ID: 86-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Brenda Hartman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you are considering. In your letter, you asked the agency not to disclose your idea for this product. In a phone conversation of April 28, 1986, with Stephen Oesch of my staff, you waived your request for complete nondisclosure and agreed to the disclosure of a generic description of your product. As you requested, we will not disclose the specific details of your product or the sketches you enclosed with your letter.

Your product is designed to reduce the possibility that a young child could unbuckle a vehicle safety belt. The product would enclose the buckle of the safety belt, so that it is difficult for a child to operate the buckle release.

We have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains our reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985)

In addition, use of your product can be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One requirement of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is that the pushbutton release for a safety belt must have a a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business could be prohibited since it apparently would substantially reduce the minimum area available for applying the release force to the safety belt pushbutton. In addition, Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that the safety belt no longer meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person could be inconsistent with that policy.

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

SINCERELY,

THIS IS A PROPIATARY IDEA, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE.

February 27, 1986

Erika Jones Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

RE: Inquiry of safety standards.

Dear Miss Jones,

I am submitting to you my idea. I would like to know if there are any safety standards which may prohibit me from proceeding with such a product.

I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and would like a response at your earliest convience.

Sincerely,

Brenda Hartman 8617 CRESTON PINCKNEY, MI 48169 (313) 878-2413

ID: 86-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Greg Burns -- Quality Manager, Sierracin/TransTech

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Greg Burns Quality Manager Sierracin/TransTech 12780 San Fernando Road Sylmar, CA 91342

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1986, to Edward Jettner of this agency. Your letter was referred to this office for reply. You asked about the effect of the certification requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, on a product you are planning to manufacture. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You described your product as an aftermarket personal security speciality glazing for automotive use. The glazing would be manufactured by adding a special plastic to the interior surface of a piece of new glazing. You explained that you are having testing conducted on your product and believe that it will pass all of the requirements set for glass-plastic glazing (item AS-14) in Standard No. 205. Your specific question concerns how the glazing is to be marked in accordance with S6 of the standard.

You explained that a new item of glazing is sent to you by an original equipment glazing manufacturer, who has certified the glazing as complying with the standard and placed the necessary markings, required by S6 of the standard, on the glazing. You asked whether you should obliterate the OEM markings through sandblasting or other means and then apply your own identification or whether you should retain the OEM marking and add additional information to indicate that the glazing has been modified.

S6.1 of Standard No. 205 requires prime glazing manufacturers to mark glazing materials in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z-26. S6.1 further defines a prime glazing manufacturer as one "who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." In general, an item of glazing has only one prime glazing manufacturer, since usually one manufacturer performs the fabrication, lamination, or tempering of the glazing material. However, in the case of your product, we would consider both the original manufacturer of the glazing and your company, which laminates a plastic material to the glazing, to be prime glazing manufacturers. Both companies are performing a fundamental manufacturing operation, such as fabricating, laminating, or tempering, necessary to produce a completed item of glazing material, as compared to a situation where a company is performing a minor finishing operation, such as polishing, to an item of glazing that is fabricated, laminated or tempered by another company.

As you pointed out in your letter, having two identifying marks on one item of glazing could lead to potential confusion as to which mark is correct. One of the purposes of the certification requirement is to assist in identifying the responsible manufacturer for the purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Thus, in the case of your product, the agency believes that it is important that both prime glazing manufacturers be identified on the glazing since, for example, there could be a noncompliance in the original glazing sent to you or there could be a noncompliance in the glazing as modified by your company. To avoid potential confusion about what item number applies to your finished product, we agree that adding wording to your marking indicating that the original glazing has been modified from one AS item to another will help avoid confusion.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Edward Jettner TQC-86-037 Safety Glazing Standards 7 March 1986 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20950

Dear Mr. Jettner;

As you may be aware of, we at Sierracin/TransTech are preparing to market an aftermarket personal security specialty glazing for automotive use. The glazing would be manufactured utilizing a OEM assembly (windshield, sidelight, etc.) with the subsequent application of a special plastic to the interior surface.

We are nearing the completion of FMVSS No. 205 testing through Industrial Testing Laboratories (Berkeley, CA), and feel confident that our design will pass all tests for the AS-14 item designation of that standard. (Although we will be using the current 1983 revision to Z-26.1 instead of the obsolete 1977 revision which includes supplement .la from 1980.)

During initial conversations with Mr. Armond Cardarelli (Director, Safety Equipment Services, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) in preparation for AAMVA approvals processing, the subject of assembly identification came up. As you know, OEM assemblies, when furnished in low quantities such as we would normally use, incorporate the OEM item designation (AS-1, AS-2, etc.). Mr. Cardarelli's justifiable concern was that our subsequent reidentification after our manufacturing process would cause confusion because of the conflicting item designations (AS-14 vs. AS-1/2/etc.), and he suggested that I contact you in writing to determine the proper direction in which to proceed.

As I see it, we have two options:

1) Obliterate the OEM item designation through sand-blast or other means. Thereafter we would apply our own identification.

- or -

2) Retain the OEM type designation, and add additional identification to indicate "modification" as per the following example:

(Please insert graphics)

I would appreciate your letting me know which of these two alternatives you feel would be most appropriate. If possible, we would prefer the acceptance of option two (2). If you have an alternate method that you feel would be more suitable, please contact me at the above address.

If you have any questions about this matter, please don't hesitate to call. I appreciate your participation in this, and look forward to your reply.

Sincerely yours,

Greg Burns Quality Manager

ID: 86-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/86

FROM: RICHARD E BOND -- HOLIDAY RAMBLER CORPORATION

TO: ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/24/86 TO RICHARD E BOND, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29, PART 565

TEXT: Gentlemen:

I have a simple question which does not seem to be addressed by the regulations. It is based on the following facts:

Corporation manufactures vehicle X for several years. Corporation then separates the portion of its company which manufactures these vehicles into a separate, wholly-owned subsidiary corporation. Subsidiary corporation will continue to manufacture vehicle X.

Question: Is the Society of Automotive Engineers authorized to transfer the WMI code that was being used by Corporation for vehicle X to subsidiary corporation for vehicle X?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

ID: 86-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Frederick Goldfeder, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Frederick Goldfeder, Esq. Legal Proceedings Bureau New York Department of Transportation Albany, New York 12232

Dear Mr. Goldfeder:

This responds to your January 28, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the definition of "truck" set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.3 of our regulations. You asked whether manufacturers may certify "passenger vans," which have seating capacities of more than 10 persons, as trucks.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), the classification of a motor vehicle is determined by its manufacturer. Part 567 requires manufacturers to certify that their motor vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, and classify their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in Part 571.3 of our regulations. The agency may, of course, question a manufacturer's classification of its vehicle if it appears that the vehicle has not been properly certified under our regulations. This would generally arise in the context of compliance or enforcement proceedings.

We define a "truck" in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle ... designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." Based on the information in your letter, it does not appear that the vans meet that definition, given their passenger capacities. Our regulatory definition of a truck would be only appropriate for vehicles designed primarily for transporting property or equipment, which does not appear to be the case for the vans you described.

The situation you described appears to raise question of compliance with Federal law by the persons certifying the vehicles. We are interested in learning more about the sale of the vans, and would appreciate your contacting NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with any information you may have, at the address given above.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 28, 1986

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We would Appreciate An interpretation of the term "truck" (49 CFR S371.3).

Specifically, we have in mind vehicles commonly known as a "passenger van" having s seating capacity of more than ten persons.

These vehicles are commonly sold, by a dealer, with the manufacturers' certification being that of a "truck". In this connection, we note that the definition of "bus" in said section is:

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than ten persons."

The vehicles sold as a "passenger van" do not meet all of the specifications of a "bus" as set forth in Part 571.

May a manufacturer properly certify such "passenger van" as a truck, under Federal Statutes and Regulations?

This question is arising with great frequency in connection with our safety certification of vehicles operating intrastate New York. Accordingly, your interpretation of your regulations would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

FREDERICK GOLDFEDER Associate Attorney Legal Proceedings Bureau

ID: 86-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Don Black -- Director, U.S. Engineering Office, Alfa Romeo Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NH 07632

Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1986, to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey R. Miller about the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that Alfa Romeo intends to install automatic safety belts in its two seat convertible model and asked how the requirements of Standard No. 208 apply to such an automatic crash protection system. In essence, all of your questions concern whether an automatic belt system can be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt system under 1.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The answer is yes, an automatic safety belt can be used to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) and can also be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt to meet the requirements of S1.1.2.1(c)(2).

As provided in S4.5.3 of the standard, an automatic safety belt system can be "used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat assembly otherwise required by that option." Thus, an automatic safety belt can be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system under S4.1.2.1(c)(2). Therefore, an Alfa Romeo convertible equipped with an automatic safety belt would not be subjected to the lateral crash test of S5.2 or the dynamic rollover test of S5.3.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ref. #040

March 24, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Request for Clarification: FMVSS 208

Dear Mr. Miller: Alfa Romeo has committed to tooling to fit automatic belts in the 2 seat convertible marketed as "SPIDER". This will allow Alfa Romeo to exceed the first year phase-in requirement of 10 percent.

Our management has some concern that this decision may have placed the Corporation in a position of risk, due to the present ambiguities within FMVSS 208.

Following is our analysis of 208 as presently effective:

- S4.1.2(a) Permits passive systems meeting frontal crash criteria of S5.1.

- S4.1.2(c)(2) Permits active belts combined with a passive system meeting frontal crash criteria of S5.1. With this option, there is no requirement to meet lateral or rollover protection requirements.

Looking at these requirements, it appears that an automatic belt system would have to meet the lateral and rollover requirements of S4.7.2(c)(1). However, further into the text at S4.5.2, it appears that automatic belts may be used to meet the requirement of S4.1.2(c)(2). We would like your confirmation that this "linking" is correctly interpreted. If so, then it would seem that there is not lateral or rollover requirement.

- S4.1.2.3.2. Cites type 1 or 2 belts for convertibles, which again according to S4.5.3 may be substituted by automatic belts; thereby linking with S4.1.2(a) and (c)(2).

It appears that a convertible having automatic belts would not be required to comply with either S5.2 or S5.3. For this we solicit N.H.T.S.A.'s concurrence. Should the rollover requirement of S5.3 be required, we know of no means by which any conventional convertible can meet the criteria of S6.1.

In looking at "intent" we tend to think that N.H.T.S.A. had already recognized the convertible/rollover incongruity when S4.1.2.3.2 was written, which seems to concur with P.L.89-563 Sect. 103(f)(3).

May we have N.H.T.S.A.'s early response?

Sincerely, ALFA ROMEO, INC.

Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office

DB/as

ID: 86-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: RUDY VALDEZ -- PRODUCT MANAGER MR GASKET COMPANY

TO: NAT. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/23/86 EST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO RUDY VALDEZ, REDBOOK A29, STANDARD 108, AFTERMARKET DECORATIVE LIGHT

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

We are a company which manufactures and sells products for the Automotive Aftermarket. We are currently developing a product for this market and need an interpretation concerning its' legality. The unit in question is a splash guard designed for automobiles and light trucks. When the running lights are turned on, a light in the splash guard will light up at the same time. Our concern is in the location of the light. Although purely decorative, would placing a light in this area violate any state or federal standards or codes? With this letter, you will find a crude lay out of the instructions for this item. This will hopefully give you a clear idea of what this unit will be doing. Any help that you can give us with this product would be helpful.

Secondly, any information you can give us related to the collision avoidance light will be a great help. We are most interested in the direction your department is going in relation with the aftermarket.

We have seen a number of these units which do not appear to meet the federal regulation related to this item. Will the D.O.T. regulation for new automobiles soon pertain to those already on the road. If the D.O.T. regulation will not be required for vehicles already on the road, how closely will the retro fit unit need to be?

Clarification on these points will be helpful to both us and our customers. We thank you in advance for any help you can give us in both of these matters. If there is any problems that need clarification, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely

ID: 86-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Hutton, Jr. -- Curtis, Bamburg and Crosse

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert A. Hutton, Hr., Esq. Curtis, Bamburg & Crossen Attorneys at Law 230 South Bemiston St. Louis, MO 63105

Dear Mr. Hutton:

This responds to your letter asking about inertial-locking seatbelts and seatbacks. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that your firm represents a woman who was injured in a 1983 Ford Escort GT. According to your letter, while braking to exit a highway, the driver's seatback was thrown forward, not locking, causing your client to lose control of the car and crash into a guardrail. You asked for information about inertial-lock mechanisms on automobiles, particularly for seat backs and belts in that car, and references to government safety standards. You specifically asked whether there was a standard for the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The of our standards are revelant to inertial-lock mechanisms.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies requirements for inertial-locking safety belts. Section S4.3(j) specifies the following:

(j) Emergency-locking retractor. An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)--

(1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g. . . .

Thus, for safety belts, there is a specific requirement for the maximum distance the webbing may extend before locking under load.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR S571.207), specifies requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats and seat backs. See section S4.3. The standard requires that such seats be equipped with self-locking restraining devices, and specifies both static force and acceleration performance requirements which the restraining devices must meet once engaged. However, the standard does not specify either the load at which an inertial-locking seatback must lock or the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load.

In response to your request for information that relates to the particular car involved in your client's accident, He have enclosed a computer printout listing relevant vehicle owner reports which allege problems similar to that identified by your letter.

I hope this information is helpful. There is no fee for the information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 5, 1985

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Re: Inertial-locking Seatbelts and Seatbacks.

Dear Sir or Madam:

This firm represents a woman who was injured in a 1983 Ford Escort GT. The car is equipped with inertial-locking seatbelts and seatbacks on the front seats. While braking to exit a highway, the driver's seatback was thrown forward -- it did not lock -- causing my client to lose control of the car and crashing into a guardrail.

I an interested i any information you may have concerning inertial-lock mechanisms on automobiles, and particularly seatbacks and belts for that particular car. Any reference to government safety standards, including any standard for the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load would be extremely helpful.

If there is any fee involved in compiling this information, please advise.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Hutton, Jr.

RAH/h

ID: 86-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jacques M. Delphin, M.D.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Jacques M. Delphin, M.D. 84 Haight Avenue Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12603

Dear Dr. Delphin:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1986, enclosing a description of your device to improve car signals, and asking about the regulations applicable to it.

According to the information that you furnished, the device "cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn". The purpose of the device is to eliminate "the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch". The effect of the device is "to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals".

As you know, pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, have been required to have self-cancelling turn signal indicators. However, there are no performance requirements for the self-cancelling feature. As a general rule, motor vehicle lighting equipment not required by Standard No. 108 is permissible as original equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and as aftermarket equipment if its installation can be accomplished without crafting a noncompliance. The device as you have described it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the turn signal operating unit, or create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 (the requirements of SAE Standard J589 Turn Signal Operating Unit, April 1964, which is incorporated by reference). Since Standard No. 108 does not preclude its use, the question of its legality is therefore determinable under the laws of each State where it will be used.

Although there is no Federal safety standard that applies to it, the device is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1411) if its manufacturer or this agency determines that it incorporates a safety related defect.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 2, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration Room 5219 407 St, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I appreciate the privilege to communicate with you regarding my device to improve traffic safety.

I am enclosing a copy of the description of the product. Please advise me as to the regulations such a device will fall under.

Respectfully yours,

Jacques M. Delphin M.D.

JMD/bp

RCC-237 DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS

A Poughkeepsie, New York inventor has developed an automotive accessory which monitors and controls the operation of a vehicle's turn signal equipment.

DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn. Equipped with an electronic timer, the device automatically triggers the vehicle's standard signal release mechanism and returns the signal switch to the off position. The device is sensitive to all turns of the steering wheel, regardless of the degree of the turn. Installation of the device eliminates the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch. Use of DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS is designed to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals.

The original design was submitted to the Rochester Office of INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED, a national invention development organization for research and marketing. INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED is currently offering this invention for licensing to manufacturers interested in research and development.

Details May Be Obtained By Contacting: NEW PRODUCT LICENSING DEPT. INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED TRIANGLE BUILDING - 701 SMITHFIELD ST. PITTSBURGH, PA 15222

Note: We are unable to reveal working details of this invention, and this release does not constitute an offer for sale. This data is available only to qualified manufacturers and marketing agents on a confidential basis.

ID: 86-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Messrs. Waimey and Hansell:

This responds to your letter asking two questions about Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. First you asked if the 17-character vehicle identification number (VIN) required on original equipment engines and transmissions had to appear in a single line. You stated that your Client would like to mark the engines and transmissions by splitting the VIN into two groups, with the second group of characters directly below the first. Such markings could comply with Part 541. Second, you asked if your client could use a trademark that has less than one centimeter high for marking replacement parts. Markings less than one centimeter high would not comply with the requirements of Part 541 applicable to replacement parts. These conclusions are explained in detail below.

If a vehicle manufacturer was not identifying its engines and/of transmissions with at least an 8-Character VIN derivative as of October 24, 1984, S541.5(b)(1) requires the engine and transmission to be marked with the full 17-character VIN. That section does not require that the 17 Characters appear on the same line. However, the preamble to the final rule establishing Part 541 explained the-policy reasons for requiring the full 17-Character VIN as follows:

One of the primary purposes of the Theft not is to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to establish that a vehicle or a major part is stolen. ... If this purpose is to be promoted,this standard must ensure that police officers learning of suspicious, potentially stolen vehicle parts can quickly verify whether those parts are stolen. 50 FR 43168, October 24, 1985.

In the agency's view, S511.5(b)(1) requires that the full 17-character VIN be marked in such a way that police can easily determine what VIN is marked on the part, and then check to see if that part is stolen. If a VIN is divided into segments, the proper sequence of those segments must be readily determinable. If the VIN here placed on the lines, beginning on the first line with the remainder of the VIN directly below the first line, as suggested in your letter, we do not believe it would be confusing or difficult for law enforcement officers to easily read the marking in the correct order. Accordingly, we conclude that marking the VIN on two separate lines, with the second directly below the first, would not violate any of the requirements of Part 541.

Your second question Has whether your Client could mark replacement parts by using a trademark that was one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter high. You explained that your client's trademark is wider than it is tall. After noting that the one centimeter height requirement was adopted so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit (50 FR 43177), you stated your opinion that a one centimeter wide trademark would serve these purposes as effectively as a one centimeter high trademark.

Section 541.6(c) reads as follows: "The trademark and the letter "R" required by paragraph (a) of this section must be at least one centimeter high." Any marking of the trademark which is less than one Centimeter high would not comply with this requirement, regardless of how wide the marking is.

However, the stated reasons for promulgating the minimum height requirement for trademarks were to ensure that they would be both clearly legible for investigators and more difficult for thieves to counterfeit. See 50 FR 43177, 43178, October 24, 1985. The agency did not specifically consider the situation where a trademark is wider than it is high. When a trademark is wider than it is high, it would be as clearly legible and as difficult to Counterfeit as a trademark that is higher than it is wide. However, the wider trademark might not comply with the standard while the higher trademark would. It does not appear that any purpose of the theft prevention standard is served by this anomalous result.

Accordingly, we have treated your letter as a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552, and it is hereby granted. We will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on this topic shortly. Please note that, unless and until an amendment becomes effective as a final rule, S541.6(c) requires the trademark on replacement parts to be one centimeter high.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 7, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Regulatory Interpretation 49 CFR Parts 541 and 556 Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Dear Ms. Jones:

Porsche has two questions concerning the final rule implementing the Motor Vehicle Theft Enforcement Act of 1984 (49 CFR Parts 541 and 567).

First, may the seventeen digit Vehicle Identification Number marking to be placed on the engine and on the transmission be affixed on two lines rather than on a single line, assuming that the second line is directly below the first? Securing a flat surface on the transmission and on the engine with sufficient length to place a seventeen digit number on a single line is extremely difficult, and Could tend to impair the legibility of the number. Allowing the marking to be placed on two lines, one directly below the other, would afford is substantially greater flexibility and would improve its readability. There is no prohibition we could find in the rules to placing the VIN number on two lines, with the second line directly below the first. (See 49 CFR Sections 541.5 and 567.4(g)).

Second, may Porsche use a trademark which is at least one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter tall on the replacement parts? Replacement parts must be marked with the manufacturer's register trademark. 49 CFR 541.6. However, Porsche has an implementation problem in that its trademark is longer than it is tall.

A trademark is to have a minimum height of one centimeter. 49 CFR 541 6(c). The rationale for the minimum size for the trademark is to insure its visibility and to make it more difficult to counterfeit. As the Statement of Consideration for the final rule provides:

"NHTSA proposed the one cm minimum height for these markings so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit."

50 Fed. Reg. 43,177(1985) Porsche completely agrees with NHTSA's two interests but believes they would be equally well met with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in length as with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in height. Such an alternative standard would permit Porsche to position the trademark in the optimal location.

We would appreciate your early response to these issues.

Your truly,

Dean Hansell

cc: Stephen P. Wood, Esq., Associate Chief Counsel for Rule Making

Stephen R. Kratzke Esq., Office of General Counsel

Brian McLaughlin, Office of Market Incentives

ID: 86-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roland L. Lafleur

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of May 5, 1986, to our former Chief Counsel, Jeffrey Miller, asking about comparative costs of a center high-mounted stop lamp. You read that the cost of such a lamp was $4 to $7, but in fact it cost you $136.18, tax included, to have one installed on your 1984 Cadillac.

The figures of $4 to $7 represent the agency's conclusions as to the cost to a vehicle manufacturer to install the new lamp as standard equipment when its installation became mandatory for new vehicles. As the new requirement does not extend to aftermarket equipment such as the lamp you bought for your 1984 Cadillac, the agency's cost estimates should not be read as applying to it. Also, our estimate was for the "average" vehicle. Costs will vary by manufacturer and by carline within a given manufacturers' fleet according to the particular design and placement chosen. In spite of your dissatisfaction over the cost you have nevertheless wisely equipped your car with a safety device which should lessen the likelihood of expensive rear end collisions and the injuries to passengers that can occur. We appreciate your interest in the lamp.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

OPELOUSAS, LA 5/5/86

DEAR MR. JEFFREY MILLER

I am retired & 71 years old, having time on my hands I read A lots. I am A auto (MUSTANG) NUT. 65 & 70 MUSTANG convertibles, I also bought A CADILLAC FLEETWOOD August 1984. I subscribe to 5 auto magazine one of which is HOME MECHANIX. In the JUNE 1986 issue I read on page 78 an article safety & (NHTSA) about NEW CENTER HIGH-MOUNTED STOPLIGHT, The article states that the light cost about $4 to $7 per car. The light was installed before I read the article, & it looks as if factory installed. I agreed the light is very good, but the price you stated like FANTICY-LAND. I took my CADILLAC to the CADILLAC dealer where it was bought. I now have the light you mention in Home Mechanix. The light & wires cost me $55.19 The labor listed by CADILLAC MOTOR CO, was 2.7 HRS. to install, Labor in Lafayette, LA. at CADILLAC is $32.00, so get you adding machine & figure the total cost. Also we in LOUISIANA have A 6% TAX. this amount is quite different from your estimate of $4 to $7. I know that the factory can install much cheaper. But $136.18 is unreasonable higher than $4 or $7.

When I read an article in a magazine I take it for granted that I am reading true articles. Lets try to get things straight before printing it.

THANKS A LOTS

JUST

PS Please advise if I am off or you off

ROLAND L. LAFLEUR 1155 W. GROLEE, ST. OFELOUSAS, LA. 70570