ID: nht79-1.14

DATE: 10/04/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 4, 1979

Mr. C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company State Rt. 7 - P.O. Box 766 Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This in reply to your letter of August 23, 1979, to the former Chief Counsel Joseph J. Levin, Jr. You have asked whether a double-faced turn signal front side marker lamp "meets the intent" of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and you enclosed a sample of the lamp for our inspection.

You have quoted paragraph 3.4 of SAE Standard J588e, September 1970, which states "the flashing signal from a double faced signal lamp shall not be obliterated when subjected to external light rays from either in front or behind at any and all angles." It is not possible to make a definitive statement about your lamp without actually subjecting it to a representative external light source such as the headlamps of a vehicle in proximity to the vehicle to which the lamp is mounted, but its design appears adequate to meet the intent of paragraph 3.4. Any changes in design of the lenses or baffling from that of the sample lamp submitted, however, might transmit more light from external sources and may not meet paragraph 3.4.

We would also like to observe that since the side marker signal uses the front and rear lenses of the turn signal in a single compartment a high intensity ratio of turn signal to side marker signal will be needed if the steady burning light from the side marker lamp is not to obscure the darker portion of the turn signal lamp.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATlON 400 Seventh Street S W WASHINGTON DC 20590

September 24, 1979

Dear Mr. Vinson

Request for Interpretation

In the case of a motorcycle headlamp, Table III of FMVSS 108 cites SAE J584, which in turn specifies that for photometric tests, the "bulb or unit shall be operated at its rated voltage during the test."

Where the material bulb is an H1, H2, H3 or H4 halogen bulb that bears the E-mark signifying that it is in compliance with E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.1/Add.36, that is to say in compliance with Regulation 37 of the Geneva Agreement of 20 March 1958 as adopted by the general European governments, is the rated voltage required by SAE J584 the same rated voltage of ECE Regulation 37?

Yours sincerely

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

E/ECE/324 ) E/ECE/TRANS/505 )Rev.1/Add.36 Regulation No. 37 Annex 1 page 21/22

CATEGORY H4 Sheet H4/2

Characteristics

Lamps of normal production Standard lamps

*Insert chart here

1/ Where a yellow outer bulb is used, "m" and "n" denote the maximum dimensions of this bulb; where there is no outer bulb "m" denotes the maximum length of the lamp.

2/ It must be possible to insert the lamp into a cylinder of diameter "s" concentric with the reference axis and limited at one end by a plane parallel to and 20 mm distant from the reference plane and at the other end by a hemisphere of radius S/2.

3/ The obscuration must extend at least as far as the cylindrical part of the bulb. It must also overlap the internal shield when the latter is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the reference axis. The effect sought by obscuration may also be achieved by other means.

4/ The values indicated in the left-hand column relate to the driving beam. Those indicated in the right-hand column relate to the passing beam.

August 23, 1979

U. S. Department of Transportation NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Attn: Mr. J. J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

We are considering certain revisions to our line of front double-faced pedestal mount turn signal lamps. Before making any commitment to our customers or before making any tool changes, we need your opinion as to whether the lamp meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

In the past, double-faced turn signal lamps having side marker devices have normally been manufactured with two bulbs -- a 1156 or 32 candle power bulb functioning as the turn signal system, and a 2 or 3 candle power bulb functioning as the side marker device. In this case, having an yellow lens to the front and a red lens to the rear. Our proposed change is to use one 1157 bulb, dual function 32 - 3 candle power filaments where the 32 candle power filament is used as the turn signal function and the 3 candle power is used as the side marker device. In order to do this, a yellow lens to the front, yellow lens to the rear is required and also the baffling inside of the double-faced lamp has to be reduced in order to meet the side marker requirements. With this particular design, all three lenses -- the lens to the front, to the rear and to the side -- function as part of the side marker device.

The question that we have is the intent of rulemaking covering turn signal lamps. The turn signal lamp, SA J588e, last revised September, 1970, includes Item 3.4 which states, "The flashing signal from a double-faced signal lamp shall not be obliterated when subjected to external light rays from either in front or behind at any and all angles."

With the baffling area reduced inside of the lamp as indicated by the sample, and since the requirements are very subjective, we need an opinion as to whether the lamp does or does not meet the intent of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

Would you please review the sample and give us your opinion as soon as possible.

Yours very truly,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

C. J. Newman Vise President, Engineering

CJN/aj

ID: nht79-1.15

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Leo Bachynsky -- Laboratory Manager, R.E. Dietz Co.

TITLE: Emergency Warning Lamp - Use of Relfex

ATTACHMT: 8/21/79 letter from Leo Bachynsky to NHTSA

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Bachynsky:

This is in reply to your letter of August 21, 1979, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it may apply to a proposed new product of your company.

This product, as you have described it, is a bi-directional Emergency Vehicle Warning Lamp, with one lens facing to the front of the vehicle, and one to the rear. Each lens contains a 5/8 inch wide band of reflex reflector around its periphery. The lamp would be supplied in a variety of colors (red, blue, yellow) and a similar device, less the reflex reflector area, is currently in production.

You have asked whether the inclusion of the reflex reflector in the device, "impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment" within the prohibition of S4.1.3. You have also asked whether the equipment and location tables of Standard No. 108 restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear.

The determination of whether installation of additional lighting devices impairs the effectiveness of required equipment may be made either by the vehicle manufacturer or by NHTSA. Since your company already markets an emergency vehicle warning lamp we shall assume for purposes of discussion that vehicle manufacturers have determined that the lamp as currently manufactured does not impair other lighting equipment. Nor does it appear to us that the addition of the limited reflex reflector area would contribute to a degradation of the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, although a definitive judgment could not be made until the lamps were actually installed on a vehicle. The tables do not apply to supplementary lighting equipment such as your emergency lamp though the agency believes there is less likelihood of confusion if the public associates amber lighting devices with the front part of a vehicle, and red ones with the rear.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 21, 1979

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

Dear Sir:

Our company is presently developing a new product and is in need of a clarification concerning the legality of the proposed product as it pertains to FMVSS 108.

Briefly, the device is a bi-directional Emergency Vehicle Warning Lamp consisting of two 7-1/2 inch diameter lenses. The lenses contain a 5/8 inch wide band of reflex reflector around their periphery. The two lenses are locked to a mounting flange by a special locking feature and two screws. When mounted, the device will have one lens facing to the front of the vehicle and the other to the rear. The device is to be supplied in a variety of colors, red, yellow, blue, and can be used in either a steady or flashing state.

We manufacture a similar device less the reflex reflector area and previous sales data indicates the majority of the market for this type of device is for tow trucks and utility company vehicles.

We are aware of the fact that Emergency Warning Lamps are not regulated by FMVSS 108 or any other Federal standard, but rather our questions concern the reflex reflector area in the device.

The areas that need clarification with respect to our application are the following:

1. Paragraph S.4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 - "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by this standard."

Does this Paragraph S.4.1.3. restrict the use of the reflex reflector in our proposed device as imparing effectiveness of required equipment?

2. Do Tables 1-4 of FMVSS 108 "Required Equipment for Motor Vehicles" and "Locations of Required Equipment" restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear of the vehicle?

An early reply will be appreciated.

Enclosed is our blueprint of the subject device and an advertising poster showing exact application of the intended device.

Sincerely,

Leo Bachynsky Laboratory Manager

LB/sg Enclosure (2)

ID: nht79-1.16

DATE: 10/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEV Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. J. T. Young Vice President - Technical Affairs SEV Corporation 33201 Harper Avenue St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You referred to the SAE standard on motorcycle headlamps, J584, which specifies that the "bulb or unit shall be operated at its rated voltage during the photometric test." You asked whether the "rated voltage" of J584 is the same rated voltage of ECE Regulation 37 when the bulb in question is a European bulb bearing an E mark signifying compliance with Regulation 37.

The term "rated voltage" is not defined by J584 or by the corresponding standard on sealed beam headlamps, J579c. It is our opinion, however, that "rated voltage" is the equivalent of "design voltage" on the basis of the SAE standard that covers bulbs used in sealed beam headlamps, J573d, Lamps Bulbs and Sealed Units. Table 2 of J573d lists voltages for such headlamps under the heading of "Design."

We realize that your question arises in the context of recent testing by NHTSA of Cibie headlamps, incorporating European H4 halogen bulbs, for compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 for motorcycle headlighting. NHTSA tested these headlamps at 12.8 volts and discovered that the maximum allowable 5000 candela at test point 4D-V was exceeded by many of the lamps tested. You raised the question whether NHTSA should not have tested at 12 volts, the "rated value" given by Regulation 37 for the H4 bulb, at which value all lamps tested by NHTSA would have complied at test point 4D-V.

We do not believe that NHTSA is required by J589 to test the H4 bulb at 12 volts. Regulation 37 specifies a "test voltage" of 13.2 for the H4 bulb, a point apparently recognized by EFPE Company's catalogue "Turned on Lighting" which gives wattage figures for the headlamps in question "at 13.2 design volts as specified by the bulb manufacturer." If anything, NHTSA was overly conservative in testing its lamps at 12.8 volts, for it is apparent that had it tested at 13.2 volts even more failures would have occurred.

As Roman Brooks explained to you, it has been the European practice as nearly as we can determine to test the H4 bulb at 12.8 volts, apparently in recognition that the higher voltage levels are closer to those generated by the electrical systems of the motor vehicles on which the headlamps are installed. Given this fact and Regulation 37's specification of 13.2 test volts, we do not believe that a lamp manufacturer could successfully argue in court that J584 was ambiguous and should be construed against NHTSA in any attempt by this agency to enforce motorcycle headlighting requirements on the basis of results of tests conducted at 12.8 volts.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.17

DATE: 11/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. S. Keshav Manager - Research & Development Bajaj Auto Limited Bombay Poona Road Akurdi - Poona - 411 035 India

Dear Mr. Keshav:

This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 1979, to Francis Armstrong asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. SAE Standard J588e August 1970 is the referenced standard for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 4.2 of J588e requires that as mounted on the vehicle "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam". You mentioned that on some motorcycles sold in the United States this requirement is satisfied only with the handlebar in the straight ahead position but not when turned to the full lock position. You asked whether this complies with Standard No. 108.

Table IV specifies that the minimum edge to edge separation between the headlamp and turn signal lamp on motorcycles is 4 inches. Most manufacturers have interpreted this requirement to mean that the separation is permanent, and have supplied turn signals that are mounted stationary with the headlamp, and that turn with it so that the separation distance is maintained. Therefore, the configuration you describe would not comply with Standard No. 108 because Federal requirements for location and mounting of lighting equipment are intended to apply to a vehicle under all its operating conditions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

RD 39363 Date: 2nd September 1979.

Mr. Fransis Armstrong, Director Office of the Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We refer to FMVSS Part 571, S108 Table IV/SAE J 588c 4.2 standand. As per the standard the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamp and head lamp should be 4 inches. We have come across some vehicles sold in U.S.A. wherein this dimension is satisfied only in the straight ahead driving position i.e. when the handle bar is kept straight. In such vehicle, since the turn signal flasher lamps are fitted in the front on the non steered portion of the vehicle, the distance between the turn signal flasher lamp and the head lamp is almost zero when the handle bar is turned to the full lock position. Please let us know whether this is permissible as per the regulation.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

M. S. KESHAV MANAGER - RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

ID: nht79-1.18

DATE: 04/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. D. Black, Manager U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo, Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Black:

This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an opinion of whether a red rear fog lamp system would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as original equipment. This lamp system would be of the same intensity as the stop lamp system, installed in a separate compartment within the rear lamp assemblies. The system would have a separate switch and be operational only when the headlamp switch is in the "On" position.

As you have noted, Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for either front or rear fog lamps. Lighting equipment supplementary to that required as original equipment may be provided at the manufacturer's option if it does not impair the effectiveness of any equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 (S4.1.3). On the basis of your submission, we are unable to form an opinion whether your system would impair effectiveness within the meaning of S4.1.3. If it is Alfa Romeo's judgment that the red fog lamps will not impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps or backup lamps, then you may have a reasonable basis upon which to install the fog lamp system and to certify compliance with S4.1.3.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Alfa Romeo, Inc.

March 12, 1979 Ref. Nr. 068

Dear Mr. Vinson:

FMVSS 108 is lacking in the area of non specified lighting devices, and we find it necessary to request your interpretation of the standard itself.

We would like to incorporate into our rear light assemblies a rear red fog lamp of the same intensity of the present stop lamp. The fog lamp would be installed in a separate compartment within the rear lamp assembly. This compartment having its own lens and reflector. We propose to use a separate switch with warning light for operation of this fog lamp. It would only be operational when the headlamp switch is in the "on" position.

We feel this system has merit for U.S. model Alfa Romeo vehicles. For the same reason, it is standard on our European models. However, FMVSS 108 is absent of any reference to such a device. One could, but its absence, assume it is either permissible or forbidden. We think that the intent of 108 is to permit the use of such non specified safety features.

Could you please discuss this with one of your 108 experts and let us know your combined opinions as to its compliance status.

A diagram of the tail lamp assembly indicating the desired location for such a device in the as yet unoccupied compartment is enclosed.

Sincerely yours,

D. Black

ID: nht79-1.19

DATE: 10/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 25, 1979

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in confirmation of the discussion with Mr. Schwartz of my office when you met with him on September 10, 1979, as well as further confirmation of the telephone conversation between you and Mr. Schwartz in response to the letter from Mr. Maeda of your company dated February 9, 1979. As you may remember, the questions raised in this letter were substantially answered in the Agency's response of February 13, 1979, to a previous letter from your firm. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the Agency's letter to Volvo on the same subject as requested.

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."

Your particular concern relates to the division of a particular Datsun model into several series based on the amount and type of optional equipment with which it is sold.

Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that Datsun models with different optional equipment packages could each be designated a "series" if Nissan 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 differences 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.

Examples of series include Chrysler Plymouth Fury I, Fury and Fury III.

You also wish to know which types of restraint systems need to be distinguished within the VIN. Active belts, passive belts, and air bags must each be separately designated. Please note that if all the vehicles of a particular model utilize one restraint system type, that type must be reported to the Agency, but need not be directly encoded in the VIN itself.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 9, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION D.O.T. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

We would like to take this time to ask for your interpretation concerning FMVSS No. 115 - VIN.

In our Datsun 210 series, there are two 2-Door Sedans (the ordinary 2-Door Sedan and the Deluxe 2-Door Sedan). These 2-Door Sedans have the same "Body Type", "Engine Type" and "Line".

However, the Deluxe 2-Door Sedan costs $450 more than the ordinary 2-Door Sedan due to the different equipment.(See Attachment Nos. 1 and 2)

It is my understanding that these two types of 2-Door Sedans do not have to be distinguished between in the "Series" even though there is a difference in equipment. (Refer to Attachment 2) I would like to know the answers to the following questions, if possible.

1) Would it be required or just requested to distinguish in the "Series" between these two 2-Door Sedans (Refer to Attachment Nos. 1 and 2)

2) What is the reason for the answer to Question No. 1?

3) Regarding Question No. 1, if it is not required to distinguish between these two 2-Door Sedans in the "Series", would it be OK for the Manufacturers to voluntarily distinguish between them even though it is not required in FMVSS No. 115-VIN?

4) Using the current models of GM, Ford or Chrysler, please show us some examples of "Series".

Thank you for your cooperation with regard to the above questions.

We would appreciate receiving the answers to the above questions as soon as possible.

We would also like to ask that you treat Attachment No. 2 "Confidential".

Should any questions arise with regard to the above mentioned matters, please feel free to contact Mr. Hisakazu Murakami, a member of my Staff, at 201-871-3555.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO.,LTD.

Teruo Maeda General Manager

TM:mh Attachments

ID: nht79-1.2

DATE: 11/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Allan E. Cameron Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp. State Route 182 East P.O. Box 337 Upper Sandusky, Ohio 43351

Dear Mr. Cameron:

This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning the labeling requirements of Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, as they would apply to "permanently crimped" hydraulic brake hose assemblies.

Under the standard, a brake hose assembly must be labeled according to the specifications of either S5.2.9 or, at the option of the manufacturer, S5.2.4.1. Under S5.2.4.1, the brake hose end fitting must be permanently labeled with a designation (at least one-sixteenth of an inch high) that identifies the manufacturer and has been registered with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It is not necessary under this option, however, to stamp the symbol "DOT" on the end fitting, to stamp a date on the end fitting or to attach a band or label to the hose assembly. The band or label is only required under the first option, S5.2.4.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 2, 1979

Highway Safety Law Division Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Washington D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Hugh Oates.

Subject: MVSS - 106

Dear Mr. Oates,

Continental Hydraulic Hose Corporation is a manufacturer of hydraulic brake hose assemblies. Our products are permanently crimped. We are not a vehicle manufacturer.

Our interpretation of Paragraph S-5.2.4 and new S-5.2.4.1 as it applies to our labelling requirements is:

1) One end fitting shall be steel stamped with the designation "CH" in letters 1/16" high or more. This designation is on file with your office.

2) It is not necessary that the letters "DOT" be stamped on the hose fitting.

3) It is not necessary that a date be stamped on the hose fitting.

4) It is not necessary that a band or label be attached to the hose assembly, so long as designation in item 1 above is met.

Please advise if you disagree.

Sincerely,

Allan E. Cameron Vice President

AEC/rw

ID: nht79-1.20

DATE: 09/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer, Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Friberg:

This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1979, and your telephone conversations with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

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."

In Volvo's view, the only "line" it markets in the United States is the "200-series." Within this line, there are several models differentiated by body style and number of engine cylinders. Each model is offered in several different "sales versions," designated by a two- or three-letter suffix. Sales versions differ as to trim, upholstery, and other items which Volvo has designated as cosmetic. It is Volvo's desire not to encode the particular sales version of the vehicle in its VIN.

Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that each "sales version" could also be designated a "series" if Volvo desired. Nonetheless, the definition of "series" makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the "series" designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality of the differences between the potential series, the agency will not require such a designation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 5, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS No. 115

Dear Mr. Levin:

Section 4.5.2 of FMVSS No. 115 states that the second section (Vehicle Attributes section) of the VIN shall consist of five characters which shall uniquely identify attributes which, for passenger cars, must include line, series, body type, engine type, gross vehicle weight rating and restraint system type. Section 3 defines "series" as a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of a "line" denoting price, size or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes.

Currently, Volvo markets only one line of passenger cars in the United States, the "200-series" which includes 2-door and 4-door sedans, 2-door coupe, and station wagon body types. Except for the differences dictated by body type, U.S. Volvo car models share the same chassis, suspension and, to a great degree, body components. In fact it can be said that, except for minor cosmetic differences, all Volvo cars of a given model year and body type are basically the same in structure and appearance.

These minor differences are denoted by a "sales version" suffix which is a two or three-letter designation. The sales version's currently available in the U.S. are DL, GL, GLE, and GT. (A further designation, C, is used to designate the coupe, which is actually a different body type.) The cosmetic differences denoted by sales version may include such items as:

Grille Emblem Wheel Design Electric Mirrors Leather Upholstery Front Spoiler Rectangular Headlamps Tachometer Fog Lamps The distinction between sales version is further diluted by the fact that most of the components listed are available as options, and many Volvo owners select these options so that their car more closely resembles a higher priced version.

In future model Volvos, the sales version may also designate engine type (number of cylinders, gasoline or diesel). However, this information is coded elsewhere in the Vehicle Attributes section of the VIN.

While sales version may have some slight impact on retail price, this is determined to a far greater extent by body type, engine type, and the options chosen by the purchaser.

It is our interpretation that sales version, as described above, must not necessarily be decipherable from the VIN. Please advise as to whether you agree with this interpretation.

If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please feel free to call.

Sincerely yours,

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning and Development

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer, Regulatory Affairs

NF/EB

ID: nht79-1.21

DATE: 08/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vesely Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

August 31, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. David Gibbard Vesely Company 2101 N. Lapeer Road Lapeer, Michigan 48446

Dear Mr. Gibbard:

This is in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office on August 6, 1979, and the previous telephone conversations between Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Arnold, formerly of your company, and Mr. Erickson of our Office of Rulemaking and Mr. Arnold. It also serves to supplement the letter from Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, to the president of your company, Mr. McCollough.

Barring an order of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, we anticipate no changes in the rule beyond those made in Notice 8. Further, the contract with the Society of Automotive Engineers to act as the NHTSA's agent in distributing manufacturer identifiers, which Mr. Arnold was advised the agency was negotiating, has been entered into. We are therefore able to confirm the answer to your company's remaining questions with certainty. The technical questions you raised will be answered first, as we understand you would prefer to have these answers in writing also.

1. You have asked whether Vesely can use the first two characters of the sequential number (the 12th and 13th characters of the VIN if one includes the check digit) for internal company purposes as the number of vehicles produced is more than 500, but never exceeds 9,999 of a particular model annually. There is nothing in the standard which precludes utilizing the 12th and 13th characters for internal purposes so long as the agency is advised which characters are to be used and that they are to be disregarded.

2. You have also advised us that Vesely desires to use several manufacturer identifier the codes beginning with the letter V. When the NHTSA published its rule establishing the manufacturer identifier system on August 17, 1978, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) immediately submitted a list of approximately 500 identifiers on behalf of vehicle manufacturers. These identifiers had been previously assigned to manufacturers by the SAE in their role as assigner of world manufacturer identifiers on behalf of the International Standards Organization. Unfortunately, the configuration Vesely proposed was reserved by the SAE at that time.

Because of the substantial experience the SAE has had in this area, the NHTSA has contracted with them to assign the remaining manufacturer identifiers. If you would write to the SAE at the address given below, advising them of the types of vehicles you are now producing or intend to produce, they will assign your manufacturer identifiers at no charge. Please write to:

Society of Automotive Engineers 400 Commonwealth Avenue Warendale, Pennsylvania 15096 Attention: Leo Ziegler

I trust this information answers the questions you have concerning the VIN. Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 28, 1979

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

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

With issuance of Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8, relating to Vehicle Identification Numbers I must assume the NHTSA is getting closer to "finalizing" FMVSS No. 115 notwithstanding the VIN litigation upcoming in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As such, and in follow-up to my several letters and telephone conversation with you on January 9, 1979 I am again requesting official NHTSA written replies to these as soon as possible to enable our small company to try and comply with the Federal requirements.

To date, I have not received approval of our requested first three digit assignments (letter of October 30, 1978) as required by the standard and I have not received written permission to utilize digits 12 and 13 for our own in-house use (letter of December 11, 1978). Further, I have never received an official answer to my letter to President Carter other than a post card from Secretary Adams saying he will be replying.

All in all, not much action to help our company comply with these Federal mandates. If our company is going to be able to meet the effective date of September 1, 1980 we must have some answers now! Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8 has done nothing to alleviate or reduce this company's burden as I interpret the impact of it. Since we not only manufacture motor homes (MPV's) but recreational trailers as well, we must institute this 17 digit system even though the chassis manufacturer would assign his VIN. We cannot stay with our current VIN system for one product and change to a completely different VIN system for our other products.

Your replies will be anxiously awaited to enable us to continue the necessary work to comply with FMVSS 115 as it now stands by the effective date of September 1, 1980.

Very truly yours,

D. J. Arnold Director of Product Development

th

ID: nht79-1.22

DATE: 12/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 19, 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. M. Premo Director, Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima, Ohio 45804

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your November 12, 1979, letter asking whether several joints in your school bus must comply with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. All of the joints concern what you have called maintenance access panels.

As you are aware, the agency has discovered through its compliance testing that most school bus manufacturers have taken advantage of the maintenance access panel exemption from the standard. The result is that many joints in school buses are not as secure as they should be and, during an accident, might result in injury to children being transported in those buses. The agency is very concerned about this practice and is considering methods of limiting the maintenance access panel exemption.

Your letter asks the agency to consider the fact that the panels whose joints you are questioning are plastic and not metal. Therefore, you conclude that the edges are not sharp, and even if the panels come unfastened in an accident, their edges will not be likely to injure the occupants of your buses.

The standard establishes joint strength tests that apply uniformly to all joints regardless of the material used in the panel. While it may be true that plastic panels are less likely to injure occupants of buses when a panel becomes disconnected during an accident, Standard No. 221 addresses other safety areas beyond preventing the sharp edges of panels from cutting occupants. Joint strength is necessary for the vehicle integrity during accidents. This is as important as preventing cutting edges from panels. Accordingly, the agency will continue to subject all joints falling within the parameters of the standard to the requirements of the standard without regard to the material used in a panel.

With respect to the questions posed in your letter, you first ask whether the right and left hand windshield pillar covers must comply with the standard. You indicate that a hose runs behind one pillar cover and a cable control runs behind the other. The agency has indicated that the installation of a wire, hose or cable behind a wall does not make that wall a maintenance access panel. Accordingly, the agency concludes that the joints connecting the pillar cover panel are subject to the standard.

Your questions 2, 4, and 5 refer to panels that cover motors which you indicate must be serviced. The motors include the windshield wiper and heater motors. The agency is unable to determine from your pictures and sketches whether all of the joints surrounding these motors are subject to the standard. The joints connecting panels that must be removed for routine servicing of a vehicle's motors would not be considered as joints subject to the standard. However, these joints must be the minimum necessary for routine servicing of the motors. In compliance testing your vehicles, the agency will only exempt those joints that are necessary for routine servicing. We will not exempt adjacent panel joints simply because wires run beneath them.

In your third question you describe a dash trim panel that covers a wiring harness, some chassis cowl mounting bolts, and an entrance door cable. The agency needs more information to make a formal determination with respect to this panel and its joints. Our inclination based upon the information that you have presented is that these would be joints subject to the standard, because the removal of this panel is not required for routine maintenance.

Your final question asks whether the entrance door control cover must comply with the standard. You state only that must be removed to remove the dash trim panel. As we stated in the last paragraph, we believe that the dash trim panel joints may be required to comply with the standard. If this is the case, it may also be necessary for the door control cover joints to comply with the standard. The key factor in determining whether this panel's joints must comply with the requirement is whether the panel must be removed for routine maintenance. You have not proven such a need in your letter, concerning the need for these joints to comply with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 12, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain rulings that the seven parts listed below will comply with the exclusions allowed under S.4 of FMVSS 221 as they relate to the need for maintenance.

The parts are made from a flexible plastic material called polypropolene. The purpose is to cover many unsightly conditons of components required to be installed, some due to assembly of the body to the chassis, and others required by either federal or state regulations. It is our opinion that a very important secondary purpose is accomplished in that due to the flexibility and rounded corners of the plastic parts, many edges and corners of steel parts will gain additional protection. Additionally if the parts were to come loose during an accident, which is unlikely unless of a violent type, they could do little, if any, physical injury due to the flexibility of the material.

(1) Right-hand & Left-hand Windshield Pillar Covers

(a) The left-hand pillar requires the running of an air or vacuum line to the top of the windshield to operate a mechanical wig wag signal that informs the driver of a drop in air pressure in the brake system and is required in some states.

(b) The right-hand pillar has a cable control anounced to the windshield pillar that connects the driver operated door control to the mechanism at the top of the doors to operate the entrance doors.

(2) Left-hand Dash Trim

This part must be removed to service the windshield wiper motor, mechanism and wiring.

(3) Dash Trim - Center.

Covers a wiring harness, some of the body to chassis cowl mounting bolts that need to be retightened occasionally and entrance door control cable.

(4) Right-hand Dash Trim

Requires removal to service the right-hand windshield wiper motor, mechanism, wiring for the windshield motor, right-hand heater and door control cable.

(5) Right-hand Heater Cover

Must be removed to service the motors, blower, and heater cores.

(6) Entrance Door Control Cover

This covers the body of the door control which houses the switches that operate a part of the roof light warning system and stepwell light. It also must be removed along with the door control assembly in order to remove the center dash trim.

Our planning is to use these parts in production January 1980, but final decision will be based upon your rulings.

We definitely are of the opinion this adds to the enterior safety as well as appearance, but requires decisions before the expense of tooling for these parts.

A photograph is enclosed showing a prototype with the subject parts installed.

Due to tooling lead time and present date, your prompt reply is requested.

Very truly yours,

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

RMP:cr Enclosures (2)

Photographs Dwg. #LO-21782-D