ID: nht94-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald F. Lett -- Lett Electronics Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/19/94 From Donald F. Lett To Department Of Transportation (OCC-9590)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lett:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether any "pre-necessary authorization" is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume "pre-necessary authorization" means this agency's prior approval or permis sion to modify the tires in the manner you propose.

You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 1/2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a "D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire" into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self-certification system, neither NH TSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSS s. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure t o

2

comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance.

It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 1/2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Th erefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the ti re. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer wo uld constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle rep air business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously- complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate @ 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above.

Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters "DOT" appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire compli es with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section

3

will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties.

In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely a ffected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems.

Finally, I note that you used the term "previously D.O.T. approved" tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation "approves" tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the "DOT" code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht74-3.11

DATE: 06/28/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

COPYEE: ING. Hans-Jurgen Sassor -- AUDI NSU Auto Union Germany

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 22, 1974, question whether Volkswagen's passive belt system may be equipped with a "comfort clip," and whether an optional Type I lap belt may be offered in conjunction with the passive system. Your passive system consists of an upper torso restraint and, in place of a lap belt, knee padding under the dashboard.

A vehicle which satisfies Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, may be equipped, at the option of the manufacturer, with additional safety belts which conform to Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. Additional belts, like any required belt, must conform to the S7.2 requirements for latch mechanisms.

S7.2 Latch mechanism. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenger car shall have a latch mechanism --

(a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions;

(b) That releases both the upper torso restraint and the lap belt simultaneously, if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant; and

(c) That releases at a single point by a push-button action.

This requirement assures that the occupant crash protection provided under Standard No. 208 is not diminished by a complicated and slow series of belt latch mechanisms which could otherwise be introduced into the vehicle.

Volkswagens' passive upper torso restraint and a separate active lap belt do not violate S7.2(b) in combination. Simultaneous release is required only "if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant." As described, Volkswagen's upper torso restraint does not require unlatching for release of the occupant.

With regard to our regulation of "comfort clips", we approved the use of a clip in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors, to relieve belt tension in limited circumstances. A copy of that letter is enclosed. In that case, the lap belt provided could be independently and firmly adjusted to limit occupant movement, providing protection in the event of lateral and rollover crashes. Until we have further details on the functioning of the Volkswagen clips, however, which we urge you to submit, we are unable to determine whether it would conform to the adjustment requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

May 22, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: MVSS 208, Occupant Protection - Request for Clarification

With the publication of Docket 74-4, Notice 2 (39 FR 14593), Volkswagen believes that MVSS 208 now adequately addresses the basic requirements covering passive belt systems, such as the Volkswagen passive shoulder belt/knee bolster restraint described in our petition of October 1, 1973.

However, in the final development phase of our passive belt system the possible inclusion of two ancillary devices came under consideration:

(1) the addition of an active lap belt,

(2) the addition of a "comfort clip" to the passive shoulder belt to relieve the belt force against the occupant during non-impact conditions.

Volkswagen respectfully requests NHTSA clarification of the current Federal requirements covering each of these items, which are discussed in more detail below.

1. Additional Active Lap Belt

Here we are interested in the requirements for the installation of active lap belts together with passive restraints, where the requirements of MVSS 208 are met by the passive restraints alone.

To our knowledge, the last published NHTSA statement addressing this matter appeared in 35 FR 16928 (Preamble to Docket 69-7, Notice 7): "Under the standard as adopted manufacturers will be free to supply seat belts as optional or standard equipment, but may not use them to satisfy the requirements of the standard. Standard No. 210 will continue to require seat belt anchorages to be installed by manufacturers, so that persons who wish to have seat belts installed in their vehicles, for their own use or for use with child seating systems, will be able to do so."

Specifically, we would like to know if a Type 1 lap belt (conforming to MVSS 209) can be installed in addition to the Volkswagen passive shoulder belt/knee bolster system, under either of the following circumstances:

a) where a vehicle equipped with the passive belt system alone meets the requirements of S4.1.2.2 and S4.5.3 of MVSS 208 (second option for passenger cars manufactured from Sept. 1, 1973 to the time when this option expires);

b) where a vehicle equipped with the passive belt system alone meets the requirements of S4.1.3 (a) through (d) (1) proposed in Docket 74-14, Notice 1, and S4.5.3 of MVSS 208.

Our main area of concern in this matter is in regard to the latch mechanism. The passive shoulder belt would have a latch mechanism conforming to S7.2 of MVSS 208, as required under S4.5.3.3(a). If the active lap belt is not governed by MVSS 208, the application of S7.2(b) of MVSS 208 for simultaneous release of lap and upper torso restraint is questionable.

2. Addition of "Comfort Clip"

We are aware that certain vehicles equipped with upper torso restraints with emergency-locking retractors incorporate belt force relief devices ("comfort clips") to make wearing of the belt more comfortable. Although the specifications governing these devices have not been incorporated into the Safety Standards, we understand that correspondence between individual manufacturers and the NHTSA has addressed the guidelines for their use. Since such a "comfort clip" could be applied to the VW passive belt, NHTSA clarification of the regulations relating to this specific usage is requested.

Your early attention to these inquiries would be greatly appreciated, in view of the lead-time constraints we would be facing for possible incorporation of the described items in 1975 model vehicles.

J. W. Kennebeck

Manager

Emissions, Safety & Development

ID: 7743

Under Secretary
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
P. O. Box No. 2944
KUWAIT

Dear Mr. Under Secretary:

This responds to your letter concerning United States tire regulations. You stated that some companies have been reported to be dumping defective and rejected tires in your country. In response to that situation, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a decree requiring that all imported tires must be new, must comply with international standards, and must be accompanied by a quality certificate issued by an independent, officially recognized authority which has the capability of testing and proving the quality of the tires in accordance with the standards. You stated that you have been unable to obtain such a certificate from the United States, but have received one from a company called Societe Generale de Surveillance, which issues a certificate for each shipment separately and does only visual tests and not laboratory testing. You stated that you have studied this agency's tire standards and posed a series of questions to us which I will endeavor to answer below.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Standard No. 109 (49 CFR Part 571.109), and all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.

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

The Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base its certification on a specified number of tests. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of the individual 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 Federal tire safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all requirements of the safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing or approval of tires. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For these 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 the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standards, the tire manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge.

With the above background in mind, I now turn to your specific questions:

1. Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the "DOT" mark? Answer: Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles. The "DOT" symbol molded onto at least one side of the tire is the manufacturer's certification that that tire complies with all applicable safety standards.

2. What are the bases for granting the right to use the "DOT" mark by tire manufacturers? Answer: The use of the "DOT" symbol on tires is a requirement imposed on tire manufacturers and not a right which is granted.

3. Is the "DOT" symbol required for tires intended both for domestic consumption and for export? Answer: NHTSA's safety standards do not apply to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are intended solely for export. Therefore, the "DOT" symbol is required only for tires intended for use in the United States.

4. Is there a validity time for the use of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: No. The symbol constitutes the manufacturer's certification that, at the time a new tire is manufactured, that tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

5. What is the relationship between your administration and the Department of Transportation concerning the implementation of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: NHTSA is a subordinate agency of the United States Department of Transportation.

6. What are the legal responsibilities of manufacturers by using the "DOT" symbol? Answer: As indicated above, by placing the "DOT" symbol on a tire the manufacturer certifies that, under the provisions of the Safety Act, the tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

7. What are the responsibilities of manufacturers in case of violations of the "DOT" symbol's role? Answer: If a tire is determined not to comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge. In addition, violations of Safety Act provisions may result in civil fines.

I hope that the information in this letter is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, however, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366- 3820.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref:#109#119#571#574 d:11/13/92

ID: nht74-5.25

DATE: 04/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 8, 1974, letter reviewing our disposition of Volkswagen's petition to add a new crash protection option to S4.1.2 of Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208). You requested a determination of whether the seat belt assembly described in that petition constitutes a passive restraint system for purposes of Standard 208, that is, one that requires "no action" by vehicle occupants.

The Volkswagen assembly consists of a single diagonal belt for restraint of the upper torso and an energy-absorbing knee bolster. Mounting of the upper torso restraint to the door causes the belt to move forward during occupant entry and then fall back across the occupant's torso when he is seated and the door is closed.

The NHTSA issued an interpretation of what constitutes a "passive" restraint system on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 4600):

The concept of an occupant protection system that requires "no action by vehicle occupants" as used in Standard No. 208 is intended to designate a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

Entry and exit action "that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present

2 in the vehicle" means that a person is not hampered in his normal movements by the presence of the belt system. A test of this is whether a human occupant of approximately the dimensions of the 50th percentile adult male finds it necessary to take additional actions to displace the belt or associated components in order to enter or leave the seating position in question. An example of impermissible action would be the necessity of manually pushing a belt out of the way to gain access to the seat. Displacement of the components incidental to normal entry and exit, or merely for the convenience of the occupant, would not be prohibited. Examples of permissible displacement would be brushing against the upper torso restraint during seating, or grasping the torso restraint to close the door.

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive restraint is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. At this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mi/h impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

The procedure for conducting this evaluation would be to have a human occupant enter the vehicle without taking any "additional actions" to displace the belt, to note the location of the belt on him before he exists, to position the test dummy in accordance with S8.1 of Standard 208, to position the belt as it positioned itself on the sample occupant, and then to conduct the impact tests. The exit evaluation would require the human occupant to be seated with the restraint normally deployed and then exit the vehicle without needing to take any separate actions to displace the belt.

This discussion is intended to permit you to evaluate your passive belt system under the language of the May 4, 1971, interpretation.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

March 8, 1974

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: The Volkswagen Passive Belt

This will refer to our telephone conversation of March 6, 1974, concerning Volkwagen's passive restraint system.

On October 1, 1973, Volkswagenwerk AG and Volkswagen of America, Inc. petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to add a new crash protection option to Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard 208 in order to permit use of Volkswagen's passive belt in 1975 as well as subsequent model year passenger cars and to make available other changes in Standard 208. A copy of Volkswagen's petition is enclosed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by Notice 1, Docket 74-4 published in 39 Federal Register 3834 dated January 30, 1974, denied that part of the petition that requested the additional option. The petition was rejected as unnecessary on the grounds that Paragraph S4.5.3 of Standard 208 already permitted the use of a passive belt system "to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option." The Notice further concludes that "thus, this language permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of Option 2 and to replace the required seat belt assemblies. Option 2 exists, in fact, to accommodate date the introduction of passive restraint systems like Volkswagens, which cannot yet meet all requirements of Option 1."

2

While we have recognized that Notice 1 is essentially a proposal for rule making without binding effect as a rule or regulation, it also disposes unconditionally of that part of Volkswagen's petition which sought the inclusion of an additional option. Nowhere does the Notice call upon interested persons to submit their comments with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's denial of Volkswagen's petition for rule making. Comments are invited only in regard to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's proposal for amending Paragraphs S4.1.2.2 and S4.5.3.3

Because questions have been raised regarding the qualification of Volkswagen's new restraint concept as a system that requires no action on the part of the occupant, I would appreciate your confirmation that the system described in our petition of October 1, 1973, constitutes a passive belt within the meaning of Paragraph S4.5.3 to meet the crash protection requirements of the second option set forth in Paragraph S4.1.2.2.

Sincerely,

Gerhard P. Riechel Attorney

Enclosure

cc: Philip Hutchinson

ID: nht94-5.21

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald F. Lett -- Lett Electronics Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/19/94 From Donald F. Lett To Department Of Transportation (OCC-9590)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lett:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether any "pre-necessary authorization" is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume "pre-necessary authorization" means this agency's prior approval or permission to modify the tires in the manner you propose.

You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 1/2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a "D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire" into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self-certification system, neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSSs. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to

2

comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance.

It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 1/2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Therefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the tire. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer would constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously-complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate @ 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above.

Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters "DOT" appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section

3

will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties.

In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely affected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems.

Finally, I note that you used the term "previously D.O.T. approved" tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation "approves" tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the "DOT" code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht92-5.15

DATE: July 20, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tim Flagstad

COPYEE: Joan Moniz

TITLE: FAX 617-477-6249

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/19/92 from Jim Flagstad to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7417)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of June 20, 1992, with respect to importation of a 1981 Kenworth truck from Canada. This vehicle bears VIN M911042. You state that you imported the truck on February 12, 1990, through "a licensed broker and all necessary declarations and papers were properly submitted." You have enclosed a letter from Kenworth of Canada dated March 6, 1991, stating that this truck was "in compliance with the U.S. federal laws . . . at the time of delivery", which was August 31, 1981.

Although you experienced no difficulty in titling the truck in California, the purchaser of your truck, resident in another state, is "having a problem registering it" because the VIN has only seven characters. Joan Moniz, the daughter of the purchaser talked with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 23, 24, and 25, 1992, and explained that the problem is that the State of Hawaii is requiring registration as a 1975 vehicle. According to her copy of the HS-7 importation form under which the truck entered the United States, Box 2 was checked, the declaration that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears a certification label to that effect. However, according to her, the truck bears no U.S. certification label, and her records indicate that the date of importation and clearance was January 31, 1990. We are furnishing Ms Moniz a copy of this response.

You ask whether paragraph S2 of Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, exempts this vehicle from the 17-character requirement of paragraph S4.2, "and make it legal in the United States with a seven digit number." Paragraph S2 of Standard No. 115 applies to trucks and other motor vehicles, and states in pertinent part that "Vehicles imported into the United States under Sec. 591.5(f), other than by a corporation which was responsible for the assembly of that vehicle, or a subsidiary of such a corporation are exempt from the requirements of S4.2 . . . ." Section 591.5(f) corresponds to Box 3 on the HS-7 importation form, the declaration that the vehicle to be imported was not manufactured in conformity with the safety standards but will be brought into conformity with them. However, S2 makes it clear that conformity does not require the nonconforming vehicle to meet the requirement of Standard No. 115 that VINs be composed of 17 characters. Indeed, S4.9(a) specifically requires passenger cars imported under part 591 to retain their original VINs.

We note that the truck in question was imported under section 591.5(b) (Box 2), as a conforming vehicle, and, in a legal sense, is not eligible for the exclusion provided for vehicles imported under section 591.5(f). However, importation under section 591.5(b) was erroneous, since the truck bore no certification of compliance. Furthermore, in spite of the letter from Kenworth of Canada stating that the truck was "in compliance with U.S. federal laws" at

the time of its delivery on August 31, 1981, it manifestly failed to comply with Standard No. 115 which, as of September 1, 1980, required trucks to have 17-character VINs. Ms Moniz believes that is also lacks an air brake system as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. Lacking a certification label, the truck should have been imported under section 591.5 (f), which would have excused it from compliance with the 17-digit requirement. I shall shortly address a possible resolution of this dilemma.

You have also asked whether this truck should have been imported through a "registered importer". You state that Taylor Vinson told you in a recent telephone conversation that "as U.S. Customs had accepted the vehicle's compliance to U.S. Safety Standards and had not required a bond, a registered importer was not required."

This opinion was based on the assumption that the letter from Kenworth of Canada attesting to the truck's conformance with U.S. safety standards had accompanied the vehicle's importation, and was accepted by Customs (for the record, NHTSA currently permits importation of Canadian vehicles without bond or reference to a registered importer provided that a conformance letter from the manufacturer has been submitted for the agency's approval before importation). However, we see that our assumption was incorrect; Kenworth's letter is dated March 1991, and could not have accompanied the truck when it was imported in 1990.

If a Canadian-manufactured vehicle is not accompanied by such a letter (or a permanently affixed label certifying compliance to U.S. standards), the vehicle must be entered under section 591.5 (f) (Box 3) by a registered importer or by an importer who has a contract with a registered importer who will assure compliance with all the standards. Therefore, the truck in question was subject to the requirement that it be imported by a registered importer, or by a person who had a contract with a registered importer.

Furthermore, the truck could not have been admitted into the United States unless the Administrator of this agency had determined that it was capable of conformance to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the Administrator had made no such determination. However, the effective date of section 591.5 (f) , the registered importer requirement, and the vehicle capability requirement was January 31, 1990, the date that the truck appears to have been imported into the United States. Both Customs personnel and brokers should have been aware of the new requirements that became effective on that date. However, as of that date (and for some months thereafter), no registered importers had been appointed, and no vehicle capability determinations had been made. Thus, even if the truck had been imported pursuant to section 591.5(f), this could not have been accomplished until much later in 1990 when the agency made a blanket capability determination concerning canadian vehicles.

Because of the passage of time and the apparent present location of the truck in Hawaii, the agency has no interest in requiring re-entry of this vehicle at this date to conform with regulations that went into effect the date that it was imported. As for the problem of the truck's registration, it is curious that Hawaii would wish to register as a 1975 model-year truck a vehicle that was manufactured in 1981. Perhaps the State simply wishes to treat it as a vehicle that conforms to standards in effect in 1975, and does so by assigning it a model year reflecting a time before Standard No. 115 required a

17-character VIN, and before the effective date of Standard No. 121. In any event, Hawaii has recognized that S2 of Standard No. 115 permits the importation of a truck to which the 17-character VIN requirement of S4.2 does not apply.

ID: nht92-7.17

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tm Kozy -- Marketing Director, Infini Med

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/92 from Tm Kozy to Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7145)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 24, 1992 letter concerning "adaptive aids (hand controls) in cars equipped with air bags." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Your two questions and the response to each follows.

1. Is it illegal to install a hand control unit that is drilled into the steering column that, according to the bulletin issued by Chrysler Corporation referring to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, voids the warranty on the air bag as it may render the system inoperative.

To the extent you are seeking information about warranty claims, NHTSA has no authority to regulate those issues. Therefore, I cannot comment on the effect installation of hand controls might have on a warranty. The only Federal agency that has authority to regulate questions relating to warranties in general is the Federal Trade Commission. If you wish to contact that agency for further information regarding warranty questions, you may write to: Mr. Barry J. Cutler, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Pennsylvania Avenue at Sixth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

I will, however, discuss the implications of the laws and regulations administered by this agency on the installation of hand controls in motor vehicles. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items, of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an "alterer" and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. With respect to the installation of adaptive controls at a driver's position equipped with an air bag, the party making such an installation would be obliged to certify that the air bag is capable of functioning at least as well with the adaptive control installed as it functioned before the installation.

After the first sale to a consumer a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards, and persons modifying the vehicle are no longer required to attach certification labels. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

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

This provision obliges any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installs adaptive controls in vehicles equipped with air bags at the driver's position to ensure that such installation does not "render inoperative," or interfere with, the protection afforded the driver by the air bag. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that S108 (a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

Finally, under the Safety Act, adaptive controls would be considered items of motor vehicle equipment. There are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, although no safety standards apply directly to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of adaptive controls are subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

2. I need to know if such a unit were installed on an air bag equipped vehicle, and that same vehicle is resold in, say a year or two, is the seller required by law to notify the next buyer that the warranty on the air bag system has been voided, even though the controls may now have been removed.

At the outset, I must again note that this agency has no authority over warranty issues or alleged unfair trade practices. Any such questions should be addressed to the Federal Trade Commission at the address given above. My answer is limited to obligations imposed by the Safety Act and the standards and regulations issued by this agency pursuant to that Act.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, the "render inoperative" provision does not require a dealer to replace an air bag that does not function because of something that happened before the dealer took possession of the vehicle, including the installation of hand controls. Moreover, nothing in the Safety Act imposes a duty on dealers of used vehicles to disclose information to purchasers. Notwithstanding the absence of any such requirements in the Safety Act, a dealer may be required by State law to repair or replace the air bag in these circumstances. For further information on the provisions in various State laws, you may contact: the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 11-007173_R_Kesler_(Std111)_Rearview_Mirrors

ID: 10732

Mr. Lee Rabie
President
Enerco, Inc.
9615 West Marginal Way, So.
Seattle, WA 98108

Dear Mr. Rabie:

This responds to your letter of February 15, 1995, requesting information on any Federal regulations concerning recycling or remanufacturing vehicle air bags.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized 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, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards at the time of the product's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the product.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR '571.208). Standard No. 208 requires that many vehicles provide automatic crash protection. 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. One type of automatic crash protection currently offered on new vehicles is air bags. A recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

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.

Strictly speaking, manufacturers are not required to certify that air bags, as items of equipment, meet any motor vehicle safety standards. However, section S9 of Standard No. 208 specifies

requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems. Therefore, manufacturers of pressure vessels and explosive devices must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. In addition, you could not sell a recycled or remanufactured air bag with these components replaced unless the new components were certified as meeting the requirements of S9.

It is unclear from your letter if the recycled or remanufactured air bags will be reinstalled in the original vehicle or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags for other vehicles with deployed air bags or as retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as original equipment. Therefore, I will discuss these scenarios separately.

Re-installation or installation in a vehicle with a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, 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 an air bag 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.

Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a recycled or remanufactured air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letters, Federal law does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "made inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced.

I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the crash sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using recycled or remanufactured air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability.

Installation in a motor vehicle which did not originally have an air bag.

A Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

The "make 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.

Finally, as a manufacturer of replacement parts, you would be subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121).

For your information, I have enclosed a sheet for new manufacturers that identifies the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, as well as how to get copies of those standards 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.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208 d:4/3/95

ID: 1738y

Conrad S. Brooks, Engineering Manager
Fisher Engineering
12 Water Street
P.O. Box 529
Rockland, ME 04841

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your December 1, 1988, letter concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to motor vehicles to which a detachable snowplow is attached. I will respond to each one of your specific questions below.

Question One: "Please confirm in writing that the substructure for a snowplow mounting that is permanently attached to a four wheel drive vehicle may be attached to and be forward of the front bumper without violating any existing or proposed vehicle safety standard."

Response: We cannot make such a blanket statement. The weight and the location of the substructure might affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR /571.105) and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.120). Any person attaching such a substructure before the first retail sale of the vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle with the substructure attached complied with all applicable safety standards. Any commercial business attaching such a substructure after the first retail sale of the vehicle must ensure that the addition of the substructure does not "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Commercial businesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Question Two: "Is the snowplow blade, being detachable and used only a few hours each year, considered as part of the vehicle payload when it is attached?"

Response: None of our regulations define or otherwise mention the term "vehicle payload." We assume that you are referring to calculation of the vehicle's weight when you speak of its "payload." If this is the case, we have definitions of many different weight calculations set forth in 49 CFR /571.3 and in our individual safety standards. Some of these weight calculations would exclude a detachable snowplow blade. For instance, "unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as:

the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. (emphasis added).

In a January 18, 1977, letter to Mr. D.J. Henry, the agency stated that portions of a snowplow that would ordinarily be removed from the vehicle when they are not in use (such as a snowplow blade) would not be included in calculating the "unloaded vehicle weight."

If you would identify the particular weight calculation in which you are interested, we would be pleased to tell you whether the weight of a detachable snowplow blade should be included in that particular weight calculation.

Question Three: "Does this exempt a vehicle, with the blade attached and raised, from having to meet the Front Gross Axle Weight Rating restrictions?"

Response: No. There are no exemptions from the gross axle weight ratings. 49 CFR /571.3 defines gross axle weight rating as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces." The vehicle manufacturer or any vehicle alterer must base its certification of the vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards on the assigned gross axle weight ratings.

NHTSA answered the specific question of how detachable snowplow blades are considered in determining whether a vehicle is within its assigned gross axle weight ratings in a March 8, 1976, letter to Mr. Edward Green. In that letter, we stated that any determination of whether a vehicle was within its assigned gross axle weight rating would include the weight imposed on that axle system by a snowplow with the blade attached and raised.

Question Four: Is there a specific limitation of what percent of the vehicle curb weight can be supported by the front axle? The Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book specifies a maximum of 63 percent for the front axle.

Response: None of our regulations, including the definitions of "gross axle weight rating" and "gross vehicle weight rating," specify any weight distribution limitations or proportions for the front axle of a vehicle. The only issue for the purposes of our safety standards is whether the vehicle complies with all applicable standards when it is loaded to its assigned gross axle weight ratings. As long as the vehicle complies with our standards under those loading conditions, it makes no difference what proportion of the curb weight is assigned to each axle.

We assume the reason that Ford's guidebook specifies a maximum of 63 percent of the vehicle's curb weight to be supported by the front axle is to ensure that the proportional load stopped by the vehicle's front and rear brakes will be such that the vehicle can be certified as complying with our braking standard. Any commercial entity that modified a Ford vehicle in such a way that more than 63 percent of the curb weight were supported by the front axle would have to certify that the modified vehicle complied with our braking standard, if the modification were made before the first retail sale of the vehicle, or make an initial finding that the modifications did not result in "rendering inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with our braking standard, if the modification were made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

Question Five: If the portion of curb weight on the front axle is only dictated by vehicle performance, can NHTSA suggest a source for some general guidelines to avoid performance testing?

Response: As noted in response to Question Four, vehicle performance is the only limitation on the proportion of curb weight that can be assigned to the front axle. For vehicles that are modified before the first retail purchase, the entity making the modifications can consult the instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. An example of these instructions is the Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book to which you referred in your letter. Those instructions generally establish some limits on the parameters of the completed vehicle, such as its weight, height of center of gravity, and so forth. When the entity modifying the vehicle completes the vehicle within the limits established by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the modifier is not required to conduct its own testing or engineering analyses.

When a vehicle is modified after its first retail purchase, the modifier could remain within the gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle weight ratings labeled on the vehicle. If the modifier does so, it would not need to conduct any testing or engineering analyses.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel /ref:571#105#120 d:3/20/89