ID: 21357.ztv

Mr. Gene A. Simpkins, Jr.
1835 - 18^th Avenue A
Moline, IL 61265

Dear Mr. Simpkins:

Senator Fitzgerald has asked us to reply to your e-mail to him regarding whether State laws permit the use of neon undercarriage lighting on motor vehicles.

Your letter asserts that "There is no law, in any state, that prohibits neon lighting." You ask "does this truly represent the legal position held by each state?"

We understand that neon undercarriage lighting is prohibited in Pennsylvania. I regret that we are not conversant with other State lighting laws . We establish the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which must be met at the time a vehicle is sold. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, neon undercarriage lighting, as a supplemental lighting device, is permitted as original equipment, installed either by the manufacturer or dealer, provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. I enclose copies of three letters we have written to inquirers on this topic (August 9, 1984, to Lawrence Farhat; July 29, 1993, to Director Shipley of the Ohio Department of Safety; and April 21, 1992, to Allan Schwartz) which discuss the subject under Federal law and explain the relationship between Federal and State lighting laws.

These letters continue to represent our interpretation of Federal law. However, we understand that the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators no longer provides advice about State laws as they did at the time these letters were written. This means that, in order to verify your conclusion, you will have to contact the motor vehicle administration of each State as to whether it prohibits undercarriage neon lighting.

If you have any questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.3/30/2000

ID: 21359.ztv

Mr. Wayne L. Kruse
Murray, Inc.
P.O. Box 268
Brentwood, TN 37024-0268

Dear Mr. Kruse:

Thank you for your letter of February 29, 2000, informing us that you "are evaluating a product opportunity." You ask how we would classify this product under our regulations and "if it needs to comply with any FMVSS, CPSC or other Federal standards."

You identify your company as a "manufacturer of outdoor power equipment and recreational products." You identify the product in question as "an electric leisure mini scooter." The scooter "folds to compact size," and you envision it being bought "by RV campers and boat owners and used at places where passenger car use is not feasible." You also believe that "in some instances, it may be used in residential areas where traffic flow is restricted or controlled." The scooter is powered by an electric motor with "less than 2HP output," has a maximum speed of 15 mph, a range of 15 miles, and weighs 90 pounds.

The question we must answer is whether the electric leisure mini scooter is a "motor vehicle." If it is a "motor vehicle," it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). For purposes of compliance with the FMVSS, a motor vehicle is one that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" (49 U.S.C. 30101(a)(6)). Because you speak in terms of "evaluating a product opportunity," and printed literature already exists on the scooter, we surmise that Murray is not the manufacturer of the scooter but would be a dealer, in the sense that it would be purchasing the scooters for resale to its customers (the photocopy of the literature you enclosed contains no manufacturer name). However, it is the manufacturer's intended primary use that we must consider, and not the dealer's.

The product literature depicts the scooter on what appears to be a roadway in a wooded area. Further, you have stated that it may be used in residential areas subject to restricted or controlled traffic flow. We believe that the scooter is indistinguishable from a moped, which is an on- road vehicle that we have long interpreted to be a motor vehicle. The seated rider on the scooter appears to other traffic to be riding a moped. We also note that the low ground clearance of the central platform appears poorly suited to off-road use. These are sufficient indicia for us to conclude that the scooter has been manufactured primarily for on-road use.

For purposes of compliance with the FMVSS, a two or three-wheeled motor vehicle (the product literature also shows a three-wheeled scooter) is defined as a "motorcycle" and is required to comply with the FMVSS that apply to this vehicle type. Some of the motorcycle standards specify lesser performance requirements for "motor driven cycles." These are motorcycles with engines of 5 HP or less. Because the scooter has a motor of not more than 2 HP, it is eligible to meet the requirements that have been modified for motor driven cycles.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 and 30115, in addition to assuring that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS, a motor vehicle manufacturer must also affix a certification label to each vehicle. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), Murray may not offer for sale, or sell, the electric leisure mini scooter unless the manufacturer has certified its compliance.

The product may also be required to comply with emission regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. We are not conversant with their requirements for small vehicles such as the scooter.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-355-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.5/10/00

ID: 21376.ztv

Mr. Ray Lugo
5610 46^th Street
Lubbock, TX 79414

Dear Mr. Lugo:

This is in reply to your request of February 16, 2000, asking our views on lamps mounted on the front of vehicles that would indicate when the brakes are applied.

I enclose copies of two notices that we published in the Federal Register which address this subject. The first is a notice dated December 13,1996, in which we requested comments from the public on four signaling ideas, one of which was front brake lamps (61 FR 65510; see text beginning on page 65515). The second is a notice published on November 4, 1998 (63 FR 59482; see text on page 59486 and beginning on page 59491) reporting the public's comments and our conclusions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.3/23/00

ID: 21387.ztv

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in reply to your letter of March 2, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

As you are aware, Mark Rodgers of American Products Company (APC) was informed in a telephone conversation with an engineer from the Office of Safety Performance Standards that it appeared that the company's All Clear replacement rear vehicle lighting assemblies (which they import from China) are illegal did not comply with our safety standard and therefore could not legally be sold as replacement equipment, even though they were being advertised "For Off Road Use Only." You approve of this but have asked three questions:

"1. As I understand the 1966 Vehicle Safety Act . . . Rulemaking Standards have a right and a legal obligation to the American Public to decree these kind of lights as "Illegal" . . . True?"

Pursuant to its authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has promulgated a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires replacement lighting equipment to comply with the same requirements as are applicable to the original equipment that it replaces (see S5.8.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). If the replacement lighting equipment fails to comply, it may not be sold and the manufacturer (defined to include the importer) of the equipment must make a determination of noncompliance and inform us of that fact, and then notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliance. If the manufacturer fails to make such a determination, NHTSA may make the determination instead and order the manufacturer to notify and remedy.

"2. Without a printed Legal interpretation on this matter somewhere in Accessible Public Files . . . who is going to know of this decision. Therefore, why hasn't this action been publicly printed for all concerned to read?"

As required by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 and by 49 CFR Part 573, APC filed a Noncompliance Information Report with us on November 12, 1999 covering clear taillamp lenses that it had imported. The Recall Campaign Number is 99E-039. All Part 573 Reports are available to the public in NHTSA's Technical Reference section, and all recalls are tracked on the agency's internet Website, at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls.

In addition, we have responded to a request from a law enforcement officer in Arizona for an interpretation on the law on replacement taillamp lenses that are marked as intended for -off road. I enclose a copy for your information.

"3. Under what circumstances will NHTSA continue to decree Obviously "Non-Compliant", or "Confusing," or "Distracting" Lighting products as "illegal" for O.E.M. use by U.S. Vehicle Manufacturers, or for U.S. Aftermarket Sales . . . for the Replacement of Originally Mandated Lights?"

Standard No. 108 will continue to require replacement taillamp lenses and side and rear reflex reflectors to be red, and we foresee no circumstances under which we will change that requirement.

You have asked that we post your letter and our reply on NHTSA's website "so readers can compare my questions with your answers." As I indicated in response to your second question, it is our practice to post copies of our interpretations on our website. This letter repeats the questions you have asked, and it will be posted shortly after I have signed it.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.4/21/2000

ID: 21391.0gm

Mr. Rob McLaughlin
Health & Safety Manager
Circus Circus Hotel
500 North Sierra Street
Reno, NV 89503

Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

This responds to your letter and recent telephone call requesting permission to modify the lap and shoulder belt of a 1996 Nissan Altima that serves as a company mail vehicle and is used on a daily basis by a disabled employee of Circus Circus. You explain that the employee has a very limited use of her right arm and, due to her stature and her disability, finds that the existing combination lap/shoulder belt restricts her ability to drive. In order to accommodate this employee, you ask if the vehicle may be modified so that the existing lap/shoulder belt be replaced with separate lap and shoulder belts that would allow the employee to use only a lap belt when driving the car.

We would like to explain that the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to not exceed specified injury criteria during a test. In the instant case, Nissan certified that the vehicle met all applicable safety standards with an occupant protection system that includes a one piece lap and shoulder belt at the driver's seating position.

In order to accommodate the special needs of your employee, your company may, as explained below, modify the existing belt system or, in the alternative, install a separate lap belt for use by the disabled employee while leaving the existing original equipment belt system in place.

After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

If your company chooses to install a separate lap belt system in addition to the existing lap and shoulder belt provided by Nissan, the installation of such a belt, provided it did not interfere with the operation of the original equipment belt system, would not violate the prohibition on making a required safety device or feature inoperative. However, the seller of the belt, which in this case is presumably the repair business performing the modification, must ensure that the belt meets the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt assemblies (copy enclosed). Although we urge that care be taken in the installation of a second belt system, including selection of the belt and strength and position of the belt anchorages, Federal standards for those aspects of performance would not apply to such an additional voluntarily installed belt. The belt system itself, would still have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209, since it would be considered a "seat belt assembly."

The other course that may be pursued in resolving this issue is to modify the original equipment belt system to accommodate the particular disability of the employee. Currently, there is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses may modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

If your company chooses to have the existing belt system modified, this letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that replaces the existing combination lap/shoulder belt with separate lap and shoulder belts to accommodate the Circus Circus employee's condition

As noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the existing seat belts to accommodate your employee's condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. Nissan should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. In addition, if the vehicle is sold, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

We do not have specific information regarding how the occupant protection system for a Nissan Altima with separate lap and shoulder belts will perform in a crash. We note, however, the installation of separate lap and shoulder belts increases the possibility that the vehicle will be operated with one or more of these belts disconnected. The lap/shoulder belt provided with the vehicle was provided as one component of the overall restraint system and operation of the vehicle with the either just the lap belt or shoulder belt fastened may have a serious safety consequences, particularly since the vehicle is equipped with an air bag. In air bag equipped vehicles, the seat belts are designed to work in conjunction with the air bag and serve an important role in reducing or preventing injuries, including those that may result when an occupant is in close proximity to a deploying air bag. You may wish to ask Nissan what effect replacing the existing lap/shoulder belt with separate lap and shoulder belts may have on the vehicle, which may influence your decisions regarding modification of the seat belts.

You may be interested to know that the agency is considering regulating the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this rulemaking would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 28, 1998, in the Federal Register and expect to issue a final rule in the near future.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. James Cirone
RCS Conversions
#3 East Freeport Blvd.
Sparks, NV 89431

ref:208
d.10/17/00

ID: 21406.ztv

Herr Tilman Spingler
Automotive Lighting Reutlingen GmbH
Tubinger Strasse 123
72762 Reutlingen
Germany

Dear Herr Spingler:

This is in reply to your fax of March 16, 2000, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3 specifies requirements for headlamp visual/optical aiming. You note that this paragraph "does not say anything about the measuring distance and the diameter of the photocell to be used when measuring the cut-off for determination of position and quality of the cut-off." You state that the preamble to the final rule adopting S7.8.5.3 mentions a GTB document in which "a measuring distance of 10m and a diameter of the photocell has been proposed." According to your letter, the rationale behind the proposals was that visual aiming, where ever conducted in Europe be done at a 10m distance, "and the instrumental method developed for FMVSS 108 should reflect the 'real world' of visual aiming at that time."

Your question, then, is whether it is permissible for a headlamp manufacturer to "measure the cut-off at 10m with a 10mm photocell for aiming purposes and then measure the light intensity of the correctly aimed headlamp at equal or more than 18.3m. We confirm that this is permissible for the reason indicated below.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3 was adopted pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking in which the attending parties concurred in the drafting and adoption of the language of the preamble and the resulting rule. Although the 10m distance and diameter of the measuring photocell were not incorporated into Standard No. 108, there was unanimous agreement as to this basis for specifying the measuring procedures. The text to which you refer appears at 62 FR 10710 (March 10, 1997). We noted in this preamble (p. 10711) that a procedure had been developed which provided a baseline system for the visual aim test. The procedure was developed by the Groupe de Travail "Bruxelles 1952" (GTB) Short-term Scientific Studies Working Group (SSST WG), and set forth in "Draft minutes of the Meeting held at Budapest 1995 October 3," which is filed in our rulemaking docket as attachment 3-9 to the Committee's minutes of Meeting No. 3. This procedure specifies that the cut-off is to be measured at a distance of 10m using a photocell with an aperture of 10mm. This was understood by all the parties to the negotiated rulemaking, and we intend to include it in the text of Standard No. 108 itself in a future amendment.

In summary, a headlamp with a cut-off feature should be measured and aimed at 10m using a 10mm photocell, and its compliance with photometric requirements determined at 18.3m.

If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (fax 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/6/2000

ID: 21411

Mr. Eduardo A. Favela
P.O. Box 19995
Denver, CO 80219





Dear Mr. Favela:

This responds to your March 15, 2000, letter concerning a product that you have developed, called Seatlock. You ask whether the Seatlock is subject to any Federal standards or safety guidelines, and also ask if we have any safety concerns about the product.

You describe the Seatlock in a letter and in diagrams available on a web page. According to your letter and the information on your web page, the Seatlock is a device designed for use with child restraint systems, to reduce any slack left in the lap and shoulder belt used to secure the child seat in the vehicle. The Seatlock consists of a ratchet locking mechanism attached to a metal fork which slides over the webbing of the existing seat belt. Once the child seat is secured in the vehicle and the seat belt is fastened, the ratchet on the Seatlock is turned so that the belt webbing winds around the Seatlock's metal fork. As the ratchet mechanism allow the fork to turn in only one direction, the operation of the Seatlock tightens the seat belt and removes any slack. A release mechanism incorporated into the device can be used to release the tension on the seat belt so that the Seatlock can be removed. You state that the Seatlock does not interfere with the normal operation of the seat belt.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the Seatlock. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a supplemental belt that is used with a child safety seat. NHTSA also does not consider the Seatlock to be a seat belt assembly subject to Standard 209, as it is a supplemental accessory to the existing seat belt assembly and not intended to be used alone.

While no standard applies to the Seatlock, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. '30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

One concern we have relates to the additional stress that the operation of the Seatlock may place on other seat belt components, including the retractor and buckle mechanisms. While these components are required to withstand the high momentary forces that result in a crash, we note that the Seatlock, unless designed to limit the loads that can be applied by the user, has the potential to place a sustained load on the seat belt system that would be greater than that experienced in normal use. This sustained load, if maintained over a long period of time, could negatively impact the performance of the vehicle belt system. In addition, when the Seatlock is in place, it may generate sufficient tension on the seat belt buckle release mechanism to interfere with the normal operation of the buckle. This could make the child seat more difficult to remove in an emergency situation.

For your information, passenger vehicles manufactured since September 1, 1995, are required to have a locking mechanism for the lap belt or lap belt portion of lap and shoulder belts, to enable them to be capable of being used to tightly secure child safety seats without the necessity of the users attaching any device to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. In addition, under a final rule issued by the agency in March 1999, vehicle manufacturers are required, beginning on September 1, 2000, to equip a percentage of the cars they produce with a uniform child restraint attachment. This uniform child restraint attachment, when used with a compatible child seat, eliminates the need to secure a compatible child restraint with a seat belt. Instead, the child restraint itself will engage the restraint attachment and latch directly to the structure of the vehicle. Under this final rule, all passenger cars and light trucks manufactured after September 1, 2002, will be required to have the uniform attachments.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Otto Matheke or Ms. Deirdre Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.10/17/00

ID: 21419.drn

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865





Dear Mr. Yousry:





This responds to your request for an interpretation of wiped or cleared areas specified in Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You asked two questions, which are answered below.

Your letter concerns S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104, which establishes three windshield areas, designated as "A," "B," and "C," for passenger cars. Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the windshield area wiped as indicated in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a (May 1966), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III and IV of Standard No. 104. The standard also provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

You note that Standard No. 104 does not specify whether Areas A, B and C must fall inside the boundaries of the daylight opening of the windshield. You state that new passenger car designs may utilize smaller windshields, even though the overall width of the vehicle may not be any narrower than typical passenger cars. You believe that on such smaller windshields, parts of Areas A, B, and C may fall outside the daylight opening or even outside the area bounded by the windshield frame.

Your first question asks "Must all of the area of windshield areas A, B and C fall inside the area of the windshield bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening?"

The answer is no. In an interpretation letter of May 6, 1997, to Mr. Jiri Misik (copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated that Area A is that portion of the total area bounded by the angles in Tables I through IV of Standard No. 104 that is also within a perimeter 25 mm within the daylight opening of the windshield frame. The agency noted that it is not necessary that the windshield be large enough to contain the whole area bounded by angles (of which 16 to 18 is the left border).

Although the answer to Mr. Misik addressed only Area A, the analysis also applies to Areas B and C.

Your second question asks:

(a)  Should the percentage of the areas A, B and C, which must be wiped, be calculated utilizing the full areas of A, B, and C even if parts thereof are outside the daylight opening of the windshield?

(b)  Or, should the percentages of areas A, B and C, which must be wiped, be calculated utilizing only parts of areas A, B and C that actually fall inside the area of the windshield bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening?

As explained below, the answer to the second question is (b). In Standard No. 104, S4.1.2 states the following:

Wiped area. When tested wet in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, and C of the windshield (established in accordance with S4.1.2.1) that (1) is specified in column 2 of the applicable table following subparagraph S4.1.2.1 and (2) is within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

The description and control of the minimum windshield area to be wiped is described at S3.1 of SAE Standard J903a (copy enclosed). S3.1.2.1 states in part:

The minimum windshield area that shall be wiped is described by the use of three specific areas on the windshield glazing surface. The three areas are identified in Table 1 as areas A, B, and C. Each area has been established using the angles of Table 1 applied as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. In Fig. 1 (side view), the upper and lower boundary of the area is established by the intersection of two planes, tangent to the upper and lower sides of the eye range contour, with the windshield glazing surface. The planes are fixed by angles above and below the glazing surface reference line. In Fig. 2 (plan view), the left and right boundaries of the area are established by the intersection of two planes tangent to the left and right sides of the eye range contour. The planes are fixed by angles to the left and right of the plan view reference line. ...

S3.1.2.1's description means that Areas A, B and C are not fixed, predetermined areas for all windshields, but are areas that vary from windshield to windshield. The variables are the angle of measurement and the width of the car. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 adds another variable by describing Areas A, B and C as within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

Please note that in Standard No. 104, Tables I, II, III, and IV all specify that after the test is conducted, a minimum of 80% of Area A must be wiped, a minimum of 94% of Area B must be wiped, and a minimum of 99% of Area C must be wiped.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:104
d.8/11/00

ID: 21467.ztv

Mr. Herb Brown
Vice President of Sales
Air Fender Systems
P.O. Box 552
Oskaloosa, KS 66066

Dear Mr. Brown:

This is in reply to your letter of March 20, 2000, to Stephen Wood of this Office. Your company manufacturers "a wheel fender designed to reduce splash and spray for tractor trailers." You state that "the fender extends a maximum of 3" beyond the tires on each side. With reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, you have asked "as a splash and spray reduction item are the fenders covered under the same portion of the provision as mud flaps?" You have enclosed a product brochure describing the fenders and showing them mounted to a tractor trailer.

The only direct reference to mud flaps in Standard No. 108 appears in Note 1 which follows Table IV. Tables I and II apply to specified motor vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more; Tables III and IV to specified vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches. Note 1 states that the term " overall width" of a vehicle refers to "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of . . . flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps. . . ." Thus, a manufacturer must determine the overall width of its vehicle in order to discern the requirements with which it must comply, and this determination does not have to include flexible fender extensions. However, your product is clearly the fender itself, and not an extension of a fender. Nor is there any indication as to whether your fender is "flexible." The overall width of the tractor trailer fitted with your fenders, then, includes the total of 6 inches added by the fenders beyond the tires. We're not sure how this interpretation affects you under Standard No. 108 because tractor trailers are invariably manufactured with an overall width of more than 80 inches. There may be overall width restrictions of 96 or 108 inches for use of vehicles on certain roads, but the definition of "overall width" for those purposes is established by State and Federal authorities other than this agency, and they are not required to adopt our definition of overall width.

There is an indirect reference to mud flaps in Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1 requires that lamps and reflectors be "securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle." In our opinion, mud flaps are not rigid parts of a vehicle, and equipment required by Standard No. 108 cannot be mounted on them. Although the composition of your fenders is not stated, they appear to be rigid within the intent of S5.3.1 so that lighting equipment could be mounted to them, provided that, once installed, they complied with the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/19/00

ID: 21472limitprodtireneb

Mr. James H. Johnson
Falken Technical Services
Falken Tire Corp.
10404 Sixth Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter requesting an opinion concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

You state in your letter that Falken Tire is planning to import a limited number of tires in six sizes for use by weekend club racers whose rules require that their tires be DOT numbered and "street legal". With regard to these tires, your parent company, Ohtsu Tire and Rubber, questions whether they can be considered "limited production" as defined in 49 CFR 575.104(c), so that the testing and assignment of UTQG ratings is not required although, as you state, the tires would otherwise meet all DOT requirements including markings. Specifically you ask for an interpretation as to (1) whether a limited production tire must meet all criteria listed in 49 CFR 575.104(c)(2), and (2) whether 49 CFR 575.104(c)(c)(2)(iii) "applies to a tire manufacturer or is aimed at the vehicle manufacturer who imports less than 10,000 vehicles". As discussed below, the answer to your first question is yes, a limited production tire must meet all the criteria listed in 49 CFR 575.104(c)(2), and the answer to your second question is that paragraph (c)(2)(iii) applies to Falken Tire, as the tire manufacturer, in this instance.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30123 directs the Secretary to prescribe a uniform quality grading system (UTQGS) for motor vehicle tires. The UTQGS may be found at 49 CFR 575.104.

The penalties for violation of the UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 578.6 which provides civil penalties of up to $1,100 for each violation of our statute. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 30163 gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Chapter 301, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS.

Turning now to your first question, 49 CFR 575.104(c) provides that the UTQGS apply to new pneumatic passenger car tires. The standards do not apply, however, to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rims diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or "limited production" tires. In order to qualify as a limited production tire, section 575.104(c)(2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet:

(i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000;

(ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;

(iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture; and

(iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires.

Section 575.104(c) also states that "tire design" is "the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does include cosmetic, identifying or other minor variations among tires."

With regard to your second question, section 575.104(a) "requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide information...". Therefore, paragraph (c)(2)(iii) applies to you, as the tire manufacturer, in this instance. In order for Falken Tire to ascertain whether the subject tires meet all of the criteria for limited production tires, you must determine the motor vehicles for which the stated sizes were designated as recommended tire sizes during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, and the domestic production or importation of each of those vehicles for that calendar year.

For your additional information, because paragraph (c)(2)(iii) refers to "a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation (emphasis added)" and "a new motor vehicle (emphasis added), the 10,000 vehicle limitation refers to the production or importation of particular vehicle models, rather than the total of all models for which the tire size is recommended. Thus, if a tire's size is recommended for use on several vehicle models, none of which is produced in or imported into the United States in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, the tire would meet the criterion of paragraph (c)(2)(iii).

I am enclosing a copy of 45 FR 23442, dated April 7, 1980, the final rule which initially exempted limited production tires from the UTQGS. That notice explains the rationale for exempting limited production tires and other background information you may find helpful.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff of (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Enclosure
ref:575
d.5/26/00