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

ID: nht79-2.21

DATE: 08/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Halliburton Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Bechtel Halliburton Services Drawer 1431 Duncan, Oklahoma 73533

Dear Mr. Bechtel:

This is in response to your letter of May 1, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the definition of "incomplete vehicle" contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and in confirmation of your subsequent telephone conversations with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

The term "incomplete vehicle" is defined in S3 of the standard to mean "an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed trailer."

You are correct in saying that most of the components listed in the definition are not meant to be part of a trailer. Consequently, an incomplete trailer would consist of only those components, such as a frame, listed in the definition which are meant to be part of the completed trailer. The outfitting of an incomplete trailer for a specific purpose would not be sufficient to make Halliburton Services responsible for assigning the vehicle identification number.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

(405) 251-3565 May 1, 1979 RB-90-79

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

VIN Standards

I would like to request an interpretation as to the definition of an "incomplete vehicle" in regard to trailers. The definition as contained in S571.115(s)(3) is only applicable to powered vehicles as the stated minimum requirements are not relative to trailers.

Very truly yours,

Ron Bechtel

RB:im

ID: nht79-2.22

DATE: 09/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: PACCAR, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mark K. McDonald PACCAR, Inc. Business Center Building P. O. BOX 1518 Bellevue, Washington 98009

Dear Mr. McDonald:

This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

You have asked whether a manufacturer must designate a vehicle an "incomplete vehicle" if, although it is shipped in an incomplete form, its completed type is known. The "incomplete vehicle" type was established to deal with situations where the manufacturer did not know what the vehicle's final type would be when it assigned the VIN. If the final form the vehicle will take is known to the manufacturer, it may identify that type in the VIN, or it may designate it as an incomplete vehicle. The agency would prefer, however, that the final type be indicated.

There is no requirement that use of a particular vehicle type designation for VIN purposes be consistent with any other documentation regarding shipment or sale of vehicles manufactured in more than one stage, except that the actual VIN must be used where it appears on the documentation. For example, a vehicle may be designated an incomplete vehicle for the purposes of the NHTSA certification requirements and a truck for the purposes of the VIN requirements.

You have also asked the agency to confirm that engine horsepower need not be directly or indirectly decipherable from the VIN. This is essentially correct. "Engine type" is defined in S3 of the standard to mean a power source with defined characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement and net brake horsepower. Thus, encoding an engine manufacturer's basic model number would be sufficient. There remains, however, a question as to the point at which two engines with the same characteristics except for horsepower become two different engines. The agency intends to resolve this question in a notice in the Federal Register. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 22, 1979

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

Dear Fred:

To follow up our phone conversation of today, PACCAR will proceed to formulate its VIN code in compliance with FMVSS 115 under these assumptions:

1. Incomplete Vehicle Type:

It is our understanding that this designation is to be used at the manufacturer's discretion when designation of a complete vehicle type would not be practical. There are no circumstances which require that the manufacturer use the incomplete vehicle type designation. Moreover, there is no requirement that use of the incomplete vehicle designation be consistent with any other documentation regarding shipment or sale of vehicles manufactured in more than one stage.

2. Horsepower Rating:

There is no requirement that engine horsepower be either directly or indirectly decipherable from the VIN. Horsepower may be used as one characteristic by which engines are classified. A complete and acceptable method of classification would be to encode as a separate classification each basic model number as specified by the engine manufacturer.

I am requesting that you send written acknowledgement that the above assumptions are proper interpretations of FMVSS 115.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mark K. McDonald

MKM:ed

ID: nht79-2.23

DATE: 10/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Milby:

This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1979, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115). We are sorry for the delay in responding.

You wish to know whether the "body number" that Blue Bird Body Company assigns to its school buses will satisfy the requirement of S4.5.3.3 that the last six characters of the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) represent the production sequence of the vehicle. Your concern arises from the fact that the "body number" does not indicate the true numerical sequence of manufacture. As explained in Notice 5 (43 FR 36448) and Notice 6 (43 FR 52246) the production sequence represents the "number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process" (S4.5.3.3), rather than the numerical sequence of actual manufacture. Consequently, the Blue Bird body number may be used as the production sequence number since the "body numbers" are sequentially assigned when purchase orders for the buses are received.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 29, 1979

Mr Joseph L. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington D.C. 20590

Reference: 1. FMVSS 115 Vehicle Identification Number Amendment dated March 27, 1979 2. Telephone conversation by Bob DuMond with Nelson Erickson, NHTSA on March 13, 1979

Dear Mr. Levin:

I am writing with reference to section S 4.5.3.3 of the above Federal Standard and seek your approval of our interpretation of the term "production sequence number" contained within this section.

As a manufacturer of a forward control type of school bus, Blue Bird Body Company will be required to develop a VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) as referenced in the Federal Standard. Blue Bird assigns a body number to each vehicle as soon as a purchase order is accepted. This unique number forever establishes the identity of each vehicle. All pertinent body and chassis information can be determined by knowing this number. Body and chassis service numbers are set up for the customer use in handling service problems. These numbers indicate exact production sequence of the separate body and chassis. Also, our Federal Certification records establish the day that the vehicle was certified. However, permanent files can be accessed at any time by using any of these numbers for information relative to each unique vehicle.

Our plan is to reduce error in the VIN by having the number computer generated. All pertinent information required by FMVSS 115 will be carried in our computer files. Because the body number is the earliest number assigned to the vehicle, Blue Bird would seek to use this number as the "production sequence number". However, due to early assignment of this number, sometimes six months prior to production, this body number will not indicate true numerical sequence. However, the importance of the value of this particular number as identified by NHTSA for recall campaign, etc. would ideally be the one for Blue Bird to use.

Therefore, I seek your approval of the use of the Blue Bird Body Company

"body number" as the "production sequence number." I am looking forward to your favorable response. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

WGM:oct

cc: VIN Committee

ID: nht79-2.24

DATE: 10/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kei Matsui Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 18, Hiroshima 730-91 Japan

Mr. Matsui:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1979, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) views on whether the inclusion of optional equipment on certain Mazda models would be sufficient to create a number of different series within that model.

Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) states that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. "Line" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type." "Series" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line', denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes."

Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that models equipped with different optional equipment could each be designed a "series" if Mazda desired. Nonetheless, the definition of "series" makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the "series" designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If the difference between the potential series are superficial and a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality, the agency will not require such a designation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 11, 1979 Our Ref. No. RDE-79-8

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Sir:

Subject: Question on Interpretation of FMVSS No. 115 "Vehicle Identification Number" Docket No. 1-22, Notice 8

We are now developing a system to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 115 published in the March 22, 1979 Federal Register. As shown in the attached tables, our vehicles are advertized and sold under the designations given according to their specifications. For example, the Mazda GLC has the designations of "Basic", "Custom", "Decore Package" and "Sports".

Although these designations are utilized for the purpose of sales, they have been only given according to the level of the optional parts installed. Therefore, we think that these designations do not correspond to "Series" stipulated in S3 "Definition".

We would like to confirm whether our interpretation is correct or not. We would appreciate your reviewing our above request and advising us of your comment at your earlist convenience.

Sincerely yours,

Kei Matsui Manager Development Administration Division

ID: nht79-2.25

DATE: 10/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carolina International, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John W. Howard, III Product Engineering Manager Carolina International, Inc. 1 Hurstbourne Park, Suite 703 Louisville, Kentucky 40222

Dear Mr. Howard:

This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1979, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

The VIN format you forwarded with your letter is essentially correct. There are, however, several aspects of it which should be modified. They will be discussed as numbered in your letter.

It is important to point out at the outset that Standard 115 requires Carolina International Inc. to assign a VIN to only those vehicles for which it is the first stage manufacturer, in this case trailers. Ford and General Motors will be assigning a VIN to those vehicles for which it is the first stage manufacturer, even though Carolina is the final stage manufacturer.

I. World Identification Numbers.

The first three characters of the VIN designate the manufacturer, make, and type of vehicle. While Carolina is the final stage manufacturer for several types of vehicles, it is the first stage manufacturer for only one type. Consequently, one manufacturer identifer is sufficient. As the Agency has contracted with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to act as its agent in assigning these Identification codes (see enclosed notice), you should communicate with the SAE if your identifier was not assigned by it.

II. Vehicle Description Section (VDS).

Your proposed coding for the VDS is satisfactory, except that it encodes data relating to vehicles produced by other manufacturers who would, as explained above, assign the VIN for those vehicles.

III. Check Digit.

The mathematical values assigned to the alphabetic characters are not correct. Please consult Table IV in Notice 8 (44 PR 17489, March 22, 1979) which I have enclosed.

IV. Vehicle Indicator Section.

The format utilized in this section is correct, except that the series of trailer must be indicated in the Vehicle Descriptor Section. Perhaps this can be encoded where you previously intended to indicate chassis type (2.4).

I hope this information has been helpful. Please write or call Mr. Schwartz of my office at 202-426-1834 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

June 19, 1979

Mr. Frederick Schwartz, Jr. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification No.

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

Per our telephone conversation last week, and pursuant to the above referenced standard, attached please find an outline of Carolina International, Inc.'s proposed method to meet the above referenced standard.

Please review, and return an approved copy to me for our files. Should you have any questions, or need additional information, please call.

Sincerely,

John W. Howard, III Product Engineering Manager

JWH/nhs Encl.

ID: nht79-2.26

DATE: 12/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 7, 1979

Mr. Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer Mack Trucks, Inc. P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennyslvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter of June 26, 1979, questioning an opinion contained in our December 12, 1978, letter to you regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. Our letter stated that your company should stamp the words "not applicable", or words of similar import, in any spaces on your certification label which are for axles not present on the vehicle to which the label is affixed. You responded that the blank spaces on the label would not be confusing, and that the likelihood of a discrepancy between the vehicle and the label is very remote.

Our letter did not address the question of the wrong label accidentally being affixed to a vehicle. Such an occurrence would mean that the vehicle would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120, and it could not legally be sold in the United States. Hence, any questions about a discrepancy between the information appearing on the label and the vehicle are beyond the scope of this reply.

S5.3 of Standard No. 120 requires that the labeling information specified in S5.3.1 - S5.3.3 appear in the format shown in the truck example following S5.3. As explained in the December 12 letter, minor variations on what is set forth in the truck example are permitted, but only if those minor variations do not change or obscure the meaning of the label. Minor variations consist of slight differences in punctuation or a substitution of words for a punctuation mark. The purpose of the labeling requirement is to clearly convey to the user of the vehicle the information specified in Standard No. 120.

Leaving blank spaces for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle being labeled does not, upon reconsideration, change or obscure the meaning of the label. Nor is it reasonable to assume that blank spaces will confuse the average reader of the label, when those blank spaces correspond to axles not present on the vehicle. Therefore, I am hereby withdrawing the statement in our previous letter that Mack Trucks should stamp "not applicable" or words of similar import on certification labels for axles not present on the vehicle being labeled. It would be more accurate, however, to insert these words and it would be a simple matter to do so at the same time the other variable information is applied to the label form.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 26, 1979

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

Dear Sir:

Subject: Vehicle Certification Label/FMVSS 120 Ref: NOA-30

On January 5, 1979, we sent the attached letter to Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr., who was Chief Counsel at that time. As of this date, we have not received a reply to this letter.

The letter concerns the blank spaces present in the FMVSS 120 portion of our Vehicle Certification Label which Mr. Levin felt were confusing. We do not feel that they could be confusing.

Please review both Mr. Levin's attached letter and our response to his letter and advise us of your findings.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards vy Attach.

January 5, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

SUBJECT: Vehicle Certification Label Ref: NOA-30

In your letter of December 12, 1978, you noted the following:

"The label enclosed with your letter shows spaces to provide information for the front, rear, and three intermediate axles. When this label is used on vehicles with fewer than five axles, you should stamp 'Not applicable', or words of similar import, in the spaces provided for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle which is being labelled. Without this indication, the label could be confusing and so would fail to clearly provide the required information for that vehicle. An indication of nonapplicability would alert the reader to that fact."

Mack Trucks, Inc. does not understand how one (1) to three (3) blank axle/tire/rim spaces could be confusing since the label is affixed to the vehicle. If, for some reason, the number of axles on the vehicle does not agree with the number represented on the label, obviously, something is wrong. Whether there are "blank spaces" or "not applicable spaces" is of little consequence. The likelihood of a discrepancy between the label and the vehicle is very remote.

Please note the GAWR requirement on the label was effective January 1, 1972. We have used the "FRONT, 1ST INT., 2ND INT., 3RD INIT., REAR AXLE" format with blank spaces since that date (7 years). We are not aware of any problems associated with this format.

Therefore, we would appreciate an explanation of how blank spaces could be confusing under the outlined circumstances.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

T. P. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy

bcc: Messrs. L. F. Donnelly S. Robson C. D. Trexler