ID: nht79-4.35

DATE: 05/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 12, 1979

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

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

Dear Sirs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

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

ID: nht79-4.36

DATE: 11/01/79 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

COPYEE: KENNETH ADAMS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 25, 1979

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.;

Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Administrator, Vehicle Regulations

ID: nht79-4.37

DATE: 11/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. B. Stine

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Bennie Stine 1602 Emil Street Madison, Wisconsin 53713

Dear Mr. Stine:

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-4.38

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo USA Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 26 1979

NOA-30

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

Dear Mr. Ogata:

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 6, 1979

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

Dear sir,

RE: Request for Interpretation of MVSS 209

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

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

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

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

Your earliest response would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

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

Enclosure

ID: nht79-4.39

DATE: 08/03/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

SINCERELY,

Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

JULY 16, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht79-4.4

DATE: 11/02/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

American Motors Corporation

October 11, 1979

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

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

K. W. Schang Director - Vehicle Safety Programs

ID: nht79-4.40

DATE: 09/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

I trust that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht79-4.41

DATE: 11/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Delta Six Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 6, 1979, asking for our concurrence in your understanding of your obligation in importing trailers in kit form.

The pertinent part of your letter reads:

"Mr. Vinson advised me that so long as the kits included all proper lighting, rims and tires placards, name plates, etc., as required to be in compliance with Federal standards for such trailers, and adequate written instructions are included with the kit to insure proper assembly, there would be no legal problem preventing the sale of these kits in the United States."

Your understanding is correct. The kit's lighting equipment must meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) and the instructions should indicate installation in locations meeting the requirements of that standard. Tires and rims must comply with Standards Nos. 119 and 120 respectively (49 CFR 571.119, 571.120), and a certification label must be included, to be affixed by the assembler, that conforms to 49 CFR Part 567.

SINCERELY,

DELTA SIX INDUSTRIES, INC.

November 6, 1979

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

During my visit to Washington I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office on October 10, 1979. At that time we discussed the question of importing a small trailer manufactured in Germany for sale in the United States in kit form. My question was, is there any legal problem which could prevent the sale of these import kits in the United States? Mr. Vinson advised me that so long as the kits included all proper lighting, rims and tires, placards, name plates, etc., as required to be in compliance with Federal standards for such trailers, and adequate written instructions are included with the kit to insure proper assembly, there would be no legal problem preventing the sale of these kits in the United States.

On the basis of the above comments by Mr. Vinson we are proceeding with negotiations to enter into this program. If there is any reason in your judgment to change or modify the above, please advise us as soon as possible by return mail. In any event, I would appreciate a letter of concurrence from your office that the above is accurate.

B. Kreitzer

ID: nht79-4.42

DATE: 05/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Show Associates

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1979, asking two questions about a 1977 Ford van of Canadian manufacture that you "take to the U.S. for various shows."

Your first question is:

"1. Our query: - with the new C & S Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulation, what effect will this have on our crossing the border."

I assume you are referring to the amendment of certain U.S. importation regulations effective January 3, 1979, governing motor vehicles and equipment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80). The most significant change is the requirement that each importer must file a declaration concerning compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards, at the time of importation. This requirement may be waived for vehicles of Canadian registry at the border if they conform to U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards and bear the certification label required under U.S. law. This is the "sticker" referenced in your letter.

"2. Is there an inspection certificate we can pick up at the border point to affix to our van to state we comply with the standards."

No. The certificate is that which is affixed by the original manufacturer at the time of manufacture.

It is the agency's policy to require compliance of Canadian-registered vehicles to U.S. requirements if a substantial portion of their operation is on U.S. roads, one example being trucks that haul goods over the border on a day-to-day basis. You do not state the frequency with which you enter the United States and it is possible that Customs officials may consider you in this category.

Several other provisions might apply to you. A non-resident of the U.S. may import a non-conforming vehicle for a period of up to 1 year, for his personal use (19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(v)), and the requirement for a declaration may be waived at the border. Obviously this provision contemplates an extended visit and not frequent border crossings. Under another provision, 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii), a non-conforming vehicle may be imported for "show" provided that it is not licensed for use on the public roads. Thus, use on private property such as show grounds would be consistent with this form of entry. However, a declaration must be filed.

I am enclosing a copy of the regulations for your information.

SINCERELY, February 20, 1979

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Dear Sir:

With reference to C & S Motor Vehicle Safety Standards we have a query which I hope you can answer.

We have a fully customized '77 Ford Van that we take to the U.S. for various shows. Although the van exterior-wise has been drastically changed, the mechanical has not been altered. All emission controls and so forth are still intact.

Our last couple of times across the border (Windsor/Detroit) customs officers were looking for a particular sticker.

The van was completely repainted and all stickers removed save for the identification plate and serial number.

The van is of Canadian manufacture. 1. Our query: - with the new C & S Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulation, what effect will this have on our crossing the border.

2. Is there an inspection certificate we can pick up at the border point to affix to our van to state we comply with the standards.

3. The van is always trailered and driven only during July and August.

Thanking you for your co-operation in this matter.

SHOW ASSOCIATES

Bruce L. Robertson

ID: nht79-4.43

DATE: 08/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bernard Olcott

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 10, 1979 informing us of your wish to import a 1972 Austin taxicab "for purposes of show on my private Southampton, New York property." You have assured us that "it will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads," and you have asked if we will accept an affidavit for these facts so that you may import the taxi without the necessity of bringing it into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Since you are an attorney you know that under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii) a noncomplying vehicle may be imported for "show" without the necessity of posting bond and conforming it. This exception is available for vehicles of technological or historical significance manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, intended for static display to the general public by motor vehicle manufacturers, museums, or other institutions. The Austin taxi and its use on private property do not appear to fall within this exception and we therefore cannot accept an affidavit from you.

However, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance is willing to advise you of the modifications necessary to bring the Austin taxi into compliance as several of them have been brought into the country in recent years. You should write the Director of that office, Francis Armstrong, for further information if you decide to import the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

July 10, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Sir:

I am planning to import a 1972 Austin London Diesel Taxicab for purposes of show on my private Southampton, New York property. It will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads. I am a member of the Bar of the State of New York.

Will your office accept an affidavit from me for all the facts indicated above so that I can import such car by using Form HS-7 and indicating my compliance with Paragraph 7.

Bernard Olcott -- PATENT ATTY.