use in motor vehicles manufactured before those dates. This is correct because Safety Standard 127 is a vehicle standard and an equipment standard which applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, motorcycles, and buses manufactured after the standard's effective dates and to speedometer and odometers for use in such vehicles. (Section 3, Safety Standard 127).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 300 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 January 25, 1979

ATT: Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Dyson:

We are a manufacturer of automotive instruments, including speedometers. The changes required on speedometers for new cars after the effective dates September 1979 and September 1980 are clearly defined in Regulation 127, and our original equipment speedometers will be in compliance with this regulation.

We also have an obligation toward the automotive industry to supply original replacement parts for a period of ten years after manufacture of a particular vehicle model has ceased. These replacement parts for cars manufactured before the effective dates of Regulation 127 would, of course, not embody the changes called for in Regulation 127, nor does the regulation itself require such modifications in reference to replacement parts.

This is our interpretation of the applicability of Regulation 127. Should you feel that this interpretation would put us in violation of Regulation 127, please advise us accordingly.

Sincerely, VDO-ARGO INSTRUMENTS, INC.

H. A. Ritzenthaler Manager, Engineering

HAR/nf

ID: nht79-1.8

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. Birch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-3O

Mr. R. Birch Chief Constable P.O. Box 4 Leek Wootton Warwick, England CV35 8QB

Dear Mr. Birch:

This responds to your recent letter concerning a reflective film that is being applied to the windows of some vehicles in the United Kingdom. You ask whether regulations preventing the use of such film have been introduced in the United States.

At the current time, there are no Federal regulations that prohibit the use of reflective films such as you describe. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have no authority, however, to regulate the use of motor vehicles, such as an owner applying reflective film to his car. Further, we have issued interpretations stating that reflective coated polyester films do not qualify as glazing materials and, therefore, do not come within the purview of our Safety Standard No. 205. This interpretation referred only to polyester film sold by itself. Glazing materials that have coated films that were applied by the glazing manufacturer are required to comply with the standard, including the light transmittance requirements.

The agency did receive a petition for rulemaking last year from the California Highway Patrol asking that reflective glazing materials be prohibited (glazing coated with reflective substances by the glazing manufacturer). While use of the reflective coating could reduce the ability of a driver to look through the glazing of vehicles in front of him or her and she the road and vehicles ahead, we denied the petition since we lacked data indicating that there is a safety problem created by the coating. If you have or know of any data indicating a safety problem, we would very much appreciate seeing the data. From a law enforcement viewpoint, the problem posed by the reflective coating is apparently more than theoretical, since officers cannot see inside a vehicle with coated glazing to the extent they deem necessary.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.9

DATE: 10/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Orient Glass, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. J. Ohmura Orient Glass, Inc. 445 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90071

Dear Mr. Ohmura:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether a bus bar extension on rear-window passenger car glazing would comply with Safety Standard No. 205. I assume from your letter that the bus bar is a defrosting template that is embedded in the glazing material.

Safety Standard No. 205, through the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference, requires glazing materials requisite for driving visibility in passenger cars to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent (Test No. 2 in ANS Z26). This requirement would be applicable to rear-window glazing for passenger cars, since these windows are necessary for driving visibility. Rear-window glazing that contains a bus bar extension and electrical template wires would still have to comply with the 70-percent luminous transmittance requirement, when tested in accordance with Test No. 2. The .67-inch bus bar extension would not preclude compliance with this requirement, although it obviously has no luminous transmittance, if the remaining parts of the glazing meet the 70-percent requirement. However, if the electrical wires of the template are so numerous or located so near each other that a tested section of the glazing would not have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent, the rear window would not be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 22, 1979.

U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA Office of Standards Enforcement Washington, D. C. 20590 (Att: Mt. Frank Berndt)

Dear Mr. Berndt,

We have been referred to you by Mr. Heath, of The California Highway Patrol for approval of bus bar extension on rear window auto glass.

As shown in the enclosed attachments this particular bus bar extends 0.67 inch from the edge of the AS-2 approved Tempered Auto Glass. We need written confirmation that this bus bar design complies with your standard, FMVSS 205.

Please let us know if there are any other requirements for approval.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

Thank you.

ORIENT GLASS, INC.

J. Ohmura

JO/mw

August 15, 1979

File No.: 62.A661.A4381

Mr. J. Omura Orient Glass, Inc. 445 S. Figueroa Street Suite 2430 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Mr. Omura:

This is to confirm your telephone conversation of August 2 with Mr. Max Mizoguchi of this office regarding the location of the electrical bus bar in glazing materials.

Original equipment safety glazing meeting the requirements established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is acceptable for sale in California. If you feel that your design may not comply with FMVSS 205, you may wish to contact their legal department to seek clarification. Questions should be directed to:

U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA Office of Standards Enforcement Attention Mr. Frank Berndt Washington, D.C. 20590

Please supply us with a copy of all correspondence on this subject.

We trust this information will be helpful to you.

Very truly yours,

W. W. HEATH, Chief Engineer Acting Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section

ID: nht79-2.1

DATE: 09/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tiger Trading Corporation International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 26, 1979, concerning an "after market" motor vehicle accessory you plan to distribute. You describe the accessory as an item of clear plastic that affixes to the inside of the rear window "to greatly improve the rear vision of the driver of a passenger vehicle."

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, establishes performance requirements for rearview mirror systems. The standard only applies to mirrors installed as original equipment in motor vehicles and does not apply to replacement equipment such as the aftermarket accessory you intend to distribute. However, since the device you plan to distribute is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), as amended, (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defect in your mirror accessory. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

July 26, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

To Whom It May Concern:

We will be distributing a new automobile accessory to the retail trade selling "after market" accessories to the public. Following my brief phone conversation with Mr. Joseph F. Zemaitis, NHTSA, San Francisco, we deemed it advisable to check with your offices to determine if there will be any objections to the product.

Basically the article is made of plastic (clear) and is designed to greatly improve the rear vision of the driver of a passenger vehicle. The unit is affixed to the inside of the rear window by means of a self-adhesive mounting bracket. The driver when looking at the rear view mirror, with the field of vision passing through the unit rearward, then is capable of seeing objects on either side of their vehicle, which they cannot normally do so (Illegible Word) viewing through the rear view mirror.

The unit is 9"x3"x1" (rectangular) and is out of the way of any passengers. As it is not permanently mounted to the vehicle, it will break away upon impact. There are no sharp edges and the larger flat portion of the unit faces the interior of the vehicle. We have enclosed photocopies which will enable you to better understand the unit.

In light of the current problems with rearvision from the drivers seat, we believe the product is needed and timely. Your office's concern in this area as evidenced by Docket No. 71-3a;Notice 4 is indicative.

Your earliest comments will be appreciated.

David H. Lewis Import Manager

cc: Joseph F. Zemaitis

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

THIN METAL TO ELIMINATE SUN GLARE (FACES WINDOW)

CLEAR PLASTIC FACING INTERIOR OF VEHICLE

(Graphics omitted)

THIN METAL TO ELIMINATE SUN GLARE (FACES WINDOW)

PLASTIC

CLEAR PLASTIC FACING INTERIOR OF VEHICLE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.10

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dekalb County School System Service Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Harry W. Reynolds, Supervisor Fleet Maintenance Division DeKalb County School System Service Center 1780 Montreal Road Tucker, Georgia 30084

Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This responds to your July 27, 1979, letter which asked whether any Federal law or regulations would prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting the gasoline fuel systems in its school buses to propane fuel or dual propane/ gasoline fuel systems. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to school buses manufactured in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75 and with respect to school buses manufactured before that standard's effective date. You also asked which persons may perform the conversions. As explained below, the laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) neither prohibit such a conversion of a school bus, regardless of whether it was initially manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, nor specify which persons may perform such conversions.

Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, promulgated by this agency pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 ("the Act") specifies performance requirements for the fuel systems of new motor vehicles, including school buses, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (e.g., gasoline).

New vehicles, such as school buses, that have not yet been sold and delivered to a purchaser where the school district) for purposes other than resale and that have been manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 may be converted to propane and dual propane/gasoline systems. However, any person or entity, other than the purchaser, such as a manufacturer, dealer, or automobile repair business, who performs the conversion would be considered an alterer under NHTSA regulations.

An alterer is required to attach an additional label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). Upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a propane-powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would cease to apply since propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and the standard applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a higher boiling point. Therefore, the alterer would not be required to certify the school bus's continuing compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. However, upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a dual powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would remain applicable and the alterer would be required to certify the vehicle's continued compliance with that standard and all other applicable safety standards.

The installer of a propane or dual propane/gasoline system in a new vehicle would be responsible for any Safety related defects arising from the method of installation. The manufacturer of the system would be responsible for any safety related defects in the system itself. Thus, if a new school bus were found to contain a safety related defect following the addition of a new fuel system the installer or manufacturer, respectively, would be required to notify vehicle owners of any defects and to remedy these defects. (Sections 151 et seq. of the Act, see enclosure). Also, please note if a propane or a dual propane/gasoline system were installed in a used school bus and was later found to contain any safety related defects, the manufacturer of the system would be responsible for notifying vehicle owners of the defect and for remedying them.

Used vehicles manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of that standard, may also be converted. Nothing in the Act prohibits a vehicle owner from modifying his own vehicles. Moreover, no law administered by the NHTSA prohibits other persons or entities such as manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair business from modifying used vehicles.

This means that the DeKalb County School District would not be prohibited from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacture, to propane or to dual-powered buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business. none of these persons or entities would be prohibited from doing the work.

However, such persons and entities could be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, if they converted used vehicles No. 301-75. The section provides in relevant part that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device, or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with Safety Standard No. 301-75, if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modification of the safety systems in a vehicle that is being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the safety standards that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a used gasoline-powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) to a propane-powered school bus, the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to Safety Standard No. 301-75, since this standard, as noted earlier, does not apply to propane-powered school buses.

However, there could be liability under this section in connection with Safety Standard No. 301-75 if, for example, one of the listed persons or entities converted a used gasoline-powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) into a dual-powered school bus. In this situation, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would continue to apply to the school bus after the conversion. Thus, if in performing the conversion one of the listed persons or entities knowingly compromised the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75 while adding the propane system, that person or entity would have violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this response helpful.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 27, 1979

Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation National Highway Safety Traffic Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir:

The DeKalb County School System currently operates a fleet of 350 school buses which consume approximately 1,000,000 gallons of gasoline annually. We have been considering a number of proposals that would enable us to reduce our annual gasoline requirements. One concept that seems very appealing would be the conversion of gasoline school buses to liquid propane. As we consider liquid propane aa an alternate fuel source, we need the advice and counsel of your department, The following are some matters of concern, and any help you could give to us would be appreciated. 1. Are there any Federal laws or governmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting pre FMVSS-301 buses to liquid propane? 2. Are there any Federal laws or governmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting school buses equipped with FMVSS-301 fuel system? 3. Are there any Federal laws or govermmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from installing one propane tank and leaving the existing fuel system intact so the vehicle can be powered by a dual system of gasoline and liquid propane? 4. If these conversions can be performed, by whom may they be performed? (the manufacturer, a dealer, a propane supply, or the DeKalb County School System's Fleet Maintenance Division) Our concern for fuel conservation has prompted us to seek your advice and counsel. We have looked into this matter and find ourselves in an uncertain postre due to thhe regulations concernig safety systems originally certified as part of the school bus and by the Safety Standard FMVSS-301. Your counsel will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Harry Wayne Reynolds, Supervisor Fleet Maintenance Division HWR/mb

ID: nht79-2.11

DATE: 01/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: J. R. Randolph

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 28, 1978, letter concerning an auxiliary fuel tank installed by the dealer on a 1978 Ford van that you purchased. You are concerned that the auxiliary tank represents a safety hazard due to the location of the tank's filler cap in the left rear wheel-well.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, specifies performance requirements for fuel systems on motor vehicles. Although the standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components, your dealer had to assure that your van complied with the standard. A person who mounts an auxiliary fuel tank on a new motor vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is a vehicle alterer under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations. That person is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix a label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Therefore, there should be an "alterer" label on your van in addition to the certification label placed on the vehicle by the original manufacturer.

Even if the vehicle complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75, the location and design of the auxiliary fuel tank could constitute a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer would also be responsible. I am, therefore, forwarding a copy of your letter to the agency's Office of Defects Investigation. That office will examine this situation and may be in touch with you at a later date.

Thank you for your letter and for bringing this matter to our attention.

SINCERELY,

December 28, 1978

Chief Counsel Office of the Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

I am writing this letter to inform you of what appears to me to be a definite safety hazard and requesting of you an interpretation of the regulations which authorize either a direct intervention or the issuance of a consumer advisory. This letter is a result of a discussion with, and at the suggestion of, Mr. C. G. Keiper of your Denver office.

On September 7, 1978, I purchased a new 1978 Ford Econoline 150 van from Lakewood Ford, Incorporated. I requested that an auxiliary gas tank be installed and the dealer included the installation on my purchase agreement. Upon delivery to me, I found that the filler cap for the auxiliary gas tank was located in the left rear wheel well. My concerns were responded to by statements which varied from "all after-market auxiliary gas tank installations are the same", to "it meets Federal criteria for a side impact crash".

I subsequently learned that a local dealer, other than Lakewood Ford, had installed the tank according to the manufacturer's directions. The tank is manufactured by ARA.

My concerns are twofold. First, the wheel well is one of the filthiest places on a van, and no reasonable person can keep dirt from entering the auxiliary tank. I have already experienced an engine failure which resulted from dirt in the auxiliary tank; fortunately, the breakdown occurred in the city and only consituted an annoyance. A similar breakdown in the Colorado Rockies, or anywhere else outside a metropolitian area, could conceivably result in explosion and possibly death.

My second concern is that if I were to use tire chains the one on the left rear tire could break, strike the filler cap and cause a fire or explosion.

In either event I am unable to use the product for its intended purpose except in a sterile environment -- normal driving is impossible using this tank except for careless and unthinking persons.

I have brought this matter to the attention of the dealership's president. As of this date, the dealer has not clearly indicated its willingness to either modify the installation to eliminate the hazards or to remove the tank and refund my money.

I will appreciate your consideration in this matter both for my own peace of mind and for the safety of myself and the many people who had the same installation without prior knowledge of the placement of the gas filler cap.

James R. Randolph

cc: JESS B. CARROWAY - LAKEWOOD FORD, INC.; C. G. KEIPER NHTSA, DENVER