ID: nht95-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutsiger -- Executive Director NYSBDA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/11/95 LETTER FROM RICHARD KREUTZIGER TO WALTER MYERS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kreutsiger:

This responds to your facsimile request for an interpretation of the question "is there any Federal mandate . . . that provides a specific date or time frame in which a manufacturer has to change model year dating . . . if there is no change in the vehic le production or design makeup." I apologize for the delay in responding. The short answer to your question is that our regulations require model years to change within a two year time frame but do not prescribe the date that may be selected for the mod el year changeover.

Regarding this agency's regulations, your letter indicated that you had found the provision in 49 CFR part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements, specifying that the model year must be included as part of the vehicle identification nu mber (VIN). You may not have noticed that section 565.3(h) of that part defines "model year" as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual peri od is less than two calendar years." Therefore, even if a vehicle is identical to the vehicles produced in any number of preceding years, the model year must change at a frequency of less than two years.

My understanding is that your letter is only concerned with model years for school buses, which are not subject to the corporate average fuel economy program under Chapter 329 of title 49 of the U.S. Code. For passenger cars and light trucks, model year is defined in section 32901(15) for fuel economy purposes as "the annual production period of a manufacturer, as decided by the [EPA] Administrator, that includes January 1 of that calendar year; or that calendar year if the manufacturer does not have a n annual production period."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 26, 1995

FROM: John M. Quinata -- Customs And Quarantine Agency, Government Of Guam

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN N. QUINATA (VSA 102(3); REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is to request your assistance in determining whether or not Truck Cranes are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Accordingly, Sanko Bussan Guam imported a used Nissan Truck Crane Lorries from Japan to off-load frozen tuna at the Port Authority of Guam.

Guam Customs currently enforces the FMVSS. Enclosed is the shipping documents concerning the imported Truck Crane.

Your urgent response to this matter is appreciated.

(Photos and shipping documents omitted.)

ID: nht95-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 27, 1995

FROM: Mayo D. Tubbs -- Visionary Lighting Systems

TO: Philip Recht -- Acting Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Revised High-Technology Lighting System for the Trucking Industry

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MAYO D. TUBBS -- (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

I was disappointed to ascertain from your correspondence dated April 13, 1995 that my color selection of Aviation Green for the strip lighting system would not conform to Standard No. 108. While I feel strongly that the unique green color would incre ase drivers' visual acuity and enhance identification of trailers in low light and inclement weather conditions, the system is not limited to the color green. Subsequent discussions with Mr. Taylor Vinson concerning the use of amber and red colored stri p lights indicate the system may comply with Standard No. 108 if these colors were utilized in lieu of green. Attachment A provides color locations of the strip lights.

Selection of the proper red and amber colors will conform to CIE 1931 and 1976 UCS Chromaticity Diagrams. Amber will be in the 580 nanometer range while red will be in the 610 nanometer range.

All other system specifications remain the same as the original design. Light output will be in the 4fL range, the system power input requirement will be less than 1 amp D.C. and the physical shape of the lights will be the same. The inherent safety f eatures of the previously submitted lighting system will apply to red and green strip lights also.

Concerning the physical locations of the strip lights and the possible interference with the conspicuity reflective tape along the sides and rear of the trailer. I understand that covering or partial obscuration of the reflectivity tape will decrease tape effectiveness and consideration will be given in selecting proper areas of strip light installation. Mr. Taylor noted that new production trailers must have the reflective tape installed at the top, rear of the trailer in accordance with S5.7. Mo st trailers provide sufficient area to accommodate both the tape and the strip lights. If not, then no lights would be installed in this area. Attachment B provides additional information.

It is my understanding that if a trailer manufacturer installs the three identification lights at the top, rear of the trailer, then the clearance lights can be installed at the bottom of the trailer. If the identification lights are mounted at the b ottom of the trailer, then the clearance lights must be at the top, rear. See attachment C.

To provide a better understanding of this technology and the proposed lighting system, I can provide an on-site demonstration for the NHTSA and for George Parker of the Office of Research and Development.

I hope that this information concerning the revised lighting system will provide your office wilh sufficient data to evaluate the system and rule that it is in compliance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).

Thank you for your time and consideration and I look forward to receiving your letter.

(Attachments A-C omitted.)

ID: nht95-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 27, 1995

FROM: Musa K. Farmand -- Gonzalez And Farmand, P.A.

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MARY VERSAILLES (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles:

Thank you for speaking with me this morning regarding 49 CFR Section 571.208, 4.1.5.2 (c) 2. As you may recall, I am an attorney practicing law in Orange Park, Florida. I represent two plaintiffs who were seriously injured in an automobile wreck in Apr il 1993. Florida has a mandatory seat belt statute which allows evidence of a person's failure to wear the seat belt only in those instances where failure to wear the seat belt caused or contributed to the accident. Florida does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt. In our case, we were successful in getting the seat belt defense stricken since there were no facts which would indicate that any alleged failure on the part of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt caused the incident in the first place.

Nonetheless, defense counsel in our case has moved to amend his answer to include as an affirmative defense the argument that 49 CFR 571.208, 4.1.5.2 (c) 2 conflicts with Florida law in that the federal regulation requires that each state allow for a mit igation of damages defense in its seat belt statute. A copy of the defendant's motion and amended affirmative defense is attached for your review.

We contacted the Legal Research Center, a legal research group located in Minnesota, to help research this issue. They contacted your office on April 24, 1995. They spoke with you and Mr. Clark Harper, of the Frontal Crash Protection Division, Office o f Vehicle Safety Standards. According to a letter we received from Legal Research ("LRC") and our telephone discussions with them regarding this issue, they have indicated the following based on their discussions with you and Mr. Harper:

1. The provision that was cited by the defendant does not exist anymore. It has been replaced by air bags standards in 1993 specifically 38 FR 46551 (September 2, 1993). Indeed, our research has revealed that, effective October 1, 1994, Section [Illeg ible Words] (2) no longer existed.

According to LRC, the Section was only a tool that was taken into consideration by the Secretary of Transportation when he was considering the recission of the auto restraint systems, which he never did.

2. Therefore, the whole section is a moot point.

3. Even when the section did exist, it was not intended to be pre-empted.

4. Even if the section did exist, it would not apply to our situation since it has nothing to do with any state "seat belt defenses".

In essence, based on the foregoing, it would appear that the defendant's motion is without merit. Of course, it would be helpful to have a letter or an interpretation from the Office of the General Counsel regarding this particular provision.

As we've discussed, the purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation and/or opinion letter regarding the applicability of 49 CFR 571.208, 4.1.5.2 (c) 2 to this situation. We already appreciate your cooperation in speaking with us and LRC in re gards to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht95-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 28, 1995

FROM: R F Tolley -- Senior Development Engineer, New Products Office, Magneti Marelli UK Ltd. Lighting Division

TO: Chief Council -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/8/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO R. F. TOLLEY (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Chief Council

Question concerning FMVSS108

External Aiming - Torque/Deflection Test

I would like to raise a question with you concerning the interpretation of the torque/deflection test contained in FMVSS108 section S7.8.5.1.(a).

I understand that this test is to take into account the weight of beam aiming equipment when aiming lamps. However I believe the instructions for performing the test are not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in different ways.

Please see attached sketch which I have used to explain my query. In order to determine the downward force which is applied to the lamp, so as to cause the lamp aim to rotate downward, it is necessary to define the centre of rotation of the force. Sinc e torque = downward force multiplied by the distance to the centre of rotation of the force, then

downward force = Torque (20lbf.in) / distance to the centre of rotation of the force

My question is, where is the centre of rotation of the force taken to be? Is it?

a) the centre of the aiming pad pattern,

b) the point at which the axis (which passes through the centre of the aiming pad pattern and is perpendicular to the aiming reference plane), passes through the aiming reference plane,

c) the centroid of the reflector,

d) the centre of rotation of the headlamp assumed to be the centre of the pattern formed by the headlamp adjusters,

e) some other point.

With large, angled modern lamps the difference between the above points can be great, therefore it is important to select the correct point.

In summary my question is- When applying a downward force to create a downward torque (with respect to lamp aim), where is the centre of rotation of the force taken to be?

Attachment: FMVSS 108 EXTERNAL AIMING TORQUE DEFLECTION TEST

(Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht95-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 20, 1995

FROM: Malcolm Bricklin -- President, The Electric Bicycle Company

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Petition for Exemption

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT / JOHN WOMACK TO MALCOLM BRICKLIN (A43; PART 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Martinez:

The Electric bicycle Company is located at 17351 West Sunset Boulevard, Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, CA 90272. It was incorporated in the State of Nevada.

This is a petition to be exempted from two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for electrically assisted bicycles that we intend to manufacture, the "EV Warrior". The basis of the petition is that compliance with the standards, in this instance, will constitute a greater hazard to the general public and will result in more accidents caused by operator error than the alternatives that we propose. The standards for which the exemptions are requested are both set forth in:

Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays.

As you can tell from the enclosed Product Profile, the EV Warrior is essentially a multi-speed bicycle with an attached electric motor that drives the rear wheel through a friction drive wheel against the rear tire. The transmissions of each power sourc e are completely separate. Whereas the bicycle employs 6 to 21 speed derailleur shifting, the electric assist motor has no gears and no clutch. Without the electric assist motor - which can be easily removed, the device is a fully functioning bicycle an d would fall under the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Act.

Our target market is minors and young adults whose experience riding two-wheelers derives from bicycles rather than motorcycles. In 1993, 13 million bicycles were sold in the United States compared with 488,000 motorcycles in the same year. To prevent operator error in the motoring environment, controls should be consistent with what bicycle riders have become accustomed. Two MVSS Standards are contrary to bicycle operation: Location of front and rear brake levers and use of a twist grip throttle.

The CPSC requires that the front brake be located on the left handlebar and the rear brake on the right handlebar [16 CFR 1512, Standards for Bicycles, Part 1512.5 Braking System, subsection (b) (8)] However, MVSS Standard 123, S5.2.1 Control location an d operation, requires that "If a motorcycle is equipped with a supplemental rear brake control, the control shall be located on the left handlebar."; and in Table 1., item 10. that the front wheel brake be located on the left handlebar. We believe that this regulatory inconsistency poses a serious threat to the safety of the riders of our bicycles and other road users.

MVSS Standard 123, S5.2.1 Control location and operation, Table 1., item 8. mandates a twist grip throttle on the right handlebar. though there is no CPSC mandate, more than 50% of bicycles sold through independent bicycle dealers in the united states l ast year were equipped with twist grip derailleur shifters on the handlebars. This is one of the fastest growing trends in the bicycle industry as these sales are double the sales volume of the year before. "Grip Shifters" are also sweeping the interna tional market. (For further information, we refer you to OEM Sales, SRAM Corporation/Grip Shift, 361 W. Chestnut, Chicago, IL, 60610, Telephone: 312-664-8800, Facsimile: 312-664-8826).

In addition, we have found that by using a thumb operated potentiometer throttle that self closes to stop upon release, the operator: 1.) more naturally releases the throttle when reaching for the brake; and, 2.) generally tends to rely less upon the electric assist and more on their own effort to power the bicycle.

A denial of our petition would confuse and endanger the very public the MVSS are designed to protect. Granting the exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the National Traffic Safety and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by allowing the use of controls that are standard to the great majority of prospective users.

We intend to introduce an entire generation to electric vehicles. Most kids are experienced with bicycles. Electric bicycles will allow the smoothest and most natural transition to electric vehicles.

With your cooperation, we will quickly bring to market a vehicle that is safe and effective, and will dramatically reduce air pollution, traffic congestion and depletion of non-renewable fossil fuels all while improving the health of the rider.

Brochure omitted.

ID: nht95-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 28, 1995

FROM: Thomas L. Wright -- Acting Manager, MVS Customer Services, State Of New Jersey, Department Of Law And Public Safety, Division Of Motor Vehicles

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/27/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS L. WRIGHT (A43; PART 567; STD. 1) ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/13/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO JEFFREY PUENTES.

TEXT: Dear Ms. Nakama:

Recently we have had an inquiry from a motorcycle accessory distributor who wants to become a manufacturer of motorcycles. The motorcycles that they intend to manufacture will be assembled with engines from one manufacturer and chassis from another. These engines and chassis have their own certificates of origin. Since New Jersey does not license manufacturers, we have suggested that these vehicles be titled as reconstructs. This company does not want to pursue reconstructed titling as they feel t hat it devalues their product and because of problems incurred with other jurisdictions accepting the title.

We are attempting to gather information on how an enterprise becomes a recognized manufacturer, issue certificates of origin, and assign VIN's. We would appreciate any information you can provide us with concerning these matters.

ID: nht95-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 1, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Tucker

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/21/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES TUCKER TO GAYLE D. DALRYMPLE (OCC 10822)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tucker:

This responds to your letter of March 21, 1995, requesting a letter stating that your van can be modified by replacing "the factory installed steering wheel with the smaller ASTECH steering wheel without an air bag." Your letter explains that your range- of-motion is limited from multiple sclerosis and that the smaller steering wheel improves your ability to drive. During a March 31, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the van is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and t hat the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of your steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 requir ed to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its fir st retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards.

After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. 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 safety standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupant s when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in your van is one means of complying with this re quirement.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals like yourself, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van con verters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem.

As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement. Under the amendment, "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. n1 A "vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" is defined as

vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelc hair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For pur poses of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transf er from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

n1 The March 2 final rule was further amended on May 18, 1994 to allow the installation of Type 2A manual belts.

Based on the information you provided, your van would come within this definition. Therefore, if the modifier of your van would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable s afety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed.

I hope this information has been helpful. I have also forwarded a copy of this letter to the modifier indicated in your letter. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 1, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Closson -- Spartan Motors, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Closson:

On February 9, 1995, the Chief Counsel, Philip Recht, wrote you asking that you furnish additional information with respect to your application for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 105 and 301. A copy of this letter is attach ed for your reference.

Mr. Recht asked you to provide this information within 30 days of your receipt of his letter. As of today, we have not heard further from you. Please understand that we cannot delay indefinitely a decision upon your application. If we have not heard fr om you by May 25, we shall proceed to a decision without the benefit of your comments on issues of safety that concern us.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 1, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul D. Kelly -- Albertson, Ward & McCaffrey

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM PAUL D. KELLY TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10710)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, requesting permission or a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow one of your clients, a "corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens," to modify a vehicle for one of its customers. You explained that the customer "suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed." You further explained that "(s)he cannot turn the factory steering wheel bec ause it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges." You described previous modifications done for this customer as follows:

the steering box on a stock vehicle (would be) removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From this point after-market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed t o accept this new steering wheel.

You explained that your client was concerned that they would no longer be permitted to make such modifications as removal of the original steering wheel also results in removal of the air bag. During an April 4, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of m y staff you explained that the vehicle is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of the steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is in stalled at the driver's position.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 USC @ 30111). Manufa cturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (49 USC @ 30112). If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily atta chable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR @ 567.7).

After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. 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 safety standard (49 USC @ 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in the customer's vehicle is o ne means of complying with this requirement.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from mo difying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem.

As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement (58 FR 11975). Under the amendment, "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non- integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. n1 A "vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" is defined as

vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelc hair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For pur poses of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transf er from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

n1 The March 2 final rule was further amended on May 18, 1994 to allow the installation of Type 2A manual belts (59 FR 25826).

Based on the information you provided, the customer's van would come within this definition. Therefore, if your client would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safe ty standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.