ID: nht79-4.32

DATE: 07/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1979, to our former Chief Counsel, Joseph Levin asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have quoted Column 3 of Table IV with respect to motor cycle headlamps and the specification that the one headlamp the standard requires be located "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline". Yamaha would like to equip certain motor cycles with two headlamps, one to be mounted above the other on the vertical centerline with the hope that "this may increase conspicuity and facilitate safety". You have asked whether this mounting arrangement conforms with Standard No. 108.

The arrangement you have in mind is not permitted by the Federal lighting standard. "Symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline" means that each headlamp is an equal distance from the vertical centerline at the same horizontal location. We believe that this provides better and more evenly distributed forward illumination than the system Yamaha proposes, while being the equivalent in conspicuity.

SINCERELY,

YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION U.S.A.

July 2, 1979

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Yamaha is exploring the possibility of utilizing two headlamps on some of our motorcycle models. We believe this may increase conspicuity and facilitate safety. Our question deals with the location of the headlamps pursuant to FMVSS 108.

We would like to place the headlamps on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, one above the other. Column 3 of Table IV of FMVSS 108 states: "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline."

This section, we believe, can be interpreted to allow the placement of dual headlamps in two ways. The lamps may be placed on the vertical centerline, one above the other, or they may be located horizontally so long as they are equal distance from the vertical centerline.

We would deeply appreciate your concurrence with this interpretation or an explanation of permissible locations. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Michael J. Schmitt Legal Counsel Engineering Division

ID: nht79-4.33

DATE: 06/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Viking Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 6, 1979, asking whether a rear lamp configuration that you describe would meet the location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Viking Truck would like to use a lighting module containing turn signal lamps, stop lamps, tail lamps, and back-up lamps mounted on its "Bridgemaster" extendable axle. This "axle" has the appearance of a small trailer and in either extended or unextended position covers about half of the rear of the concrete mixer truck to which it is attached. You stated that Viking has had problems connected with vibration and damageability when the lamps are placed on the tag axle fender, and that remounting them on the extendable axle would alleviate these problems.

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and tail lamps be mounted "as far apart as practicable." Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a manufacturer self-certification scheme, the agency has traditionally deferred to a manufacturer's determination of what, in any given instance, is "practicable" except in such instances as appear to the agency to be a clear abuse of discretion. In our opinion, Viking has a reasonable basis for a determination that the location it wishes to use is practicable. In the absence of any investigation of the matter by NHTSA, or questioning of your practice, Viking's certification of compliance attached to the vehicle should ensure that the truck cannot be refused registration in any State simply because of the lighting configuration. This means, in our opinion and to answer your second question, Viking need not acquire State approval of the configuration before offering the truck for sale.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

VIKING TRUCK CORPORATION

June 6, 1979

Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219, DOT Headquarters

Gentlemen:

Enclosed you will find four photographs of a concrete mixer mounted with our "Bridgemaster" extendable axle. Two of these pictures show the axle fully extended. The other two show the axle completely retracted.

Please notice the location of the light module we have put into place. This lighting module, produced by Betts Safety Lamp, is a completely enclosed, waterproof, heavy duty lighting system. In the module are the left and right turn lights, brake lights and tail lights. The back up light and electrical junction block is also included in the module. The combination brake, turn, and tail lights are 18 1/4" from center to center. Also, please notice the rear clearance lamps on the fender of the rear driving axle.

We have had numerous problems with the lights when they are placed on the tag axle fenders. They receive a lot of vibration and have a tendency to get backed into. We believe mounting the lights in the location shown in the photographs would alleviate many of our rear lighting problems.

Would the brake, turn, and tail lights, as placed in the photographs, meet the requirements of being "as far apart as practicable" (Part 571; S108-11)? If you find these lights in accordance with the regulations, do we have to acquire approval from the individual states, particularly California?

Please contact me if you need any further information. Thank you.

Michael W. Brooks

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-4.34

DATE: 08/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mark Marks

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to the request of Ms. Chris Anderson of your office, I have enclosed a copy of a letter which I recently wrote detailing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations pertinent to the manufacture of trailers. Please note the reference on page 2 of the letter concerning the "Manufacturer Identification" requirements. These requirements are independent of those pertinent to the Vehicle Identification Number.

Under current regulations (49 CFR Part 571.115), manufacturers of trailers are not subject to the Vehicle Identification Number requirements. However, pursuant to recent amendments (see enclosed copy), a manufacturer of trailers will be required to affix a Vehicle Identification Number to every trailer manufactured on or after September 1, 1980. Although, the Vehicle Identification Number will not have to be affixed until this date, certain reports will be required in advance. Any trailer manufacturer who begins production before September 1, 1979, must report to NHTSA by that date the characters that he will include in his Vehicle Identification Numbers to uniquely identify himself, the make and the type of vehicle he produces. A manufacturer beginning production after September 1, 1979, must submit this information at least 60 days before he begins affixing the Vehicle Identification Numbers to vehicles.

I hope that this information will be helpful to you and your constituent. I will be happy to answer any further questions that you may have.

SINCERELY,

Attachment: See 8/31/79 letter from F. Berndt to Vesely Company.

ID: nht79-4.35

DATE: 05/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 12, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the term "production process" as used in 49 CFR 571.115, S4.5.3.3. We are sorry for the delay in responding.

The production practice you describe on page 2 of your letter would satisfy S4.5.3.3. In the preamble to the final rule published on August 17, 1978 (43 FR 36451), the agency stated:

The NPRM proposed that the last six characters represent the sequential number of a vehicle when the manufacturer produced more than 500 vehicles annually of that type.

A number of comments pointed out that for various reasons a vehicle might be taken from a production line, thereby having an actual sequential number which differs from the production sequence number originally assigned by the manufacturer. The proposal is amended to indicate that the production sequence number is required.

Thus, Pullman Trailmobile should indicate the sequential number originally assigned by the manufacturer, not the number reflecting exact order in which the vehicle is produced.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 12, 1979

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: FMVSS No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number Request for Interpretation

Dear Sirs:

FMVSS No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115, was recently amended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") in part as follows:

S4.5.3.3 The third through the eighth characters of the third section shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process . . .

The Pullman Trailmobile Division of Pullman Incorporated ("Pullman Trailmobile") requests an interpretation of the term "production process" from the Administrator.

Pullman Trailmobile is a manufacturer of highway truck trailers. Pullman Trailmobile's present production practice is that, upon acceptance of a customer's order for trailers, serial numbers for the trailers are immediately assigned and the order is thereupon placed with the appropriate Pullman Trailmobile plant for manufacture. Upon effectiveness of FMVSS No. 115, the number assigned in this fashion will be the vehicle identification number ("VIN"). The VIN plate or label will be affixed to each trailer when manufacture of the trailer is complete. Several situations could arise during manufacture which would cause trailers to be produced in a sequence different from that of the VIN sequence.

If the NHTSA intends the VIN to identify a vehicle's maker, attributes, age, etc., Pullman Trailmobile's practice will fulfill that purpose. If the NHTSA intends the VIN, among other things, to identify the exact order in which a given group of vehicles was produced, Pullman Trailmobile's practice will not fulfill that purpose.

Pullman Trailmobile believes that its production practice of assigning the VIN at the time of acceptance of a customer's order for trailers falls within the scope of assigning the VIN in the "production process", as that term is used by the NHTSA. This is, in fact, the first step in Pullman Trailmobile's production processes even though the physical production of vehicles has not yet begun.

It is requested that the NHTSA confirm Pullman Trailmobile's interpretation of "production process". Because of the considerable time, effort and expense involved in establishing its computerized VIN coding system, Pullman Trailmobile desires assurance from NHTSA that the aforementioned aspect of its production practice conforms with the regulations. Your prompt response will be appreciated.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID L. KELLY -- Attorney, PULLMAN TRAILMOBILE DIVISION OF PULLMAN INCORPORATED

ID: nht79-4.36

DATE: 11/01/79 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

COPYEE: KENNETH ADAMS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the term "restraint system type" as contained in Table I of S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. In addition, this is in confirmation of Volkswagen's statement of the conclusions reached in the meeting with Messrs. Carson, Parker and Schwartz of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The agency has carefully considered your request that "restraint system type" not be interpreted to require a distinction between active and passive belt systems. The agency must deny your request. As the introduction of mandatory passive restraints approaches, information concerning restraint system type is of exceptional importance to the agency. It is important not only to evaluate the overall effectiveness of passive restraints, but also to determine the effectiveness of the various types of passive restraint system types. Consequently, it is necessary that passive belt systems be differentiated from other restraint system types by decoding the vehicle identification number (VIN).

The agency has also considered the alternative Volkswagen suggested which is to submit this information separately to the agency on a magnetic tape. Motor vehicle safety research is carried out by many organizations aside from the NHTSA, however, and Standard No. 115 is intended to make information available to these other researchers as well. Consequently, the agency can not accept the alternative you suggest.

As regards to other questions raised in the meeting with NHTSA staff, this is to confirm that paragraphs 2 through 4 of our November 20, 1978, letter remain the position of the agency despite the changes in Standard No. 115 since that time. A copy of that letter is enclosed. Likewise, the agency can confirm that the World Manufacturer Identifiers assigned to Volkswagen by the Society of Automotive engineers fulfill the requirements of S6.1 of Standard No. 115.

As requested, the agency has reviewed the VIN format Volkswagen intends to utilize (attachments 2-4 of this letter) and has determined that it meets the requirements of the standard. As explained at the meeting, specific details concerning an engine need not be encoded so long as the information is available from the manufacturer and different engine types can be differentiated by means of the VIN (S4.5.2).

Volkswagen also pointed out to the agency at the meeting that the first eight characters of the VIN for a particular model might remain the same for several model years, although the characteristics of the vehicle which they codify might change from model year to model year. For example, a 1981 Dasher might have a different engine than a 1982 Dasher, yet that part of the VIN which contains this information would remain the same. This is authorized by Standard No. 115, so long as the correct information for each model year is submitted to the agency.

Volkswagen also asked at the meeting what the correct procedure would be for submitting information to the agency concerning vehicles whose line is not subdivided into several series. In this instance, indicate that the line and series are the same. However, even if the series is not divided into more than one body type, this body type must be reported to the agency (S4.5.2). The engine displacement may be indicated in cubic centimeters, and the horsepower in H.P. SAE net (3). If only one engine make is used, this information must be submitted to the agency, but need not be directly reflected in the VIN (S6.3).

Volkswagen has also asked when information concerning vehicles imported into the United States must be submitted to the agency. Manufacturers of imported vehicles are required to report VIN codes 60 days before the vehicles are imported into the United States to comply with S6.2.

The agency is considering the petitions of a number of manufacturers to establish engine horsepower groupings for reporting purposes and to establish a flexible effective date for vehicles whose model year begins between September 1, 1980 and December 31, 1980. We expect to respond shortly to the petitions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 25, 1979

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On September 8, 1978 representatives of Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagenwerk AG met with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, Parker and Schwartz of the NHTSA to discuss Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). In that meeting an interpretation of "restraint system type" was brought up. It was suggested by Mr. Schwartz that Volkswagen submit a formal request for interpretation. Accordingly, this letter is a formal request for interpretation of the term "restraint system type" contained in paragraph S4.5.2, Table I of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115, (VIN).

VW is currently in the process of finalizing the VW system of coding the VDS section of the VIN. The concern is that additional expense would be involved at Volkswagen of America if the term "restraint system type" were interpreted as requiring a distinction between active and passive belt systems.

As you may be aware, the VW passive belt system is currently offered as standard equipment on the Deluxe version of the Rabbit. Accordingly, the designation of Deluxe Rabbit in the VIN will automatically identify the majority of VW vehicles equipped with passive belts. In addition, the passive belt system is offered as an option on the Custom model of the Rabbit. In this case the option information is difficult to access by the computer. This effort will require an additional 10 hours/month computer time to determine if the Rabbit Custom is equipped with the passive belt system.

A more efficient way is available to identify VW vehicles equipped with the passive belt system. VW is proposing that in lieu of identifying the passive belt system in the VIN, a computer tape be submitted to the NHTSA on a semi-annual basis with all pertinent information pertaining to all VW vehicles sold within the United States that are equipped with the passive system. Supplying this type of information would be more efficient and more convenient for the NHTSA than coding the passive belt option in the VIN.

We request your interpretation and opinion on this proposal as soon as possible since finalizing the VIN coding is nearing completion. For any additional details on this request, please contact Mr. Charles A. Preuss at (313) 588-5505.

Best regards,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.;

Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Administrator, Vehicle Regulations

ID: nht79-4.37

DATE: 11/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. B. Stine

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Bennie Stine 1602 Emil Street Madison, Wisconsin 53713

Dear Mr. Stine:

This responds to your letter asking whether you may remove the electronic antilock device from your vehicle. You state that the vehicle is unsafe with the antilock device in operation.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes that a properly maintained antilock device can increase the safety of heavy duty vehicles. Accordingly, the agency encourages you to make sure that the antilock device on your vehicle is in the proper working order. However, if you want to remove the device, it is perfectly legal to do so. We suggest that you take the vehicle to its manufacturer or a representative of the manufacturer to be sure that the device is correctly removed and that the remaining braking system is properly adjusted.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-4.38

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo USA Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 26 1979

NOA-30

Mr. M. Ogata Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Ogata:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the labeling requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You ask whether the brand name of your vehicles, "Mazda", may be dropped from the label on your seat belts.

The answer to your question is yes. Paragraph S4.1(k) of Safety Standard No. 209 requires the seat belt label to include year of manufacture of the assembly, model name or number of the assembly, and trade-mark of manufacturer or distributor. The name of the vehicle on which the assembly will be installed is not required to be on the seat belt assembly label.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 6, 1979

Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear sir,

RE: Request for Interpretation of MVSS 209

Enclosed please find a copy of our seat belt label that we manufacture according to MVSS 209, 4.1 (k). As can be seen on the label, we show the year of manufacture, the model and the name or trademark of manufacture as follows:

MFD. DATE: 1977 MODEL NO: NSB5YB10 MFD. BY NSK-WARNER K.K. FOR TOYO KOGYO CO., LTD.

We have shown the brand name of our vehicles, "MAZDA" on the top of the label for many years.

Presently, we are thinking about deleting the word "MAZDA". Is this possible?

Your earliest response would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

M. Ogata Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Office

Enclosure

ID: nht79-4.39

DATE: 08/03/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1979, letter asking two questions about the test procedures of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention, as they apply to buses you manufacture.

First, you ask whether side service doors can be counted in determining the proper amount of bus emergency exits as required by the standard. As long as side service doors comply with all requirements applicable to emergency doors, they can be considered emergency exits for purposes of compliance with the standard.

Your second question asks whether glazing in a door is tested for window retention, and if so, whether it is tested while the door is installed in a bus. The answer to both parts of this question is yes. All bus glazing, that is of the minimum size specified in the standard, must comply with the window retention requirement. The intent of the window retention requirement is to prevent openings in buses that might result in the ejection of occupants from the vehicle during an accident. In order for this requirement to have meaning, the glazing must be tested as it is installed in the vehicle to ensure the integrity of both the glazing and its surrounding structure. This means that glazing in vehicle doors is tested while the door is in the normal closed condition. If the door opens during the test, the vehicle would not be in compliance with the requirements.

SINCERELY,

Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

JULY 16, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Sir,

This company was the designer and manufacturer of the Orion Mid size Transit bus.

More recently the deliveries to the U.S. market have been taken over by Transportation Manufacturing Corporation of Roswell, New Mexico, who manufacture and market the buses in the U.S.A. under the "Citycruiser" trade name.

A query has arisen concerning the application of MVSS 217 to this model bus on a point that was raised before the introduction of the model and for which a verbal answer was given when the prototype was presented in Washington on October 5th 1977.

The point at issue was to what extent and under what Criteria the service doors can be considered as "unobstructed openings for emergency exit" as required in S 5.2 (provision of emergency exits) and more particularly the "side exits" as required in S 5.2.1 (Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds).

It was verbally confirmed at the time that service doors could be regarded as side exits for emergency exit, provided they met the requirements of S 5.3 (Emergency exit release), S 5.4 (Emergency exit extension) and S 5.5 (Emergency exit identification). Official confirmation of the above is hereby requested.

Finally, a clear ruling was not given on the application of S 5.1 Window retention when applied to the glazing in service doors. It is reasonably clear that the glass in the door frame should meet the requirements. It is less obvious that the door in its frame, when used as a service door, must meet this requirement, ie. the glass be tested in the door, the door being in the bus.

If not, does this requirement become mandatory, when the service door is designated as a side exit?

The doors are presently being constructed so as to meet this requirement, but a ruling on this point is hereby requested.

CC: E. CUMMINGS -- TRANSPORTATION MFG. CO.

ID: nht79-4.4

DATE: 11/02/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 11, 1979, requesting our opinion concerning the proper designated seating capacity of the rear seat in your 1981-model AMC Spirit.

You state that the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat will have approximately 43 inches of hip room. The amended definition of designated seating position specifies that any position likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position, and includes a caveat that bench or split-bench seats having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions. Since the hip room in the rear seat of the 1981 Spirit will be well below the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition, and since you state that the rear seat will be contoured for two persons with distinct recessed areas for each person's buttocks, we conclude that this particular seat would qualify as a two-passenger seat. Under the definition, whether a particular position is "likely to be used" is determined by the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design. Given the limited amount of hip room and the configuration of the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat, it is not likely that more than two persons will occupy the seat.

American Motors Corporation

October 11, 1979

Joan B. Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

This letter addresses our intended passenger seating designation for the rear seat of our planned 1981 model AMC Spirit. We believe our plans are consistent with the intent of the NHTSA. We have based our designation upon our perception of "likely use" as we interpret the history surrounding the definition of designated seating position as published by the NHTSA as 49CFR Part 571.3.

The designation definition was the subject of a rather lengthy discussion at a periodic DOT/Industry meeting conducted in Ann Arbor, Michigan on August 15, 1979. The discussion essentially focused to the confusion surrounding the criteria for establishing the seating capacity of small-car rear seat with hip space less than 50 inches. The NHTSA counsel at the meeting reported to those present that a small-car rear seat with hip space well below 50 inches would not likely be considered a three-passenger seat by the NHTSA.

Our planned 1981 AMC Spirit rear seat has approximately 43 inches of hip space. The seat cushion is contoured for two persons with distict recessed areas for each person's buttocks loacted essentially aft of the two front-seating positions. The recessed areas result in a lower "H" point at the two intended seating positions and thereby provide incremental headroom. The seat is essentially unchanged from our 1979 and 1980 models which we have designated as a two-passenger configuration.

We are planning to designate the 1981 AMC Spirit rear-seat configuration as two-passenger. We believe our determination conforms with the subjective criteria for seating designation specification, as defined, and is responsive to the likely use of Spirit owners. However, to assure avoidance of any post-production discussion of compliance, we hereby ask you and your staff to review our particular configuration and advise us of your determination. We request your concurrence with our two-passenger designation conclusion prior to November 1, 1979.

Thank you for your consideration.

K. W. Schang Director - Vehicle Safety Programs

ID: nht79-4.40

DATE: 09/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1979 asking whether a nonconforming vehicle imported for testing must be removed from the public roads, at the end of one year, if NHTSA has not acted upon the importer's request for an extension of time.

This will confirm that the discussion which your Mr. Reed had with our Mr. Vinson is accurately reflected in your letter. If an application for an extension of time has been filed in accordance with 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(2) for a vehicle imported under 12.80(b)(1)(vii), the vehicle may continue to be operated upon the public roads until final disposition of the petition has been made. Permission to use the roads is considered a "license" and the principle of 5 USC 558(c) is operative: if a government agency receives an application for renewal of a license before it expires, the license continues in effect until final action has been taken on the request for renewal.

I trust that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,