ID: nht80-3.37

DATE: 08/20/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph J. Hitchcock; NHTSA

TO: James Monaghan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 18, 1980, regarding your Simplified Passenger Air Bag.

We have noted the changes in your patent. If, as you say, the pads are automatically rotated into place when the occupant gets into the vehicle and closes the door and protection is provided without the occupant having to take any action, your system would be considered to be automatic (passive) within the meaning of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

I am placing a copy of your letter in our public docket. Thank you for your continued interest in automobile safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SIMPLIFIED PASSENGER AIRBAG

The attached copy of an article from the Miami Herald of May 12, 1980, entitled "Air Bags Give Questionable Protection," draws attention to the urgency of good decisions being made regarding airbags before the "1982 Model" year.

Though the airbag method of restraint is the most resilient, most people are aware that the publicized design describes an expensive, noisy and one-shot device with many problems, and of which the public is apprehensive.

However, the new reusable patented "Monaghan Simplified Passenger Airbag" solves these problems and, in addition, solves the four other difficulties which the Miami Herald article correctly pinpoints. Refer to Monaghan Illustration Fig. 4.

Difficulty #1: "The present design provides little or no protection in side impacts." However, the Monaghan Airbag, in Patent 3,888,329, Claim 5, states, "restraint pad includes rearwardly projecting sidewalls for restraining the occupant from sidewards movement." Further protection may be had if seat upholstery is shaped to receive the sidewalls. Refer to Fig. 4, shown in phantom.

Difficulty #2: ". . . little protection against rollovers." Refer to Monaghan Illustration Fig. 4 - the airbag, when inflated, is locked by the rotor over the knees with a downward pressure of approximately 400 pounds on an area of 1.5 square feet.

Difficulty #3: Present design provides "no protection on second impact after a frontal collision when the bags deflate." Refer to Monaghan Patent 3,888,329, Claim 9. This includes "time extension means for automatically extending the period of actuation of said power means upon the sensing of a plurality of successive accident events -- during the accident."

Difficulty #4: This refers in particular to seat belts, to the danger of sliding (submarining) under the restraint in an impact. This submarining is resisted by the Simplified Passenger Airbag due to the large frictional area of pressurized contact with the torso, including the sidewalls.

These safety features are only possible with the Monaghan Simplified Passenger Airbag because, first, it is reusable and, of course, can be pre-tested. Claims 1, 5 and 8 indicate it is visibly oriented to contact the passenger's torso and limbs, at short range. When preset, the pad is partly over the occupant and the seat; the passenger will then normally be in the correct position in an accident event.

Since it is not required to explode, it is not noisy; and using ordinary air, it is not toxic. The salesman in the garage can demonstrate, and the regular garage mechanic can adjust or replace the rubber bag which should cost no more than an inner tube.

The Airpad, shown manually preset in attached illustrations, Figs. 1, 2, 3; can be alternatively automatically preset to give the fastest action in an accident event. This is provided by Differential Timing of presetting and inflating. Refer Patent Specifications, Page 8, Lines 41 and 42.

This is obtained by fitting a double-acting push button type hinge switch on the car door. With the car door open, the Airpad will be in the top storage position, held there by spring - Claim 16.

* When the car door is closed, the door hinge switch actuates an electric low-speed rotary incremental motor which swings down the pad arm through 75 degrees to the preset position and electromagnetically locks the rotor shaft.

* When the car door is opened, the hinge switch disengages the magnetic lock and the spring returns the pad to storage.

In an accident event with either system, the Sensor Switch - Claim 2 - acting with the selective control valve - Claim 4 - will supply high pressurized air - Claim 6 - to provide contacting, firm engagement of the Airbag with the occupant - Claim 19 - Test Switch #230 will have been used to adjust and lower the bag pressure via a throttle and check valve on the swing arm close to the airpad.

Return of the restraint to storage after an accident event may be timed by the Sensor Switch to allow a few seconds before automatic pneumatic deflation and reversal of the Rotor releases the passenger. Refer Patent Specifications, Page 7, Lines 30 to 35.

JAMES MONAGHAN

Simplified Passenger Airbag

Page 1, Figure 1: Shows an Auto Passive Restraint, with an inflatable air-pad, positioned in Storage when a passenger takes a seat.

Page 1, Figure 2: Passenger chose to swing the pad to a pre-set position closer to the body for visible protection against panic stops and accidents.

Page 1, Figure 3: With the pad now in the pre-set position, a sensored accident event will instantly and quietly inflate the pad with air at a safe pressure to firmly restrain the passenger with minimum shock and to lock the rotor.

Figure 4, Below: Shows the restraint remaining in storage when the passenger chooses to be inactive. In a sensored accident event, the pad automatically swings down by air rotor, inflating simultaneously to restrain the passenger.

Special Note: This sensored safety device is reusable and can be pre-tested. It will actuate whether the pad is in the storage or the pre-set position. The patent includes "sensing means for ultra-rapidly restraining a vehicle occupant from moving, with two combined restraining forces."

(Graphics omitted)

Figure 4

U.S. Patent 3,888,329 Inventor: James Monaghan

Michael M. Finkelstein -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

Many thanks for your letter of January 27, 1980, in regard to my Simplified Passenger Airbag. I agree that "the system would be slightly more feasible if the pads were automatically rotated into position after entering the vehicle."

If not considered a "forced action system," automatic presetting can be obtained within the cover patent #3,888,329 as follows.

Please refer to the patent specifications, Page 8, Lines 41 and 42. It states there: "If desired, differential timing between the air cushion and cylinder 208 could be provided." This is explained in the revised write-up of page one & page two, enclosed.

I agree that time-saving is very important and believe that Differential Timing will overcome the negligence of the few who might not even lower the pad to improve their vision over the dash. Also, it permits an increase in torso contact without being a hazard to a smoker. Enclosed is a revised copy of illustration Fig. 4. x

x P.S. The Simplified Passenger Airbag avoids vulnerable areas of the Torso.

I do not wish this Airbag to be used with front child seats; however, you indicate that my rear seat restraints for children have your interest.

Thank you for the Auto company addresses; I will write fully to them when I receive a reply from you.

Please confirm that the use of this door switch will permit NHTSA to retain patent 3,888,329 as a Passive Restraint. I would deeply appreciate an early reply, especially for age considerations. I am now in my eighties.

Sincerely,

James Monaghan

cc: Adminstrator Claybrook

ID: nht80-3.38

DATE: 08/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Renault USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION August 25, 1980

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs Renault USA 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit, Michigan 48232

Dear Mr. Louis:

This responds to your letter of July 14, 1980, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether an engine stop control mounted on the engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck must be illuminated. The answer is no, it need not be illuminated.

Section S5.3.1 of the standard provides that except for "foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, " any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4 shall be capable of illumination whenever the headlights are activated. Since the engine stop control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, it must be illuminated, unless it falls within one of the exceptions of S5.3.1.

In the case of the engine stop control in your truck, the control is located on the engine cover. Because the engine cover is separate from the instrument panel and mounted on the floor between the two front seats, the agency considers it a floor console. Thus, the engine stop control located on the cover does not have to be illuminated.

I would like to emphasize that oral interpretations by agency staff are only unofficial opinions. Therefore, if you have questions in the future, they should be directed at the outset in writing to this office.

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

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 14, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to seek NHTSA's confirmation of the following interpreration given to us orally, by Mr. John Carson of the Rulemaking Staff:

"The engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck depicted on the attached drawing constitutes a floor console, and, therefore, under the provisions of paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS 101, the engine stop control mounted thereon need not be illuminated."

We would appreciate confirmation at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely.

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs Renault USA 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit, Michigan 48232

Dear Mr. Louis:

This responds to your letters of July 14, 1980 seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether an engine truck must be on the engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck must be illuminated. The answer is no, it need not be illuminated.

Section S5.3.1 of the standard provided that except for "foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column," any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4 shall be capable of illumination whenever the headlights are activated. Since the engine stop control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, it must be illuminated, unless it falls within one of the exceptions of S5.3.1.

In the case of the engine stop control in your truck, the control is located on the engine cover. Because the engine cover is separate from the instrument panel and mounted on the floor between the two front seats, the agency considers it a floor console. Thus, the engine stop control located on the cover does not have to be illuminated.

** I would like to emphasize that oral interpretations by agency staff are only unofficial opinions. Therefore, if you have questions in the future, they should be directed at the outset in writing to this office.

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

Sincerly,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NOA-30:SLOesch:pfp:8/6/80 cc: N)A-30 Subj/Chron, NOA-30 Mr. Oesch NEF-30, NRM-10, Interps: Std Redbook: (3) cc-963 1a

**NOTE: During the phone call Mr. Louis was advised that any remarks or opinions by the engineer were purely personal and that he must write to the Office of Chief Counsel for an official interpretation. This is standard procedure whenever anyone calls about an interpretation of a standard

ID: nht80-3.39

DATE: 08/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Department Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success, New York 11042

Dear Mr. White:

In your July 30, 1980, letter you requested more information concerning the interpretation of Standard 120 (49 CFR S 571.120) set forth in my July 14, 1980, letter to you Specifically, you noted this agency's previous interpretation that Standard 120 requires the tire load range to appear on the vehicle label as part of the tire size designation required by S5.3.1. You asked if it is permissible for a vehicle manufacturer to list the tire size as either (1) 275/80R22.5 (143) (G), or (2) 275/80R22.5 (G)(143).

Neither of your listed examples would be acceptable as shown. However, alternative (2) could be used if it is modified to explain what the 143 listing means. As I stated in my July 14 interpretation of Standard 120, the purpose of that standard's labeling requirements is to provide the consumer with permanent and useful information concerning tires which can safely be used on that vehicle. As a general rule, the information can be most clearly conveyed to the consumer by following the format shown in the truck example following S5.3 in Standard 120. Minor variations of that format are permitted, provided the variations do not change or obscure the meaning of the label.

Once the necessary information has been clearly expressed in the units of measurement most familiar to the American consumer, (e.g., load range G), there is nothing confusing or misleading about expressing the load carrying capabilities in a different system of measurement, if the manufacturer clearly indicates that such is the case. Neither of your examples gives the consumer any clue that the 143 is not a part of the G load range rating. The vast majority of these consumers would have no idea that the number refers only to the ISO load index for the tire. Your first example lists 143 ahead of the letter indicating the load range, which would even further confuse the matter.

To comply with the requirements of Standard 120, a vehicle lable must list the load range (in the form of a letter) immediately following the size designation for the tire. If the manufacturer chooses, it may then list the ISO load index rating for the tire if it is clearly indicated as a separate rating. For example, the tire size shown in your example would not be confusing if it were shown on the label as follows: 275/80R22.5 (G) or (143).

Sincerely,

Signed by

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

30 July 1980

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

Ref: NOA-30

Dear Sir:

This is in regard to your letter of July 14, 1980 which responds to our letter of June 10, 1980 wherein we requested an interpretation of appropriate tire marking required to appear on the vehicle certification label by 49CFR Part 567.

Your response is that listing the tire on the certification label as 275/80R22.5 143/140K would not be in compliance since the load range letter (in this case G) would not be indicated.

We are therefore considering have the tire size listed as follows:

275/80R22.5(143)(G) or 275/80R22.5(G)(143)

Please advise if these are acceptable. Your quick response would be appreciated.

Yours truly,

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

abb

ID: nht80-3.4

DATE: 06/16/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association's May 27, 1980, "petition for extension of time in which to file a petition for reconsideration" and its petition for a stay of the effective date of this agency's rule on Information Gathering Powers, 49 CFR Part 510 (45 FR 29032; May 1, 1980). Both of the petitions are denied. If MVMA proceeds with its plans to file a petition requesting changes in Part 510, the petition will be treated as a petition for rulemaking and be given serious consideration.

Requirements regarding the timing of the submission of petitions for reconsideration and regarding the treatment of untimely reconsideration petitions are set forth in 49 CFR Part 553. Section 553.35(a) provides, in pertinent part:

The petition must be received not later than 30 days after publication of the rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Petitions filed after that time will be considered as petitions filed under Part 552 of this chapter.

Under this section, interested persons could have submitted a petition for reconsideration of Part 510 at any time between May 1, 1980, the date of publication, and June 2, 1980 (30 days plus an allowance for the weekend). The section does not provide for any extension of that period. Instead, it establishes the blanket rule that late petitions are to be treated as petitions for rulemaking.

The MVMA has not filed a timely petition for reconsideration. Your association had 32 days in which to file such a petition. It might have followed the almost unvarying practice of petitioners in this agency's rulemaking proceedings and submitted a petition setting forth its specific objections and arguments in full detail within the allotted time. Alternatively, it might have outlined each of its objections and the underlying arguments within the same period, leaving the details to be submitted subsequently in a supplementary submission. This alternative would have minimized MVMA's reported time difficulties. MVMA took neither course of action. Instead, it took the simple and unusual step of submitting a "petition" for the agency to set aside its regulations and accept a late petition for reconsideration. This approach is inconsistent with the purpose of Part 553 which is to ensure the administrative process moves forward in an orderly and timely fashion.

Although agencies can modify their procedural regulations in certain limited circumstances, the MVMA has not made an adequate showing to justify modification in this instance. In exceptional cases where the ends of justice are shown to so require, this agency can modify its procedural requirements. MVMA has not attempted to make any such showing. Your association has not adequately explained why it was unable to submit a petition within the available time. Similarly, it has not provided any basis for determining the likelihood of MVMA's success in having its petition granted.

With respect to your request for a stay of the effective date of Part 510, section 553.35(d) of 49 CFR provides that the filing of a petition for reconsideration does not stay the effective date of the final rule in question unless the agency provides otherwise. When a petitioner is able to make a clear and convincing showing under section 553.35(a) that compliance with the rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest, the agency could exercise its discretion to stay the effective date of the rule. Your petition for a stay of the effective date did not make any showing regarding any of these matters. Therefore, the agency will not take the unusual step of staying the effective date.

Again, as noted above, the denial of your petitions leaves open the opportunity to submit a petition for rulemaking detailing the desired changes in Part 510 and the arguments supporting those changes. NHTSA would fully consider such a petition under the procedures set forth in Part 552.

SINCERELY,

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION of the United States, Inc.

May 27, 1980

The Honorable Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Information Gathering Powers; 40 CFR Part 510, 45 Fed. Reg. 29032; Petition for Extension of Time in Which to File Petition for Reconsideration; Petition for Stay of Effective Date

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

By this letter the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA) * petitions for an extension of 60 days -- to August 1, 1980 -- in which to petition for reconsideration of the above referenced rule and for a stay of its effective date from June 16, 1980 until 30 days following NHTSA's response to a petition for reconsideration.

* MVMA members are: American Motors Corporation, Checker Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Freightliner Corporation, General Motors Corporation, International Harvester Company, PACCAR Inc, The Nolan Company, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Walter Motor Truck Company, and White Motor Corporation.

On May 1, 1980, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule governing the issuance and use of compulsory process, 49 CFR Part 510 (Docket No. 78-01; Notice 3; 45 Fed. Reg. 29032) ("Rule"). The Rule is quite extensive, covering the rights and duties of persons and entities from whom NHTSA seeks information by subpoena, general or special order, or written request in public or private hearings.

This rulemaking was initiated by a notice published December 27, 1977 (Notice 1, 42 Fed. Reg. 64628) which announced Part 510 and designated it to be an interim rule purportedly effective on that date. The same notice invited comments and indicated NHTSA's intention to promulgate a final rule in due course. MVMA and others filed extensive comments in response to NHTSA's invitation.

Notice 3, setting forth the final rule, would impose new and burdensome obligations on recipients of process from NHTSA. In MVMA's view, those obligations are not in each instance supported by statutory authority in the Safety Act, the Cost Savings Act or the Administrative Procedures Act.

MVMA and its member companies are studying Notice 3 with great care. The Association intends to address several aspects of the Rule by Petition for Reconsideration. In this particular instance, the 30 day period provided by 49 CFR Section 553.35(a) is not adequate for careful preparation of a petition.

NHTSA expended more than two years in preparation of a final rule. An extension of only 60 days in which to allow careful and deliberate preparation of comment on the final rule by MVMA is therefore entirely reasonable.

To MVMA's knowledge there is nothing in the experience of government or industry personnel since the enactment in 1966 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to suggest that a delay of a few weeks of the effective date of Part 510 will disrupt or impair any function of NHTSA.

For the foregoing reasons, we therefore petition that the effective date of final rule, Part 510, be postponed until 30 days following NHTSA's response to a petition for reconsideration filed by MVMA, and that time for filing a petition for reconsideration be extended to August 1, 1980.

Finally, we respectfully request that NHTSA inform MVMA promptly of the disposition of this petition.

William H. Crabtree Vice President and General Counsel

ID: nht80-3.40

DATE: 08/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 30, 1980, asking whether various parts of your Peterson 78 Child Restraint must comply with section 4.3(a) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. As explained below, the buckle slides located behind the seat and below the unit and the buckle release button must comply with section 4.3(a) and (b) of the standard. The adjustment lever plate does not have to comply with those sections.

Section S5.4.2 of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, provides that "Each belt buckle and item of belt adjustment hardware used in a child restraint shall conform to the requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS 209(S571.209)." As shown in the illustration accompanying your letter, the purpose of the slides located below the unit and behind the seat is to adjust the harness system within the child restraint. Thus they are items of belt adjustment hardware and must comply with S4.3(a) and (b) of Standard No. 209. Likewise, section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 213 specifically identifies the belt buckle as an item which must comply with S4.3(a) and (b) of Standard No. 209. The adjustment lever plate on your restraint adjusts the position of the child restraint from fully upright to fully reclining. It does not adjust the child restraint harness system, however. Thus, the lever plate is not an item of belt adjustment hardware covered by section 5.4.2 of Standard No. 213.

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

SINCERELY,

COSCO

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

July 30, 1980

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Because of some interpretation differences in our own ranks concerning the Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems Requirements for Belt Buckles and Belt Adjustment Hardware, we need an official interpretation of some specific parts of our Peterson 78 Child Restraint.

Please refer to the attached illustration showing the child restraint parts. The slides behind the seat and below the unit, the adjustment lever plate, and the buckle release button are the parts in question.

Do these specific parts have to be in compliance with Standard No. 209 S4.3A or will nickle chrome or a zinc finish be adequate as the parts do not come into contact with the occupant.

Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Don Gerken Product Engineer

ENCL.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-3.41

DATE: 08/29/80

FROM: F. BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Borg-Warner Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 29, 1980, letter asking whether Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, would prohibit the use of a free-wheeling device.

Section S3.1.2 of that standard states that "[in] vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio, one forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds below 25 miles per hour." The purpose of this section is to provide a transmission braking effect as a supplemental braking system at speeds below 25 miles per hour. According to our understanding of your device, it may not provide the type of supplemental braking described in this paragraph. However, if the driver may activate some type of device to override the "free wheeling" aspect to provide some engine braking, then the requirement of Section S3.1.2 could be met.

SINCERELY,

Borg-Warner Corporation

July 29, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Opinion

Dear Sir:

We are interested in determining whether the provision of a free-wheeling device (such as a one-way clutch) in series with the drive train of a vehicle would violate any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, or any other law or statute.

Our engineers have proposed incorporating a one-way clutch in series with the prop shaft of a vehicle. The only standard which we found that appears related to this is No. 102, and particularly S3.1.2 "Transmission Braking Effect". We do not believe this would rule out incorporation of a free-wheeling device, as the driver could easily place the shift lever in neutral and preclude engine braking whether the transmission is manual or automatic.

Thank you in advance for considering this matter and providing us with your opinion.

James J. Jennings Assistant Patent Counsel BORG-WARNER CORPORATION

ID: nht80-3.42

DATE: 08/29/80

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

TO: P. J. O'Connor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 29 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Patrick J. O'Connor P.O. BOX 905 10 East Court Street Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter of July 2, 1980, requesting information regarding manufacturing standards for front bucket seats on passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if there are any standards that were applicable to 1969-model Mustangs, particularly with respect to the pivot pin brackets on seats in these vehicles.

The initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were issued in 1967 and became effective January 1, 1968. Included in these initial standards was Standard No. 207, Anchorages of Seats--Passenger Cars (copy enclosed). Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements in terms of overall seat strength. You will note that there are no requirements for specific components of the seat, however, such as pivot pin brackets. The Federal safety standards are generally specified in terms of performance requirements which allow manufacturers to use any designs they choose. If the Mustang with which you are concerned was manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the manufacturer would have had to certify that the vehicle was in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 207.

I am also enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 as it is currently written, since the standard has been amended several times since it was first issued. I hope you will find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

July 2, 1980

David Allen, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street South West Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Manufacturing Standards-Front Bucket seats

Dear Mr. Allen:

I had written to the Superintendent of Documents in the U.S. Government Printing Office with a request for information concerning the above. On July 2, 1980 I received a phone call from Ms. Mary Chapman, a special Research Technician, advising me that I should write a similar letter of request addressed to you.

In April of 1977 Ford Motor Company initiated a voluntary recall campaign relative to driver's seat, back inboard pivot pin brackets for front bucket seats. The defect existed in 1968 and 1969 Mustangs and Cougars.

I am involved in litigation relative to a 1969 Mustang in which this defect existed. I would like to know if there are any manufacturing standards of record for bucket seats in 1969 model cars and, in particular, whether there were any manufacturing standards for the driver's seat back inboard pivot pin brackets.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Patrick J. O'Connor

PJO'C:klh

ID: nht80-3.43

DATE: 08/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Columbia Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 17, 1980, and in confirmation of your several telephone conversations with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

In your letter, you asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115) must reflect each of your 16 moped "models" if the differences between the models are cosmetic. Table 1 of S4.5.2 requires that the following information be encoded in the VIN of motorcycles: Type of motorcycle, line, engine type, and net brake horsepower. The encoding of models is not required. "Line" is defined in S3. Definitions 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. Therefore, if the 16 moped "models" are of the same construction, they would not be considered different lines unless Columbia chose to designate them as different lines.

You have also stated that Columbia has changed its moped motor manufacturer and has made minor modifications in its open frame moped. You wish to know if this must be reflected in the VIN. The VIN standard for mopeds does not take effect until September 1, 1980, for vehicles whose model year changeover date occurs prior to September 1, 1980, and subsequent to January 1, 1981, and until the actual model year changeover date for vehicles whose model year changeover date falls between these two dates. Therefore, any changes Columbia has made prior to the effective date of the standard would presumably already be reflected in the VIN.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed labels as forwarded with your letter. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your labeling system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 17, 1980

Fred Schwartz -- Department of Transportation, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Schwartz,

We have 16 moped models. Most of these models are different cosmetically. Is it necessary to have these models reflect in our V.I.N. number?

We also changed our motor manufacturer and have minor changes in our open frame moped. Is it also necessary for this to reflect in our V.I.N. number?

I would appreciate your approval on our enclosed sample and your answers to the above questions by June 27, 1980.

Sincerely,

David R. Stevens -- Quality Control Manager

enc.

1CEMT0156AC000001 1CEMT0158AC000002 1CEMT015XAC000003 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0151AC000004 1CEMT0153AC000005 1CEMT0155AC000006 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0(Illeg.)0000007 1CEMT0159AC000008 1CEMT0150AC000009 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0157AC0000010 1CEMT0159AC000011 1CEMT0150AC000012 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0152AC000013 1CEMT0154AC000014 1CEMT0156AC000015 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0158AC000016 1CEMT015XAC000017 1CEMT0151AC000018 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0153AC000019 1CEMT015XAC000020 1CEMT0151AC000021 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0153AC000022 1CEMT0155AC000023 1CEMT0157AC000024 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0159AC000025 1CEMT0150AC000026 1CEMT0152AC000027 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0154AC000028 1CEMT0156AC000029 1CEMT0152AC000030 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0154AC000031 1CEMT0156AC000032 1CEMT0158AC000033

MANUFACTURED BY COLUMBIA MFG. CO.

MOTOR DRIVEN CYCLE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:

MANUFACTURED BY COLUMBIA MFG. CO.:

MOTOR DRIVEN CYCLE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:

MANUFACTURED BY COLUMBIA MFG. CO.:

MOTOR DRIVEN CYCLE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:

THIS MARGIN CONTROL PUNCHED

PAPER FOR THIS PLY IS

PRINTED IN INK UNLESS INDICATED BY BRACKETS

ID: nht80-3.44

DATE: 08/29/80

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Aston Martin Lagonda (1975) Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have in hand your letter of July 31, 1980, and regret to inform you that the vehicle identification number (VIN) scheme which you propose is apparently not in compliance with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.

S4.5.2 and Table 1 of Standard No. 115 provide that the following information shall be decipherable from the five characters comprising the second section of the VIN for passenger cars: Line, Series, Body Type, Engine Type, Restraint System Type. A review of your Engineering Instructions and the accompanying drawings do not provide information concerning either the engine type or the restraint system type. Likewise, it is not clear whether your model designation is more appropriately characterized as line and/or series.

If the information omitted remains constant throughout a particular model, it will only be necessary for you to so state when deciphering your model code. For example, the following would be permissible:

Position 5 and 6: "V8" means V8 Volante model LHD, seat belt manual restraint system, V-8 engine with a displacement of 5.3 liters/326 cubic inches, a compression ratio of 8.3 and a net brake horsepower of .

We would also call to your attention that gross vehicle weight class is not required to be encoded in the VIN, although you are free to do so if you so choose.

Amongst the material furnished to the agency were drawings indicating the location of your confidential chassis identification number. As these are not required to be forwarded to the agency, I have taken the liberty of destroying them.

SINCERELY,

ENCLS.

ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA (1975) LIMITED

Frederic Schwartz Officer of the Chief Counsel, N.T.S.A.,

JULY 31, 1980

Dear Mr. Schwartz,

Vehicle Identification Numbering (17 characters)

Please find enclosed details upon which the Aston Martin Lagonda (1975) Ltd.

company has based its vehicle identification number (VIN) system, to be introduced with our 1981 model year cars.

The following documents have been enclosed to help clarify and explain the construction of the VIN system in detail:

(a) Construction drawings B97-16204/5/6 apply to Aston Martin V8 Saloon, Volante and Vantage (LHD) models respectively, B97-16224 applies to the Lagonda (LHD) (not currently certified in USA).

(b) Engineering Instruction number 205 gives a detailed explanation of the VIN construction. Engineering Instructions are sent to various departments within the Aston Martin organization and act as a reference and guide upon which work is carried out.

(c) Drawings A97-16226 and A97-16544 show the VIN plate designs and locations on the vehicle. The VIN is also stamped on the chassis member in characters with a minimum height of 7 mm (0.28 inches), Figures 1 and 2 in Engineering Instruction 205 show the location.

We have not sent details of our VIN system to anyone else, therefore we would appreciate your forwarding this letter and its contents to the relevant U.S. department, or advising accordingly.

KINDEST REGARDS,

R. Goldsmith Certification Engineer Safety and Emissions Department

ENGINEERING INSTRUCTION no. 205

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Systems

1. INTRODUCTION

AML will soon be operating two distinct Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) systems, one system applying to cars sold to U.S.A. and Canada and the other system applying to cars sold elsewhere in the world.

2. U.S.A. AND CANADA VIN SYSTEM (NHTSA)

1981 and subsequent model year cars sold to U.S.A. and Canada are required to have a 17 (seventeen) character vehicle identification number assigned. This means a series of arabic numbers and roman letters assigned to each motor vehicle for identification purposes and shall be sans sarif type face with a minimum height of 4 mm.

The VIN shall appear clearly and indelibly (i.e. stamped) on:

(a) the vehicle certification label (i.e. the brass plate, part number A97-13074, fixed to left hand 'B' post), and

(b) the VIN label part number A97-16226 and fixed in the same manner and position as the superceded label, part number 071-50-0160, on the dashboard.

2.1 VIN Content and Structure The VIN content and structure is as follows:

STRUCTURE

RACTER POSITION

1)

2) Assigned by BSI

3)

4) Gross vehicle weight class. 'C' = 4001 to 5000 lbf 'D' = 5001 to 6000 lbf

5)

6) Model

7 Not used

8 Model variant

9 Check digit (see R.G.'s memo for detailed explanation)

10 Model Year. 'A' = 1980

11 Plant of manufacture. 'T' = Tickfords

12 Driving position. 'T' = (Illegible Words) A = 1 J = 1 T = 3 B = 2 K = 2 U = 4 C = 3 L = 3 V = 5 D = 4 M = 4 W = 6 E = 5 N = 5 X = 7 F = 6 P = 7 Y = 8 G = 7 R = 9 Z = 9 H = 8 S = 2

VIN: S C F C V 8 0 S A Assigned value: 2 3 6 3 5 8 0 2 0 1 Weight factor: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10 0 9 Product: 16 21 36 15 20 24 0 20 0 9

2.1.1 World Manufacturers Identifier (WMI) Section

The WMI section is located in character positions 1 to 3 inclusive and is assigned by B.S.I. The code for all our models is SCF.

2.1.2 Vehicle Description Section (VDS)

The VDS is located in character positions 4 to 8 and is assigned by the manufacturer within the constraints laid down in the USA Federal Register, volume 44, number 57.

2.1.3 Vehicle Indicator Section (VIS)

The VIS is located in character positions 10 to 17 inclusive and is also assigned by the manufacturer within the constraints in the Federal Register.

2.1.4 The Check Digit

The check digit shall be determined and included in the VIN for each car sold to North America and Canada. It is determined by carrying out a mathematical computation that utilises each of the VIN characters according to the following formula:

(a) Each alphabetic character is assigned a numeric value according to the following table:

(b) The assigned value for each character is then multiplied by a weight factor that is dependent on VIN character position, see worked example below.

(c) The products are then added together and the sum divided by 11.

(d) The check digit is the remainder of the division, when this is 10 the check digit is X; when zero the check digit remains zero.

Worked example

VS Saloon (LHD) with assumed chassis number 12456 VIN: T L 1 2 4 5 6 Assigned value: 3 3 1 2 4 5 6 Weight factor: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Product: 24 21 6 10 16 15 12

Sum of products = 265, divide by 11 = 24 1/11

*Thus the check digit = 1 (to be inserted in ninth character of VIN)

2.1.4.1 Check Digit - Simplification

Because many of the VIN characters are common to each model the check digit

The scheme works thus:

(a) The Intermediate Check Digit remains constant for each model variant.

(b) Having allocated the sequential chassis number, multiply each digit by its weight factor and add these products to find the sum.

(c) Referring to Table 1(a), line-up the appropriate Sum and read across to the next column for the Sequential Number Check Digit (SCD).

(d) Next, refer to Table 1(b), and in the first column line-up the Sequential Number Check Digit, then line-up the Intermediate Check Digit; the point where the column and rows intercept is the corresponding VIN Check Digit.

(e) A worked example of the simplified Check Digit determination is shown below.

V8 SALOON APPROX. LHD

VIN Prefix Sequential Chassis No.

SCFCV80S ATL12678

4 3 2

Sum = 61 = 24+21+16

Sequential No. Check Digit = 6 [From Table 1(a)]

Intermediate Check Digit = 2

VIN Check Digit = 8 (Illegible Words)

(f) A summary of the Intermediate Check Digits for our model range is listed below: Model Driving Intermediate Instruction Drawing position Check Digit Number V8 Saloon Left HD 2 B97-16204 " Right HD 0 B97-16211 V8 Volante Left HD 5 B97-16205 " Right HD 3 B97-16212 V8 Vantage Left HD - B97-16206 " Right HD 8 B97-16213 Lagonda Left HD 4 B97-16224 " Right HD 2 B97-16225

* APPLICABLE (Illegible Words) VIZ (Illegible Words)

3. VIN SYSTEM - BEST OF THE WORLD (i.e. not applicable to USA or Canada)

The vehicle identification number (VIN) section on the brass plate, part numbers A97-15564/5 applicable to the Lagonda and V8 models respectively, will be completed by AML using the current sequential chassis numbering system. The plates will be embossed using stamps with a character of 4 mm minimum height. There will be no gaps or marks between the characters. The number will be finished with a dash, again without a gap, similar to the start of the number as shown in drawing A97-15564/5.

The chassis numbering (VIN) system is as follows:

(a) Lagonda : -LOOR13XXX-

(b) V8 Saloon : -V8SOR12XXX-

(c) V8 Volante : -V8COR15XXX- and (d) V8 Vantage : -V8VOR12XXX-

3.1 Lagonda VIN Structure Lagonda VIN Structure CHARACTER POSITION 1 -L Model 2 0 Not yet designated 3 0 Not yet designated, but J to be used for cars sold to Japan 4 R R = Right hand drive; L = Left hand drive 5 1) Chassis number model variant prefix 6 3) 7 X) 8 X) Sequential chassis number 9 X-

3.2 V8 VIN Structure V8 VIN STRUCTURE CHARACTER POSITION 1 -V) Model 2 8) 3 S,C or V Variant, i.e. S = Saloon; C = Convertible & V = Vantage 4 0 Not yet designated, but 'J' to be used for care sold to Japan 5 R or L R = Right hand drive; L = Left hand drive 6 I) Chassis number model variant prefix 7 2 or 5) 8 X) 9 X) Sequential chassis number 10 X-

3.3 Location of VIN Chassis Stamping

Bearing in mind the points outlined in 3. above, the VIN will also be stamped in the RHS of the chassis in the locations indicated in Figures 1 and 2 applicable to the Lagonda and V8 models respectively. The character heights shall be a minimum 7 mm high, and the number shall be legible when the car is completed and ready for sale, i.e. not covered by underseal.

APPROVED BY: S. COUGHLIN

PREPARED BY: A. GOLDSMITH

SAFETY & EMISSIONS: J. D. ORCHARD

Table 1

(a) Sequential No. Check Digit (SCD) Sum SCD Sum SCD Sum SCD 1 1 36 3 71 5 2 2 37 4 72 5 3 3 38 5 73 7 4 4 39 6 74 8 5 5 40 7 75 9 6 6 41 8 76 10 7 7 42 9 77 0 8 8 43 10 78 1 9 9 44 0 79 2 10 10 45 1 80 3 11 0 46 2 81 4 12 1 47 3 13 2 48 4 14 3 49 5 15 4 50 6 16 5 51 7 17 6 52 8 18 7 53 9 19 8 54 10 20 9 55 0 21 10 56 1 22 0 57 2 23 1 58 3 24 2 59 4 25 3 60 5 26 4 61 6 27 5 62 7 28 6 63 8 29 7 64 9 30 8 65 10 31 9 66 0 32 10 67 1 33 0 68 2 34 1 69 3 35 2 70 4

(b) VIN Check Digit

Intermediate Check Digit (Illegible Table)

ID: nht80-3.45

DATE: 09/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Terry M. Bennett

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 12, 1980, concerning your importation of three passenger cars that do not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You sought to import these vehicles under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii) but Customs required you to enter them under bond, pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(iii) which requires that they be brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked to be allowed to enter these cars under 12.80(b)(1)(vii). According to your letter, you are a collector of cars which are in storage, residing and working at present in Saudi Arabia, keep three registered cars in the U.S. for the use of you and your wife while you are here, and state that you never drive the cars in your collection.

Section 12.80(b)(1)(vii) allows importation of a vehicle without conformance if it is brought in for purposes of show, test, experiment, competition, repairs, or alteration. I see nothing in your letter indicating eligibility for importation under any of these allowances. Certainly the vehicles have not been imported for purposes of "show" which we interpret as available for inspection by the public as part of a static display. Accordingly, we are unable to grant your request.

(Illegible Word) the interest of accuracy, you should know that our records, (Illegible Word) by the manufacturer, indicate that the "1968" BMW (Illegible Word) CS coupe you say was "sold to me as 1967" was, in fact, the last of that model manufactured in the month of June 1969.

SINCERELY,

AUGUST 12, 1980

Chief Counsel's office National Highway Safety (Traffic Safety) DOT

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to a conversation with Mr. George (Illegible Word) of your department I am writing to you to request a review of my situation vis a vis 3 recently imported non conforming automobiles.

The vehicles in question are:

1) 1968 BMW 2000 CS Coupe serial # 1109557 (sold to me as 1967 in South: Arabia) 2) 1975 Fewari 365BB Coupe serial # F102BB18197

3) 1975 Lamberghini Contach coupe serial # 112-0088

These vehicles were imported under U.S. customs file # ENF 4-05 NF RS through the port of Newark.

Customs, at Newark, forced my representative to change the import form category from category 7 to category 3. Stating that I was not a "registered (Illegible Word)".

I am a certifiable "carnut", and have collected cars since I was a small boy. I own more than 35 cars, many of which are stared in the facility in Gloucester (photo enclosed) my cars are mostly old, beginning with a 1905 (Illegible Word) Belleville. I keep 3 cars registered for the use of my wife and myself while we are in the USA on holiday, and certainly have no need to use a noncomforming car at any time.

I would very much appreciate it, if you would review this situation and allow me to exchange the entry status of these 3 cars to category 7.

I have posted a bond against use on the highway, in nonconforming status, I am willing to live with that.

Further, I am perfectly willing for your inspectors to drop in at any (Illegible Word) moment and inspect these vehicles to assure themselves that they are not being operated.

As I said I reside and work in Saud: Arabia. I am seldom here, never drive these cars, and fully intend to abide by the letter of the law.

Please allow me to change their status. I am faced with $ 30,000 in expenses to have (Illegible Words) only to sit in the same garage until I return at some unknown time in the future.

I will be in the USA until Aug 30, on holiday. Could you try to reach a decision by then and let me know? Thank you. Help!

Terry M. Bennett M.D

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]