ID: nht88-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/88

FROM: SCOTT A. SNYDER

TO: NHTSA-REGION 3

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-11-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO SCOTT A. SNYDER, STD 108

TEXT: I am writing to you with regards to ornamental lighting. I am interested to know why you can not have extra lights on your vehicle as long as you keep amber lights on the front and sides and red lights in the rear of the vehicle. I think that a few ext ra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night.

I would appreciate it very much if I could have your response concerning ornamental lighting.

ID: 7169-3

Mr. Charles Chun
General Manager
Kia Motors Corporation
Los Angeles Office
1 Technology Drive, Building H
Irvine, CA 92718

Dear Mr. Chun:

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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:214#571#567 d:5/22/92

ID: 22044

Mr. Matthias Friedrich
Managing Director
Van Riesen GmbH+CoKG
IndustriestraBe 10
D-32130 Enger
Denmark





Dear Mr. Friedrich:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the buckle release on your child restraint system meets the area requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." The answer is no.

S5.4.3.5(c) of Standard No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 ( 571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for push button application shall be 0.6 square inch." You state that your buckle release design would meet this requirement if we add the "press" area (0.39 square inch) of the release button to the bottom area (0.23 square inch) of the release button.

We do not consider your buckle release to be designed for push button application because a sliding action activates the buckle release. In fact, it is apparent from your letter that you concur that the buckle release is not of a push button type. You state in your letter: "The button is not a push-button as described in the FMVSS-standard, [sic] it is as [sic] slide action release button . . . ." Since your buckle release is not designed for push button application, the 0.6 square inch minimum surface area requirement in S5.4.3.5(c) does not apply.

S4.3(d)(2) of Standard No. 209 reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.

(Emphasis added.)

Because your buckle release is designed for slide application rather than push button or lever application, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category. Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), it must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release. None of our staff working on this response was able to place two fingers into your slide action release button to actuate release, and you do not claim otherwise. Thus, we do not agree that your buckle release meets the requirement of S4.3(d)(2).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#209
d.2/6/01

ID: nht90-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/90

FROM: JACK RADEMACHER -- CHIEF ENGINEER, POLAR TANK TRAILER, INC.

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD--NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-22-90 TO J. RADEMACHER FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 108)

TEXT:

Recently you released an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which stated that rear turn, stop and tail lamps mounted 27 inches from the rear edge of the vehicle are not mounted "on the rear." In this interpretation, it was al so obvious that the 45 degree visibility requirements were not met.

It has long been the practice of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) and its members to interpret standard No. 108 as meaning that if the 45 degree visibility requirements of these lights were met "on the rear" of the trailer both inboard and outboard, the manufacturer met the intent of the standard. The liquid bulk transport industry is especially affected by your interpretation. Over the years thousands of tank transports have been built with rear lights mounted as far as 36 inches fo rward from the rear of the bumper. These tankers still maintain the 45 degree visibility requirements.

The following are some of the reasons for this type of high and set back type of lighting:

1.) Eliminating clutter in an area where hazardous materials are being dispensed. 2.) Better visibility because of high mounting. 3.) Protection of lens from chemical vapors and/or drips from hose tubes. 4.) Accident damage protection. 5.) Protection of lens from road dirt.

We (especially the cargo tank transport industry), therefore, request reconsideration of your interpretation allowing set back rear lights if 45 degree visibility requirements are met.

If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at the above listed number.

ID: 7417

Mr. Tim Flagstad
220 West 14th Street
National City, CA 9l950

FAX 619-477-6249

Dear Mr. Flagstad:

This responds to your FAX of July 24, 1992, seeking clarification of our letter to you of July 20.

This matter concerns the importation of a 1981 Kenworth truck from Canada that was manufactured in that country. The truck entered pursuant to the declaration that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bore a certification label to that effect. The current owner of the truck says that it bears no U.S. certification label. Our earlier letter informed you that entry under the conformance and certification provisions was therefore erroneous, and that the truck should have been imported under the new provisions for importing nonconforming motor vehicles that became effective on the day of importation.

Your letter of July 24 states that a certification label was attached at the time of importation, and you have asked "As the Certification Label was on the truck at the time it came through Customs, how would this affect the entry status of this vehicle?"

Assuming that the truck bore a certification label, the question is whether the label certified compliance to the U.S. or Canadian Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the manufacturer certified compliance to the Canadian standards, then my previous advice remains in effect: the entry of this truck as a vehicle conforming, and certified as conforming, to U.S. safety standards was erroneous.

If, on the other hand, the manufacturer certified compliance to the U.S. standards, the truck was properly entered.

However, it appears more likely than not that such certification as may have been affixed was to the Canadian standards. We understand that the truck lacked equipment necessary for conformance to Standard No. 121, "Air Brake Systems", and that its VIN did not consist of 17 characters. These were requirements of the U.S., but not the Canadian, Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time the truck was manufactured.

The apparently erroneous admission by the U.S. Customs service is understandable. Canada permits certification either in the form of a "National Safety Mark" (maple leaf) or a statement of compliance with "Federal motor vehicle safety standards", the identical phrase used in U.S. certification labels. When a Canadian manufacturer employs this certification statement, a closer examination of the certification label is necessary. If GAWR and GVWR ratings are expressed in pounds, the certification is to the U.S. standards; if expressed in kilograms, the certification covers the requirements of Canada.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

cc: Ms Joan Moniz 45623 Halekou Road Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744

ref:591#115#VSA d:8/12/92

ID: nht92-4.38

DATE: August 12, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tim Flagstad

COPYEE: Joan Moniz

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 7/24/92 from Tim Flagstad to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7574)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of July 24, 1992, seeking clarification of our letter to you of July 20.

This matter concerns the importation of a 1981 Kenworth truck from Canada that was manufactured in that country. The truck entered pursuant to the declaration that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bore a certification label to that effect. The current owner of the truck says that it bears no U.S. certification label. Our earlier letter informed you that entry under the conformance and certification provisions was therefore erroneous, and that the truck should have been imported under the new provisions for importing nonconforming motor vehicles that became effective on the day of importation.

Your letter of July 24 states that a certification label was attached at the time of importation, and you have asked "As the Certification Label was on the truck at the time it came through Customs, how would this affect the entry status of this vehicle?"

Assuming that the truck bore a certification label, the question is whether the label certified compliance to the U.S. or Canadian Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the manufacturer certified compliance to the Canadian standards, then my previous advice remains in effect: the entry of this truck as a vehicle conforming, and certified as conforming, to U.S. safety standards was erroneous.

If, on the other hand, the manufacturer certified compliance to the U.S. standards, the truck was properly entered.

However, it appears more likely than not that such certification as may have been affixed was to the Canadian standards. We understand that the truck lacked equipment necessary for conformance to Standard No. 121, "Air Brake Systems", and that its VIN did not consist of 17 characters. These were requirements of the U.S., but not the Canadian, Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time the truck was manufactured.

The apparently erroneous admission by the U.S. Customs service is understandable. Canada permits certification either in the form of a "National Safety Mark" (maple leaf) or a statement of compliance with "Federal motor vehicle safety standards", the identical phrase used in U.S. certification labels. When a Canadian manufacturer employs this certification statement, a

closer examination of the certification label is necessary. If GAWR and GVWR ratings are expressed in pounds, the certification is to the U.S. standards; if expressed in kilograms, the certification covers the requirements of Canada.

ID: nht93-1.11

DATE: January 19, 1993

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Dib, Esq. -- Law Offices of Reid, Maguilis and Dib

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/93 from Tony Stump to Walter Myers

TEXT:

This responds to the letter on your behalf from Mr. Tony stump of Backtrack Unlimited, and telephone conversations between Mr. Stump and Mr. Walter Myers of this office. Mr. Stump requested information on a tire containing the DOT tire identification number (TIN) CPFMPKD101. Specifically, the letter requested the name and address of the manufacturer, date of manufacture of the tire, and any additional information known to this agency about this tire.

49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 574.5 (copy enclosed) establishes the requirement for TINs and specifies the information to be contained therein as well as the format and sequence of such information. The purpose of the TIN is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety-related defect.

Part 574.5 provides that the TIN will be composed of four groups of symbols, letters and/or numbers. The first grouping, CP, on the TIN for the tire indicates that the manufacturer is the Continental Gummi-Werke, A.G., Continental Street 3 to 5, D-354 Korbach, Germany. NHTSA does not maintain data on the second and third groupings, which identifies tire size and significant characteristics of the tire. The fourth grouping, 101, shows the week and year of manufacture. In this case, 101 would be the tenth full week of a year that ends in a "1," such as 1981 or 1991.

NHTSA has no additional information on this tire.

I hope this answers your questions. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/88

FROM: ARTHUR J LOMANT

TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/27/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BEVERLY B BYRON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205 LETTER DATED 08/01/88 FROM C. E. SHUE TO JOSEPH CIAMPH JR RE 0590630; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM NANCY F MILLER TO BEVERLY B BYRON; LETTER DATED 08/25/88 FROM BEVERLY B BYRON TO NANCY MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/24/88 FROM JOSEPH L. CIAMPA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON

TEXT: My patient, Mr. Joseph Ciampa, Jr. -- diabetic with history of severe headache made worse by strong sunlight -- clearly benefits from the use of sun blocking shades in his automobile.

ID: nht90-3.95

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to D.W. Vierimaa (A36; Std. 115, Part 565)

TEXT:

The attached TTMA Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number," is being submitted to our Board of Directors for Publication approval on September 28, 1990. We would appreciate your review of this publication and assurance tha t it is consistent with your regulations and interpretations. Please advise us if it is consistent or requires any changes to be consistent with your regulations and interpretations.

ID: nht90-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/90

FROM: TIMOTHY A. KELLY -- SALEM VENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TO: DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/30/90; FROM STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA TO TIMOTHY A. KELLY; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 01/29/90, FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217; OCC 4 382

TEXT: Pursuant to our meeting of Thursday, January 25, 1990, I respectfully request a written opinion on the following questions regarding FMVSS 217.

1. Size of Escape Hatch: The only size specification mentioned is that the hatch must accomodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20" and a minor axis of 13" pushed horizontally through the escape hatch opening.

Is this correct?

2. Application of Specification: A. FMVSS 217 does not address the use of escape hatches/ventilators in the roof of school busses.

B. FMVSS 217 does address the use of an escape hatch/ventilator in the roof of busses other than school busses, and further states that if such a device is used (and it conforms to the ellipsoid spec) then a rear exit door may be deleted on vehicles other than school busses.

Are A and B above correct?

3. Further Possible Deletions: If the non-school bus manufacturer applies more than one roof escape hatch/ventilator, do any further deletions (other than the rear exit door) accrue to the manufacturer under FMVSS 217. My reading shows that no furth er deletions are available to the manufacturer and that more than one escape hatch/ventilator simply serves the function of additional roof top ventilation.

Is the above correct?

Thank you for your prompt attention to these questions - I will await your response.

Sincerely,

[DRAWING OMITTED]