ID: nht87-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C. D. Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. C. D. Black Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, New Jersey 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This responds to your December 11, 1986 letter to me concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we interpret Standard No. 206 to permit inst allation of a particular type of door locking system which you referred to as a "child safety lock." The answer to your question is yes.

You explain that a "child safety lock" is a special locking system installed in addition to the locking system mandated by Standard No. 206. You state that the required locking system (hereinafter referred to as "the primary locking system") is operated by a vertical plunger located in the door top trim roll (window sill). The child safety lock (which I will refer to as a "secondary locking system") consists of a lever that is located in the shut face of the rear doors which can only be reached when the door is open. When the lever is set in the "active" position, it renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows:

S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

As you know, the standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadverte nt door openings due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles. Other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from insi de the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.

Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the interior latch release controls (door handles) to operate the door latches when the door locking mechanism is disengaged. As explained be low, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past agency interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems which interfere with the engagement of the primary locking system. Since y our child locking systems do not interfere with the manner in which the primary locking system engages, their installation on the vehicles you manufacture is permitted.

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1. 3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door lo cks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is enga ged. Since we have determined that S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the requ ired locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

While the agency stated in its April 1968 notice amending Standard No. 206 that one purpose of requiring an interior means of operating door locks was to allow a reasonable means of escape for vehicle occupants, the agency did not go further in facilitat ing escape by also including a provision to require in all circumstances that door handles be operative when the primary locking systems are disengaged. Since the agency could easily have included such a provision to address this reverse situation, but d id not do so, the implication is that the agency did not intend to impose requirements regarding that situation. In fact, the notice included a contemporaneous interpretation that the standard permits a secondary locking device which rendered the inside rear door handle inoperative even when the primary locking mechanism was disengaged. This affirms that NHTSA did not even intend to impose a requirement that the handles always be operative when the primary locking mechanism is disengaged.

In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 206 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to "minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a re sult of impact." Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in Collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside o perating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.

Another issue related to your inquiry is whether the location of the operating means for the child locks is regulated by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no. Secondary locking mechanisms discussed in the final rule adopting the doo r lock requirements and in past agency letters all were designed so that the operating means for the secondary mechanism was inaccessible when the door was closed. In none of those documents did the agency take exception to that location of the operating means, much less suggest that those means, like the means for the primary locking mechanism, must be located in the vehicle's interior.

This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies past agency statements concerning issues raised by secondary locking systems such as "child safety locks." To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations made by NHTSA in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 11, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We request your interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 206 as it relates to child safety lock systems currently fitted to Jaguar sedans destined for U.K. and European markets and which we would like to fit to USA cars.

The Jaguar rear door primary locking system is activated or deactivated from a vertical plunger situated in the door top trim roll. It functions in the manner described in FMVSS 206, paragraph 4.1.3.2., (also pages 12 and 13 of the Jaguar drivers handboo k attached.)

To operate the additional child safety lock (special locking system), the door must first be opened and a small lever, situated in the door shut-face, activated. The door, when subsequently closed, cannot then be unlocked or opened from inside the vehicl e regardless of the position of the primary locking system vertical plunger. However, the door can be opened using the outside handle. The child safety lock can be deactivated only by opening the rear door using the outside door handle and then reversing the position of the lever in the door shut-face.

However, the preamble to FMVSS 206 amendment of 27 April 1968 (33 FR 6465) contains a phrase that we believe could be interpreted to preclude fitment of these locks for USA cars:

"At the same time, by affording occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle, a reasonable means of escape is provided for such occupants in the post crash phase of an accident." (Emphasis added).

We would like a clear statement that such a system as described above would not contravene the requirements of FMVSS 206.

On behalf of Jaguar Cars Yours sincerely,

C.D. Black

Manager - Engineering CDB:as Legislation & Compliance

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

Attach.

ID: 08-006052drn vasatko

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: 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: 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: 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: nht79-3.3

DATE: 08/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Honorable David Boren - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 28 1979

Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Weaver, regarding problems he is having with the automatic belt system on his Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, the belt system does not properly fit Mr. Weaver, and Volkswagen has stated it cannot lower the driver's seat to correct the problem because of Federal regulations.

Before getting into the details of this matter, I want to express my admiration for Mr. Weaver in his efforts to obtain the benefits of his safety belts. It is discouraging to hear that a person wishing to use his belts is unable to do so. However, I must stress that we have no authority to compel a manufacturer to alter a vehicle in a situation like this. The most we can do is attempt to clarify whether it is federal law or other factors that led to Volkswagen's reluctance to make the alterations desired by Mr. Weaver.

The discussion in the letter you received from Mr. Kenneth Adams, Volkswagen's Washington representative, needs some clarification. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger cars to be equipped with safety belts that adjust to fit drivers ranging in size from a 5th-percentile adult female (weighing about 102 pounds) to a 95th-percentile adult male (weighing about 215 pounds). Therefore, the regulation requires safety belts to fit at least 90 percent of the driving population. Of course, nothing prohibits manufacturers from designing their belts to fit 100 percent of the population, and the agency encourages manufacturers to do so. The standard is only a minimum requirement, allowing manufacturers some leeway because of unusual body sizes at either end of the spectrum.

Mr. Adams also stated in his letter to you that lowering the seat would change the performance characteristics of Volkswagen's belt system and would make it necessary "to begin the entire testing process for certification again." This statement too requires clarification. At the present time, Safety Standard No. 208 does not require safety belts as installed in motor vehicles to meet dynamic performance requirements. Dynamically testing safety belts would entail restraining a test dummy with a vehicle's safety belts and testing their performance by crashing the vehicle into a test barrier. In such testing, the position of the seat in relation to the belts would be important. However, the current requirements do not involve testing safety belts inside the vehicle. They require that the belts meet certain laboratory tests and that belts capable to passing those tests be installed in new vehicles.

Further, regardless of the type of performance standards involved, lowering the seat of a used vehicle could not raise any question about recertification. Certification relates to new vehicles exclusively. The only question which lowering the seat would lose under our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, would be whether lowering the seat would cause equipment installed pursuant to Federal safety standards to no longer be in compliance. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative safety equipment. If this prohibition is the concern of Mr. Adams of Volkswagen, perhaps he can clarify for your constituent how Volkswagen believes lowering the seat would violate that prohibition. Mr. Adams does not state that lowering the seat would preclude the belt system from adjusting to fit the range of people specified in the standard.

It may be that Volkswagen's reluctance to lower the seat stems from a concern about products liability. Lowering the seat could very well alter the performance of the Volkswagen automatic belt system.

In an effort to promote further clarification of Volkswagen's position, I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Adams. The only further thing I can do is suggest that Mr. Weaver contact Mr. Adams again and obtain his reaction to my letter. Perhaps we can then see what other alterations are available. I hope some adjustment can be made to accommodate Mr. Weaver.

Sincerely,

Joan Claybrook

Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence

cc: Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative Volkswagen of America, Inc. 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

August 2, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Enclosed are copies of a letter from a constituent concerning a problem he is experiencing with his new car seat belts and the corresponding answer from the government relations department of the car manufacturer.

As evidenced from the letter from the car manufacturer, the Federal Government requires that the car be equipped with seat belts that will fit more than 90% of the population. What is to be done for those other 10% who must try to cope with the regulations on seat belts, but do not want to do anything violative of the law and are unable to get any relief from the car manufacturer?

I would appreciate it if you could give me some information that would be helpful to Mr. Weaver. If you know of any special waiver to the regulations that can be granted on an individual basis such as this, it would be very helpful in assuring that Mr. Weaver is given full satisfaction while still obeying the regulations under which he must operate his car.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to give in this matter. Your full attention to this problem is respectfully requested.

Sincerely,

David L. Boren United States Senator

Enclosures

July 3, 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

Thank you for the inquiry from Mr. Thomas J. Weaver regarding the seat belt system in his Volkswagen 4-door Rabbit-L Diesel vehicle.

I have personally checked with our safety engineers regarding the possibility of modifying Mr. Weaver's seat belt system. The system in Mr. Weaver's Rabbit is 100 percent in compliance with Federal standards for occupant crash protection. In fact, it is the Federal government that requires our seat belts to fit more than 90 percent of the American population.

To comply with these Federal standards, Volkswagen employs an integrated passive belt system in the model that Mr. Weaver owns. The occupant is protected by a combination of design features in the car which include the belt itself, a kneebar, the wheel and a special type of seat. If we were to lower the seat, the performance characteristics of our belt system would change, and it would be necessary to begin the entire testing process for certification again.

Therefore, because of the requirements of Federal laws in this area, we are unable to recommend an adjustment in the height of the seat.

If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative

KRA:hk

025 N. Sherry Avenue Norman, Oklahoma 73069 21 April 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Dear Senator:

I recently purchased a Volkswagon 4-door Rabbit-L diesel automobile. The seat belts in the front seats are attached to the front doors so the seat belts "put themselves on" as the driver and front seat passenger enter the car. When I am driving the seat belt should come over my left shoulder. Instead it comes across my left arm. In an emergency situation where the seat belt mechanism became locked, this would severly restrict the use of my left arm in turning the steering wheel and could cause an accident.

Due to the large backlog of orders, I was not able to test drive this model car before purchase. Soon after delivery I notified the local dealer, Thunderbird Imports, of this problem and requested the front seats be lowered which would eliminate the problem. I was told the local dealer could not modify any of the safety system without the authorization of at least the regional office.

On 3 April 1979 I sent letters to the San Antonio Regional Office and the national headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, stating the problem and requesting that the front seats be lowered. On 19 April a representative from the San Antonio Regional Office, Jack Atwood, observed the situation but stated the car was made to specifications and no modifications could be made. The seat belts fit him properly--but he doesn't drive my car! Mr. Atwood passed the buck stating that only the U.S. Government could authorize changes to an approved automobile design. Today I recieved a letter from the San Antonio Regional Office confirming they would do nothing to correct this safety hazard.

Is there anything you can do have them lower the front seats of my car? I realize this is a lot of difficulty to make my car safer to drive. In their current position, I feel the seat belts are more likely to contribute to accidents and injury than to prevent them.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Weaver

Copy to: Thunderbird Imports

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: 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