ID: 8263

Mr. Steven C. Friedman
Director of New Product Development
Saddleman, Inc.
P.O. Box 3656
80 West 900 South
Logan, UT 84323-3656

Dear Mr. Friedman:

This responds to your January 19, 1993, letter asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. 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 vehicle safety standards applicable to 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). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection 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, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars 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).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like.

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is the "render inoperative" prohibition 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 device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. Please note that recently a manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide any crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants recalled its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I also note that, based on the product information you provided with your letter, NHTSA technical staff raised possible concerns about the air bag you are considering importing. The design differs from other air bags in two significant ways. First, while the crash sensor for air bag systems is normally located in the vehicle structure, yours is not. Second, while air bags generally are released toward the driver's chest from the steering wheel, your air bag would be released from above toward the driver's face and chest.

For driver crash protection, the crash sensor of an air bag system must initiate deployment of the air bag early enough in a crash to position the inflated air bag between the driver and the steering wheel in time to cushion the impact. At the same time, it must not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. Given the ways in which the crash sensor of your system differs from other air bag systems, our technical staff questions whether it is possible for it to initiate deployment early enough in a crash to provide occupant protection yet not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. In addition, while the inadvertent deployment of any air bag system would raise safety concerns, the location of your air bag would increase those concerns, since it would appear to interfere with the driver's forward vision even after deflation.

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 get 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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#208 d:3/26/93

ID: 8268

Mr. Jeff Gerner
Product Engineering Manager
Banner Welder, Inc.
N117 W18200 Fulton Drive
Germantown, WI 53022

Dear Mr. Gerner:

This responds to your inquiry about whether the mobile screening and shredding equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that your equipment is designed to be used primarily in off-road environments such as compost sites similar to landfills, but may be towed over the public roads to multiple sites. You stated that most purchasers of your equipment use it at an off-road site for extended time periods, but occasionally the equipment will be moved from one off-road to another off-road site on a more frequent basis. You stated that it would be inconvenient for your equipment to comply with Standard No. 121's emergency braking requirements because a truck with an air brake system would be needed at all times to move your equipment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, this agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"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."

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority. Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the literature provided in your letter and the subsequent telephone conversation, the agency believes that the on-highway use of your equipment is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Accordingly, it appears that your mobile screener and shredder are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, they would not be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

This conclusion is based on the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. We note that while your letter stated that your equipment may be moved "daily or weekly" on the public roads to other sites, you stated in the telephone conversation that such frequent movement is rare and that this equipment is primarily for off-road purposes. The agency would reconsider this determination if it obtained information indicating that the equipment's on-highway use is more than "incidental."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:4/26/93

ID: 8280

Joseph S. Kaplan, Esq.
Ross & Hardies
65 East 55th Street
New York, NY 10022-3219

Re: Request for a Legal Interpretation New Flyer Industries, Ltd.

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

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 "[t]he 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 system, 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 l5 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 "[w]ith 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).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:2/3/93:OCC 8280:62992 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron Interps. Part 591; Part 568, Redbook (4) 8280; ztv; U:\ncc20\interp\591\8280.ztv

ID: 8292

Mr. John B. White
Industry Standards & Government Regulations
Michelin
Post Office Box 2501
Greenville, SC 29602

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify our certification procedures for the information of some of your customers. Specifically, you stated that some customers believe that you are required to test your tires for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), and that this agency then certifies your tires after reviewing and evaluating your test results.

Those impressions are incorrect. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, New pneumatic tires, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, found at 49 CFR 571.119. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act) establishes a self-certification procedure applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. This means that the tire manufacturer, and not a governmental agency such as NHTSA, certifies that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. Each new tire must be certified as meeting the applicable FMVSSs regardless of whether the tire meets an equal or higher standard in another country.

The UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative ratings of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers. Again, that is the manufacturers' responsibility and NHTSA neither reviews nor approves the ratings prior to their assignments by the manufacturers.

Neither the Safety Act nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a manufacturer base its certifications on any specific tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with applicable Federal safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before introduction into the U. S. retail market. Similarly, NHTSA does not approve or certify manufacturers' test results. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If they fail the tests and are determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. Government compliance test results are available to the public upon request from the NHTSA Technical Reference Division (NAD 52), 400 Seventh Street SW, Room 5108, Washington, D.C. 20590; (202) 366-2768.

I hope this information will assist you in clarifying tire certification requirements to the satisfaction of your customers. If you have any further questions or desire further clarification, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:#109#119#575 d:4/27/93

ID: 8301

Mr. Guy Dorleans
International and Regulatory Affairs Manager
Valeo
34, rue Saint-Andre
93012 Bobigny Cedex
France

Dear Mr. Dorleans:

We have received your letter of January 22, 1993, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to aimability of headlamps.

Valeo is currently studying new principles for aiming small circular headlamps. It appears that these headlamps will require unique aiming adaptors (meaning that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with them). These adaptors will be placed in the trunk of any vehicle with which they are supplied, and relevant instructions for use will be included in the vehicle operator's manual. Valeo has asked for confirmation that each version complies with Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provided with a motor vehicle, only that the vehicle's headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that an adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an owner of a vehicle with the new headlamps may encounter difficulties at State inspection stations where the Hopkins adaptor is in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim of headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the new headlamps.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 D:3/4/93

ID: 8302

Mr. Robert A. Ernst
Research Coordinator
I-Car Tech Center
4 Systems Drive, Suite C
Appleton, WI 54914

Dear Mr. Ernst:

This responds to your February 4, 1993, letter concerning possible legal obligations to repair an air bag system following a collision. You stated that your organization produces technical training for the automotive collision repair industry and has received a number of inquiries concerning this issue. Your specific questions are addressed below. Where two questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

1. Are there Federal regulations which specifically direct the collision repair facility to restore the supplemental restraint system to an operable condition following a deployment on vehicles the facility repairs?

4. Can the vehicle be sold if the owner knows that the supplemental restraint is inoperable because of a previous deployment?

I am enclosing a copy of a January 19, 1990, letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad which addresses the issue of possible legal obligations to repair a deployed air bag following a collision. As explained in that letter, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

2. If repairs are deliberately made to mask the fact that the air bag system is inoperative, has the repair facility violated any applicable laws?

Section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After an air bag is deployed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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.

As explained in the Conrad letter enclosed, this provision does not impose an affirmative duty on a repair business to replace an air bag that was damaged in a crash. However, this section would prohibit the repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the readiness indicator. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

3. If the owner of the vehicle requests that the supplemental restraint not be restored to operational condition, is the owner of the repair facility or the vehicle liable for later injuries?

Liability risk is a question of state law, not of Federal law. Therefore, a repair business should consult an attorney in its state about this question.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#208 d:3/4/93

ID: 8303

Ms Beverley Silver-Corber
6738 Montgomery St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6P 4G4

Dear Ms Silver-Corber:

This is in reply to your letter to the agency with respect to your wish to import into the United States a l992 Honda Accord, which was not manufactured to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. You would like to use the car for a two-year period in the U.S. while your husband is in graduate school. You have asked whether you qualify for an exemption, and whether you will be allowed to import the car for the two years of study.

Under regulations of the Department of Transportation that govern the importation of motor vehicles, you, as a nonresident of the United States, are permitted to import your nonconforming Honda for a period of up to one year, provided that the importation is for your personal use, that you will not sell it during that time, and that the vehicle will be exported not later than the end of one year after entry (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 591.5(d)). The reason for the one-year limitation is that, under the Road Traffic Convention (1952) and the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles (1957), Conventions to which the United States is a party, an imported vehicle may be subjected to all the laws of any country in which it has remained longer than one year, including import duties and taxes. In recognition of the effect of these Conventions, we have adopted a one-year limitation on the temporary importation of nonconforming vehicles by nonresidents, and we do not grant waivers or exemptions from this requirement. However, if you return in the Honda to Canada at the end of the first year of your husband's studies, we would regard the export provisions as having been met, and a new one-year period would begin when the car is re-imported into the U.S. for your husband's second year of studies.

Although our regulations do provide for indefinite entry of nonconforming vehicles that are imported for "research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training" (Section 591.5(j)), we do not interpret this as applying to importers who come to the U.S. to study. Rather, it applies to the importer who wishes to import a vehicle so that it may be studied.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:2/19/93

ID: 8317

Mr. Milford R. Bennett
Acting Director
Automotive Safety Engineering
GM Environmental and Energy Staff
Box 9055
Warren, MI 48090-9055

Dear Mr. Bennett:

We have received the petition by General Motors (GM) for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures.

First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until "resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . ." We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV.

We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be "slightly below" the minimum requirements "at a few test points". Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points?

Similarly, GM has argued that "preliminary testing has indicated that" the GMEV will "substantially comply" with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide ". . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . ." Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition.

Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that "the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles." The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above.

When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:3/15/93

ID: 8326

March 30, 1993

Mr. Marty D. Pope President Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc. 6702 North Highway 66 Claremore, OK 74017

Dear Mr. Pope:

This responds to your February 18, 1993 letter to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter and in telephone conversations with Mr. Myers that your firm obtains used wheels from salvage yards, mostly passenger car wheels, refurbishes them by sandblasting and refinishing them, then sells them to manufacturers of utility trailers. You asked how to "bring the wheels manufactured before 1977 up to standards" (referring to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars), and whether it is possible to "stamp the wheels previous to 1977 with a regulation code to approve their usability." "Wheels" refers to the wheel rim and the hub to which the rim is attached.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles (including trailers) and new items of motor vehicle equipment (including tires and wheels). The purpose of Standard 120 is to provide safe operational performance by ensuring that vehicles to which it applies are equipped with tires of adequate size and load rating and with rims of appropriate size and type designation. The standard applies to new trailers, and to rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Violations of any of the standards are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum fine of up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

You ask about our requirements for the rims of the wheels you refurbish. The answer depends on whether the rim is intended to be installed on a new trailer or intended as a replacement rim for a used trailer.

If the rim is intended for a new trailer, the new trailer manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 120. Standard 120 establishes two requirements for the vehicle. First, S5.1.1 requires that the rims on a new trailer be listed by the manufacturer of the tires mounted on the trailer as suitable for use with those tires. Second, the rims on a new trailer must meet the rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120. Since the rims you refurbish were originally passenger car rims, they will not have the required markings, regardless of date of manufacture, because Standard 120 does not apply to passenger car rims. Therefore, trailer manufacturers may not install passenger car rims on new trailers unless those rims are marked in accordance with Standard 120.

If the rim is intended as a replacement rim on a used trailer, different requirements apply. The rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120 apply only to new rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Refurbished wheels sold for used trailers are considered used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Standard 120, and are thus not subject to the rim marking requirements of the standard. As pointed out above, however, a new or refurbished rim installed on a new trailer must meet the rim selection and marking requirements of Standard 120 (S5.1.1 and S5.2).

Relatedly, you ask about marking a used rim with the information required by Standard 120 for new rims. Any rim, new or used, that is installed on a new vehicle must be marked with the "regulation code" (i.e., the "DOT" symbol constituting the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard 120) and the other information required by the standard. However, a rim manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, that is sold as a replacement rim must not be marked with the DOT symbol. NHTSA has long held that manufacturers may not show the DOT certification on items of motor vehicle equipment to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies. The reason for that decision is that such a certification would be false and misleading to NHTSA and to consumers who might assume that the item was subject to and met a Federal safety standard. Thus, since Standard 120 does not apply to rims manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, such rims cannot now be marked with the DOT symbol.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of the Safety Act. The first provision is 108(a)(2)(A), which provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. This means that a person in these categories cannot remove the label information required by Standard 120 during the refurbishing process.

Second, under 151-157 of the Safety Act, manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., wheel rims) are responsible for safety-related defects in their products. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety- related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a defective wheel rim is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) A refurbished rim that had been previously damaged (e.g., cracked, bent, or pitted) might not be capable of performing safely while in service.

For your further information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations and a fact sheet entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. The pamphlet briefly summarizes each of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the fact sheet advises where to obtain the full text of those standards and our other regulations. You may also find helpful the attached fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

We also note that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a regulation on the refurbishing of damaged rim components. You can contact OSHA at (202) 219- 7202, ATTN: Mr. Richard Sauger, for information about that regulation.

I hope this information is will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:120 d:3/31/93

ID: 8353

Mr. Thomas C. Baloga
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07450-0350

Dear Mr. Baloga:

This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to a special seat belt installation in a Mercedes-Benz car owned by a man who weighs approximately 500 pounds. You stated that the owner cannot use the driver-side seat belt because of his large body size and that your special order 12- inch longer belt is still too short. You indicated that your factory has supplied a 30-inch longer seat belt, but that the extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard No. 209:

--the seat belt will not completely roll up into the B- pillar due to excessive webbing on the spool;

--the seat belt has not been tested for retraction spring durability and therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test;

--no certification label is attached.

As you are aware, our agency 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 by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

In certain limited situations in the past where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability, NHTSA has stated that it would consider certain violations of Safety Act provisions as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above, as we equate the special needs of a 500 pound individual with the needs associated with a disability. I note that we expect manufacturers to provide complying seat belts that are appropriate for the normal range of occupant sizes, including large persons. Mercedes-Benz appears to do this, as it provides a (presumably complying) special order 12-inch longer belt for large persons. We recognize that a 500 pound individual is outside the normal range of occupant sizes.

You stated that requests for extra long seat belts are likely to continue and asked whether Mercedes-Benz needs to advise NHTSA of each and every special installation or whether it is sufficient to keep appropriate records of the VIN. I note that if the agency was presented again with the same factual situation, we would expect to make the same decision. However, we would want to be advised of each such special installation. One of the factors behind our position is the special nature of the factual situation. If Mercedes-Benz wanted to provide extra long seat belts on a routine basis, we would expect it to provide a design that fully complies with Standard No. 209.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Jerry Sonosky, Esq. Hogan & Hartson ref:209#108 d:3/10/93