ID: nht80-2.36

DATE: 05/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning folding jump seats you intend to install in some future van models that your company manufacturers. You ask whether the seats would qualify as "designated seating positions", for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The term "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats . . . . (emphasis added).

As described and illustrated in your letter, the Nissan seats in question appear to qualify as folding jump seats. Consequently, under the definition above they would not be considered "designated seating positions". Although this is the case, we encourage you to install safety belts for these jump seats as you had previously planned. Likewise, we hope you will ensure that the seats have a crashworthiness performance equivalent to that required by Safety Standard No. 207 (for "designated seating positions") when the jump seats are folded into place for occupant use.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

April 23, 1980

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., would like to take this time to ask you for your interpretation concerning Part 571 Definition "Designated Seating Position."

Our questions can be found on the attached pages. We would like to ask that you treat the attached pages as "Confidential" until it is introduced to the public. Your interpretations will be appreciated very much.

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

ATTACH.

cc: HUGH OATES (NOA-30)

ID: nht80-2.37

DATE: 05/13/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rubber Manufactures Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 13, 1980

Mr. Thomas E. Cole Tire Division Rubber Manufacturers Association 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Cole:

This is in response to your letter of April 14, 1980, regarding two apparent discrepancies in the revised Uniform Tire Quality Grading tread label format, published on November 29, 1979, in Docket 25, Notice 35 (44 FR 58475). As you note, the word "Vehicle" was omitted from the term "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109" under the heading "Temperature" in Figure 2, Part II, of the regulation as published. This was an inadvertent omission which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) plans to correct in a future notice.

You also point out that paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1) of the regulation (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)(1)), applicable to tires manufactured prior to October 1, 1980, provides for use of the heading "DOT QUALITY GRADES" in capital letters, while Part I of Figure 2 of the regulation contains the heading "DOT Quality Grades" using lower case letters. The label format specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1) parallels the label format originally announced in Docket 25, Notice 24 (43 FR 30542; July 17, 1978), the heading of which used all capital letters. Since Part I of Figure 2 is not required on labels printed in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1), the use of lower case letters in the heading of Part I does not affect the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1). NHTSA will permit, at the manufacturer's option, the use of all capital letters in the heading of Figure 2, Part I, in printing labels to comply with the new two-part label format.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 14, 1980

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: 49 CFR Part 575.104

Gentlemen:

Docket 25; Notice 35 was published in the November 29, 1979 Federal Register. The amended labeling requirements permit the use of labels employing the original format, at the manufacturers' option, until October 1, 1980. As the tire manufacturers have prepared their new labels using the format specified in Notice 35, two minor discrepancies have been noticed.

In the explanatory information under Figure 2 for Temperature, the word "vehicle" has been left out of the term "Federal Motor Vehicle standard No. 109." We assume the omission of the word "vehicle" is not intended and will undoubtedly be included in the labels prepared by tire manufacturers.

The second discrepancy noted is concerned with capital versus lower case letters of the term "DOT QUALITY GRADES." In Paragraph (B)(1) it says that the label shall contain information "in the form illustrated in Figure 2, Part II, bearing the heading DOT QUALITY GRADES." Figure 2 shows part of the phrase "DOT QUALITY GRADES" being in lower case letters. Thus, in one place in the regulation, it is required that all letters in this phrase be in capital letters, and in another place it is required that part of letters be in lower case.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas E. Cole Vice President Tire Division

TEC/kk

ID: nht80-2.38

DATE: 05/21/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Safety and Security Consultants

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 21, 1980

Mr. D. J. Hitt Vice President Safety and Security Consultants 702 Candy Mountain Road Birmingham, Alabama 35217

Dear Mr. Hitt:

This is in reply to your letters of April 11, and April 25, 1980, respectively to this agency and to Mr. Vinson of this office, These letters reference requirements for side marker reflectors and clearance lamps for trailers used to carry agricultural products over the public roads.

You say that your trailers travel "as much as several hundred miles on the highways at all hours of the day and night". Therefore, they are "motor vehicles" subject to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.108). You will see that marker lamps and reflectors are required on all trailers, while rear clearance lamps need be added only if the overall width of a trailer is 80 inches or more. A clearance lamp facing to the rear may be combined with a rear side marker lamp; we assume that is what you mean by a "side clearance lamp" as the standard speaks only in terms of "front" and "rear" clearance lamps.

You have also asked for the "early history" of why these lamps are required pursuant to "Regulation #393.15". As a matter of clarification that section of Title 49 is enforced by a different agency, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, and covers lighting equipment required for commercial vehicles being used in interstate commerce. Our lighting standard, essentially identical, must be met before the vehicle is used, i.e., from time of manufacture until time of sale. To answer your question, clearance lamps must indicate the overall width of the trailer, in order that other drivers may be alerted to the presence on the road of a large vehicle. Side markers help identify the presence of a vehicle whose head lamps or taillamps may not be seen by a driver approaching it from a 90 degree angle, such as at an intersection.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood for

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

SAFETY & SECURITY CONSULTANTS 702 Candy Mountain Road Birmingham, Alabama 35217

Telephone: 853-9525

April 25, 1980

Mr. Taylor Vinson Chief Counsel Room 5219 Department of Transportation Headquarters 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

In reference to my telephone conversation with Mr. Brooks of your office, I am sending the additional information you requested. We are interested in side markers and side clearance lamps for farm hauling equipment such as peanut haulers, cotton haulers and other typed of trailers which are not self propelled. These trailers would be used to carry the product from the farm to market or other distribution point. Sometime traveling as much as several hundred miles on the highways at all hours of the day and night. We would like to know what the legal requirements are for this type of equipment. Also the early history of why side markers and side clearance lamps are used on small semi-trailers and full trailers as required by the Department of Transportation, Regulation #393.15.

If you can not supply this information, could you direct us to where we can find it.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

D. J. Hitt Vice-President

DJH/dc Enclosure

SAFETY & SECURITY CONSULTANTS 702 Candy Mountain Road Birmingham, Alabama 35217

Telephone: 853-9525

April 11, 1980

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Sir:

Our firm is conducting a research on Reflective side markers and body side clearan-ce lamps for agricultural and farm related equipment that is being towed.

We would like to know what the legal requirements for side markers are, also the early history of such requirement, and why side markers and side clearance lamps are required. If you do not have this information, can you direct us to where we might find it?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

D. J. Hitt Vice President DJH/dc

ID: nht80-2.39

DATE: 05/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John Evans Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 29 1980

Mr. Tom Spencer John Evans Mfg. Co. P.O. Box 669 Sumter, South Carolina 29150

Dear Mr. Spencer:

This responds to your May 6, 1980, telephone conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked about the certification responsibilities for an incomplete trailer manufacturer. You indicated in your conversation that you manufacture chassis for trailers and supply them to finalstage manufacturers who complete them by the addition of a body. In particular, you asked whether you are required to comply with the provisions of Part 568.4, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Part 568 places certain certification responsibilities upon incomplete vehicle manufacturers. The term "incomplete vehicle" is defined in section 568.3, as an assemblage including, at a minimum, the frame, chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension and braking system to the extent that these systems are to be part of the completed vehicle. If a chassis that you manufacture is completed to the extent that it has the above-listed components and merely needs the addition of a body by a final-stage manufacturer, it would be considered an incomplete vehicle and would be required to comply with the incomplete vehicle document requirements of Part 568. Please note that your incomplete trailer need not have all of the components listed above to be considered an incomplete vehicle subject to Part 558. It need only have those components in the list that will be found in the completed vehicle. Since your trailer is an incomplete vehicle but not a chassis-cab as that term is defined in Part 567, Certification, it would not be required to have a chassis-cab manufacturer's certification label attached to it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-2.4

DATE: 04/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sholz Oldsmobile, John Galotti

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne

TEXT:

Mr. John B. Galotti Service Manager Sholz Oldsmobile 35 West Post Road White Plains, New York 10606

Dear Mr. Galotti:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the legal requirements applicable to the installation of fuel separators and auxiliary fuel tanks in motor vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of a letter the agency issued last year which discusses the Federal requirements and implications that would be involved with such activities. That discussion should answer all of your questions. If, however, you require further information, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

[8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted here.]

March 10, 1980

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel NOA 30

Re; Installation of Diesel engine fuel and dirt separators and auxiliary Diesel fuel tanks in trunks of passenger cars.

Dear Sir;

We have received many requests and inquires from car owners concerning the installation of Fuel separators and Auxiliary fuel tanks in their vehicles.

Before we oblige them we would like to know officially what difficulties and liabilities we might run into as far as Federal Laws are concerned.

Any assistance you may give us pertaining to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

John B. Galotti Service Manager

ID: nht80-2.40

DATE: 05/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hiroshi Abe Assistant General Manager Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civil Center Drive Southfield, Michigan 48076

Dear Mr. Abe:

This is in response to your letter of April 3, 1980, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 to incomplete vehicles.

S4.1 of Standard No. 115 provides that "(e)ach vehicle manufactured in more than one stage shall have a VIN and check digit assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer." Consequently, Isuzu Motors, Inc. would be the entity responsible for assigning the vehicle identification number (VIN) to incomplete vehicles which it ships to the United States.

You wish to know whether the manufacturer identifier in the VIN of each of these vehicles may designate the vehicle as a "truck" instead of as an "incomplete vehicle" if Isuzu knows that the completed vehicle will be a truck.

S4.5.1 of the standard provides that the first three characters of the VIN shall identify the manufacturer, make and type of vehicle. Table I of S4.5.2 delineates the different types of vehicles and includes a separate type designation for "incomplete vehicles." As explained in the preamble to Notice 8 (March 22, 1979, 44 FR 17489, at 17490), the "incomplete vehicle" category was added because "incomplete" vehicle manufacturers would have little way of knowing the final configuration of the vehicles they produce." It was never the intent of the agency, however, to preclude a manufacturer from indicating the precise types of completed vehicles if this is known.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 3, 1980 Mr. Frederick Schwarts, Jr. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Incomplete Vehicle Attributes --- FMVSS 115 VIN

Dear Mr. Schwarts:

This letter is intended to seek your advice on whether the use of VIN for our incomplete trucks meets the requirements of FMVSS 115 --- Vehicle Identification Number.

We currently manufacture and ship to the U.S. incomplete vehicles for which we assume "legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured" as specified in 49 CFR Part 567 ---Certification, 567.5(e). All the vehicles are completed into trucks by the final manufacturer in the U.S. Therefore, the vehicle type description shown in the certification label as set forth in 567.5(e) is "Truck."

In light of this situation, we are planning to use the VIN (the first three characters) assigned to our trucks rather than to incomplete vehicles. The same would apply to the VIN appearing on the above-mentioned certification label.

We believe this arrangement would not contradict the requirements of FMVSS Part 115, but would appreciate your confirmation. We are looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

H. Abe Assistant General Manager 05/29/80

ID: nht80-2.41

DATE: 05/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director, Engineering Heavy Vehicle Systems Group The Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria, Ohio 44035

Dear Mr. Hildebrandt:

This responds to your April 8, 1980, letter asking for an interpretation of section 5.2.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In particular, you ask whether your system complies with the provisions of that section which require that vehicles have a reservoir capable of releasing the parking brakes in the event of an emergency failure of the service brake system. You indicate that your system is in compliance with the intent of this section but may not be in technical compliance with the actual requirements. Nonetheless, you believe that your system complies based upon a letter of interpretation made by the agency to Berg Manufacturing Company dated August 27, 1979.

The August letter to Berg to which you refer in your letter was conditioned upon our reading of the facts as stated by Berg in their letter. That letter as it applied to section 5.2.1.1 was not an interpretation of the standard, but rather an assessment by the agency as to whether we believed that time and based upon the given facts, we stated to Berg that we felt that their system would comply.

The agency has always been reluctant to issue such letters, because it is impossible to determine compliance based up a manufacturer's description of its vehicles or from vehicle drawings. It is necessary for the agency to conduct tests to be certain whether a vehicle will comply. Accordingly, the agency always indicates in its letters that any assessment of compliance is contingent upon the description made in the manufacturer's letter, and that our opinions only reflect our engineering expertise and in no way bind the agency should we test the vehicle and find a noncompliance. In fact, we have frequently indicated to manufacturers that these letters are of little or no value to them.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Berg letter, the agency has received a clearer picture of how the Berg system operates. We have notified that company that their system does not comply with the requirements of the standard. Berg has indicated to the agency that they consider their system to be as good as any that is in complete compliance with the standard and has petitioned the agency to amend the standard in a way that would permit their system. The agency is now looking into the Berg request. We suggest that you closely follow that rulemaking action.

With respect to your system, it appears that it too would not comply with the technical requirements of the standard, because your system does not have a reservoir capable of releasing the parking brakes in the event of service brake failure. Although the agency appreciates your argument that your system meets the intent of the standard for the release of parking brakes when the service brake system fails, nonetheless the standard is specific in its requirement that a reservoir be provided that is capable of releasing the parking brakes. We cannot by interpretation remove the reservoir requirement. Our rulemaking effort with respect to the Berg petition will address the question of whether the reservoir requirement remains necessary in the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

April 8, 1980

Subject: Request for Confirmation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; Air Brake Systems; Section 5.2.1.1

Gentlemen:

The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group (Bendix) respectfully requests from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) confirmation of Bendix' conclusion that the trailer air brake reservoir system as set forth in Attachment A satisfies the intent and is in compliance with Section S5.2.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS 121). Bendix' conclusion of compliance is based upon the NHTSA August 27, 1979 interpretation issued to Berg Manufacturing Company (Berg) (Attachment B), and Laboratory Procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; TP-121-02, Test Data, page 47 (Attachment C).

The Bendix' trailer reservoir system, shown and described herein; utilizes standard industry accepted components to provide trailer service, emergency and parking brake capabilities. The air applied emergency vapability of this Bendix system is equal to or better than that required by FMVSS 121. Service air for trailer parking is applied through the relay emergency valve. In the event of a reduction in pressure of the service reservoir, spring applied braking would be a secondary means of braking for parking and emergency. The emergency parking brake is applied when the trailer supply line pressure is vented to atmosphere, and released when this line is pressurized to approximately 55 psi. Supply line pressurization for release of the trailer parking brake is unaffected by any single failure in the trailer's service brake system.

The submitted Bendix trailer reservoir system has parking brake release capability as stated in Section S5.2.1.1 of the Standard. Bendix supports the intent of Section S5.2.1.1.1 which promotes highway safety by requiring the towed vehicles parking brakes to have the capability of being released from the towing vehicle in the event of a trailer service system loss of pressure.

A trailer reservoir for the storage of air pressure used to release the parking brakes in event of a service failure per section S5.2.1.1 is redundant, as utilization of the stored pressure requires pressurization of the trailer supply line. In the Bendix' system, if a failure occurs in the service air system, such as a failure of the reservoir, air pressure used for release of the spring applied brakes is provided by the trailer supply line which is pressurized by the air system of the towing vehicle when charging the trailer.

After reviewing the NHTSA interpretation of August 27, 1979 (Attachment B) and the Laboratory procedure TP-121-02 (Attachment C) Bendix has concluded that a trailer brake system which provides parking brake release when the trailer supply line is pressurized is in compliance with S5.2.1.1.

A similar Bendix' trailer reservoir system, having anti-lock capability was submitted to the NHTSA with our letter of September 14, 1977 (Attachment D) petitioning for a revision of Section S5.2.1.1.

Bendix hereby respectfully requests concurrence from with the NHTSA that the Bendix trailer air brake reservoir system, discussed herein, complies with S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS 121. We would be pleased to discuss these Bendix systems in more detail at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director, Engineering

RWH:mnr

Attachments Omitted.

ID: nht80-2.42

DATE: 06/02/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Donald Boyd & Associates, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation that large commercial truck tractors do not have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. You also asked whether large trucks should be designed to comply with the "belt system" option under Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

You are correct in your assumption that large commercial trucks would not have to comply with Safety Standard No. 216 since that standard only applies to passenger cars. You are also correct in stating that trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds may meet the seat belt option of Safety Standard No. 208 found in paragraph S4.3.2. Under S4.3.1, manufacturers do have the option of meeting the crash protection requirements of S5 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (with current technology this means air cushion restraints or automatic seat belts). Further, vehicles manufactured prior to August 15, 1977, were permitted to comply with Safety Standard No. 216 in lieu of the "rollover" requirements of Standard No. 208, and for large trucks this would have been a simple test to meet. However, since the vehicle would also have been required to meet the "frontal" and "lateral" requirements by automatic means if option S4.3.1 were taken, no truck manufacturers chose to comply with the "rollover" requirements of Standard No. 208 via the Standard No. 216 option. Rather, seat belts were installed on all large trucks.

SINCERELY,

DONALD BOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers

April 22, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Roof Structure Crashworthiness Requirements for large commerciales vehicles

Dear Sir:

Based on my review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, I have concluded that it is not necessary for manufacturers of large commercial truck tractors to comply with FMVSS roof crash resistance performance standards. However, I would like to get your opinion.

FMVSS 216 relates to passenger cars and, because of the 5,000 pound test load limitation, cannot be expected to apply to large commercial truck tractors which should experience substantially higher forces in most rollovers. Standard number 208; S4.3 applies to "trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds" and provides two options for meeting crashworthiness requirements. Realistically, however, it would seem that truck manufacturers should select one of these (the "belt system" option) because the other option (which refers back to 216 and the 5,000-pound load limitation) would not be expected to provide adequate roof structure to resist a 30 mile per hour rollover of a large commercial truck.

Therefore, I have concluded that large commercial truck tractors should be designed to comply with the "belt system" option of FMVSS 208 to provide better occupant protection and, in meeting the requirements of this option, will satisy the occupant crash protection Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for trucks manufactured prior to August 15, 1977.

I would greatly appreciate a response from you indicating whether my interpretation of these requirements is consistent with that of the Office of the Chief Counsel.

Donald E. Boyd, Ph.D., P.E.

ID: nht80-2.43

DATE: 06/02/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brown Motors Volkswagen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne

TEXT:

Mr. Robert Slagle Parts Manager Brown Motors Volkswagen 5 West 18th Street at National City Boulevard National City, California 92050

Dear Mr. Slagle:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the Federal requirements that would be applicable to the manufacture and installation of auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in passenger cars. I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issued last August which discusses the general implications of such installations under Federal law.

Your letter asked whether it will be necessary for you to crash test vehicles that have the auxiliary tanks installed. As indicated in the enclosed interpretation, if the tank is added to a new vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person making the alteration will have to certify that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 301-75. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a manufacturer (including an alterer) to exercise due care to assure that a vehicle certifies is in fact in compliance with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the manufacturer to determine how he will establish due care and, in this case, whether he will crash test a vehicle or use some other method to ensure the compliance of the vehicle. The test procedures in Safety Standard No. 301-75 are not obligatory, only the performance requirements. The test procedures do, however, state how the agency will test a vehicle to determine compliance.

In answer to your question number 4, I can state that it will not be necessary for you to crash test each vehicle which has a tank installed in order to establish due care. If by your question you meant one car of each car "model," once again, it is up to the manufacturer how he establishes due care.

In answer to your question number 3, the information contained in the enclosed interpretation includes discussions of all the Federal safety requirements that would be applicable to your company's activities. There may, of course, be other general Federal laws regarding the conducting of a business which would be pertinent. For example, Federal Trade Commission regulations regarding advertising could affect your activities. You are probably aware of these general regulations, however, since you are already an established business enterprise.

Regarding your final question, all vehicle manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, have performed crash tests to determine compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. Since your company is a Volkswagen dealership, I suggest you contact Volkswagen regarding its compliance testing program for Safety Standard No. 301-75.

If you have any further questions after reviewing this information, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

[8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted]

April 24, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation National Hwy. Traffic Safety Adm. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are in the process of having auxiliary diesel fuel tanks made of aluminum for us by a company who makes many items, such as ducting, vents, water tanks, fuel tanks, etc. These tanks are for automobiles that use diesel fuel only, not gasoline. We make up a kit including all necessary parts and installation instructions for this to be installed in diesel driven vehicles only.

These auxiliary diesel fuel tank kits will be sold to automobile dealers for sale over the counter or may install in their own shop; also sold to repair shops, auto parts stores, etc, We will install these auxiliary tanks in our agency also.

Our tanks are constructed of 12 gauge non-corrosive aluminum-Heliarc welded and each tank is pressure tested. Some are made to fit in to the spare tire well and some fit in the trunk of the car. Each tank is secured by (4) four or more bolts thru specially welded brackets on each tank.

We are prepared to notify customers if necessary, should we find a defect, also should a leak occur, we will replace the tank.

I would appreciate a response to the questions listed below:

1. Will federal motor vehicle safety standard FMVSS No. 301-75 apply to our company's activities?

2. Will it be necessary for us to crash test a car?

3. Will any other federal law apply to our company's activity?

4. Will it be necessary for us to crash test each car we make diesel tanks for?

5. Can you furnish any information to us on manufacture's that performed crash tests as to federal standards FMVSS 301-75?

Our desire and intent is to build a safe auxiliary diesel fuel tank and maintain fuel system integrity.

I would appreciate any response to this letter and any suggestions you might have for this project.

Sincerely,

Robert Slagle Parts Manager

ID: nht80-2.44

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meon, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Martin D. Davis Meon, Inc. 221-18 Merrick Boulevard Springfield Gardens, New York 11413

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is in response to your letter of May 12, 1980, requesting interpretation of paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR S 575.104). That paragraph provides that to qualify as a limited production tire a tire cannot have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the United States in quantities greater than 10,000 during the preceding calendar year. You ask whether a tire meets this requirement if its size is recommended for use on several new vehicles, none of which is produced in quantities greater than 10,000 yearly, but which in the aggregate account for annual production in excess of 10,000 vehicles.

Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) refers to "a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation (emphasis added)" and "a new motor vehicle (emphasis added)", indicating that the 10,000 vehicle limitation refers to the production or importation of a particular vehicle model, rather than the total of all models for which the tire size is recommended. Thus, if a tire's size is recommended for use on several vehicle models, none of which is produced in or imported into the United States in quantities greater 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, the tire would meet the criterion of paragraph (c)(2)(iii).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

MAY 12, 1980

MR. RICHARD J. HIPOLIT OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR MR. HIPOLIT:

PURSUANT TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF TODAY WE REQUEST THAT YOU CLARIFY A POINT.

SEE PAGE 23443 PARAGRAPH 575.04-(III) "A NEW MOTOR VEHICLE". THIS MEANS WHAT? ONE MODEL OR SEVERAL MODELS? MY LAWYER SAYS ONE MODEL. FOR EXAMPLE, SIZE 205/70HR14, NO CAR HAS A PRODUCTION OF 10,000 BUT IF YOU TAKE 5 OR 6 MODELS THEY ADD UP TO 15,000. WHAT DO WE DO?

SINCE YOU INDICATE NO CRITERIA FOR ANYTHING WE ARE USING THE ATTACHED AUTOMOTIVE NEWS LISTS AND THE 1979 TIRE GUIDE.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

MARTIN D. DAVIS MEON, INC.

MDD;AB ENC: