ID: nht94-1.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wolf Ebel -- President, Schroth Restraint Systems Biomatik USA Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/94 to Mary Versailles from Stephen M. Monseu (OCC-9550)

TEXT:

This responds to a September 22, 1993, letter from Mr. Stephen M. Monseu of your company, asking whether the products manufactured by Schroth Restraint Systems (the Rally 3, Rally 4, and Autocontrol harness belt systems) meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The September 22 letter stated that these are after-market belt systems, intended for installation in addition to the factory-installed occupant protection system. This al so responds to a January 5, 1994, letter asking whether the Schroth restraint systems would meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 if they were installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial produc ts. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, while I cannot advise concerning whether or not the Schroth r estraint systems comply with applicable safety standards, I can explain how the standards would apply to these products.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the Schroth restraint systems.

The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CF R S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and locatio n requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the Schroth restraint system occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible f or certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the Schroth restraint system installed in the vehicle.

Standard No. 208 requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross-veh icle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. The belt installation requirements can be divided into three categories:

. Automatic crash protection systems which protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a v ehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

. Type 2 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints."

. Type 1 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint."

The Schroth restraint-systems would not be considered automatic safety belts, and therefore could not be used in place of an air bag to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for seating positions requiring automatic crash protection.

The Schroth restraint systems would be considered Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Therefore, if the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (discussed later in this letter), and if the anchorages for the Schroth restraint system s meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, they could be installed to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This would include installation of the Schroth restraint system with an air bag. Please note, however, that the dynamic testing requirement must be met both with and without the Schroth restraint system. In addition, because Standard No. 208, like all safety standards, is a minimum standard, the Schroth restraint systems co uld be installed to

satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Please note however, that the Schroth restraint system does not appear to comply with certain sections of Standard No. 208, specifically:

. S7.1.1.3, which requires emergency locking retractors on the lap belt portion of safety belts in the front outboard seating positions.

. S7.1.2, which requires the intersection of the upper torso belt with the lap belt to be at least six inches from the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant.

. S7.2(c), which requires release at a single point.

Unlike the other three standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle."

Because the Schroth restraint systems would be considered "seat belt assemblies," the systems must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209 before they can be sold.

Installation Prior to First Sale

Because your September 22 letter indicated that the Schroth restraint systems might be installed in addition to existing belt systems, I would like to also discuss such an installation prior to the vehicle's first sale. If a Schroth restraint system was added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the Schroth restraint system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, suc h installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That sect ion provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Schroth restraint system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition is subject to a potential civil pen alty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encou rages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.33

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wolf Ebel -- President, Schroth Restraint Systems Biomatik USA Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/94 to Mary Versailles from Stephen M. Monseu (OCC-9550)

TEXT:

This responds to a September 22, 1993, letter from Mr. Stephen M. Monseu of your company, asking whether the products manufactured by Schroth Restraint Systems (the Rally 3, Rally 4, and Autocontrol harness belt systems) meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The September 22 letter stated that these are after-market belt systems, intended for installation in addition to the factory-installed occupant protection system. This also responds to a January 5, 1994, letter asking whether the Schroth restraint systems would meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 if they were installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, while I cannot advise concerning whether or not the Schroth restraint systems comply with applicable safety standards, I can explain how the standards would apply to these products.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the Schroth restraint systems.

The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the Schroth restraint system occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the Schroth restraint system installed in the vehicle.

Standard No. 208 requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross-vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. The belt installation requirements can be divided into three categories:

. Automatic crash protection systems which protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

. Type 2 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints."

. Type 1 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint."

The Schroth restraint-systems would not be considered automatic safety belts, and therefore could not be used in place of an air bag to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for seating positions requiring automatic crash protection.

The Schroth restraint systems would be considered Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Therefore, if the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (discussed later in this letter), and if the anchorages for the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, they could be installed to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This would include installation of the Schroth restraint system with an air bag. Please note, however, that the dynamic testing requirement must be met both with and without the Schroth restraint system. In addition, because Standard No. 208, like all safety standards, is a minimum standard, the Schroth restraint systems could be installed to

satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Please note however, that the Schroth restraint system does not appear to comply with certain sections of Standard No. 208, specifically:

. S7.1.1.3, which requires emergency locking retractors on the lap belt portion of safety belts in the front outboard seating positions.

. S7.1.2, which requires the intersection of the upper torso belt with the lap belt to be at least six inches from the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant.

. S7.2(c), which requires release at a single point.

Unlike the other three standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle."

Because the Schroth restraint systems would be considered "seat belt assemblies," the systems must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209 before they can be sold.

Installation Prior to First Sale

Because your September 22 letter indicated that the Schroth restraint systems might be installed in addition to existing belt systems, I would like to also discuss such an installation prior to the vehicle's first sale. If a Schroth restraint system was added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the Schroth restraint system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Schroth restraint system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.48

DATE: January 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward M. Klisz -- Chief, Light Tactical Vehicle Branch, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/30/91 from Edward M. Klisz to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter regarding foreign-made tires that the Army procured in Southwest Asia. You indicated that your office is trying to ascertain the suitability of these tires, not all of which are marked with a "DOT" certification, for Army use. You enclosed a list of the tires and, for those marked with "DOT", requested this office to "determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to (our) records." You also requested that we verify your understanding of the general requirements applicable to foreign tire manufacturers, and the process by which such manufacturers certify their tires as complying with our standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your questions.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). Section 103 of the Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle safety standard as, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria." (See S102(2)).

The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States, regardless of whether the product is manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, must comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under S114...

In the case of tires, this provision of the Safety Act means that a foreign tire manufacturer would be prohibited from exporting its new tires to the United States unless the manufacturer certified that the tire complies with the applicable U.S. safety standards. All new tires for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109), and all new

tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements that must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States.

The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. In place of this sort of process, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process for tires sold in the United States. Under this self-certification process, the tire manufacturer, not any governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with the applicable safety standards.

Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base this certification on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; a manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is up to the individual tire manufacturer to determine in the first instance what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

As stated above, NHTSA does not do any pre-sale approval or testing of tires. Instead, the agency routinely tests certified tires that have been sold to determine whether the tires do in fact comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, the agency purchases new tires and tests them according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined to not comply with the standard, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance.

Turning now to your particular situation, it is not clear how helpful these requirements will be in assessing the current safety performance of the tires procured during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In the case of such tires that are marked with "DOT", that mark means the tire manufacturer certified that, when new, the tires complied with all applicable safety standards. However, the presence of a "DOT" symbol on a used tire does not mean that the tire in its current condition would still comply with the new tire standards. There are many instances in which used tires would be unlikely to comply with the new tire standards, simply because of normal environmental factors and without any fault in the construction of the tire. Such environmental factors include, but are not limited to, a hole larger than a nail suffered by the tire while in service, damage to the inner liner of the tire from being run flat,

damage to the bead area of the tire during mounting, damage to the sidewall from running against rocks, curbs, and so forth. In each of these instances, the vehicles on which the tires have been used and the conditions in which those vehicles have been operated would be at least as important in determining the tire's current performance capabilities as would the tire's capabilities when it was new.

Further, the absence of a "DOT" symbol on a tire purchased outside of the United States does not NECESSARILY mean that the tire, when new, would not have complied with the applicable tire safety standard. On the contrary, it is possible that the new tire would have, if tested, actually been found to comply with those safety standards. The only definitive conclusion you may draw about a tire without a "DOT" symbol that is purchased outside the United States is that the tire's manufacturer, for whatever reason, did not CERTIFY that tire's compliance. It could be that the tire did not comply when new, or it could be that the manufacturer did not produce the tire for importation and eventual sale in the U.S., and therfore felt no need to certify the tire.

You noted in your letter that this agency has established a requirement in 49 CFR Part 574 that all tire manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, must obtain an identification mark from NHTSA and label each of their tires with that mark. Before NHTSA will assign an identification mark to a tire manufacturer headquartered outside the United States, the manufacturer must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. However, the designated agent of the manufacturer only acts as the agent for service of process; the manufacturer's designated agent is NOT responsible for the certification of the tires. Only the manufacturer certifies that the tires comply with all applicable standards and, as explained above, that certification must be made (and indicated with a DOT symbol) before the tire would be allowed to enter the United States.

Finally, you requested in your letter that we review the list of tires you submitted and verify the accuracy of the "DOT" marks shown. I believe this request was based upon a misunderstanding of NHTSA's role in the certification process. Since manufacturers are not required to deliver their tires to NHTSA for testing, or register their products with the agency, the agency has no way to "verify the accuracy" of the DOT codes you submitted. To repeat, the DOT code molded into the sidewall of a tire represents the manufacturer's SELF-CERTIFICATION that the tire complies with applicable standards; the DOT code is not a statement or certification by NHTSA that the tire complies with our standards.

NHTSA would only have information about the "accuracy" of the DOT codes (i.e., whether the tires so marked actually meet the standards), in the event that the agency had conducted one of its random enforcement checks on a new tire like the one in question. Accordingly, we reviewed our enforcement records to determine whether NHTSA performed compliance tests on new versions of any of those tires. Having searched the agency's data base for the brands, types, and years of the listed tires, we found that the agency did not conduct compliance tests on any of these tires.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht93-7.55

DATE: November 5, 1993

FROM: Judith Jurin Semo -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Importation from Germany of Demilitarized, Russian-Built, Special Purpose Trucks: Request for Determination That Trucks Are Off-Road Vehicles Not Subject To DOT/NHTSA Safety Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/19/94 from John Womack to Judith Jurin Semo (A42; Part 591; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

On behalf of our client, Agrinvest International, Inc., 8433 N. Black Canyon Highway, Suite 116, Phoenix, Arizona 85021 ("Agrinvest"), we are writing to request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") issue a determination that demilitarized, special purpose, Russian-built trucks (ZIL model 131) are off-road vehicles for purposes of 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), and therefore are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards.

FACTS

Agrinvest plans to import 573 ZIL model 131 trucks into the United States from Germany later this month. Agrinvest acquired two different types of ZIL model 131 trucks at an auction in Germany in early 1993. All of the vehicles are demilitarized trucks that were used by the former East German military and, following re-unification, were sold through auction by the German Government.

DESCRIPTION

Each ZIL truck purchased by Agrinvest is a six-wheel drive vehicle with an eight-cylinder, spark ignition, internal combustion, reciprocating piston engine. Agrinvest purchased two types of ZIL model 131 trucks. Of the 573 ZIL trucks being shipped to the United States, 183 are demilitarized spraying tank trucks ("tank trucks"). The remaining 390 ZIL trucks are former military battalion trucks with various equipment configurations. (*) The battalion trucks are similar to the tank trucks in the basic design of the vehicle, i.e., the cab, chassis, engine, drive train, etc. in the two types of vehicles are the same.

Each ZIL tank truck has a tank constructed from heavy gauge steel, a mechanical pump, a manual pump, wide beam spray nozzles and associated equipment. The tank trucks were built to spray water or neutralizing agents to detoxify or decontaminate areas which have been biologically, chemically, or radiologically contaminated. The U.S. Customs Service has ruled that the tank trucks are classifiable as special purpose vehicles under HTSUS 8705.90.00. A copy of the September 7, 1993 ruling letter from the U.S. Customs Service is enclosed.

The battalion trucks were manufactured approximately five to ten years ago for use by the Soviet military for telecommunications, radar, and other military support purposes. The radio, telecommunications, and radar equipment were disabled and the frequency-carrying pans dismounted under the supervision of the German Ministry of Defense prior to the trucks being sold at auction. We believe that the battalion trucks, like the tank trucks, are special purpose

vehicles and would be classifiable in HTSUS 8705.90.00. Agrinvest has requested a Customs ruling on the classification of the battalion trucks.

Last spring, Agrinvest obtained confirmation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("BATF"), which issues permits for the permanent import of commodities listed on the U.S. Munitions Import List, that the ZIL water tank trucks do not require a BATF permit. A copy of that letter is enclosed. This month, Agrinvest requested similar confirmation from BATF for importation of the ZIL battalion trucks.

INTENDED USE

The ZIL tricks will be reconfigured, modified, and converted in the United States into special purpose, nonmilitary vehicles. After the ZIL trucks are converted and after the approval of the U.S. Department of Commerce is obtained, Agrinvest plans to export most of the trucks for use by civilian purchasers in Eastern Europe, Africa, and other overseas destinations where these types of vehicles are in service and where parts and services for the vehicles are available.

Agrinvest may enter samples of the ZIL vehicles into the United States to test the vehicles against Department of Transportation ("DOT")/NHTSA safety standards and Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") emission standards. After such testing is completed, some ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards. Any ZIL vehicles imported into the United States will comply with U.S. regulatory requirements. It is possible that, after the conversion is completed and the vehicles are brought into compliance with all requisite safety and emission standards, Agrinvest will import some of the vehicles for use in its orchard operation in Arizona.

ANALYSIS

Under 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), vehicles which were "not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads" are not considered to be motor vehicles as defined in Section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S 1391). Off-road vehicles are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards. We believe that the ZIL trucks are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards because the trucks were not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

VEHICLE FEATURES

The ZIL trucks were originally designed for military use on rugged terrain and in areas without roads. The trucks have self-inflatable tires which enable an operator to reinflate punctured tires while continuing to drive the vehicle. Moreover, these tires are very large, because they are designed to span gaps in the driving surface of 600 millimeters (approximately 23.6 inches) and to ford water over 1.4 meters high (approximately 55.1 inches). Such heavy duty, off-road capabilities show that the ZIL trucks were not designed primarily for use on public roads.

The ZIL trucks have a maximum permissible cruising speed of 70 kilometers/hour (approximately 42 miles per hour) and a maximum speed of only 80 kilometers/hour (approximately 48 miles per hour). The limited speed at which the trucks operate function as a practical restriction on their ability to be used on public roads; if they had been designed to be used primarily on the public roads, the trucks would operate at faster speeds. In addition, the trucks have a turning radius of 11.2 meters -- approximately 36.7 feet. This turning radius renders use of the trucks on public roads unwieldy and further illustrates that the trucks were not designed primarily for use on public roads.

Each of the ZIL tank trucks has a gross vehicle weight of 10,850 kilograms (approximately 23,900 pounds), which includes a payload of 2,700 liters and a driver and two passengers with a combined weight of 225 kilograms. Each of the ZIL battalion trucks has a gross vehicle weight of 10,185 kilograms (approximately 22,450 pounds), which includes a payload of 3,500 kilograms and a driver and two passengers with a combined weight of 225 kilograms. The trucks are 2,740 millimeters wide (approximately 97 inches). The dimensions and weight of the ZIL trucks indicate that they are slow, heavy, and wide vehicles, which are not practical for use on public roads.

CUSTOMS RULING

The U.S. Customs Service has ruled that, for Customs purposes, the ZIL tank tricks are classified as special purpose vehicles under HTSUS 8705.90.00. Agrinvest has requested that Customs issue a ruling on classification of the battalion trucks. The annotation to HTSUS Heading 8705 provides that "the primary purpose of a vehicle of this heading is NOT the transport of persons or goods" (emphasis in original). Although the Customs ruling on the tank trucks is not binding on NHTSA, it indicates that ZIL 131 trucks are not considered the type of vehicle that is primarily for use on public roads.

CONCLUSION

ZIL model 131 trucks are heavy, cumbersome vehicles, which were designed and built to be used on rough terrains. All of the ZIL 131 trucks will be reconfigured, modified, and converted in the United States. After the trucks are converted and the approval of the Department of Commerce is obtained, most of the ZIL trucks will be exported for use overseas in areas without good road systems. If Agrinvest can satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, it may use some of the trucks in its orchard operation in Arizona.

Photographs of the ZIL trucks and specifications for those trucks are enclosed with this request. Please call me at (202) 626-6606 if you have any questions or would like additional information in order to issue a ruling that the ZIL model 131 trucks are off-road vehicles for purposes of 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), and therefore are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because the trucks are expected to arrive in the United States by the end of the month, we would appreciate an early response. To avoid mail delays, we ask that you call us once the letter has been prepared, so that we may arrange for a messenger to pick it up.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

(*) The 390 battalion trucks consist of 45 dual generator trucks, 90 radio equipment trucks, 62 radio equipment switching center trucks, 62 mobile teletypewriter trucks, 41 paraboloid antenna trucks, 45 mobile workshop trucks, 9 radio link system station trucks, 13 radar station trucks, 7 mobile Robutron/GUM computer trucks, 4 target acquisition trucks, 5 cable drum (with racks) transportation trucks, 3 mobile water treatment unit trucks, 1 telecommunications switching center truck, I mess/boarding truck (with built-in cupboards, shelves, benches, tables, etc.), and two messing/storage trucks (with built-in cupboards and shelves).

Enclosures

(Photos omitted.)

9/7/93 letter from the U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury to Dennis Mack regarding classification. (Text omitted.)

5/5/93 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to Judith Jurin Semo. (Text omitted.)

List of specifications. (Text omitted.)

Portions of the fourteenth edition of Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics (1993-94). (Text omitted.)

ID: nht75-5.39

DATE: 03/10/75

FROM: JAMES C. SCHULTZ FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Dealers Assoc..

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 27, 1975, concerning the use of Form AADA-65 for purposes of disclosing odometer mileage when a vehicle is sold.

The NHTSA disagrees with your apparent contention that the portion of the preamble you cited, authorizing use of disclosure forms other than the one prescribed in Part 580, covers the use of Form AADA-65. That language limits the use of odometer forms which do not simulate the form contained in the regulation to situations where a State requires execution of an odometer statement which "contains equivalent information" to the Federal one. It is our understanding that the AADA form was adopted by the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association upon recommendation of the National Automobile Dealers Association. We are unaware of any Arizona State law that mandates use of the AADA form as a basis for compliance.

While the NHTSA appreciates the efforts of the NADA to develop a useful and effective odometer disclosure document, we cannot approve a format that is not substantially the same as the Federal form without following standard rulemaking procedures of notice and comment. We welcome your suggestions as to how you feel the odometer form can be improved, and suggest that you submit them in the form of petitions for rulemaking under the procedures specified in 49 CFR 553.31.

As pointed out in your letter, the NHTSA has determined that the AADA-65 form does not fulfill the requirements of Part 580. We appreciate your cooperation in notifying your membership of this decision. A changeover to use of the Federal odometer form by April 1, 1975, is considered reasonable by the agency. We thank you for your comments and look forward to receiving your ideas on the matters mentioned in your letter.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

National Automobile Dealers Association

December 27, 1974

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Re: N40-30 (kk)

Dear Sir:

Recent discussions have been held between Attorney Karen Kreshover of your office and Mr. Dave Hunt of my staff and myself concerning the odometer mileage statement form currently being utilized by the franchised new car dealer members of the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association (Form AADA-65). Questions have recently been raised as to whether Form AADA-65 satisfies the requirements of the Federal odometer law (Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Title IV, P.L. 92-513, 86 Stat. 947).

It is my understanding that John J. Relihan, Esq., of Solomon, Relihan & Blake, Law Offices, Suite A, 1819 West Osborn Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85015, has contacted your office (Mr. Relihan's letter dated September 9, 1974) requesting your Agency's views as to whether AADA-65 complies with the Federal odometer requirements. In addition, Mr. Relihan also inquired as to whether NHTSA had 'approved' Arizona Form AADA-65.

In your letter dated September 27, 1974 (September 30, 1974?) you state that you, ". . . (A)re unaware of any past correspondence between this office and either the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association or Norwick Printers of Oklahoma concerning the validity of a disclosure statement." You also state that, ". . . The Form AADA-65 enclosed in your letter fails to comply with our regulation in several respects." You then specifically discuss those areas of the form which in your opinion do not satisfy the requirements of the Federal odometer law and regulations of NHTSA promulgated pursuant thereto. Your suggestions for correcting those items which are deficient are also set forth.

A bit of historical background may be most helpful in explaining the 'birth' of AADA-65, and will explain NADA's involvement and interest in this matter. As I am sure you are aware, NADA was one of the prime backers of enactment of Title IV of the MVICSA. During your Agency's consideration of appropriate regulations to implement the mandate of the Congress, NADA supported the earliest effective date possible with respect to the odometer requirements. As events unfolded, this proved to be March 1, 1973. NADA also provided your Agency with its suggestions as to content and format for the suggested Federal odometer mileage statement form which your Agency developed.

After evaluating the odometer mileage form developed by your Agency, NADA reached the conclusion that perhaps more information than that required by your Agency's form, along with a somewhat different format, might prove to be more effective in reaching our common goal of devising an odometer mileage statement which would -- a) require at least the minimum substantive information to fulfill the intent of the Federal law; b) clearly and easily be understood by the average seller and buyer of motor vehicles; and c) be as concise as possible while maintaining and satisfying the objectives of (a) and (b) above. The use of such an alternative form was authorized by your Agency in your notice of rule making published in the Federal Register of January 31, 1973 at page 2978.

". . . To avoid the need for duplicate State and Federal disclosures in States having odometer disclosure laws or regulations, the section (Part 380.4) permits the State form to be used in satisfaction of the Federal requirement, so long as it contains equivalent information and refers to the existence of a Federal remedy."

(Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 20, pg.2978)

Pursuant thereto, NADA developed its own version of an odometer mileage form which differed format-wise in some respects from the form developed by your Agency. NADA's form also required several additional items of information which were not required on the form developed by NHTSA. NADA then utilized its various publications to acquaint dealers at ATAM Managers of the various state franchised automobile dealer associations of the new requirements which were to go into effect March 1, 1973. NADA provided sample copies of both NHTSA's recommended form and the form which NADA had developed. Arizona's Form AADA-65 is an exact duplicate of the odometer mileage form developed by NADA.

In your notice of January 31, 1973, you state that an alternative State form may be utilized, ". . . . (S)o iong as it contains equivalent information and refers to the existence of a Federal remedy." (Emphasis added.) NADA believes that AADA-65 falls within these broad parameters, at least to the extent of satisfying the legal requirements of the Federal odometer law. However, NADA also firmly believes in the old adage 'experience is the best teacher.' After viewing the various ways in which several of the Arizona odometer forms have been filled out, NADA has come to agree with Attorney Kroshover that its form (of which AADA-65 is an example) simply has not met the test of actual field experience, and that at least some transferrors have become confused as to the proper method of filling out the form. In short, it has not been successful with respect to objective (b) as outlined above.

I want to make it very clear that NADA strongly supports maximum compliance with the requirements of the Federal odometer law, and therefore wishes to have its member franchised new car and truck dealers comply not only with the 'letter' but also the 'spirit' of the law. While believing that use of the NADA developed form in the past has satisfied the legal requirements of the Federal odometer law, I would like at this time to formally notify your Agency that NADA is in the process of notifying its membership of the preferability of discontinuing the use of the NADA developed form. NADA is recommending that the Federal odometer form as published in the Federal Register of January 31, 1973, be utilized in its stead. With the necessary and reasonable delays which are naturally being encountered in the changeover, i.e. new forms must be printed, distributed, etc., NADA at this time anticipates completion of the changeover in approximately 60 days, or about March 1, 1975.

NADA sincerely hopes that this action on its part will further the common goal of both your Agency and the franchised new car and truck dealers who comprise the membership of NADA of effectuating full compliance with the requirements of the Federal odometer law. NADA would like to note, however, that its original objections to the Federal form's limited content and format as developed by your Agency still exist. It is our intention, therefore, to request in the near future further formal rule making proceedings in this area. The practical field experience gained during the past year and one half (which exposed the weaknesses of the NADA developed form) should also be put to use, in NADA's view, to determine whether similar problems have been encountered in the use of the Federal form. Such an ongoing program review should serve a very useful function in insuring that the form utilized, to the maximum extent, is as clear and understandable as possible to the average consumer who must fill out an odometer form when selling his or her automobile.

It is NADA's hope that the action which it has taken with respect to the matters discussed above meet with the approval of your Agency. I think it can safely be said that our action in this matter fully confirms our stated support, from the inception of the Federal odometer law, for a fair and effective odometer mileage disclosure law to protect consumers from the occasional unethical and deceptive practices in this area encountered in the past. Your formal response in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Awaiting your response, I remain

Sincerely yours,

Kevin P. Tighe -- Legislative Counsel

ID: nht76-5.64

DATE: 05/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William T. Coleman; NHTSA

TO: Charles E. Wiggins; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 9, 1976, concerning the Tire identification and Recordkeeping Requirements administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments concerning this program and your obvious efforts to familiarize yourself with the way it is administered. It is clear from your letter that you share my view that these requirements should be made as effective and efficient as possible, thereby increasing consumer safety while lessening the burden on tire dealers.

As you are aware, the Congress in 1970 amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require manufacturers and retreaders of tires to maintain the names and addresses of purchasers so that they could be notified of any defect. This step was taken only after attempts by manufacturers and the NHTSA to inform owners of defective tires proved ineffective. As you point out, Congressional action would be necessary to eliminate the program.

In your letter, you address four areas in which you believe the tire registration program is either ineffective or inefficient. I would like to discuss each one individually to ensure that your questions are answered comprehensively.

The first question you raise deals with the cost your constituent, a small tire dealer, is obligated to incur to satisfy the requirements of the program. In order to understand fully the cost involved, it would be useful to consider precisely what is required by the regulation.

1. A dealer must fill out a tire identification form supplied by the manufacturer for each purchase. This requires entering the name and address of the purchaser, the tire identification number which appears on the tire(s), and the company's name and address or number on the form. Only several minutes are required to complete the form.

2. Once a month, the dealer must send the forms to the manufacturer of the tires.

We are unable to understand how the regulation appreciably increases a small businessman's cost of doing business. It is our view that additional staff is not necessary to carry out the registration of tires, and we have no information which would suggest the contrary.

The situation would be somewhat more complex if your constituent sold tires manufactured by more than one firm, as each manufacturer supplies its own form which must, of course, be returned to the appropriate manufacturer. In this case, however, we have required that manufacturers supply to the dealers upon request a form with a standardized format to simplify completion.

The second matter you raise is the failure of some dealers to complete the registration forms. I share with you a concern that despite provision for substantial penalties, some dealers insist on breaking the law. It had been the policy of the NHTSA to delay strict enforcement of the regulation in the belief that dealer unfamiliarity with the regulation might be the cause of the poor response and that the situation would improve. In view of the continued unsatisfactory rate of compliance, the NHTSA has advised me that it will increase enforcement action to eliminate competitive advantage based on noncompliance.

Another issue raised in your letter is the cost of administering the regulation as compared to its benefit. I have queried the NHTSA as to their estimate of this cost and have been advised that the one dollar figure which you cited in your letter relates to all costs of both the manufacturer and dealer to register and maintain records for all four tires on a vehicle rather than a single tire. I am sorry for any confusion which might have arisen. Even utilizing a higher cost figure, however, it is NHTSA's view, in which I concur, that the expense of tire registration is not exorbitant in terms of helping to insure that a motorist will be advised if a tire he purchased is defective and could lead to death, a serious injury, or damage to his vehicle. As I am sure you realize, the purpose of any insurance program, be it fire insurance for the home or health insurance for the individual, is to protect all insured individuals against the catastrophic loss that only some of the insured individuals will actually experience.

It is of course difficult to associate a dollar figure with the potential damage which could be caused by a defective tire. In this regard, however, you may be interested in knowing that a Federal jury in Florida last year returned a $ 2,300,000 judgment against Sears Roebuck & Company in a tort action involving a defective tire.

You also suggest in your letter that only 25,000 tires were recalled in 1974. Our records, however, indicate that 1,098,000 tires were recalled in 1974 in 31 recall campaigns. Further, 2,526,480 tires have been recalled in the 119 recall campaigns initiated since the inception of the program. It is my view that the program should continue in light of the defect potential inherent in the sale of 200,000,000 tires annually.

In addition to planning increased enforcement, the NHTSA is evaluating the consumer response rate in tire defect notification campaigns to determine whether it can be improved and whether the low response rate is due in large part to tires no longer being in the hands of the initial purchaser. I have already requested the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council to conduct a broad study of the safety defect and recall problem, which includes a consideration of the adequacy of the tire recall effort. Based on these evaluations, the NHTSA should be able to determine if legislative action is necessary.

Let me assure you I appreciate your personal interest in this matter.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

March 9, 1976

The Honorable William T. Coleman, Jr. Secretary of the Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Recently a constituent of mine who sells motor vehicle tires at retail took time to explain to me the "Tire Identification and Recordkeeping" program which you administer and which directly affects him.

I hadn't heard of such a program, but have since learned that Section 1402(f) of Title 15 of the United States Code requires that manufacturers of tires maintain a record of names and addresses of the purchasers of their products. Regulations implementing the requirement are in Section 574 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The obvious purpose of the law is to make efficient the recall of defective tires.

My constituent informed me that the requirements of this program are widely ignored by retail tire dealers who are the conduit of the purchasers' identity to the manufacturers. He complains that the program costs him money, and being a small businessman, he must pass this cost onto his customers. His competitors who ignore the requirements don't have the cost and so gain a competitive edge. Furthermore, he believes the program is not worth the effort to begin with; due to the fact that only a miniscule percentage of those notified they have a defective tire respond to the recall notice.

On January 21, 1976, Mr. Elwood Driver, an employee of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration came to my office with a number of his associates, to explain the program to me. Mr. Driver made it clear that DOT plays virtually no role in overseeing the registration program. He had no information to offer on how efficiently the program operated, nor how many defective tires were removed from motor vehicles because of it. Subsequent to the meeting he contacted several manufacturers, and informed me by letter that they had informed him that 90% of the manufacturer owned tire dealers and 40-50% of the independent dealers complied with the program. Those manufacturers stated that only 30% of the tire owners notified that they owned a potentially defective tire responded to the recall notice.

I was informed by Mr. Driver that more than 200 million tires are sold each year and that a conservative price for the paperwork required to properly "register" a single tire is one dollar. If 50% of the dealers are complying with the registration program, that represents a pass through to the American consumer of $ 100 million.

I have been informed from industry sources that approximately 25,000 tires were recalled in 1974 as being potentially defective. Only a certain percentage of owners of those tires were notified because only a percentage of the dealers comply with the program. However, if compliance was 100% and all the purchasers were notified, only 30% would respond. That means this $ 100 million program optimally would result in 7,500 potentially defective tires being removed from automobiles. (Parenthetically, if all the tires manufactured were properly registered this would be a $ 200 million program.)

I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that you could review this program to determine whether in your opinion it should be continued. Without question, it doesn't work efficiently or effectively. Without question, it is enormously expensive to the American consumer. On the other hand, if defective new tires pose a serious national threat, then this program should be made to operate efficiently. It is my opinion, that the appropriate Committees would seriously consider any constructive recommendations in this regard that you care to offer.

CHARLES E. WIGGINS Member of Congress

cc: HON. HARLEY O. STAGGERS;

HON. SAMUEL L. DEVINE;

HON. JOHN E. MOSS;

HON. JAMES COLLINS;

HON. FRED B. ROONEY;

HON. JOE SKUBITZ

ID: Wheeler.1

Ms. Angela Wheeler
California Department of Transportation
Division of Equipment
34^th Street & Stockton Boulevard
P.O. Box 160048
Sacramento, CA 95816-0048

Dear Ms. Wheeler:

This responds to your letter in which you seek clarification regarding the implications under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) of modifying the seat assemblies of 20 medium-duty trucks to convert them from having intermediate seat backs to high seat backs. The purpose of these modifications would be to improve driver safety in the event of a rear impact. According to your letter and a subsequent phone conversation with Eric Stas, you stated that the California Department of Transportation, Division of Equipment (CalDOT) is a final-stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and it affixes certification labels in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. You stated that CalDOT owns the vehicles in question and would make such modifications itself. Your letter also described in detail both the original seat assembly delivered with the vehicle and the replacement seat assembly (whose back portion you wish to install), both of which you state conformed to FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems, at the date of manufacture. We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to our standards.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not issue approvals of these products, but instead, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must self-certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards, prior to offering such products for sale. Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, in order to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces.

Before answering your specific questions, I would begin by discussing a few general matters of relevance here. First, it should be noted that under our certification requirements, every completed vehicle must be certified as complying with applicable

FMVSSs. Final-stage manufacturers that complete vehicles for their own use are subject to this requirement. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person may not "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, unless such vehicle complies with safety standards and is so certified. Ongoing use of a vehicle by its manufacturer on the public highways would constitute introduction of the vehicle into interstate commerce. Therefore, a manufacturer would need to certify the vehicle prior to such use, even if the vehicle has not been sold.

In a phone conversation, you also asked about CalDOTs responsibilities at the time of sale of these vehicles (i.e., after they have been used on the public highways by CalDOT). As indicated above, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits a person from selling a vehicle unless it complies with applicable safety standards. Your question raises the issue of whether a vehicle that has been used by its manufacturer on the public highways, but has never been sold, must continue to meet the safety standards at the time it is eventually sold. If the user-manufacturers (in this case CalDOTs) use of the vehicle has been bona fide, we would consider CalDOTs actions in using the vehicles on the public highways to be equivalent to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. This would have an impact upon CalDOTs ongoing responsibilities, because under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1), "This section [49 U.S.C. 30112] does not apply to (1) the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment in good faith other than for resale." Thus, when CalDOT sells these trucks, they would be sold as used vehicles, and no additional certifications or alterations would be required under our regulations prior to sale.

As a general matter, Federal regulations do not prevent final-stage manufacturers, dealers, or repair businesses from modifying an original seat. For modifications made prior to initial vehicle sale, the entity must ensure that the new or modified seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207, as is required under 49 U.S.C. 30112. For modifications made after the vehicle is certified and sold, the business must ensure that its modifications do not violate the "make inoperative" provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits actions that would take a vehicle out of compliance with any applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

We now turn to the three specific questions presented in your letter. For ease of reference, we repeat each question, followed by our response:

(1) "Does the nominal change in weight and CG [center of gravity] require the new assembly to be tested to S4.2 [of] FMVSS No. 207?"

Each of our safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment when testing for compliance with that particular standard. NHTSA follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions in effect at the time of product certification when conducting its compliance testing. In this case, S4.2, General performance requirements, of FMVSS No. 207 provides:

When tested in accordance with S5, each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces, in newtons.

(a) In any position to which it can be adjusted20 times the mass of the seat in kilograms multiplied by 9.8 applied in a forward longitudinal direction;

(b) In any position to which it can be adjusted20 times the mass of the seat in kilograms multiplied by 9.8 applied in a rearward longitudinal direction;

(c) For a seat belt assembly attached to the seatthe force specified in paragraph (a), if it is a forward facing seat, or paragraph (b), if it is a rearward facing seat, in each case applied simultaneously with the forces imposed on the seat by the seat belt assembly when it is loaded in accordance with S4.2 of 571.210; and

(d) In its rearmost positiona force that produces a 373 newton meters moment about the seating reference point for each designated seating position that the seat provides, applied to the upper cross-member of the seat back or the upper seat back, in a rearward longitudinal direction for forward-facing seats and in a forward longitudinal direction for rearward-facing seats.

However, we note that a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards (including actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means), provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567.

In evaluating the need to conduct testing, relevant considerations here would include whether the new seat would require increased loading (due to greater mass) and load application at a greater height (due to higher center of gravity), as these factors could potentially induce greater stress on the seat and seat attachment hardware.

(2) "If re-testing is required as a final stage manufacturer, can we perform the required testing within our own testing facilities to ensure conformance to FMVSS No. 207?"

Consistent with our response to Question (1) above, if CalDOT chooses to conduct testing pursuant to FMVSS No. 207, it may do so at its own testing facilities.

(3) "If testing is required, does the seat belt attachment shown in Figures 3 and 4 require test S4.2c to be included?"

We note that your letter included several photographs (i.e., Figure 1 (original seat); Figure 2 (proposed seat); Figures 3 and 4 (depicting seat belt attachment)). However, we cannot determine from these photographs whether your proposed seat modifications would warrant your conducting testing under S4.2(c) of the standard. The responsibility for this determination lies with the entity that makes the modifications.

We note generally that S4.2(c) applies in those instances where a seat belt assembly is "attached" to the seat, in order to account for associated forces that may act on the seat in the event of a crash. In a July 10, 2000 interpretation letter to Mr. Gil De Laat, we examined whether a webbing guide permanently attached to the seat, but which did not have any "structural benefit" for purposes of seat or safety belt performance, is an "attachment" for purposes of S4.2(c). As presented by Mr. De Laat, the webbing guide in question served no structural purpose and would not transfer safety belt loads to the seat itself. Because the seat would not be loaded in a crash by the forces generated by the safety belt loads to the seat itself, we determined that it would not be necessary that the seat be capable of withstanding the load from the belt, so use of the webbing guide would not require that the seat be subjected to the seat belt anchorage loads of FMVSS No. 210, as described in S4.2(c) of FMVSS No. 207.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.6/16/05

ID: nht89-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/89

FROM: DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: BRAKING DISTANCE TEST & LABORATORIES USED BY D.O.T.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/18/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS; A35; STANDARD 105

TEXT: We have been in contact with Dr. Carl Clark, Inventor Contact Code NRD-12 and George Parker, Compliance Testing, regarding our product i.e. Gyroscopic Wheel Cover and in doing so, Dr. Carl Clark suggested we request a letter from your department specific ally outlining the requirements of the braking test used and a list of the various testing facilities used by the D.O.T., when testing a product for this purpose.

In lieu of the D.O.T. actually testing our product, we are requesting a letter from your office stating the FMVSS (571.105) Stopping Distance Test guidelines and a list of laboratories acceptable by the D.O.T., that could be used to test our product.

Is this a Proper Example? - SAE J299 Stopping Distance Test

Our intention is to use these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document our product's tests results in compliance with the D.O.T. testing standards.

Please return a copy of the specific guidelines used for this kind of test and a list of the acceptable laboratories as soon as possible.

Thank you so much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Douglas Mayes, President CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

Encl: Brochure, introduction, VHS

CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

"THE GYROSCOPIC WHEEL COVERS"

Introduction

This unique product was invented by Mr. Kim Rush, of Anaheim, California. An extensive amount of research has been completed with various governmental and independent testing laboratories in order to substantiate several claims as to the positive effect s this product has on several performances of a vehicle. There are locking devices attached to keep the product from coming off or being stolen off the vehicle. There are several different designs or looks that can be manufactured into the facial appear ances of the wheel cover.

There has been extensive market studies completed on the number of new automobiles being manufactured, estimates on the number of vehicles already in service and operating in the U.S. and foreign countries, as well as some future market projections. Thi s number includes vehicles in fleet service, municipalities, cab companies, etc. In addition, a study or overview of competitive products marketed as a "gas saving device", and "devices that improve automobile highway safety", has been made.

Market Viability

It is important to note that any sales figures would just educated projections only and the potential results of any extensive marketing program is dependent upon a variety of external factors, such as:

* Consumer perceptions of the product

* Retail price

* The distribution structure

* Advertising strategies

* Competition

* Ability of the product to perform as promised

This kind of quality product by providing the safety features and handling enhancements that it does, should be important to everyone, including the government. As an added bonus, this product gives the consumer an actual investment payback on his or he r purchase within a very reasonable period of time in gas savings, extended tire wear, longer shocks and brake life and most importantly the safety benefits to family members and passengers when this unique product is installed on the family and/or busin ess car.

There are huge economic benefits to large fleet owners as well. When this product is used by a whole population of people, this product could have a substantial effect on helping us get through a gasoline shortage.

Product Description & Function

The Gyroscopic Wheel Cover model #1 is very similar in appearance to the conventional fancy spoke wheel covers currently being offered on a variety of expensive new domestic and imported automobiles in the after market. There are 13", 14" and 15" config urations and this unique product is designed to fit almost 95% of all wheels manufactured today. The steel spokes model is made from heavy 12 gauge metal and the spokes are cushion mounted at a 6 degree pitch. As the wheel rotates to a speed of 10-15 m iles per hour, the centrifugal force causes the spokes to flex in and expand, forming a disc.

The magnitude of the rotational force creates a gyroscopic effect which increases wheel stability, creates some 80 foot pounds of inertia or downward pressure at the kiss point of each tire, maximizing road contact, giving better transaction in rain and snow and greater road stability at all times.

The wheel cover can be manufactured in a variety of various type configurations and levels of ornamentation. A specific public demand for design and style can easily be met.

Situational Analysis

The U.S. consumer is at present time able to purchase gasoline at a reasonable price, but will this condition stay that way. Not according to some reports. The public is looking for more ways to save money and conserve energy. Starting in 1980, as you know, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued standards for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for U.S. automobile manufacturers, setting a minimum average fuel economy requirement based upon the manufacturer's total vehicle production. The aver age standard for 1990 is 26 mpg for car manufacturers. The net result forces the auto makers into building smaller cars, smaller engines in the efforts to develop fuel saving methods and whether we like it or not, exposing the buying public to some new dangers, by having less automobile or metal between you and all the other driving public. The next change is plastic engines.

European markets

The foreign car market is an exciting opportunity, especially when gasoline is priced around $ 2.30 per gallon in Europe, and when these users can add 16-20% annually to their fuel economy, that can amount to a lot of dollar savings, as well as energy sa vings. This product could be our part of the overall effort to conserve their energy resources.

Added Safety when using Product.

This product can improve your chances against having an accident in your car while these wheel covers are on your automobile. These wheel covers provide for quicker stops, better handling, less swaying in turns, better stability, lessens greatly the cha nce of hydroplaning in water and snow. We are presently in the process of contacting the insurance industry to try and obtain a auto insurance premium reduction when these wheel covers have been installed. Creative Products expects additional tests wil l have to be performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to substantiate our claims and be able to offer a possible discount. Braking tests prove that this product reduces the stopping distance for automobiles by as much as 10% or more at 55 mph. A set of wheel covers in providing better traction, better stopping and handling capabilities will give the consumer more control, thus less wrecks in all kinds of weather.

Market Opportunities

There are almost two hundred million automobiles in the U.S., or over 40% of the world's totals. Owners with new and used automobiles that need this product and would desire a set of these wheel covers for their car. The U.S. market alone for this prod uct today may exceed $ 10,000,000,000.00, the European market may be just as good with a higher percentage of users. Fleet owners, new car manufacturers would be very interested in this product for their cars, vans and trucks.

Product Costs and Savings At todays' prices, a set of nice wheel covers may cost $ 350.00 or more and they obviously do nothing more for your car than looks. Certainly nothing for saving gas, tire wear or safety. This product will be offered for sale to distributors around the world and the retail price will probably be in the range of $ 350-$ 400 for a set of four. Sizes come in 13", 14", or 15", this price range would not be out of line with the standard priced wheel covers for the more expensive automobiles.

The actual money saved by a consumer when using this product for instances could be if presently they are using; (1) 110 U.S. gallons/mo., (2) getting 18 mpg of gas on the average, (3) the price of gas is at $ 1.20 cost per gallon, (4) when driving 24,00 0 miles of annually, using this product will provide the owner with an annual savings of $ 200.00 or 16% of his total gas bill. Saving this amount of money annually is very attractive to the average consumer and when taking into the consideration the ad ditional benefit of an extended tire life, the consumer gets all of his or her money back in the first year.

CONCLUSION

Creative Products believes this wheel cover will provide several new safety advantages to anyone buying this product. You have to drive your car with a set of these wheel covers on to believe the difference it makes. With this product installed on any car, you will experience a whole new dimension of safety driving in all kinds of adverse weather.

gyroscopic wheel covers[trademark]

energy efficient . . . money saver . . . greater road safety

increase mileage

increase tire life

increase brake life

increase traction in snow

filmed tests indicate vehicle braking reduced by fifteen feet at 55 m.p.h

ID: nht90-4.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 5, 1990

FROM: Susan J. Otjen -- Spill Response Project, State Fire Marshal, State of Oregon

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-5-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Susan J. Otjen (A37; Std. 208)

TEXT:

The State of Oregon, Office of the State Fire Marshal, is currently involved in setting up Regional Hazardous Material Emergency Response Teams around the state. At this time we have a bid out for Hazardous Material Emergency Response Vehicles. The spe cifications for that vehicle include a forward command center with a bench seat and seat belts for four passengers, also a seat with belt at the command center desk. I have received a call from a vendor who is concerned that this specification does not meet the regulations set out in Title 49. He was concerned that a crash test would be required in order to certify this seating arrangement.

I spoke recently with Mr. Charles Gathier, a technical specialist with the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. He stated that limited production vehicles were exempt from these regulations. Also, that these regulations pertained only to the driver in v ehicle with a GVW of over 10,000 lbs. When I requested written documentation of this information, he directed me to Steve Wood of your office.

Mr. Wood suggested that I contact you directly with my request for written clarification of this question. I have enclosed a copy of the vehicle specifications for your information.

I would appreciate clarification on this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (503) 373-1126. The bid closing date is set for December 11, 1990. We would like to be able to award the bid as soon as possible due to the extend ed delivery date for this type vehicle. Thank you for your prompt attention and assistance.

Attachment

SPECIFICATIONS

1. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS:

A. It is the intent of these specifications to provide the State of Oregon, Office of the State Fire Marshal with Hazardous Material Emergency Response Vehicles.

B. The apparatus shall be constructed with due consideration to nature and distribution of the load to be sustained and the general character of the service which the apparatus is to be subjected when placed in service.

All parts of the apparatus shall be strong enough to withstand the general service under full load. The apparatus shall be so designed that the various parts are readily accessible for lubrication, inspection, adjustment and repair.

C. Details of construction and materials, not otherwise specified, are left to the discretion of the contractor, who shall be solely responsible for the design and construction of all features. The construction and materials must meet or exceed all stan dards set by N.F.P.A. 1901 and other mandatory regulatory standards. Contractor must be able to supply any certifications required by D.O.T. prior to award of bid.

D. Each bidder shall make statements in his proposal; principle dimensions, weight distribution of the fully loaded, completed vehicle.

E. Bidder must submit a proposal in full detail which covers the complete construction of the apparatus he proposes to furnish. Each bidder shall make accurate statements in his specifications as to weight, wheelbase, and principal dimensions. The bidd er shall furnish drawings and photographs of the bid apparatus with his bid, giving detail body compartments, sizes, and locations. These drawings will not preclude the necessity for the bidder to submit in writing any exceptions to these specifications .

F. Each bid shall be accompanied by a detailed description of the apparatus and equipment which it is proposed to furnish and to which the apparatus furnished under the contract must conform. It is the intent of these specifications to cover the furnish ing and delivering to the purchaser a complete and soundly-engineered apparatus equipped as hereinafter specified. Material thickness specified is the minimum to be accepted.

G. No experimental apparatus shall be considered. Each bid shall be accompanied by a statement covering the past two (2) year period giving locations where fire apparatus of like specifications have been sold by the manufacturer who is submitting the bi d.

H. Manufacturer shall furnish satisfactory evidence of his ability to construct the apparatus specified and shall state the location of the factory where the apparatus is manufactured. The manufacturer shall also state the number of years he has been bu ilding fire apparatus. Factory location must be within the continental U.S.A.

I. As a condition of the acceptance of the apparatus, the contractor shall furnish a comprehensive guarantee of the apparatus and equipment for ten (10) years. All warranty's must be supplied with the bid.

J. The manufacturer shall defend any and all suits, and assume all liability for any claims against the purchaser, or any of its officials or agents for the use of any patented process, device, or articles forming a part of the apparatus or any appliance furnished under the contract.

K. Total price on bidder's proposal sheet must include all items listed in these specifications. Listing any items contained in our specifications

as an extra cost item will automatically be cause for rejection.

L. Bidder's proposal must clearly list in detail all items requested in our specifications. Literature which conflicts with our specifications in material used or equipment to be supplied, will be cause for automatic rejection.

M. Contractor shall be responsible for having complied with the following: Dealer supplying equipment to this specification shall be responsible for having complied with all Federal and State safety and regulatory standards, applicable and effective on t he date of acceptance. Dealer must be licensed to do business in the State of Oregon.

N. Prior to preparation of the Purchase Order to the lowest qualified bidder, the Office of the State Fire Marshal may require a complete review of the bidder's ordering data and the agencies purchase specifications to insure that the ordering data fulfi lls the specification requirements.

If the conference is required, it will be held at the Office of the State Fire Marshal, 3000 Market Street Plaza, Salem, Oregon, in order to accomplish a thorough point-by-point understanding in obtaining a final product that complies with the purchase s pecification requirements.

NOTE: Contractors are required to respond to each item listed below. Failure to do so may result in rejection of the bid.

Attached are Dimensional Specifications; Chassis Specifications; Chassis Modification; Body Construction; Electrical; and Compartmentation check-off forms and engineering drawing. (Text and graphics omitted)

VII WARRANTY

1. A submission of a bid in response to this Invitation to Bid shall constitute the manufacturer's and bidder's warranty and ALL components, parts and accessories for a period of not less than one (1) year or 12,000 miles, whichever comes first after th e "in service date". The portions of the standard warranty on the truck chassis or any of the components that exceed these requirements shall apply. Each unit shall carry the manufacturers service and warranty policy in conjunction with the purchaser's stated warranty policy and shall include all inspection coupons, certicards or warranty identification cards furnished to the general trade. Said warranty shall be honored by all franchised dealers of that make in the State of Oregon.

2. If all or any parts of this unit should prove defective in workman- ship or materials, the manufacturer or bidders shall replace or repair the part or defect without cost to the State of Oregon.

3. The warranty shall exclude such components as batteries, tires and light, bulbs, except as warranted by the manufacturer of said items. It shall also exclude damage to the unit due to operator's abuse.

4. Warranty adjustments will not necessarily be confined to the above limits. Malfunction of parts or failures discovered beyond the above warranty period, which are reasonably attributable to a manufacturing fault not revealed during the initial perio d, shall be corrected at no cost, or on a cost-sharing basis, depending on the individual case.

5. The vendor shall not be responsible for damages caused by delay or failure to perform under the terms of the warranty where such delay or failure is due to strikes, Acts of God, legal acts of public authority or demands of the Government in time of w ar or national emergency.

6. The bidder shall be responsible for all warranty adjustments.

VIII DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS

1. All "make ready" services shall be performed prior to delivery. The vehicle shall be delivered ready to use.

2. Each vehicle shall have an operator's manual and other information and instructions.

3. At the time of, or before delivery, the following shall be furnished (in addition to the above):

(a) Two (2) current shop repair manuals covering ALL components and including electrical schematics.

(b) Two (2) current parts catalogs covering ALL components.

(c) Two (2) operator's manuals.

ALL - means the primary unit and any auxiliary equipment or components added to the truck to meet the requirements of this specification.

4. All manuals and catalogs shall be shall be individually assembled and bound.

5. Three complete sets of keys for all locks shall be furnished with each unit.

ID: Maxzone Interpretation EPLLA 571.108_(002) signed

October 4, 2024

VIA EMAIL

Ms. Penny Chiu 

Product Marketing Coordinator 

Maxzone Auto Parts Corp. 

mkt1363@maxzone.com

Dear Ms. Chiu, 

This responds to your email, dated July 7, 2023, seeking a legal interpretation regarding the proper calculation of the “effective projected luminous lens area” (EPLLA) under Federal Motor Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, and the inclusion of a “diffusion element,” as well as the “distinctive water wave pattern” on your product. You also submitted additional information via email to NHTSA staff, such as diagrams of your product and other supporting information, on June 28, 2023, and July 12, 2023, which was taken into consideration in developing this response. 

In responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Based on the information you have provided and for the reasons explained below, our answer is that the area you describe as the “diffusion element” and the area you describe as having a “distinctive water wave pattern” can be included in the calculation of the EPLLA of your lamp under FMVSS No. 108 only if those elements are not transparent and direct light toward the photometric test pattern. However, based on the information you have provided, we are unable to state whether such elements do or do not perform such a function. 

Background 

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture before the products can be offered for sale. In so doing, manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards, and they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA.1 This requirement does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard, in this case FMVSS No. 108. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard’s test conditions and other specifications. Manufacturers must also ensure their products are free of safety-related defects. This letter represents NHTSA’s opinion concerning how your product, as you describe it, would be analyzed under FMVSS No. 108. It is not an approval of your product. 

In your July 7, 2023, email, you ask whether the EPLLA of your lamp, as defined in FMVSS No. 108, should include the area you describe as the “diffusion element,” or only the area you describe as the “refractive element.”2 You note that what you describe as the “diffusion element” of your product includes scattering structures as well as a “distinctive water wave pattern,” which you state “serves the purpose of diffusing light” and which you believe contributes to spreading the light emitted from the lamp. Your June 28 email includes two diagrams of the product which you state show the product’s EPLLA3 and the impact of the scattering structures on the surface. Finally, your July 12 email includes an image identifying the elements of your lamp. We note that although your question is regarding your product, which is a turn signal lamp, you have not asked about the EPLLA requirements applicable to a specific type of motor vehicle lamp. Therefore, your question, and this response, may be applicable to multiple lamp types. 

FMVSS No. 108, S6.4.1 states that “[e]ach turn signal lamp, stop lamp, high-mounted stop lamp, and school bus signal lamp must meet the applicable effective projected luminous lens area requirement specified in Tables IV–a, IV–b, and IV–c.” Furthermore, the lens area certification and compliance option in S6.4.3(a) states that “[w]hen a vehicle is equipped with any lamp listed in Table V–b each such lamp must provide not less than 1250 sq mm of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in any direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points specified in Table V–b for each such lamp.” Table V-b includes turn signal lamps, stop lamps, taillamps, and parking lamps. Turn signal lamps certified under the lens area option must provide unobstructed minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 1250 sq mm at a horizontal angle of 45° and a vertical angle of 15°. 

As defined in FMVSS No. 108, EPLLA “means the area of the orthogonal projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the axis of reference. Unless otherwise specified, the direction is coincident with the axis of reference.”

1 Letter to Helen A. Rychlewski, responding to letter received June 7, 1995, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam5591.
2 Your submission also cites to the definition of “Diffusion Element” in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J2999. This definition is not incorporated into FMVSS No. 108.
3 The image submitted appears to indicate that your calculated EPLLA is 5648.159 sq mm.

FMVSS No. 108 also defines “effective light-emitting surface” as “that portion of a lamp that directs light to the photometric test pattern, and does not include transparent lenses, mounting hole bosses, reflex reflector area, beads or rims that may glow or produce small areas of increased intensity as a result of uncontrolled light from an area of ½° radius around a test point.” 

The definition of “effective light-emitting surface” was added to FMVSS No. 108 in a final rule published on August 11, 2004 (2004 final rule).4 This action amended the standard for turn signal lamps, stop lamps, taillamps, and parking lamps to increase compatibility with the requirements of the Economic Commission for Europe and to improve the visibility of these lamps. In the 2004 final rule, NHTSA responded to comments on the proposed amendments and definitions. In so doing, we noted that “transparent lenses cannot be included in the determination of the effective light-emitting surface.”5 Furthermore, we also stated the following:

“[T]here does not appear to be any substantive change in determining the effective projected luminous lens area. However, the proposed definition clearly stated that only the portion of the lamp that directs light to the photometric test pattern may be included in the determination of the effective light-emitting surface. … we believe that transparent lenses do not direct light to the photometric test pattern and may not be included in the calculation. However, portions of translucent lenses intended to deliberately scatter the beam pattern within the allowable photometry (e.g., frosted or stippled lenses), are permissible as part of the effective projected luminous lens area.”6 

This statement makes clear that EPLLA does include translucent structures that direct light to the photometric test pattern by diffusing or scattering light, even if such structures are on otherwise transparent lenses. 

Discussion 

We now turn to your questions regarding your product. We understand you to be asking two distinct but related questions. First, whether the area that you describe as the “diffusion element” may be included for EPLLA? Second, does the presence of what you describe as the “distinctive water wave pattern” allow an area to be included in the EPLLA? We take these questions in turn. 

Regarding the first question, the definition of effective light-emitting surface makes clear that the area of transparent lenses may not typically be included in the calculation of the effective light

4 69 FR 48805 (Aug. 11, 2004). See also Letter to Dennis Moore, Nov. 15, 2006, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/06-003601as.
5 69 FR 48805, 48811 (Aug. 11, 2004). This statement was consistent with a June 14, 2000, letter of interpretation in which we stated that the transparent lens covering a large lamp assembly was not the “outer lens surface” of a turn signal lamp that is part of that assembly for the purposes of calculating its visibility requirements. Letter to Shigeyoshi Aihara, June 14, 2000, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/20836ztv.
6 69 FR 48805, 48811 (Aug. 11, 2004).

emitting surface. As explained in the 2004 final rule, such elements do not direct light toward the photometric test pattern. 

However, as we have stated in the past, areas of otherwise transparent lenses that incorporate scattering structures, such as frosted or stippled lenses, as well as certain cuts such as prism or pillow cuts and other similar structures, are not “transparent” for purposes of determining the effective light-emitting surface. Rather, these areas are “translucent” and may be included in the calculation of EPLLA, so long as such elements direct the light to the photometric test pattern. Based on the submitted materials, it appears that the area of the “diffusion element” you describe on the lens on your product has such cuts. If these cuts direct light toward the photometric test pattern, then the area of these cuts may be counted as part of your product’s EPLLA. 

We now turn to your second question regarding the “distinctive water wave pattern.” Similarly, if the “distinctive water wave pattern” has the effect of scattering light and directing the light toward the photometric test pattern, then its area may be included in the calculation of the effective light-emitting surface (and therefore, EPLLA). We note, however, that we are unable to determine whether the wave pattern has such an effect based on the information you have provided. As previously stated, the manufacturer must certify the product as compliant with the applicable standards and must exercise reasonable care in making such a certification. 

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992. 

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 10/4/24
Ref: Standard No. 108