ID: nht93-1.31

DATE: 02/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAMES L. VASKO

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-13-93 FROM JAMES L. VASKO TO NHTSA (OCC 8257)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1993, to the agency in which you call our attention to your invention, the "Front Brake Light System." You have informed us that your invention utilizes "the present turn signal lights . . . to notify the driver and or pedestrian in front of the vehicle that the vehicle is in a braking mode," and that this is accomplished with only the present circuitry. You wish to "open a dialogue" with us and will answer any questions we may have.

We do have some questions about this invention. As you know, the individual front turn signal lamps also operate in tandem as hazard warning signal lamps, and flash simultaneously when the hazard warning switch is activated. We assume that your invention flashes both front signal lamps when the brake pedal is applied, and request confirmation of our assumption. We would also appreciate knowing how this is accomplished without "necessity and expense of adding new, complicated apparatus" as you put it. If, on the other hand, the front signal lamps are activated in a steady-burning state, that would be of interest to us. Finally, we would appreciate your views as to how this device would enhance safety, as our concerns have been directed to warning those to the rear of the vehicle that it is about to stop, rather than those to the front.

When we have this information, we shall be pleased to provide you with an interpretation as to the relationship of your invention to the statutes and regulations that this agency administers.

ID: nht93-1.32

DATE: 02/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

COPYEE: UNDER SECRETARY -- KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-2-92 FROM FRANK E. TIMMONS TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8088); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER (DATE ILLEGIBLE) FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, TO PAUL J. RICE

TEXT: This responds to your letter about our November 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce. In that letter, NHTSA discussed Federal requirements for tires sold in the United States for passenger cars and other "motor vehicles." You wish to ensure that the Under Secretary understands that the term "motor vehicles" only refers to vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on highways."

We are glad to clarify the meaning of the term "motor vehicle." "Motor vehicle" is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (Emphasis added.) Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

This agency has issued many interpretations of what is and what is not a "motor vehicle." In general, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Likewise, vehicles that are designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of its customers actually would use them on the highway.

Vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are considered motor vehicles. Furthermore, even if the majority of a vehicle's use will be off-road but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, this agency has interpreted that to be a motor vehicle.

We appreciate your interest in this matter and will provide the Under Secretary with a copy of this letter. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht93-1.33

DATE: 02/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHRISTOPHER J. DANIELS NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-18-92 FROM CHRISTOPHER J. DANIELS TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8199)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Paul Jackson Rice, our former Chief Counsel, in which you referred to a tire manufactured in Canada that had had the "DOT number" obliterated. Because you think the tire was improperly sold in that condition, you asked whether it was illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT number and whether it was illegal to sell or use a tire on the highway without a "DOT serial number."

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq., as amended (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Higway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, the latter of which includes tires. All new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. This requirement is found at Section 1397 (a) (1) (A) of the Safety Act which provides "No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard. . . ." The effect of that language is to require that tires manufactured on or after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be legally imported into the U.S. Pursuant to Standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109, New Pneumatic Tires) and Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars), tire manufacturers must certify compliance therewith by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Further, 49 CFR 574.5 requires that all tires sold in the U.S. have tire identification numbers (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the manufacturers to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

With that background in mind, your specific questions are answered as follows:

1. Is it illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT serial number? Answer: Yes. Each tire imported into the U.S. for highway use must have molded into or onto the sidewall a TIN and a DOT symbol or in the alternative, be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable safety standards. The only exception to these requirements is that used truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread remaining and which are being imported solely for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the TIN or the DOT symbol.

2. Is it illegal to sell or use a tire for highway use without the DOT serial number? Answer: It is illegal for a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to sell a new or retreaded tire to the first customer for purposes other than resale without the DOT symbol and the TIN molded into or onto the sidewall. There are no Federal requirements for the use of such tire once it has been sold to the first customer. There may, however, be state safety requirements pertinent to the use of motor vehicle equipment. For that information you should check with appropriate state officials.

If the tire in question is intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check also with the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (Room 3404), of the Federal Highway Administration, at this address. (Telephone (202) 366-1790.)

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-1.34

DATE: 02/12/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH S. KAPLAN -- ROSS & HARDIES

TITLE: REQUEST FOR A LEGAL INTERPRETATION NEW FLYER INDUSTRIES, LTD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-29-93 FROM JOSEPH S. KAPLAN TO JOHN WOMACH (WOMACK)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1993, requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR 591.5(e) as it relates to the products of your client, New Flyer Industries, Ltd.

Section 591.5(e) permits the importation into the United States of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that is not in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon the declaration of the importer that "[the] vehicle or equipment item requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function other than the addition of readily attachable equipment items . . . ." New Flyer exports "bus shells" to the United States, which have been painted and equipped with tires and rims. You have informed us that the shells are completed as buses in the United States by the addition of "bumpers, engine and oil filter (or propulsion system), power plant, starter system, cooling syste, fuel system, interior lighting, electric system, destination signs, seating and stanchions, heating and air conditioning system, chair lift (except on low floor buses) and various option packages." Approximately 300 hours are required to finish the shells after their arrival. You ask for confirmation that the bus shells may be imported pursuant to section 591.5(e), without the necessity for bonding.

From our review of this matter, we have concluded that a New Flyer bus shell lacking its intended motive power is neither a "motor vehicle," as defined by 15 U.S.C. 102(3), nor an "incomplete vehicle" as defined by 49 CFR 568.3. Instead, as systems or parts of a motor vehicle, the bus shell is an assemblage of "motor vehicle equipment", as defined by 15 U.S.C. 102(4). It is manifest from your description that the assemblage requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function, and that these operations involve more than the addition of readily attachable equipment items such as wheel covers and windshield wipers. Therefore, it is permissible for a New Flyer bus shell assemblage to be imported pursuant to the declaration of 49 CFR 591.5 (e). As you have affirmed, each declaration will be accompanied by a written statement in accordance with 49 CFR 591.6(b) (2). We confirm that entries under 49 CFR 591.5(e) are not subject to the bonding requirements of this agency. However, they may be subject to those of the U.S. Customs Service.

You should be aware that certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly to equipment items (as contrasted with applying to completed motor vehicles), and if the bus shell assemblage includes those items, they must comply at the time of importation. Thus, the tires and rims on the assemblage must conform, and be certified as conforming, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 119 and 120. If the shell contains window glazing, it must meet Standard No. 205.

Finally, we note your remark that "[with] regard to the documentation requirements of 49 C.F.R. 568.4 applicable to incomplete vehicles, the information required will be furnished when the completed buses are sold and delivered." As we have commented, the bus shell is not an incomplete vehicle, and the statement required by section 591.6(b) (2) is all the documentation that is required under the facts as you have related them to us. The bus shell will not become an "incomplete vehicle" until its power train is added, and the documentation specified by section 568.4 is not required to be furnished unless the bus is completed by a different manufacturer. All that is required to "be furnished when the completed buses are sold and delivered" is the permanently affixed certification of conformance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Part 567).

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

ID: nht93-1.35

DATE: 02/16/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: J. C. TOWNLEY -- JAY TOWNLEY & ASSOCIATES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-24-92 FROM JAY C. TOWNLEY TO PAUL J. RICE

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter of November 24, 1992, asking for "an advisory opinion that the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle is not a 'motor vehicle' or 'motor driven cycle' within the meaning of the Safety Act and regulations promulgated thereunder." Previously, we had acknowledged your withdrawal of your request for confidentiality.

The Yamaha is "a bicycle equipped with a battery powered pedal assist system that engages when the system senses 'kicking' torque between 5 Kg and 50 Kg, such as when the bicycle is starting from a stop, or climbing hills." It is intended to facilitate standing starts in traffic, assist in climbing hills, and to "keep up the pace when a rider becomes fatigued while commuting, running an errand or exercising. The system is designed to engage when the driver is actively pedaling, and to disengage when the speed is less than 1.24 mph or more than 15 mph, when torque at the pedals is less than 11 lbs or more than 110 lbs, and when the braking system is activated. The photographs you have enclosed show, in all important respects, vehicles configured as conventional bicycles.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), defines a "motor vehicle," in pertinent part, as "any vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)). On November 6, 1974, the Consumer Product Safety Commission asked the agency whether a "motorized bicycle" was a "motor vehicle" if it utilized mechanical power to propel it "only some of the time." NHTSA replied on December 6 of that year that it considered motorized bicycles to be motor vehicles subject to its jurisdiction (specifically classified as motor-driven cycles), and that it did "not find it relevant to the question of safety standards' applicability that a particular vehicle, fully equipped to operate as a motor vehicle within the meaning of our Act, may also have the capability of operating in some other mode." Earlier that year, the agency had rejected arguments by Peugeot and Motobecane on behalf of their "mopeds" that vehicles which produce no more than 1.5 horsepower deserved a categorization other than as motor-driven cycles (motorcycles developing 5 horsepower or less), but it did amend the motorcycle lighting and braking standards to modify performance requirements for motor-driven cycles with a top speed of 30 mph or less, and to allow placement of the rear brake control on the left handlebar. Subsequently, on October 28, 1976, NHTSA informed Ohio Bikes, Inc. that a bicycle, even if used, became a newly manufactured motor vehicle when an engine was attached to it.

At first blush, it might appear that this line of interpretations should lead to a conclusion that the Yamaha is a "motor vehicle." However, we believe there is a significant difference between the Yamaha pedal assisted bicycle and motorized bicycles and mopeds. The propulsion systems of the latter vehicles enable them to operate on power without pedaling. However, the power assist of the Yamaha disengages when torque at the pedals is less than 11 pounds, which means that the system will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular effort.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 mph or less. While the Yamaha has a maximum speed of 20 mph or less, its body configuration does not distinguish it from motorized bicycles and mopeds. However, the vehicles that NHTSA addressed under this line of interpretations operated solely on power.

The Yamaha does not easily fit into our previous analyses concerning whether particular vehicles are considered "motor vehicles." After carefully considering the question, we have concluded that, in light of the combination of a low maximum speed while operating on power (the power of the Yamaha disengages when speed is more than 15 mph) and the fact that power is only provided if the operator is providing muscular effort (by continuously pedalling), the Yamaha is not a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. We note that, even with power assist, the operation of the Yamaha is essentially the same as that of a bicycle, i.e., the operator must pedal under the same circumstances as a traditional bicylist and the speed of the Yamaha does not differ from the speed of traditional bicycles.

Since the Yamaha is not a "motor vehicle," it is not subject to the jurisdiction of this agency. Vehicles that are not motor vehicles are subject to the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and you should consult the Commission for further information as to whether there are regulations that the Yamaha must meet.

ID: nht93-1.36

DATE: 02/16/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JUAN F. VEGA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM JUAN F. VEGA TO ANDREW CARD

TEXT: This responds to your letter addressed to former Secretary Card. Your letter expresses concern that vans used by the Florida State Prison to transport prisoners do not have seat belts. According to your letter and copies of other correspondence you enclosed, wood and metal benches are located along the sides of the rear area of the vans, and there are no side windows in that area. You state that you believe that this is a violation of Florida and Federal safety belt laws. Your letter has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response because it contains questions concerning laws and regulations administered by this agency.

Let me begin by making clear that I have no special knowledge or expertise with respect to Florida law. My answer will address only the requirements of the laws and regulations administered by this agency.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR 571.208) which, among other things, requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in motor vehicles. However, different requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific requirements for the vans you are concerned about without knowing the vehicles' date of manufacture, seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating.

The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b) (1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A). 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.

Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208. Thus, if a State purchases a vehicle and makes modifications itself, there is no violation of Federal law, even if the modifications vehicle does not comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht93-1.37

DATE: February 17, 1993

FROM: James L. Vasko

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-23-93 from John Womack to James L. Vasko (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 11-1-89 from Stephen P. Wood to John K. Moody

TEXT: Thank you for responding so quickly to my letter regarding my "Front Brake Light System". I will try to answer your questions as complete as possible. Please note any other questions or comments you may have as you continue through this letter and I will be happy to answer them in our next correspondence.

The answers to your questions are as follows. Your assumption is correct that my Front Brake Light System has no effect on the hazard warning system. The Front and Back hazard lights will remain the same as they are now.

The way the Front Brake Light System is accomplished without the necessity and expense of adding new complicated apparatus is by installing two wires and four clips. The wires would connect the master cylinder brake light switch to the front turn signals to act in unison with the back turn signals so they will act as brake lights as well as turn signals. The brake light switch and the turn signals switch are located under the dash on all vehicles. There would be no cost to manufacturers when new cars are built. Retrofiting existing vehicles would be a simple and in expensive matter and little cost to the consumer. Retrofiting could be done by any auto mechanic or smog station in less than 30 minutes. This Front Brake Light System will save more lives and prevent more accidents than the existing rear Brake Lights do today.

This Front Brake Light System will definitely enhance safety. The following are everyday scenarios:

1) Making a left turn in front of on-coming traffic will be much safer because you will be able to identify then on-coming vehicles will be in braking mode.

2) Pulling out into traffic will be safer as you can tell when a vehicle is slowing down, yielding for you.

3) Pulling out into an intersection with a green light, you could look left and right and make sure all vehicles have there front brake lights on showing that they are stopping.

4) Driver of a vehicle can glance into rear view mirror to see if vehicles are braking.

5) Pedestrians could be sure that vehicles are braking before stepping out into traffic, guessing should not be part of surviving.

6) I have operated emergency vehicles for the last 23 years as a Fremont Firefighter, all emergency vehicles are at grave risk with each and every call

they go out on. As the emergency vehicles approach intersections they have to look and guess if the vehicles are braking for there is no front brake indicators on vehicles forcing emergency vehicles to come to a complete stop at all intersections. Every city in the nation can show fatality accidents occur because we do not have front-end information.

7) Vehicles often have there turn signals on and fail to turn which causes many many accidents, as people think they are going to turn and pull out in front of a vehicle and they get hit. With the brake light system there, the Driver pulling out into traffic, would see the turn signal and the brake light showing that the vehicle was braking and turning.

8 ) The car in the lane next to you pulls ahead of you and signals to pull into your lane, you touch your brake peddle which signals to car in front of you that you are yielding for him to pull into your lane in front of you.

All drivers would learn quickly to key in on front brake lights making all phases of driving much safer and predictable. These scenarios go on and on, no one should ever have to say "I thought they were slowing down" or "I thought they saw me". Most accidents that occur are from lack of front-end information.

I'd be most interested to receive your interpretation of the relationship of my invention to the statutes and regulations that your agency administers. My FAX# is 1-510-792-6627, if wish to FAX a letter please feel free to do so.

It is for the benefit of all Americans that this new system be tested and placed in service as soon as possible because many lives are being lost or demaged daily because of lack of vehicle front-end information.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht93-1.38

DATE: 02/17/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: NILTON MELLO -- VITROTEC - VIDROS DE SEGURANCA LTDA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-26-92 FROM NILTON MELLO TO KATHLEEN DEMETER (OCC 8085)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about the exportation of your laminated motor vehicle windshields into the United States. According to your letter, you have already designated an agent in this country and have received your DOT number. You asked whether you are required to perform tests at an American laboratory before you can export your product into the United States. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue 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, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with safety standards and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products is also subject to civil penalties.

In response to your question about whether you are required to perform tests at an American laboratory, the answer is no. As indicated above, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are required to certify that their products comply with all applicable safety standard. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. You are not required to use the services of an American laboratory in conducting tests associated with certification.

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

ID: nht93-1.39

DATE: February 18, 1993

FROM: Marty D. Pope -- President, Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc.

TO: Walter Meyers -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from John Womack to Marty D. Pope (A40; Std. 120)

TEXT: Per our conversation on Motor Vehicle Safety Standards #120, S5.2, let me take a few minutes of your time to explain how this law is and will be affecting our business. Our company, Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc., refurbishes vast amounts of wheels that we obtain from numerous salvage yards. Most of the vehicles these wheels were removed from range from 1970 to 1993 vehicles. We blast the wheels down so we can put on a new finish on them. To give you an example of the business I have built, in 1992 we refurbished and sold over 100,000 wheels, 1993 promises to be even a better year. The wheels that my company refurbishes are sold to utility trailer manufacturers for use on their utility trailers. We have been in the trailer business for 15 years, in the wheel business for four years, all at the same location. We have over $100,000 in equipment to use to refurbish wheels. I employ eight people in the wheel shop. Our goal is to purchase $200,000 more in equipment. This equipment will employ at least five more people. This law went into effect in 1977, and up to this point I have not had a problem concerning this. This has put a hold on my business.

I am willing to comply to government regulations, but we need to know how to comply and what we can do to bring the wheels manufactured before 1977 up to standards. At the present time we have 10,000 wheels in stock, with 10% of the wheels in stock having the D.O.T. stamping on them. Is it a possibility to stamp the wheels previous to 1977 with a regulation code to approve their usability? In the past week orders have been placed for 24,000 wheels. As you can see my stock of D.O.T. stamped wheels and my orders do not come close. Please, I am needing your input on which avenues to take, and any help you can give us to save what it has taken hard work to build.

Mr. Myers, your immediate attention to this matter is needed and will be greatly appreciated, so I can keep the eight individuals employed and keep my production on line.

If I can offer any further information concerning this, please do not hesitate to call me.

ID: nht93-1.4

DATE: January 5, 1993

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signed by John Womack

TO: Daniel Cassese

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/19/92 from Daniel Cassese to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8034)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 19, 1992. Your letter describes your invention called a "Head Rest Extension." You asked if this invention would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 201, 202, and 208.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 ET SEQ.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal 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, however, 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.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards which could be relevant to a head rest extension: Standard No. 201, OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN INTERIOR IMPACT, Standard No. 202, HEAD RESTRAINTS, Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION, and Standard No. 302, FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS.

These four standards apply only to new vehicles, not to items of individual equipment. If the head rest extension were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including these four, with the head rest extension installed. However, as you have explained in a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, your product is intended to be an item of after-market equipment.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

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

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the

violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please not that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not require manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to certify that vehicles continue to comply with safety standards after any aftermarket modifications are made. Instead, "render inoperative" prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards.

Please note also that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your head rest extension in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

You should also note that a head rest extension would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. 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.