ID: nht79-2.12

DATE: 12/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 14 1975

Mr. Thomas F. Brown Mack Trucks Engineering Division P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your October 17, 1979, letter asking about the proper certification label for an intermediate manufacturer that alters the tires and rims on a chassis thereby affecting the gross axle and vehicle weight ratings. In your letter, you suggest an abbreviated certification label that would list the manufacturer's name and date of manufacture, and would make the statement that the vehicle will conform to certain standards if the incomplete vehicle document is followed. The agency agrees that this is a correct certification.

Intermediate manufacturers are required to attach labels to vehicles that they modify to indicate that some manufacturing operation has occurred on a vehicle between the manufacture of its chassis and its final manufacture. The intermediate manufacturer is permitted to select, from among a number of certification statements, the statement or statements that accurately represent the nature of the work undertaken by that manufacturer. Therefore, it is not necessary for an intermediate manufacturer to use all of the certification statements on its labels.

In the situation that you describe, the intermediate manufacturer will make a statement on its label identical to one of the statements made by the chassis manufacturer. Although this appears to be redundant, it is necessary to have the intermediate manufacturer's label on the vehicle making the required certification statement so that a final-stage manufacturer can continue to rely upon the certification labels and upon the statements made in the incomplete vehicle document.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 17, 1979

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

Dear Madam: Subject: Request for Interpretation 49 CFR Part 567, Certification Intermediate Manufacturer's Label Section 567.5(b)

Mack Trucks, Inc., a manufacturer of heavy duty diesel trucks, requests interpretation of 49 CFR 567.5(b) concerning the "Intermediate Manufacturer's Label".

In the heavy duty truck industry, the practice of changing the tires and/or rims from those originally furnished on the incomplete vehicle, before delivery to a final-stage manufacturer, is not uncommon.

If a dealer (distributor) changes the tires and rims on a Mack chassis-cab, and the change alters the GAWR's and GVWR of the vehicle, then the dealer becomes an intermediate manufacturer since the validity of the incomplete vehicle document is affected (ref: 49 CFR 568.5). Therefore, the dealer is required to affix an intermediate manufacturer's label to the vehicle.

The requirements pertaining to the content of this label are specified in 49 CFR 567.5(b). As we interpret this section, only one of the four (4) statements (567.5(b)(2)) specified in 567.5 (b)(1) through (b)(3) possibly applies to a tire/GAWR/GVWR change since the conformance status of the safety standards has not changed. Therefore, the intermediate manufacturer's label could consist of only the following:

1. "This vehicle will conform to Standard Nos. ------------ if it is completed in accordance with the instructions contained in the amended incomplete vehicle document furnished pursuant to 49 CFR Part 568."

2. "INTERMEDIATE MANUFACTURE BY" followed by the dealer's name.

3. The month and year of intermediate manufacture.

In the case of a tire/rim/GAWR/GVWR change, statement 1 above, when completed, is simply a restatement of a sentence on the "Chassis-Cab Label" and seems redundant since the only difference between the two statements will be the word "amended".

Mack Trucks, Inc. would appreciate the Administration's comments on what is required of a dealer (distributor) who changes the tires/rims/GAWR/GVWR of an incomplete vehicle.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy

ID: nht79-2.13

DATE: 02/13/79

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

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 13 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This responds to your January 9, 1979, letter concerning a mistake on the certification labels of approximately 2000 Datsun trucks. You stated that the vehicles, although manufactured in 1979, were incorrectly dated on their certification labels as being manufactured in 1978. You propose to remedy the affected vehicles by crossing out the incorrect date and inserting the correct information.

Your proposed correction is acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety-Administration. As long as all other information on the certification label is correct, your modification of existing certification labels will comply with the agency's regulations.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

NOA-30 January 9, 1979

Mr. Roger S. Tilton Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of January 9th regarding the following problem.

We mistakenly attached the certification label (required by Part 567) on which "78" was printed in the space of year for FMVSS certification statement to the rear bodies of our DATSUN Pick-Up (620) manufactured in 1979. Approximately 2,000 vehicles are involved.

The method of correction which we are now planning to do is to cross out the digits "78" and add the digits "79" directly below as follows:

XX 79

During our conversation I requested your interpretation on whether our method of correction will be accepted by your office and your reply was yes.

We will be able to submit the list of VIN of the vehicles (DATSUN Pick-Up) which are involved in the problem within the next couple of weeks.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO.,LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

HM:mh

ID: nht79-2.14

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 5 1979

Mr. W. G. Milby Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your October 9, 1979, letter relating to the proper classification of school buses on certification labels.

Your letter is accurate in that school buses may be designated as "school buses" on their certification labels. The agency thinks that for the purpose of clarity the term "school bus" should be included on the label to further clarify the particular design of the bus. All other buses that comply only with standards applicable to non-school buses must be certified as "buses".

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 9, 1979

Mr. Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: PARTS 567 and 568

Dear Mr. Tilton: The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation of our recent telephone conversation that it is acceptable to use the word "SCHOOL BUS" as a vehicle classification on Federal certification labels required by the subject parts.

Per our conversation, "SCHOOL BUS" may be used as a vehicle classification in certifying buses meeting school bus standards. Buses not meeting school bus standards must be certified using the vehicle classification "BUS".

Thank you for your reply.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

fvc

ID: nht79-2.15

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 1, 1979

Mr. William G. Finn Operations Manager Continental Products Corp. 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. Finn:

This is in response to your letter of September 7, 1979, asking whether tire sidewall molding, required by the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), may be accomplished using characters with a height of 6.5 millimeters, rather than 5/32nds of an inch as stated in the regulation (49 CFR 575.104, Figure 1). You also ask whether UTQG sidewall moldings must appear on both sides of the tire.

The specification of 5/32-inch tire sidewall characters was intended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish a minimum requirement to assure readability of the UTQG information presented. The agency has no objection to the use of characters of a height greater than 5/32nds of an inch, e.g., 6.5 millimeters, so long as all characters used to convey UTQG information are of the same height. UTQG information need be molded on only one sidewall of the tire.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 7, 1979

Mr. Hipolit - Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Per our telephone conversation of September 5, please let us know the answers to the following questions regarding the UTQG law which goes into effect for radial tires on March 1, 1980.

1. Can the lettering molded into the side-wall of the tire be 6.5 mm high?

2. Must these markings be molded on both sides of the tire, or is one side sufficient?

Your prompt reply would be most appreciated, and we thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

William G. Finn Operations Manager

WGF:jld

ID: nht79-2.16

DATE: 11/02/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative - Safety Engineering Office of North America Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 707 P.O. Box 57105 WashinSton, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in response to your letter of September 14, 1979, in which you asked about the applicability of the variable intensity illumination requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays, to various components in your company's automobiles. You listed and identified these parts in Figure 1 of your letter which will refer to in answering your questions.

The variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80 are applicable to (1) "con- trols, gauges, and their identification, and to (2) any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated." As noted in section 5 of Safety Standard 101-80, the location identification, and illumination requirements are applicable only to passenger cars and other vehicles equipped with any control listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1. The term "gauqe" is defined in Section 4 as a "display that is listed in section 5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale."

Applying these criteria to the list of automobile components in your letter, I have concluded that none of the listed components, except the ordinary clock and the automatic gear position illumination lamp, are subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80. Since this result resolves the issues raised in Questions Q2.1 - Q2.5 of your letter, I have not addressed them in this response.

The components identified in your diagram by letters a - h (the room lamp, spot lamp, luggage room lamp, personal lamp, radio, foot lamp step lamp, and the luggage room lamp for hatchback vehicles) are not subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3. This is because they are not controls listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80 and because they do not illuminate the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated.

Similarly the glove box lamp and the console box lamp (items i and j) are not subject to section 5.3.3. They are not controls listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and they are not activated when and only when the headlights are activated since their activation requires both opening the box lids and switching on the headlights.

The ignition key illumination lamp (item k), which is not a control listed in Safety Standard 101-80, is activated when the light control switch is turned to the "small lights only" position (this activates the clearance clamps, identification lamps, and other exterior lamps other than the headlights.) When the switch is turned to the position that activates both, the small lights and the headlights, the key illumination lamp is deactivated. Consequently, the lamp is not activated when and only when the headlights are activated and is, therefore, not subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements.

You noted in conversation with Ms. Debra Weinner of my office that your company uses two types of clocks (item 1 in your letter) in its automobiles. One is an ordinary clock whose face is illuminated when and only when the headlights are activated. The requirements of section 5.3.5 would apply to the illumination of this type of clock.

The other clock used in your company's automobiles is a digital clock with a flourescent readout which shines with greater intensity during the day and with a lower intensity at night when the headlights are activated. Since this clock is not a control or a display listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and its illumination is not activated when and only when the headlamps are activated, the requirements of section 5.3.3 for continuously variable illumination are not applicable. Section 5.3.3 also provides that light intensity for informational readout systems shall have at least two values. The term "informational readout systems" which is not defined in Safety Standard 101-80 refers to the term "informational readout display," which is defined as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." The term "display" includes only those displays listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard and these listings do not include a digital clock. Therefore, the digital clock would not be subject to the light intensity requirements for informational readout systems.

The automatic gear position illumination lamp (item m in your letter) is subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3. Although it is not a control (see preamble to Safety Standard 101-80, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) this lamp is activated when and only when the headlights are activated.

In Question 2 of your letter, you asked for the definition of the terms "continuously variable" and "variable." The term "continuously variable" is defined in section 5.3.3(a) and (b) of Safety Standard 101-80. It is followed by a description of the two light intensities which must be provided for informational readout systems. The term "variable" appears in the next sentence in section 5.3.3 which states that:

"The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph.

The underlined words in the quoted sentence refer to the definition of "continuously variable" except in the case of informational readout displays where the words refer to illumination of two intensities.

If you have any further questions, I will be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 14, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Re FMVSS 101-80 - Controls and Displays I would like to take this opportunity to ask for your interpretation with regard to FMVSS No. 101-80 - Controls and Displays.

I would appreciate it if you could please answer the questions that I have attached.

Thank you for your usual fine cooperation.* CR Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

HM:kb

Attachments Q-1 Generally speaking, would it be necessary for each one of items (a) to (m) in Figure-1 to meet the requirements of S 5.3.3?

Q-2 Assuming that your answer to Q-1 is "yes",

Q-2.1 Please explain the reason for your answer being "yes"

Q-2.2 Would the light intensity of (a) to (e), as shown in Figure-1, and having individual "On-Off" Manual Switches be considered variable?

Q-2.3 Would the light intensity of (f) Foot Lamp, (g) Step Lamp and (h) Luggage Room lamp, which light automatically only when doors are open, and not when they are closed, be considered variable?

Q-2.4 Would the light ingensity of (i) Glove Box Lamp and (j) Console Box Lamp, which are placed in their boxes and light only when the headlights are activated and their lids are open, be considered variable?

Q-2.5 Would the light intensity of (k) Ignition Key Illumination Lamp, which is placed near ignition key cylinder and lights only when clearance lamps, identification lamps and side marker lamps, etc. (other than headlights) are lit, be considered variable?

Q-2.6 Would the clock (1) with the flourescent display be considered to be the informational readout system?

Q-2.7 Assuming that your answers to Q-2.2 -Q-2.5 are "no", please explain the definition of the word "variable" and "not continuously variable".

Q-2.8 Would the light intensity of (m) Automatic Gear Position Illumination Lamp, which is placed on the floor-console box, be required to be variable, or continuously variable?

**INSERT** (a) Room (Dome) Lamp

(b) Spot Lamp (like one in airplane)

(c) Luggage Room for wagon vehicle -

(d) Personal Lamp for rear seat passengers

(e) Radio

(f) Foot Lamp

(g) Step Lamp

(h) Luggage Room Lamp for hatchback vehicle

(i) Glove Box Lamp

(j) Console Box Lamp

(k) Ignition Key Illumination Lamp (l) Clock

(l) Clock

(m) Automatic Gear Position Illumination Lamp -

FIGURE - 1

ID: nht79-2.17

DATE: 03/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mar 19 1979

Mr. J. B. H. Knight Chief Car Safety Engineer Rolls-Royce Motors Crewe Chesire CW1 3PL England

Dear Mr. Knight:

This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, and January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, Controls and Displays. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must be rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls-Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.

2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirement for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.

(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.

3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibiiity requirements of 101-80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a "few" inches, we mean up to approximately thee inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the acency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.

4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMCSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

NOA-30:KDeMeter:pfp:3/5/79 cc: NOA-30 Subj/Chvon NOA-30 Ms. DeMeter NRMS-11 Interps: Std. 101-80 Redbook: (3) CC

ID: nht79-2.18

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas F. Brown Mack Trucks, Inc. P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your recent letter regarding Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and several discrepancies between the standard as published in the Federal Register and as published in the "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" compilation.

You are correct in your assumption that the Federal Register version of the subject paragraphs is the proper publication. The temperature noted in paragraph S5.3.10 should read, "104oF". The heading, "S7.2 Labeling", should be included. In paragraph S7.3.6, the parenthetical phrase is out of place as you indicated, and the additional words are unnecessary editorial citations. The proper address for paragraph S5.2.2(b) should read: "Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division,...."

Thank you for bringing these errors to our attention. They will be corrected in future versions of the compilation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 31, 1979

Mr. F. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Berndt:

Subject: Discrepancies in Standard No.

106 74, Brake Hose, as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

Upon recent review of Standard No. 106-79, Brake Hose, we have found several discrepancies between the Standard as published in the Federal Register and as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations compilation.

It appears that the temperature noted in Section S5.3.10 of he compilation is incorrectly printed as "140oF" instead of "104oF".

The heading "S7.2 Labeling" has been omitted from page 7 of the compilation.

Section S7.3.6 has a phrase out of place and a few extra words.

Finally, all Sections of the Standard listing an address to which information is to be sent, except for Section S5.2.2(b), show the address as "Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division,...." Section S5.2.2(b) shows the address as "Office of Crash Avoidance, Handling and Stability Division,...."

Both the compilation and the Federal Register agree on the previous two addresses. We are wondering if the address in Section S5.2.2(b) was inadvertently overlooked. Should all the addresses be the same?

We trust that you will have these areas reviewed and advise us of your findings. We have attached the appropriate pages from the compilation for your reference.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC. Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy

Attach.

ID: nht79-2.19

DATE: 02/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sulvan Avenue Englood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in reponse to your letter of September 29, 1978, and in confirmation of your conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office. Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking to further amend the standard are enclosed.

Your letter raises a number of questions concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. These questions will be answered in the order posed in your letter.

Q-1. The term "line" is defined in S3 of the standard to mean "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles within a make which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type". You are correct in saying that "B210" is a Datsun "line."

Q-2. You ask whether it is necessary in designating a vehicle "line" to distinguish between independent and rigid axle systems within the same model of vehicle. The answer to your question is no. It is not necessary to make this distinction. In your example, either Case 1 or Case 2 would be correct.

Q-3. You ask whether it is necessary in designating a vehicle "line" to distinguish between different lengths of wheel base within the same family of vehicles. Again, the answer to your question is no. In your example, either Case 1 or Case 2 would be correct.

Q-4. You ask whether it is necessary in designating vehicle "body type" to distinguish between a 2-door vehicle and a 4-door vehicle. It is necessary to make this distinction.

Q-5. You also ask whether it is necessary in designating vehicle "body type" to distinguish between a sedan and a hardtop. It is not necessary to make this distinction.

Q-6. You ask whether it would be necessary in designating a vehicle "series" to distinguish between a Datsun 810 with air conditioning and power steering and a Datsun 810 without these features. It is not necessary to make this distinction.

Q-7. You ask whether it would be necessary in designating a vehicle "series" to distinguish between a Datsun B210 with a cigarette lighter and a Datsun B210 without a cigarette lighter and with a less elegant interior. It is not neces- sary to make this distinction. A Datsun B210 with two doors would have a different "body type" than a Datsun B210 with four doors, however.

Q-8. You ask whether in designating vehicle "engine type", you may use the same character (e.g., "H") to designate different engines so long as they are within different "lines", or whether you must use different characters for each engine type you manufacture.

The vehicle description section (VDS) of the VIN is used to describe a group of vehicles with common characteristics. One of these characteristics is engine type. The VDS is a "code word" which is translated as a whole into the appropriate specification. Each VDS is unique, and the use of a specific character in one VDS does not bar its use in another VDS, whether or not the meaning is the same or different. Consequently, "HB210" can represent a Datsun B210 with an 85 CID displacement engine and "HA100" can represent a DATSUM 510 with a 119 CID displacement engine. In your example, both Column 1 and Column 2 would be permissible.

Q-9. You ask whether it is necessary to uniquely distinguish all engine types within a make, or whether it is sufficient to distinguish engine types within a line. As explained above, each vehicle discriptor section is unique. Consequently, you may use the same characters in more than one VDS provided the VDS can be translated into the specific engine type. In your example, either Column 1 or Column 2 would be permissible.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 28, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel NHTSA D.O.T. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

Enclosed please find some questionnaire which I would like to get your interpretation on as soon as possible. It is regarding FMVSS 115, VIN.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

HM:mh CC: Mr. Nelson Erickson, Office of Motor Vehicle Programs NHTSA Enclosures

ID: nht79-2.2

DATE: 09/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: P. L. Whitehorn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 31, 1979, following your discussion with Mr. Vinson of this office.

Your client, ZEMCO Inc., has developed a fuel saving device for the automobile aftermarket the operation of which you have described as follows:

". . . if a vehicle approached a read light requiring the driver to stop . . . several seconds after the accelerator was released and the automobile stopped the device would automatically shut off the engine. To restart, the driver would press the accelerator pedal and the device would automatically trigger the ignition to start the engine."

In your opinion two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards appear to conflict with the ZEMCO device, Standards Nos. 102 and 124. Paragraph S3.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.102, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 imposes a starter interlock requirement under which "the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." You point out that ZEMCO's device "has been designed to automatically restart the engine with the transmission in either forward or reverse." Paragraph S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.124, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position within a specified time period "whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force." The ZEMCO device shuts off the engine several seconds after driver's foot is removed from the accelerator.

You have cited Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture of any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Section 108(a)(2)(A) which forbids manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from "Knowingly rendering inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle. . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

You have asked whether the ZEMCO device is in conflict with the Act.

The ZEMCO device does not violate Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Although it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by Section 102(a) of the Act, there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to a device of this nature, so that its manufacture and sale would not be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A).

With respect to Section 108(a)(2)(A) we do not see that the device conflicts with Standard No. 124 as long as the device does not prevent the accelerator from returning to idle in the standard's specified time period before the engine is shut off. The ZEMCO device appears to come into play after the accelerator has return to idle, a period of time outside the coverage of the standard.

You are correct, however, in your concern with Standard No. 102 as the activation of the starter in forward or reverse gear is diametrically opposed to the standard's requirement. Its installation would appear to "render inoperative" the starter interlock that is required by Standard No. 102. Although ZEMCO's manufacture of the device would not violate Section 108(a)(2)(A), its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner would appear to.

You are also correct that this agency has not issued the regulation authorized by Section 108(a)(2)(B) under which any person may be exempted from Section 108(a) (2) (A) upon a determination that the exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act.

If you wish to petition the agency to issue such a regulation or to amend Standard No. 102 in an appropriate manner you have, of course, the right to do so, and I enclose a copy of our petition procedures, 49 CFR Part 552, for your information.

I return your patent materials herewith.

SINCERELY,

CANNADY & WHITEHORN

August 31, 1979

Frank Berndt, ESQ Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Petition for Exemption from Section 108 of Title I of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are counsel for ZEMCO, INC., a California corporation. ZEMCO is in the process of developing a fuel or gasoline saving device for the automobile aftermarket. A literal reading of Section 108 of Title I of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 suggests that ZEMCO's fuel saving device is in conflict with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 102 and 124. We discussed this problem with Mr. Benson of your office, earlier this week, and he advised us to furnish your office with more particulars. Mr. Benson also suggested that we request a clarification and interpretation of the Act as it applies to ZEMCO's device.

The ZEMCO fuel saving device will automatically control the shutdown and restarting of a vehicle engine in order to conserve fuel at times when the vehicle would be otherwise stopped, with the engine running at idle speed. For example if a vehicle approached a red light requiring the driver to stop at the limit line, several seconds after the accelerator was released and the automobile stopped the device would automatically shut off the engine. To restart, the driver would press the accelerator pedal and the device would automatically trigger the ignition to start the engine. A copy of ZEMCO's confidential patent application is enclosed which more fully describes the fuel saving device.

Two motor vehicle safety standards appear to conflict with the application of ZEMCO's device to motor vehicles. Standard No. 102 requires an interlock to prevent starting of the car with the transmission shift lever in the forward or reverse drive positions. ZEMCO's fuel saving device has been designed to automatically restart the engine with the transmission in either forward or reverse.

Standard No. 124 requires the vehicle's throttle to return to the idle position when the driver's foot is removed from the accelerator. ZEMCO's device would of course go further and shut off the engine several seconds after the driver's foot is removed from the accelerator.

As you know, Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides in part that "no person shall manufacture for sale . . . any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment . . . unless it is in conformity . . . " with the motor vehicle safety standards. Subparagraph (2) (A) further provided in part that "no manufacturer . . . shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . "

We understand from our discussions with Mr. Benson that the Secretary of Transportation has not yet issued regulations for the granting of exemptions from the act. However it is our understanding that the Office of the Chief Counsel will issue interpretations and clarify potential conflicts between safety standards and proposed automotive devices. The ZEMCO fuel saving device, although in technical conflict with the safety standards mentioned above, has been carefully designed to be compatible and consistent with motor vehicle safety.

Therefore, on behalf of ZEMCO, we respectfully request a clarification and interpretation of the Act particularly with respect to the potential conflict between Safety Standards Nos 102 and 124 and ZEMCO's fuel saving device. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Phillip L. Whitehorn

cc: JOAN CLAYBROOK; ZEMCO, INC.

ID: nht79-2.20

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This is in response to your letter of May 16, 1979, to Mr. Schwartz of my office, and in confirmation of your subsequent telephone conversation with him.

You wish to know whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number, permits BMW to use all the permissible numerical digits in the 11th position of the vehicle ientification number (VIN) for each of its two plants, as long as each VIN in its entirety assigned to each individual vehicle uniquely identifies its plant of manufacture. A system such as you suggest was proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this standard issued on January 16, 1978 (Docket No. 1-22; Notice 4, 43 FR 2189). The response to this particular proposal was negative, and the rule issued on August 17, 1978, withdrew it. Consequently, the 11th character of the VIN must in and of itself be decipherable into the plant of manufacture (S4.5.3.2).

This is not to say, however, that BMW does not have considerable flexibility in its utilization of the 11th position. As pointed out in Notice 8 (44 FR 17489, March 22, 1979), BMW can submit more than one character to represent a single plant. While this restriction unfortunately may result in some change to the system which BMW is currently employing, the agency believes that a sophisticated allotment of sequential blocks will alleviate at least some of the problems which you foresee.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 16, 1979

Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Jr. Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Schwartz

This is in reference to previous conversations we had concerning the manufacturer's possibility to submit more than one character to represent a single plant of manufacture under Part 571 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 as published in FR Vol. 44 No. 57 on March 22, 1979.

We wish to know whether the above mentioned regulation allows BMW to use all the permissible numerical digits in the 11th position for each of its two plants, as long as each VIN in its entirety assigned to each individual vehicle uniquely identifies its plant of manufacture.

Your confirmation in writing of this understanding would be appreciated.

Very truly yours

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

KHZ/JPS