ID: aiam3107

Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the proper 'designated seating capacity' for three hypothetical seat designs. You ask whether each of the designs would be permitted to have only two 'designated seating positions.'; The amended definition of 'designated seating position' provides, i part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating.; Your three hypothetical designs are derived from a basic seat desig having 52 inches of hip room (Figure 1 in your letter). This basic design would be required to have three designated seating positions since it has greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless the center position cannot be used because of some obstruction or other impediment. You ask whether the agency would consider the three hypothetical designs illustrated in your letter to adequately establish impediments to use of the center position.; Your 'Figure 2' illustrates an unpadded depression at the cente position of the bench seat. Since this center depression is unpadded, 3.1 inches deep and 6.7 inches wide, it is the agency's opinion that the center position lacks an essential attribute of a seating position and would not likely be used for seating (even though there might be some unorthodox use of the position from time to time). If a seat of this design is equipped with seat belt assemblies, location of assembly hardware in the center depression would further clarify that the area is not a seating position. It must be emphasized, however, that designs of this type would be required to have three designated seating positions if the depth and width of the depression is so minimal that a person could easily straddle the depression and use the center position. Also, stiffness of seat belt assembly hardware located in the center depression becomes a more determinative factor the more narrow the width of such a depression.; The seat design illustrated in 'Figure 3' of your letter includes 'partition pipe' at the center of the seat cushion. Whether such a design would preclude the use of the center position would depend greatly on the physical dimensions and characteristics of the 'pipe' that is used and whether it is removable. If the 'pipe' were made of soft, pliable padding similar to the other portions of the seat, for example, the 'pipe' might not be sufficient to discourage use of the center position. Since your letter provides no information on the nature of the 'partition pipe' that is illustrated, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design.; In 'Figure 4,' there is a padded 'swelling' in the center sea position. Although the Figure specifies a height of 3.9 inches at the front of the 'swelling,' it appears that the 'swelling' slants down toward the seat back so that it is only about one-half inch high where it joins the seat back. The illustration also does not describe whether the 'swelling' is made of soft padding or of some rigid material. Without this information, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design. I would point out, however, that if the 'swelling' is made of soft, flexible padding, it would not likely discourage use of the center position. In fact, if as it appears the 'swelling' slants down to the seat back to create a 'saddle effect,' young children might be encouraged to use this center position.; To summarize, it is the agency's opinion that 'Figure 2' in your lette illustrates a seat design that could qualify as having two designated seating positions. Regarding Figures 3 and 4, your letter did not include sufficient information for the agency to provide an opinion. On the basis of the information that was provided, however, I would say that these two designs are very dubious and do not indicate an adequate attempt on the part of the manufacturer to clarify that the center position is not to be used. It does not behoove a manufacturer to attempt to come narrowly within the meaning of the amended definition of 'designated seating position.' It would be much wiser to make sure that there is no question that the center position is not to be used. In the design illustrated in your 'Figure 4,' for example, you could easily design the 'swelling' to be 4 or more inches tall from front to rear and made of a rigid material, and there would be no question concerning your compliance.; Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents th agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5651

"Dear Dr. Arnold: This responds to your letter asking whether the ai bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones, cannot use a seatbelt with comfort, and were granted dispensation from such usage several years ago. In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old, 5 feet, three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition. As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30122. The 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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the 'make inoperative' prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupant restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of crashes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives. NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation. While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency s actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the agency. Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconnecting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decision. If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the 'make inoperative' prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so. I want to add a caution. The purpose of the 'make inoperative' prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver. I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5195

"Dear Mr. Banner: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of how NHTSA's regulations would apply to some manufacturing operations you are contemplating. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you would like to start producing vehicles based on Ford pickup truck chassis. Some of these Ford chassis would come from wrecked vehicles that you would strip down to the frame, and others would be new chassis that you would purchase directly from Ford. You would then install new bodies on top of some of these chassis and offer them for sale as completed vehicles. You also would like to offer some of these bodies and chassis for sale as 'kit cars.' In the 'kit car' version, you would sell the body and chassis to the purchaser of the kit, and the purchaser of the kit would have to furnish some other parts in order to complete the vehicle. This agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law does not require motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment to continue to comply with the safety standards after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment item in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, Federal law does prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' compliance with a safety standard for a vehicle or item of equipment. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), and (b)(1). 1. New Body on New Chassis. All vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a new chassis would be considered new vehicles. You would have to certify that each of those vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. You would be considered a 'final stage manufacturer' of the vehicles, as that term is used in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. 2. New Body on Used Chassis. We cannot say from the information you have provided whether the vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a stripped, wrecked Ford pickup would be treated as a new vehicle, and have to be certified as complying with the applicable safety standards. The answer depends on how extensively you modify the Ford pickup chassis. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when the modifications to a used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the Federal safety standards, NHTSA has established specific criteria at 49 CFR 571.7(e), Combining new and used components. That section reads as follows: When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. This provision means that if you leave the frame, engine, transmission, and drive axle in place from the wrecked vehicle, and place a new body on top of it, we would consider that vehicle to be a used vehicle, which would not have to be certified by you as complying with applicable safety standards. On the other hand, if you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the Ford pickup chassis, and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable safety standards. 3. Kit cars. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a 'motor vehicle' is defined, in part, as one that is 'driven by mechanical power.' See 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). We have interpreted this provision to mean that a unit would be considered only an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle, until such time as a power source is added. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of motor vehicle equipment, or to used equipment items in the assemblage (items used on a vehicle previously in service on the public roads). However, certain of the safety standards would apply to new equipment items included in the assemblage. It would be a violation of Federal law if your kit car includes any new brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, or seat belt assemblies that do not comply with the applicable safety standards. If you ship your kit cars with all parts needed to produce a completed motor vehicle, including the power source, this agency will treat the kit car as a motor vehicle, not an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of the state of completion of the kit. You would be required to certify that the kit car conformed to all applicable safety standards if it were treated as a new vehicle under the rules set forth in 1. and 2. above, but not if it were treated as a used vehicle under those rules. I have enclosed for your information a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of them. I have also enclosed a brochure titled 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards' that briefly describes each of the safety standards. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3108

Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the proper 'designated seating capacity' for three hypothetical seat designs. You ask whether each of the designs would be permitted to have only two 'designated seating positions.'; The amended definition of 'designated seating position' provides, i part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating.; Your three hypothetical designs are derived from a basic seat desig having 52 inches of hip room (Figure 1 in your letter). This basic design would be required to have three designated seating positions since it has greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless the center position cannot be used because of some obstruction or other impediment. You ask whether the agency would consider the three hypothetical designs illustrated in your letter to adequately establish impediments to use of the center position.; Your 'Figure 2' illustrates an unpadded depression at the cente position of the bench seat. Since this center depression is unpadded, 3.1 inches deep and 6.7 inches wide, it is the agency's opinion that the center position lacks an essential attribute of a seating position and would not likely be used for seating (even though there might be some unorthodox use of the position from time to time). If a seat of this design is equipped with seat belt assemblies, location of assembly hardware in the center depression would further clarify that the area is not a seating position. It must be emphasized, however, that designs of this type would be required to have three designated seating positions if the depth and width of the depression is so minimal that a person could easily straddle the depression and use the center position. Also, stiffness of seat belt assembly hardware located in the center depression becomes a more determinative factor the more narrow the width of such a depression.; The seat design illustrated in 'Figure 3' of your letter includes 'partition pipe' at the center of the seat cushion. Whether such a design would preclude the use of the center position would depend greatly on the physical dimensions and characteristics of the 'pipe' that is used and whether it is removable. If the 'pipe' were made of soft, pliable padding similar to the other portions of the seat, for example, the 'pipe' might not be sufficient to discourage use of the center position. Since your letter provides no information on the nature of the 'partition pipe' that is illustrated, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design.; In 'Figure 4,' there is a padded 'swelling' in the center sea position. Although the Figure specifies a height of 3.9 inches at the front of the 'swelling,' it appears that the 'swelling' slants down toward the seat back so that it is only about one-half inch high where it joins the seat back. The illustration also does not describe whether the 'swelling' is made of soft padding or of some rigid material. Without this information, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design. I would point out, however, that if the 'swelling' is made of soft, flexible padding, it would not likely discourage use of the center position. In fact, if as it appears the 'swelling' slants down to the seat back to create a 'saddle effect,' young children might be encouraged to use this center position.; To summarize, it is the agency's opinion that 'Figure 2' in your lette illustrates a seat design that could qualify as having two designated seating positions. Regarding Figures 3 and 4, your letter did not include sufficient information for the agency to provide an opinion. On the basis of the information that was provided, however, I would say that these two designs are very dubious and do not indicate an adequate attempt on the part of the manufacturer to clarify that the center position is not to be used. It does not behoove a manufacturer to attempt to come narrowly within the meaning of the amended definition of 'designated seating position.' It would be much wiser to make sure that there is no question that the center position is not to be used. In the design illustrated in your 'Figure 4,' for example, you could easily design the 'swelling' to be 4 or more inches tall from front to rear and made of a rigid material, and there would be no question concerning your compliance.; Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents th agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4434

"Dear Mr. Momboisse: Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the Genera Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver 'exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchased directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation.' This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured for, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for your request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, the Border Patrol will save $5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs. This agency has jurisdiction over 'motor vehicles' as that term is defined by l5 U.S.C. 139l(3). If a vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle,' then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicability of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 57l.7(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be 'motor vehicles' required to comply with the standards. Under l5 U.S.C. 1391(3), a 'motor vehicle' is 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways....' The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibikes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public roads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads. You have informed us that the Hummer will 'generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas.' However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to consider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a 'motor vehicle.' However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operations and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original military specifications. Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that one of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has become of paramount importance in the 'war against drugs.' In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-l4 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United States, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a component of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufactures and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 10-000710 A.Killian,Jr. (Standard No. 205)

ID: 05-009466drn

ID: 18019.ogm

Mr. Christopher J. Roberts
Leoci & Meisenberg, P.A.
2256 Heitman Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901-3744

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This is in response to your letter requesting information about standards for motorcycle helmets, particularly those manufactured after 1980. In addition to information relating to standards for motorcycle helmets, you have also asked if the agency maintains records of helmets that have been recalled and how you might obtain copies of these records.

By delegation from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), NHTSA is the Federal Government agency responsible for improving safety on our Nation's highways. As part of our efforts to achieve that goal, we are authorized, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These standards require minimum levels of performance for new vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has promulgated FMVSS No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets," which applies to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. Pursuant to 30012(a) of Title 49, it is unlawful to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 218.

I have enclosed a copy of the current version of Standard 218 for your use. The Standard is also available in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR 571.218. If you have access to the World Wide Web, the Code of Federal Regulations can be found at http://www.nara.gov.

Standard 218 was first promulgated in 1973 and amended in 1974, 1980, and 1988.

The performance requirements of Standard 218 remained unchanged from 1973 until 1988. The original version of the Standard applied to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. However, through a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 28, 1974 (39 FR 3554), the Standard was amended to restrict its application only to helmets that fit on a specific headform, known as the size "C" headform. This amendment was necessitated by difficulties in developing appropriate different sized headforms for testing. However, as these difficulties continued, the agency concluded that a precise fit was not as critical for testing purposes as had previously been thought and the "C" headform could be used more widely. Therefore, Standard 218 was again amended on March 10, 1980 (45 FR 151181) to apply to all helmets that could be placed on the "C" headform even if the helmet did not precisely fit that headform. After other difficulties with test headforms were finally resolved, the Standard was amended again on April 6, 1988 (53 FR 11280) to apply to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. The 1988 amendments also modified the performance requirements of Standard 218 in regard to the areas of the helmet subject to penetration and impact testing, temperature conditioning prior to testing and the properties of the test devices used to perform testing. Copies of each of the notices implementing these amendments are enclosed.

Information related to helmet recalls may be obtained from NHTSA's office of Technical Information Services (TIS). You may contact TIS at this address:

Technical Information Services (NAD-40)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 7^th Street S.W., Room 5110
Washington, D.C. 20590

The telephone number for TIS is: (800-445-0197); this number is answered between 1:00 and 3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, by TIS staff in order to provide general assistance; however, reference requests must be made in writing. The FAX number, (202-493-2833), may be used to submit requests to TIS, however TIS will respond by mail or courier service (at the requestor's expense).

Information about the services offered by TIS is also available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/trd/.

I hope that this responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:218
d.12/1/98

ID: 11804.ZTV

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We have received your letter of April 15, 1996, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to trailer lighting.

You have informed us of "lowbed trailers [with] narrow goosenecks that are attached to a wider load deck which may be less than 15 inches above the ground." Because Table II of Standard No. 108 requires side marker lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more to be mounted at a height of not less than 15 inches, you have asked if the lamps may be mounted at a height of less than 15 inches if the height of the mounting location is "as high as practicable."

Your question is asked with reference to a combination clearance/front side marker lamp. As we explain below, this combination lamp cannot be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in the manner you posit.

The requirement of Standard No. 108 for front side marker lamps is that they be located "as far to the front as practicable" and, at the front, "not less than 15 inches" above the road surface. Thus, the minimum mounting height is expressed as an absolute rather than, like the horizontal location, in terms of practicability. It is our observation that the gooseneck on lowbed trailers is more than 15 inches above the road surface, and that it would be practicable to mount a side marker lamp there, thus complying with the location requirements of Table II.

You have also informed us that, on the typical lowbed trailer with a gooseneck, the combination front clearance/front side marker lamp is mounted at an angle on the front corners of the deck. The manufacturer chooses this location because "[i]f front clearance lamps were mounted on the front face of the deck directly behind the tires of the towing vehicle, they would likely be damaged by debris thrown by the towing vehicle's tires." Based upon certain NHTSA interpretations which you quoted, you asked for confirmation that a combination lamp mounted at such a location complies with Standard No. 108 "without needing to be visible at 45 degrees inboard."

Upon review, we did not find that the interpretations you quoted really provided confirmation of the interpretation that you seek. However, you also called our attention to the following:

"Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear . . . for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." (49 CFR 571.108, S4.3.1.1.1)."

This provision (now renumbered as S5.3.1.1.1) does allow mounting clearance lamps "at a location other than on the front" if the manufacturer determines that the alternate location is needed to protect the lamp from damage during normal operation of the trailer. We believe that the lamps should also be protected from damage if the alternate location is chosen. It seems to us that mounting the clearance lamps at an angle on the front, rather than on the front involves a move of only a few inches at most, and might not provide any greater protection from road debris than mounting the clearance lamps on the front. We ask you to consider this in determining the appropriate location for the clearance lamps, keeping in mind that their primary purpose is to indicate the overall width of the trailer.

This means that a combination clearance/front side marker lamp will not meet the location requirements of Standard No. 108. A separate front side marker lamp must be provided and located on the gooseneck. A separate clearance lamp must be provided, and located in accordance with the views expressed in the preceding paragraph.

If you have any further questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/28/96

ID: 16855.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, New York 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding modification of a 1997 minivan for a driver with muscular dystrophy. I regret the delay in responding. You request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will require the removal of the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) steering wheel. In a telephone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explained that your client has limited range of motion due to his disability. You explained that your client needs to replace the OEM steering wheel and air bag with a high-tech steering system that incorporates a reduced diameter steering wheel and reduced effort steering. The new steering wheel would be too small to be fitted with an air bag.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot provide the specific relief you seek, since we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. 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.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the original steering wheel and air bag and replacing it with the high tech steering system would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The vehicle manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. 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 if appropriate.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA
d.5/22/98