ID: 77-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1977, to the Administrator asking whether the circuitry diagram that you enclosed would allow compliance with S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.5.2 requires that "each vehicle shall have a means for indicating to the driver when the upper beams of the headlamps are on that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, April 1964 . . . ." Your diagram appears to meet the specifications of J564a allowing compliance of the system with S4.5.2 when installed in a motor vehicle. The entity legally responsible for compliance with S4.5.2, of course, is the vehicle manufacturer who must certify that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

YOURS TRULY,

Lucas Industries North America Inc

MAY 13, 1977

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our sister company in Birmingham England, Lucas Electrical Limited, requests clarification of Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment - and SAE Recommended Practice J564, which is referenced in Standard 108, Section 4.5.2.

We submit a diagram of a four headlamp installation in which a Lucas Model 21SA switch and a normally closed relay is used to ensure that the headlight circuits cannot be held in the open condition. Manual and auto reset switches are also included in the circuit to ensure correct circuit operation. We are also submitting traces showing the transient voltage conditions when switching from:

a) Main beam to dip beam

b) Dip beam to main beam

This circuitry we have developed allows, as far as we are aware, for us to comply with Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108. We look forward to receiving whatever comments you deem applicable and will be pleased to supply additional material if you so desire.

Eric E Gough Staff Assistant (Technical) 21SA HEADLAMP BEAM SWITCH CIRCUIT

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Text)

(Graphic omitted)

ID: nht79-2.13

DATE: 02/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 13 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This responds to your January 9, 1979, letter concerning a mistake on the certification labels of approximately 2000 Datsun trucks. You stated that the vehicles, although manufactured in 1979, were incorrectly dated on their certification labels as being manufactured in 1978. You propose to remedy the affected vehicles by crossing out the incorrect date and inserting the correct information.

Your proposed correction is acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety-Administration. As long as all other information on the certification label is correct, your modification of existing certification labels will comply with the agency's regulations.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

NOA-30 January 9, 1979

Mr. Roger S. Tilton Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of January 9th regarding the following problem.

We mistakenly attached the certification label (required by Part 567) on which "78" was printed in the space of year for FMVSS certification statement to the rear bodies of our DATSUN Pick-Up (620) manufactured in 1979. Approximately 2,000 vehicles are involved.

The method of correction which we are now planning to do is to cross out the digits "78" and add the digits "79" directly below as follows:

XX 79

During our conversation I requested your interpretation on whether our method of correction will be accepted by your office and your reply was yes.

We will be able to submit the list of VIN of the vehicles (DATSUN Pick-Up) which are involved in the problem within the next couple of weeks.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO.,LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

HM:mh

ID: nht81-3.43

DATE: 11/24/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dart Transit Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent telephone conversations with Roger Fairchild of this office, in which you requested our approval for Freuhauf to change the vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) on certain of its trailers which your company purchased. As we understand your situation, your company intended to purchase and Freuhauf intended to provide you 1980 model year trailers. The trailers you actually received had Freuhauf's statements of origin indicating they are 1980 model year trailers. However, the first character of the third section of the trailers' VIN's is apparently a "B," thus indicating that the model year is 1981. Freuhauf reportedly wishes to correct the VIN's and use an "A" instead of a "B," thus indicating the 1980 model year. We understand too that these vehicles were not manufactured in serial sequence, but are scattered randomly through the manufacturer's production run.

Based on our understanding of the facts you have provided us, this agency does not have any objection to this change being made by Freuhauf. The requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 provide the manufacturers with substantial latitude regarding model year designation. S4.5.3.1 of the Standard requires that the first character of the third section of the VIN indicate the model year. S3 of the Standard defines "model year" as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than 2 years." In issuing the standard, the agency anticipated that once the manufacturer of a discrete vehicle model switched from designating those vehicles with a given model year (e.g., 1983) to the next model year (i.e., 1984), the manufacturer would uniformly designate all vehicles with that new model year until it switched to designating all vehicles uniformly as being produced in the following model year (i.e., 1985). More than any other user of the VIN, the manufacturer itself would benefit from this practice since it promotes the orderliness of records. However, Standard No. 115 does not actually require that this practice be followed. Further, the departure from the practice in a limited circumstance should not pose any significant practical problem for the users of the VIN's of trailers in question.

ID: nht80-2.13

DATE: 04/22/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kenworth Truck Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office in which you asked whether net brake horsepower must be decipherable from the engine type encoded in the vehicle identification number (VIN) of heavy trucks.

The precise net brake horsepower of heavy trucks (or any other vehicle class or type) need not be encoded. This was the point which the agency was making in its March 22, 1979 (44 FR 17489) statement that:

(While) net brake horsepower is among the characteristics to be considered in establishing an engine type, there is no requirement that it be encoded in the engine type code. In some instances, such as with heavy truck engines, encodement would not be practicable.

However, except as provided below, the range of net brake horsepower must be encoded to differentiate engine types as required by section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115. To define the acceptable range of net brake horsepower for a single engine type, the agency made a clarifying amendment to that section (February 25, 1980; 45 FR 12257). Footnote 1 to Table I provides that otherwise identical engines having net brake horsepower ratings that vary up to plus or minus 10 percent, may be treated as being of the same engine type.

The exception to the requirement to encode the range of net brake horsepower involves manufacturers which intend to utilize more than 33 engine types whose horsepower ranges fall outside of the plus or minus 10 percent parameters. These manufacturers will be unable to encode their current or anticipated engine types utilizing only a single VIN position since there are 33 separate characters authorized to be used for each VIN position. Consequently, they need not encode net brake horsepower in any way. The agency did not intend that more than one VIN position be used to encode net brake horsepower. Using more than one position would be impracticable at this time given the amount of information that needs to be encoded in the VIN.

Please contact Mr. Schwartz should have any further questions concerning this subject.

ID: nht80-3.14

DATE: 06/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eugene Victor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent mailgram asking whether it is necessary to obtain DOT approval for compressed gas tanks that are to be used as part of an automobile fuel system.

The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. However, the agency does not pass approval on any vehicle or piece of equipment prior to its introduction in the market place. It is up to the manufacturer to certify, on the basis of due care, that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency's enforcement program is based on compliance testing of vehicles or equipment that have already been certified by the manufacturer.

I am enclosing for your information a discussion which sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas, as well as a general discussion of auxiliary fuel tanks. From that discussion, you will see that there are no safety standards directly applicable to propane fuel tanks as pieces of automobile equipment. There are, however, specifications under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations relating to propane fuel systems on commercial vehicles or to tanks used for shipment of propane gas in interstate commerce. If your tanks will be used on other than private vehicles, these regulations may be of interest to you. For further information, you may contact Mr. W. R. Fiste of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (202-426-0033).

ENC.

EUGENE VICTOR

06/09/80

MGM TDMT NEW YORK NY

FRANK BERNDT CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HWY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION ATTN MR OATES

WITH REFERENCE TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF JUNE 6 1980 WE WISH TO KNOW WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE DOT APPROVAL FOR COMPRESSED GAS TANKS USED AS PART OF AN AUTOMOBILE CNG FUEL SYSTEM

FOR GAS ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS INC 65 RUGBY RD BROOKLYN NY 11226 ADAM VICTOR PRESIDENT

14:35 EST MGMCOMP MGM

ID: nht81-1.47

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Aluminum Body Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Howard Magor, President Aluminum Body Corporation P.O. Box 40 Montebello, CA 90690

Dear Mr. Magor

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 13, 1980

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15096

Attention: Leo P. Ziegler, Jr., Mgr.

Motor Veh. Safety & Environment Program

Reference: Change in Assigned WMI Code

Aluminum Body Corporation would like to verify a change in our assigned WMI Code number per our telephone conversation of October 8, 1980 with Mr. Nelson Erickson of the NHTSA. Mr. Erickson arranged with SAE to change our identifier number from a six (6) digit code (per enclosed copy of SAE letter dated Dec. 18, 1979) to a three (3) digit code number.

We wish to confirm with SAE that our selection of "1-1-A" as the first three digits of Aluminum Body Corporation's VIN has been approved by SAE. Please advise us if our proposed coding for the VIN is correct, and if we are approved to use this as the identification numbering system for manufacturing of our trailers. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

ALUMINUM BODY CORPORATION

Howard Magor President

HHM:jo encls. (2)

cc: Mr. Nelson Erickson NHTSA

ID: nht73-5.45

DATE: 11/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: R. H. Schroeter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1973, in which you ask the following questions:

1. Is it true that Standard Nos. 109 and 110 are not applicable to a 1/2-ton pickup truck with camper because such vehicle is not a "passenger car" as defined in Standards 109 and 110?

2. Is it true that in Appendix A of Standard 110 no "alternative rims" are listed for the L70-15 tire simply because no one has requested (in the manner provided in Appendix A to Standard 110) inclusion of such additional or alternative rim widths.

With respect to question 1, a pickup truck is not a passenger car but a "truck" (as defined in 49 CFR S 671.3) for purposes of all the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard Nos. 109 and 110. Standard No. 109 applies to tires for passenger cars. Standard No. 110 (49 CFR S 571.110) applies only to passenger cars, not to pickup trucks.

In response to your second question, the answer is not an unequivocal "yes", and I regret that you may have drawn that conclusion from your conversations with Michael Peskos of this office. In order for alternative rims to be listed with a tire size designation in the Appendix of Standard No. 110, data showing that the tire and rim combination meets the requirements of both

Standard No. 109 and 110 must first be submitted to the agency. Once that data has been provided, the NHTSA will publish the alternative rim size in Standard No. 110, and if no objections are received within a 30-day period, the tire/rim combination becomes part of the standard. Thus, there are not one but two possible reasons why a rim size is not listed in Standard No. 110:

The tire/rim combination fails to meet either Standard No. 109 or 110; or

It does meet both standards, but no one has requested approval of the combination. This could occur simply if the combination was not intended to be used as original equipment on a passenger car.

ID: nht74-1.24

DATE: 01/16/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 17, 1973, letter to the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, asking whether a "sling" attachment of the upper end of an upper torso restraint to the roof rail is subject to Standard 210's requirements for seat belt anchorage location.

The ring, webbing, and attachment hardware you describe function together as a seat belt anchorage and as such are subject to the appropriate strength and location requirements of Standard 210. Because the location requirement of S4.3.2 is intended to strictly limit the placement of the fixed point from which a belt passes across an occupant's torso, and because the flexible portion of your sling anchorage duplicates the uninterrupted deployment of an upper torso restraint, only the fixed portion of such a sling anchorage would be subject to S4.3.2's location requirements.

YOURS TRULY,

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

December 17, 1973

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Attached is a drawing of one of the seat belt systems that we are considering using on some of our models in the near future.

Regarding the "sling" of this system, we interpret as follows:

If the sling is composed of a ring (A), fabric webbing (B), and attachment hardware (C) as depicted in the drawing, only the attachment hardware (C) is subject to the requirement of @ 4.3.2 which specifies that " . . . the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range . . ." since the nature of the webbing allows the ring (A) and the fabric webbing (B) to move with reasonable freedom, thereby removing them from the (Illegible Word) of anchorage expected in @ 4.3.2.

We believe that our interpretation meets the intent of @ 4.3.2 of Standard 210, but we need the confirmation of the Administration before we start tooling for production.

Your consideration of the above will be greatly appreciated.

Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-2.12

DATE: 11/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 23, 1974, question in behalf of Steadman Containers, Ltd., asking if Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, applies to the Steadman "liftainer", which is described as a semi-trailer frame capable of carrying 20- and 40-foot cargo containers that are loaded by means of cranes mounted at each end of the semi-trailer. The vehicle is used to move containers in terminal areas and is used on the highway only in relocation to another terminal.

The "liftainer" is a motor vehicle as that term is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, because it uses the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites. A discussion of the motor vehicle definition is enclosed for your information. As a motor vehicle, it is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121 for trailers, effective January 1, 1975.

I have also enclosed a discussion of Standard No. 121's applicability to vehicles purchased by Canadians for use between Canadian and United States points. The standard would apply to Steadman trailers if they are purchased for use on U.S. highways.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

October 23, 1974

James B. Gregory -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Could you please furnish us with an interpretation in connection with the enclosed described equipment and its relationship with the anti-skid devices to be placed on equipment by January 1, 1975?

You will note that Steadman containers indicates that "The Liftainer Container handling unit is not intended, nor used, as a highway unit, but is used in terminals where it is moved by means of a conventional highway tractor. Its highway use is limited only to possible occasional re-positioning from one yard to another. As its width in the closed, unfolded condition, is in excess of 8', road movement always involves use of special permits."

We will appreciate your consideration and response to the above.

Sincerely yours, Charles J. Calvin -- President

ID: nht80-1.27

DATE: 03/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fiat Motors of North America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 15, 1979, requesting that paragraph S8.1.9 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, be corrected to change the phrase, "size 11EE shoe" to "size 11E shoe." I am sorry for the delay in this response.

Size "11EE" shoes are specified in the standard to allow easy application of the shoes to the test dummy's feet. If the feet of the dummy are of the absolute maximum width allowed by the standard, some size "11E" shoes are very difficult to apply. However, the agency does not believe that use of either "11E" or "11EE" shoes will cause a variation in test results. Therefore, a manufacturer should be safe in using either size. Mr. Radovich was incorrect in his statement that size "11EE" shoes are not available on the market. Size "11EE" shoes can be obtained from the Freeman Shoe Company, the Bostonian Shoe Company and other companies by special order.

For the reason stated above, we do not anticipate amending the standard to specify that shoe size should be "11E". However, if you have any data or other information indicating that test results can vary between use of size "11E" or size "11EE" shoes, we would certainly appreciate seeing the data.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 15, 1979

Frank Berndt -- Chief Council, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As per my conversation with Mr. Radovich of your staff, I am requesting NHTSA to please correct FMVSS 208 para 8.1.9 as follows:

from: . . . with a size 11EE shoe . . .

to: . . . with a size 11E shoe . . .

Mr. Radovich agreed with me that this type of shoe is not available in the market and there is no explanation as to why NHTSA put 11EE in the standard.*

(*) type 11E is available from Freeman Shoe Co. in Wisconsin.

If you have any questions on the matter, please feel free to contact me, (313) 336-2400.

My best regards,

Aldo Fozzati -- FIAT RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, U.S.A. BRANCH