ID: nht92-6.41

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Chun -- General Manager, Kia Motors Corporation, Los Angeles Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/92 from Charles Chun to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7169)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992, requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below.

First, you asked about the meaning of "manufactured date," in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the "manufactured date" would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance.

For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the "manufactured date" for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea.

Second, you asked whether "manufactured date," as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as "model year." The answer is no. The term "model year" is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) 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 two calendar years." As explained above, the concept of "manufactured date" refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer.

Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years.

See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/90

FROM: JEFF CORNELL -- ENGINEERING, THE BARGMAN COMPANY

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-23-90 TO J. CORNELL FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO DOCUMENT SEARCH REPORT (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

My company manufactures lighting products for recreational vehicle manufacturers, OEM's. Due to recent customer requests, we are asking for a clarification on the following FMVSS 108 changes published May 15, 1990.

S5.1.1.31 (amended) states: On a motor vehicle, except a passenger car, whose overall width is 80 inches or more, measurements of the functional lighted lens area, and of the photometrics, of a multiple compartment stop lamp, and a multiple compartment turn signal lamp, shall be made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

Prior to this change, the maximum values increased as the number of lighted compartments Increased. As the new change states above, the photometric requirements are to be on the entire light, does this include the maximums also? If this is the case, a single compartment light must be less than the 300 maximum candlepower, and a 5 compartment light would also need to be less than the 300 value. This was addressed in the second full paragraph on page 20159 of the Federal Register for the minimum requirements, but there is no reference to the maximums. Please clarify.

Here is an example of another question we have:

Let's say a manufacturer is purchasing a single compartment light, that does not meet the new lens area requirement, for use in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap. If he is using 3 of these lights per side as stop lamps, and the combined area of the 3 is greater than the 75 square centimeters (from SAE J1398 MAY85), is this legal per the new requirements? Along the same line, If the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing, are we correct in assuming that this would now classify as a multiple compartment lamp? If adding a housing to these lights will make it a multiple compartment lamp, then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap?

At the beginning of the amendment in the summary, it states that the lens area is 12 square inches, however, in the SAE standard J1398 MAY85 it states 75 square centimeters. When the two areas are converted into like units they do not match up. Which area is correct? (75 square centimeters = 11.625 square inches, 12 square inches = 77.42 square centimeters).

We would appreciate your earliest response, as we have customers waiting for answers concerning the above items.

ID: nht87-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Walter Mayr -- Austrian Trade Commission

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Walter Mayr The Austrian Trade Commission 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1114 Washington, D.C. 20009

This responds to your August 5, 1987 letter to my office and August 14 telephone conversation between Ms. Schott of your staff and Ms. Hom of mine, concerning our regulations for motor vehicles. You enclosed a brochure from the Austrian firm, Reformwerke Wels, describing a "public utility vehicle." Subsequently, Ms. Schott indicated in her telephone call that Reformwerke Wels has informed her that the vehicles in question have a top speed of 15.53 miles per hour (mph). Based on this information, you asked whether the vehicle is a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our reg ulations. The answer is no.

Under a longstanding policy, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has regarded vehicles not to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and therefore not subject to our motor vehicle safet y standards, if they (1) have an unusual body configuration which sets the vehicles apart from typical highway traffic, and (2) have a minimum attainable speed of 20 mph or less. The utility vehicles manufactured by Reformwerke Wels meet these criteria. Thus, the vehicles are not "motor vehicles" under our regulations and the manufacture of those vehicles is not regulated by this agency.

You might wish to contact the Consumer Project Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations applicable to the type of utility vehicle manufactured by Reformwerke Wels. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consum er Product Safety Commission, 1111 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20207. Telephone: (202) 492-6980.

Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Dierdre Hom Chief Counsel's Office Department of Transportation Room 5219 NHTSA 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 August 5 1987

Dear Ms. Hom,

Further to your telephone conversation this morning with Susan Schott from our office, we enclose a brochure from the Austrian firm, Reformwerke Wels.

We appreciate your office to review this brochure which describes the tractor. I understand that if you determine that the tractor qualifies as a motor vehicle, you can advise us of the corresponding regulations.

Thank you in advance for your assistance and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Walter Mayr Trade Commissioner

Enclosure omitted

ID: nht88-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FRANK V. TANZELLA -- TEK TRON, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-5-88, FROM FRANK V. TANZELLA, TO NHTSA, OCC-1857

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 5, 1988, concerning the installation of credit card mobile telephones into taxi cabs that already have been sold to the first purchaser. You noted that you may have to cut into the back of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. You asked what safety regulations would apply to this situation and whether any additional testing would be necessary.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or el ement of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the p ublic as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR @ 571.207; copy enclosed) sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as the taxi cabs you plan to modify. Assuming that your company would be a "mot or vehicle repair business" for the purposes of this contract, this statutory provision prohibits you from knowingly making any modifications that would render inoperative the taxis' compliance with any safety standards. You should be aware that by addi ng the telephone you will be adding weight to the seat. This change in weight may effect the general performance requirements in S4.2. Nevertheless, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act does not require your company to test vehicles aft er installing the mobile telephone, to ensure that the vehicles continue to comply with Standard No. 207. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act requires your company to carefully compare your planned installation instructions wit h the requirements of Standard No. 207, to determine if installing the mobile telephones in accordance with your planned

installation procedures would result in the vehicles no longer complying with Standard No. 207. If it would, you will have to devise some alternative means of installing the mobile telephones in the taxis. If your planned installation procedures do not render inoperative the taxis' compliance with Standard No. 207, you may follow those procedures without violating any provisions of the Safety Act.

Enclosures

ID: 007901.jeg

Chris Tinto, Director
Toyota North America, Inc.
1850 M Street
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036




Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, with regards to adjusting the seat back angle for the low risk deployment tests for the driver. You asked about the order of the seat adjustments for the chin on module test (S26.2) and the chin on rim test (S26.3).

As you noted in your letter, the same seat adjustment procedure is specified for both tests. S26.2.3 and S26.3.1 read as follows:

Place the seat and seat cushion in the position achieved in S16.2.10.3.1. If the seat or seat cushion is adjustable in the vertical direction by adjustments other than that which primarily moves the seat or seat cushion fore-aft, determine the maximum and minimum heights of the SCRP at this position, while maintaining the seat cushion reference line angle as closely as possible.Place the SCRP in the mid-height position. If the seat back is adjustable independent of the seat, place the seat back at the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle for a 50th percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.Position any adjustable parts of the seat that provide additional support so that they are in the lowest or most open adjustment position.Position an adjustable head restraint in the lowest and most forward position. (Emphasis added.)

In your letter, you indicated that the seat back angle may vary depending on when it is adjusted during this procedure.You stated your belief that the adjustment of the seat back angle specified in the fourth (underlined) sentence of this paragraph is conducted after the adjustments specified in the previous sentences, and asked us to confirm that view.

It is our opinion that the various seat adjustments specified in S26.2.3 and S26.3.1 are to be made in the order specified in those paragraphs.Accordingly, we agree that the adjustment of the seat back angle specified in the fourth (underlined) sentence of this paragraph is conducted after the adjustments specified in the previous sentences.

I hope this information is helpful.If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.1/1/05

ID: 09-002561drn June 10

ID: 0788

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
3000 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the license plate requirements of Standard No. 108.

SAE J587 OCT81 is the SAE standard that has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that "paragraph 6.1 of SAE J587, which relates solely to the mounting angle of the license plate and not to the performance of the license plate lamp, is not included in the requirements of FMVSS 108." This paragraph requires that, when the license plate lamp is mounted on the vehicle, the angle between the plane of the license plate and the plane on which the vehicle stands will be 90 degrees plus or minus 15 degrees. You believe that "license plate mounting for visibility is a matter of concern for State law enforcement agencies and Volkswagen is not aware of any State laws that make reference to SAE J587 or that specify the mounting angle of the license plate." However, you acknowledge "that paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of SAE J587 specifying the angle of incidence of the lamp to the plate at a minimum of 8 degrees is part of FMVSS 108 and is intended to assure that the lamp illuminates the license plate." You believe "that a design which meets the 8 degree requirement and in which the plate is mounted so as to be clearly visible to an observer at the rear of the vehicle meets the intent and requirements of State laws and FMVSS 108, even if the angle of the plate itself is 15 degrees from the vertical."

We cannot agree with your interpretation. Tables I and III have incorporated SAE J587 in its entirety, and there is no exclusion of paragraph 6.1 in Standard No. 108. To be sure, a plate may continue to be visible when it is mounted more than 15 degrees from the vertical, but the 15 degree

limitation of paragraph 6.1 is necessary to ensure its legibility as well. The fact that the States and the Uniform Vehicle Code are silent on the point is legally irrelevant. If a State has a license plate mounting requirement, 49 U.S.C. 30103 requires it to be identical to the Federal requirement.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/95

ID: 11763RLXS10

Lawrence H. Feder, Esq.
2450 Hollywood Blvd.
Suite 401
Hollywood, FL 33020

Dear Mr. Feder:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Pena on behalf of your client, Mr. David Baret of Baby Comfort Inc., concerning the requirements of this agency for child restraint systems. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You explain in your letter that your client would like to sell child restraints manufactured abroad in the United States. However, the seats would apparently not be able to meet the dynamic performance requirements of Standard 213, AChild Restraint Systems,@ when tested according to the procedures of the standard. Those procedures specify that child seats such as those your client wishes to sell are to be secured to the test seat assembly with only a lap belt. You ask that the agency permit your client=s child seats to be tested with a lap and shoulder belt, instead of just the lap belt.

Your client wrote to my office in March asking whether the child restraints in question could be tested with a lap and shoulder belt. We explain in our response to Mr. Baret (copy enclosed) that Standard 213 requires his type of child seat to meet Standard 213's dynamic performance requirements when tested with only a lap belt. Certain types of child restraints are excepted from this testing requirement, but Mr. Baret=s restraint is not among these. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have the authority to grant waivers from the testing or performance requirements of our safety standards, and can only change the requirements through a rulemaking proceeding.

I should note that we do not agree that testing the seat you describe with only a lap belt is inappropriate. Lap belts are provided in the rear seats of many older model vehicles still on the road, as well as in the rear center seating position of many newer model vehicles, which is generally the safest position for child seats. Because the restraint has its own harness system (unlike a belt-positioning seat), some consumers may not readily distinguish it from a conventional child seat and may mistakenly use it in a position that has a lap belt only. In view of such potential use, it would seem appropriate that the seat provide the minimum level of protection required by Standard 213 when restrained with a just a lap belt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:4/29/96

ID: nht80-3.23

DATE: 07/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 29 1980

NOA-30

Mr. Roger Maugh Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This is in response to your request for our comments concerning the prototype automatic belt system on the demonstration vehicle you brought to the agency several weeks ago. You were particularly concerned about past agency comments regarding automatic belt designs of this type that are so easily disconnectable.

We are concerned about automatic belt designs whose release mechanisms are so similar to those of current manual belts that they may actually encourage disconnection by motorists. By the same token, however, we realize that an automatic belt design that is extremely difficult to disconnect could lead to frustration of a motorist who does not wish to use it and to permanent defeat of the belt system. This, of course, is also not desirable since it would deprive a subsequent vehicle occupant who wanted to use the belt of protection. We hope manufacturers will develop innovative systems that will minimize these conflicting concerns.

Regarding the particular design that you demonstrated at our meeting, the release mechanism appears to be in compliance with the current provisions of Safety Standard No. 208. This is not to say, however, that additional features to discourage disconnection of the system are not desirable.

We were also concerned with other aspects of your automatic belt. For example, when the vehicle door was open the belt webbing lay on the vehicle seat, making entry into the vehicle both confusing and difficult for a vehicle occupant. Since such a design requires the occupant to lift the belt webbing, it could prove to be very inconvenient, particularly if the occupant is carrying an object like a bag of groceries. As you are aware, the recent proposal concerning seat belt comfort and convenience included a specification for 3-inch webbing/seat clearance. Even more than three inches may be needed to insure that automatic belts are in fact automatic and convenient (I am enclosing a past agency interpretation on this subject). You should consider these points when making a final decision concerning this type belt design.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the brief examination of the belt system during our recent meeting. It is up to the vehicle manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance.

Thank you for bringing this prototype automatic belt system to the agency for inspection.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht93-8.25

DATE: November 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Carver -- Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/01/93 Est. from Bob Carver (OCC-9218)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you referred to this agency's final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, dated November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). Specifically, you referred to S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS 217, as amended, and asked whether it was necessary to outline an emergency roof exit with retroreflective tape even though the tape would not be visible unless the bus is tilted on its side. You also asked whether the tape width requirement will be changed to 1 inch.

As you correctly quoted in your letter, S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS 217, as amended by our final rule of November 2, 1992, provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

The plain language of this provision requires every school bus emergency exit required by the standard to be outlined by the retroreflective tape, including required roof exits. No exceptions are provided in the standard.

I note that the November 1992 final rule required additional emergency exits for school buses, but provided manufacturers various options from which to choose. Roof exits were specified as one option because of their potential safety benefits in rollover situations where the bus comes to rest on its side. Further, roof exits could also serve as potential exit routes where other exit routes were either unavailable or inoperative. The retroreflective tape requirement was intended to increase the conspicuity of emergency exits in low-light situations. In a situation where a bus is resting on its side, the increased conspicuity of a roof exit could be critical for safety.

With regard to the width of the tape, we proposed a 1-inch retroreflective tape in the NPRM. However, in the final rule that 1 inch measurement was inadvertently converted to 3 cm rather than the correct 2.5 cm. We are in the process of issuing a technical amendment to the final rule which will specify that the tape must be not less than 2.5 cm (1 inch) in width rather than 3 cm.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.