Interpretation ID: 18050.nhf

Mr. Daniel J. Selke
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Selke:

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 special seat belt installations in a 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz and a 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz. I apologize for the delay in my response. In a telephone conversation with Nicole Fradette of my staff you explained that the extra-long belt assemblies were needed to accommodate two of your customers in the following circumstances. You explained that the owner of the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz has a driver and would like an extended length seat belt installed in the right-rear passenger seat so that he may lean forward to use the phone while seated in the back of the car. You also explained that the owner of the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz needed an extended length seat belt to accommodate a severely obese right front-seat passenger. You explained that the passenger is extremely obese and cannot use the passenger-side seat belt because of his large body size and that your special order 12-inch longer belt is still too short to fit him. You explained that your factory has supplied longer seat belts, 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 explained below, our answer is that the extra-long seat belt assembly may be installed in the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz but may not be installed in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz. The

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer that installs the longer seat belt assembly in the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz to accommodate an extremely obese passenger. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

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

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

As you noted in your letter, removing the original seat belt assemblies and replacing them with the longer seat belt assemblies would affect the vehicles' compliance with Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. In certain limited situations, such as with the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the seat belt assembly in the 1996 E320 to accommodate the condition you describe as we equate the special needs of a severely obese individual with the needs associated with a disability.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. We 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 severely obese individual is outside the normal range of occupant sizes. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment.

We do not believe that the installation of an extended-length seat belt assembly in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz is justified by public need as there is no indication that the assembly is needed to accommodate a disability. It appears that the owner is requesting the installation of the extended length seat belt merely for personal convenience-so that he may more readily reach the telephone while seated in the back seat of the car. We would not, therefore, view the installation of an extended-length seat belt assembly in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz as merely a technical violation of the make inoperative prohibition, justified by public need. We suggest that the customer consider having the phone relocated so he can more readily reach it with the rear seat belt secured.

If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209#VSA
d.2/11/99