ID: 9433

Mr. David Fabrycky
1633 W. Willeta St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Dear Mr. Fabrycky:

This responds to your letter about an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device would cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device requires "manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously."

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product.

Additionally, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restraint buckles:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722; August 21, 1985)

It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield installed. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied "in many directions simultaneously." Your device would thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#VSA d:5/12/94

ID: elliswatts_6838

Mr. John E. Getz
Vice President, Mobile Products Engineering
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, OH 45103




Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, are applicable to lift equipped trailers produced by your company. As explained below, FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are applicable to lifts and trailers, as you have described.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA adopted FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, which establish minimum performance standards for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles and motor vehicles installed with platform lifts, respectively. The purpose of the standards is to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. The standards were established December 27, 2002. Compliance with FMVSS No. 403 has been required as of April 1, 2005. Compliance with FMVSS No. 404 has been required as of July 1, 2005.

In your letter, you stated that your company manufactures trailers equipped with mobile medical units (e.g. , MRI, PET, PET/CT units). You explained that all of these units have lifts that are used by patients on gurneys and wheelchairs as well as ambulatory patients. You further stated that patients are not transported in the trailers, and that when on location the trailers are essentially "fixed medical suites". You then stated that you believe these lifts would be considered "special purpose lifts," which as discussed in an October 1, 2004 final rule, are not subject to FMVSS No. 403 (69 FR 58843). You further stated that while the lifts installed by your company do not comply with specific requirements of FMVSS No. 403, the lifts as manufactured do provide for safe operation.

In the final rule in which FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were established, we stated that individuals that rely on platform lifts should have assurances that lifts are as safe as possible and that these individuals should be protected from the risk associated with using unregulated equipment (67 FR 79418). Providing lift users with such assurances necessitates the uniformity of performance of the regulated lifts. This was in part the purpose for establishing uniform standards applicable to all platform lifts manufactured for installation on motor vehicles and to motor vehicles equipped with such lifts.

The lifts as you described would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Further, a motor vehicle, including a trailer, equipped with a lift as you described would be subject to the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 404. In the October 2004 final rule, the agency did state that FMVSS No. 403 would not apply to what some commenters referred to as "special purpose lifts," e.g. , lifts designed specifically to transport gurneys or mobile incubators. We clarified that FMVSS No. 403 is applicable to lifts manufactured to assist individuals that rely on canes, wheelchairs, and other mobility devices (69 FR 58844). The lifts you described are manufactured to transport individuals relying on canes and wheelchairs. Therefore, the lifts would be subject to FMVSS No. 403.

In further support of your assertion that FMVSS No. 403 was not intended to apply to lifts as you described, you noted that the applicability section of FMVSS No. 403 (S3) states that the standard applies to platform lifts that are designed to carry passengers into and out of motor vehicles. You stated that because your trailers do not transport people, the individuals that rely on the platform lifts are not passengers. Therefore, you concluded that FMVSS No. 403 does not apply to the lifts manufactured by your company.

The issues associated with safe operation of platform lifts as persons enter and exit a vehicle are not dependent on whether the person is also transported in that vehicle to another location. As stated in S1 of FMVSS No. 403, the standard "specifies requirements for platform lifts used to assist persons with limited mobility in entering or leaving a vehicle". As such, platform lifts installed on trailers are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 403 and those trailers are subject to FMVSS No. 404.

Your letter continued that if FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were applicable to the lifts installed on the trailers manufactured by your company and to the trailers, compliance with several provisions of the standards would conflict with the operation of the trailer as a medical suite. For example, you noted that the audible threshold warning required for public use lifts (S6.1.5 of FMVSS No. 403) could unduly disturb elderly or sedated patients. You also informed Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff that the visible threshold warning could prove to be an annoyance.

It is important to note that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 differentiate between public use lifts and private use lifts, and that different requirements apply based on a lifts designation. Under S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, lift-equipped buses, school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs. ) must be equipped with a lift that complies with the public lift requirements of FMVSS No. 403. All other vehicles, including trailers, must have a lift that complies with either the public or private use lift requirements. Several of the requirements with which you raised issue, including the audible threshold warning, are specific to public use lifts. The public use lift requirements would not apply to the case addressed here, as your trailers would not be required to be equipped with such lifts.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.11/4/05

ID: NYDOTBILL

Mr. Tom Perreaut
New York State Department of Transportation
Office of Legal Affairs
Building 5, New York State Campus
Albany, NY 12232





Dear Mr. Perreaut:





This responds to your letter and telephone calls asking whether a New York state bill (S.1731-B, January 27,1999,) would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors." Your correspondence attaches a revised version of the bill and a letter dated April 16, 1999, from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to your office regarding a previous version of the bill. Further, you attach a copy of a request for comments, dated June 12, 1996, based upon a granted petition for rulemaking to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require convex cross view mirrors on certain trucks (61 FR 30586). Based on our understanding of your correspondence and telephone calls, we believe that the answer to your question is a qualified no.

According to your correspondence, New York's proposed law states, in relevant part:

Every motor vehicle when driven or operated upon a public highway in the delivery of goods or services to residential or business locations shall be equipped with one or more cross-view back-up mirrors designed to allow the driver of such motor vehicle a view of the area behind the back of the motor vehicle.

For the purposes of the bill, a "motor vehicle" is defined as:

a vehicle that is registered or based in the state of New York, and that is equipped with a cube-style or enclosed delivery bay with a minimum eight feet six inches and a maximum of eighteen feet, provided that any such vehicle be a single unit vehicle which is operated for commercial purposes except for motor vehicles in interstate commerce and rental vehicles....

A "cross-view back-up mirror" is defined as "a mirror mounted on a motor vehicle and so located to enable the driver to view directly behind such vehicle."

Section 30103(b) of our statute, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) (formerly 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), states in part:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State...may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), requires side rear view mirrors on trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) or more. The standard at S7.1 (for trucks with GVWRs of between 4,536 kg and 11,340 kg) and at S8.1 (for trucks with GVWRs of 11,340 kg or more) requires mirrors on both sides of the vehicle. The mirrors must be "located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and shall be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene." The use of the words "a view to the rear" and "rearward scene" does not indicate that the specified field of view extends directly behind the truck. Our review of the rulemaking history of the standard, including the notice we published at 61 FR 30856 (June 12, 1996), indicates that there is no Federal intent to regulate the area directly and immediately behind the type of vehicle in question. New York would thus be regulating a different aspect of performance (i.e., a different field of view) than that regulated by Standard No. 111.

If the State regulation addresses only the area directly behind the motor vehicle and therefore not the area addressed by Standard No. 111, it would not be preempted by 30103(b). However, it is difficult to respond categorically that the State regulation would not be preempted because you have provided little information on what the State would require. The State regulation would be preempted if it conflicts with Federal law, either by creating a situation in which manufacturers cannot comply with both the State and Federal laws, or by interfering in some way with another Federal motor vehicle safety standard (such as the field-of-view requirements for the lighting standard, 49 CFR 571.108).

If NHTSA were to issue a standard regulating the field of view of this area, inconsistent State laws would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Of course, we would consider any relevant State laws when adopting a Federal standard. Currently, we have ongoing rulemaking considering establishing performance for rear cross view mirrors. We expect to publish an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), following upon 61 FR 30586, on this in the future.

In addition, there may be preemption issues concerning Federal law administered by the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. FMCSA was established on

January 1, 2000, and was formerly a part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). We note that Mr. Brian Temperine of the FHWA wrote your department on April 16, 1999, concerning preemption issues arising from a previous version of the bill in question. We suggest that you contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4012 for information concerning preemption, FHWA's April 16, 1999, letter, and FMCSA's views of the current version of the bill.

In closing, we want to make clear that we are not providing any views with respect to the merits of the State mirror requirement to be enacted in New York. This letter only addresses the preemption issue you raised.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





ref:111
d.8/3/00

ID: nht87-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/10/74 letter from Lawrence R. Schneider to city of Philadelphia; 12/15/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr. to Bud Shuster

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager, Environmental Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, NJ 07645

This letter concerns your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, as it applies to the antitheft device BMW intends to install on the Carline 7 passenger car line for model year 1988. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

On October 9, 1986, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register granting BMW's petition for an exemption from the marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard, based on its determination that an effective antitheft device will be in stalled on those lines as standard equipment. (51 FR 36333.) However, because NHTSA wished to further consider the compliance of the double-lock aspect of the central locking system with Standard No. 206, we granted the petition while reserving decision on that issue. We have completed our evaluation of the double-lock system and have determined it is permitted by the standard.

In its petition for the marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard, BMW described an antitheft device which, among other things, prevents entry into the vehicle by affecting the door locks in the following manner:

The inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical plunger on each door, and the plungers on the front doors override the two rear door plungers. To prevent locking the keys in the car upon exiting, the front doors can only be locked with a key. for convenience, this also locks all the other doors; if they are open at the time of locking, they lock when closed.

The locks in the front doors have three-position cylinders - off, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees and removed from the lock, the doors, trunk and gas filler door are locked. If, however, the key is rotated 90 deg rees and removed, the car's burglar alarm is armed and the doors are "double locked"; after the plungers move downward, the central locking system is deactivated and the door locks are mechanically inhibited. Thus locked, neither an outside nor inside ha ndle, nor a locking plunger can be used to unlock a door - the doors can only be unlocked and the alarm disarmed using a key in a front door lock... Disconnecting the battery does not unlock the doors or change the "double locked" mode... In the event of an accident, an inertia switch automatically unlocks all doors.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows:

S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadvertent door openi ngs due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles. other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicl e (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.

Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the operating means to disengage requisite door locking mechanisms. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 20 6 and past NHTSA interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only additional locking systems which interfere with the capability of the operating means to engage the locking system required by the standard. Since according to your letter of September 24, 1986, BMW's double-lock feature does not interfere with the interior operating means' engagement of the required door locks, the secondary locking system is permitted.

The answer to your question about the double lock system is dependent on whether the system interferes with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 of the standard are written in terms of what must occur when the required locking system is engaged and impose no requirements for the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking m echanism is engaged. Since we have determined that S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks, we conclude that the required aspect of performance in S4.1.3 for door locking mechanisms is that the interior o perating means be capable only of engaging the locks. We thus conclude that the standard permits an additional door locking device which might interfere with the disengagement of the required locking system. The additional system, however, must not inter fere with the capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks.

In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 206 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to "minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a re sult of impact." Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside o perating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.

This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies past agency statements on issues raised by secondary locking systems. To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations issued in the past, the previous int erpretations are overruled.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Brian McLaughlin, NHTSA

RE: BMW Petition for Exemption from Part 541 - Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

In our recent telephone conversation, you informed us of NHTSA's reservation about BMW's double-lock feature as described in our petition for exemption from Part 541.

In particular, you indicated concern about the compliance aspect of this feature with FMVSS 206, S4.1.3.

We ask that you consider the following, which shows why the door lock and anti-theft system is in compliance, is safe, and has potential for saving lives by deterring theft.

DESCRIPTION OF DOOR LOCKING SYSTEM IN NEW BMW CARLINE 7

The new BMW Carline 7 passenger car is a four-door sedan with a standard central locking system and an auxiliary anti-theft system incorporating, among other things, a double-lock feature. This additional feature ensures significantly greater security ag ainst attempts of unauthorized persons to open the doors when the car is parked. While the double-lock feature is separate from the central locking system, it is natural to combine it into the total locking system for convenient but distinct operation.

CENTRAL LOCKING SYSTEM

The locks in the front doors have three-position cylinders - off, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. The locking mechanism of the central locking system is activated by rotating the key 45 degrees in either the driver's door or the front passenger door lock. Th e inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical-moving plunger on each of the four doors. If raised, the plunger allows opening the door via either inside or outside door handle. In the lowered position, the door cannot be opened by using either the inside or outside door handle.

If any of the four plungers is pushed down into the lowered position by an occupant of the car, it can easily be raised again by that person inside the car. Occupants can lock and unlock the back doors individually via the door plungers, or all doors sim ultaneously using the plunger on either front door.

To prevent locking the key in the car upon exiting, the car can only be locked by using the ignition key in a front door after the door has been closed.

Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees in the lock and removed in the conventional manner, all four door plungers are lowered, the doors are locked and the door plungers remain operable.

ANTI-THEFT LOCKING

If the key is rotated twice as far as the normal locking position, past the detent to the 90 degree position and removed from the lock, the doors are "double-locked"; the plungers remain lowered and, additional to the central locking system, the door loc ks are mechanically inhibited. In this mode, the door plungers cannot be moved from their lowered position, and neither an outside nor inside handle, nor a locking plunger can be used to deactivate the theft system - it can only be deactivated by using t he key in a front door lock. This prevents use of a slimjim, or slipping in a wire to lift a plunger, and prevents opening a door by breaking a window and reaching in to use a door handle or plunger.

SYSTEM COMPLIES WITH STANDARD AND ITS INTENT

FMVSS 206, 54.1.3 requires each door to have a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 defines the function of the operating means to be the engaging of the locking mechanism by requiring the front door locking mechanism to make the outside door handle inoperative. From the disengaged condition, the BMW door lock can be engaged at all times, thus locking the outside door handle as required by S4.1.3.1.; the double-lock feature, then, in no way interferes with the lock's capability of being engaged at any time.

The stated purpose, "S1 ... to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.", shows that the standard was not intended to ensure occupant egress, but to prevent the occupant from being ejected from the vehicle under certain circumstances. Further support for this is provided by NHTSA's May 10, 1974 letter of interpretation to the City of Philadelphia, wherein it is stated that FMVSS 206 does not require inside door handles, and that no federal standard requir es window handles.

The entire history of this rulemaking points toward this objective. In 34FR158 of Aug. 19, 1969 the Agency stated the standard's purpose succinctly, "... retaining the driver and passengers in case of collision...", and in 36FR1913 of Feb. 3, 1971, "... intended to afford protection against ejection through side doors ...". The agency thus has demonstrated that FMVSS 206 does not address egress from the vehicle, but rather the prevention of being thrown from the vehicle during an accident. NHTSA has not in the intervening 12 years since provided otherwise by amending this standard.

Our lock fully complies with this intention. In the engaged position, the BMW door lock disables the outer door handle to prevent occupants from being ejected during impact and the double-lock in no way interferes with the lock's capability of being enga ged to make the outside door handle inoperative.

Also, the requirement of the standard to have an operating means inside the vehicle presupposes that there is someone inside the vehicle to operate this means. Our door lock system complies with that requirement of FMVSS 206. When a vehicle is parked and left unattended, the driver may activate, in addition to the vehicle's normal locking mechanism, a vehicle anti-theft system. This system, which has an integrated double-lock feature, is not used when the vehicle is occupied. The Owner's Handbook will c aution the vehicle operator to activate the anti-theft system only when the vehicle is parked and left unattended, much the same as the Handbook warns against removal of the ignition key when the vehicle is in motion, because the anti-theft steering lock would be engaged and the vehicle rendered unsteerable.

It is further our position that the double-lock is an additional feature that does not prevent the primary lock from complying, much like the child safety lock, which, although it does not interfere with the operation of the locking mechanism per se, pre vents the opening of the door. In that respect the child safety lock has greater egress consequences, since it is intended to be in operation when the vehicle is occupied.

GUARDED AGAINST ENTRAPMENT

The operating means of the anti-theft system also provides security against entrapment. In order to activate the anti-theft system from inside the vehicle, the ignition key is required. For the vehicle to be driven with the anti-theft system activated, t he driver would have to use the key to start the engine, open a window, turn off the engine, remove the key from the ignition switch, open,and close the door, reach through the open window, insert the key in an outside door lock, turn the key past the de tent to the 90 degree position, remove the key, and reinsert it in the ignition switch and restart the engine - A MOST IMPROBABLE SCENARIO.

Further when the engine is running, or the key is in the accessory position, the doors cannot be double-locked, even if a second key is used in a door lock cylinder. The double-lock system cannot be engaged until the key is removed from the ignition and the driver's door is then opened and reclosed.

The lock inhibit position can only be achieved by inserting the ignition key in the outside keyhole of a front door and rotating the key past the detent through 90 degrees. In this condition, for anti-theft purposes, all plungers are lowered, and plunger s and inside and outside door handles are locked in position, and no door can be opened. Standing at the side of the car while locking the door with the key. a person can easily see the entire inside of the vehicle, including any person inside and a blin king warning light on top of the dashboard indicating that the anti-theft system is engaged. Thus, the probability of a person accidently being locked inside is virtually nil.

Because a passerby can also see into the passenger compartment, intentional entrapment in the passenger compartment is equally unlikely considering the availability of the car's trunk for that purpose. In this connection, we note that in 49FR47276 of Dec ember 3, 1984, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking that would have required a handle on the inside of a car's trunk lid, on the basis that entrapment is extremely unlikely. We submit that entrapment inside the passenger compartment is even less likely and therefore not a real concern.

DOUBLE-LOCK SYSTEM WILL SAVE LIVES

In the letter of interpretation of December 15, 1978 to Congressman Bud Shuster, NHTSA conceded that there are competing safety considerations involved with front door locks.

During the rulemaking process for FMVSS 114, Theft Protection, NHTSA made the point that stolen cars are much more likely to be involved in accidents than unstolen cars. In 43FR18578 of May 1, 1978, and again in 45FR85450 of December 29, 1980, NHTSA stat es that stolen cars are 47 to 200 times more likely to be in an accident.

There is no question that the double-lock system will make it extremely difficult for an unauthorized entry into the vehicle and therefore will significantly reduce auto theft. Based on NHTSA's own accident analysis of stolen vs. unstolen vehicles, we ca n only conclude that the BMW door lock system will save more lives than a vehicle without such a feature. Further, this anti-theft device has received no objection in Europe, Japan, Australia and other countries having a type-approval procedure and we st rongly believe that the effectiveness of the system together with the overall safety benefit it provides, due to the reduced theft rate, should not be compromised for some perceived negative impact the system might have in the unlikely event of misuse.

Since this is such an important issue to us, we ask you to hold our petition in abeyance if you still have concern.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Environmental Engineering

See 5/10/74 letter from Lawrence R. Schneider to City of Philadelphia and 12/15/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr. to Bud Shuster.

ID: 14907a.jeg

Mr. James Sanders
President
Automotive Innovations, Inc.
4 First Street
P.O. Box 474
Bridgewater, MA 02324

Dear Mr. Sanders:

This responds to your letter concerning modifications that your company makes to vehicles to accommodate persons with physical disabilities. I apologize for the delay in this response. You ask for clarification of a matter concerning our prohibition against making inoperative safety devices or elements of design in motor vehicles that have been sold to the end user.

You explain that some of the adaptations and modifications you perform are funded by your state vocational rehabilitation agency, the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (MRC). MRC is requiring you to write to our office every time you contract with MRC to adapt a vehicle for a driver, prior to performing these adaptations or modifications, "to get a ruling on whether we are violating Federal law and whether or not we would be prosecuted under 49 U.S.C. section 30122." You state that it is your understanding that you are currently allowed to perform certain modifications to a vehicle, such as disconnecting the air bag if a person is driving from a wheelchair, or modifying the OEM lap/shoulder belt assembly to accommodate a person with physical disabilities, without having to obtain a ruling from NHTSA. You ask for help in clarifying the matter.

In general, modifiers are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to do so, but are subject to certain statutory limits on the type of modifications they may make.

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. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable 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.

After a vehicle is sold at retail, Federal law limits the modifications made to it by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses. These entities are prohibited under 49 U.S.C. section 30122 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. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation.

As to your understanding that "we are currently allowed to perform certain modifications such as disconnecting the air bag if a person is driving from a wheelchair, or modifying the OEM lap/shoulder belt assembly to accommodate a person with physical disabilities," we believe you are referring to the effect of an exclusion⁽¹⁾ from the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, for light trucks and vans "manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities." Instead of meeting the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements, these vehicles may instead be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (separate lap and shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions.

You do not need to write to NHTSA for a determination that the modification qualifies for this exclusion. However, to qualify for this exclusion, the vehicle must:

• be a light truck or van manufactured before September 1, 1997,
• incorporate a level change device (e.g. lift or ramp) for on loading or off loading an occupant in a wheelchair,
• have an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position (such as a raised roof, or dropped floor), and
• have either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation (examples are an easily removable driver's seat for driving from a wheelchair, or a power seat base for those who transfer) to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate the vehicle.

If you modify a used light truck or van originally certified to Standard No. 208's dynamic test and automatic protection requirements, and do so in a manner that it would have qualified for the exclusion cited above, it would not be a violation of the "make inoperative" provision if you disconnected the air bag or modified the OEM lap and shoulder belts within the scope of that exclusion. In other words, at the end of such modification, instead of meeting the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements, such a vehicle may instead be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (separate lap and shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions. Because Standard No. 208 would have permitted the vehicle to be manufactured in this manner when new, there would neither be a violation of the 30122 "make inoperative" provision or any need for this agency to consider granting an exception from that provision.

In situations involving a potential violation of 30122, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.

If you believe that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, you may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why you cannot avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate the that proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances.

For your information, NHTSA is considering proposing a regulation establishing conditions under which a vehicle may be modified to accommodate a person's disability so that the modifier will not be subjected to the make inoperative requirements of 30122. Enclosed is a copy of page 22101 of the agency's April 25, 1997 regulatory agenda where this possible rulemaking is described (entry number 2266).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.9/29/97

1. This exclusion is only available for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1997.

ID: 16-002814 Chrysler_VIN_interp_clean_1

ID: 1766y

Mr. Les Schreiner
Fresia Engineering Inc.
700 E. Main Street
Suite 1618
Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towing vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with your letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories. a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed appears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles should be classified for the purposes of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statutes and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:VSA d:4/3/89

ID: 11409.MLS

Mr. Milford R. Bennett, Director
Safety Affairs and Regulations
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Box 9010
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the thermal performance requirements in FMVSS No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Your specific question is what pedal force may or must be used during cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles for purposes of establishing allowable pedal force for thermal testing. As discussed below, it is our opinion that a vehicle must meet thermal test requirements at or below the average pedal force that achieves the shortest stopping distance during cold effectiveness tests conducted in accordance with the standard's test procedures.

The provisions in S7.5 set forth the cold effectiveness test for passenger car braking. That provision requires that the vehicle be capable of stopping within 70 meters from a speed of 100 kph with a brake pedal force that does not exceed 500 Newtons. Pursuant to S6.5.3.2, unless otherwise specified, the vehicle is to be stopped in the shortest distance achievable (best effort) on all stops.

As you correctly stated, the average pedal force used during the cold effectiveness test establishes the allowable average pedal force (and thus the stringency) for the hot performance test in S7.14 and the recovery performance test in S7.16. Specifically, S7.14 requires a vehicle with heated brakes to be capable of achieving at least 60% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force recorded during that cold effectiveness stop, while S7.16 requires the vehicle to be capable of achieving between 70% and 150% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force used during that cold effectiveness stop.

According to your letter, this test protocol is straightforward for testing non-ABS- equipped vehicles, but may be unclear with respect to testing ABS equipped vehicles. You stated that in testing ABS-equipped vehicles, GM rapidly applies and holds a constant 500 Newton pedal force throughout the cold effectiveness stop. You further stated that the presence of ABS allows the driver to apply a constant 500 Newton pedal force, stay within the standard=s wheel lock constraints, and meet the 70 meter stopping distance requirement. You stated that a problem arises because a lower pedal force could be used to match or possibly improve the stopping distance compared to a constant 500 Newton pedal force. This is so because at the 500 Newton level, the ABS would cycle to prevent excessive wheel lock, whereas a 400 Newton average level could result in an equivalent stopping distance if the driver modulated the braking force to avoid wheel lock and ABS cycling. You claimed that the pedal force difference would be unimportant for the cold effectiveness test since any force at or under 500 Newtons could be used to meet those requirements. However, it would be crucial in establishing the allowable pedal force and associated stringency for the hot performance and recovery performance tests. You stated that this could lead to compliance disputes between NHTSA and a vehicle manufacturer.

You suggested three alternatives to clarify the pedal force that may or must be used when conducting cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles:

(1) Allow a constant 500 Newton pedal force for cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles, notwithstanding the requirement in S6.5.3.2 to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance;

(2) Rewrite the thermal assessment provision of FMVSS No. 135 to use constant pedal force stops at the onset of the thermal sequence, rather than the pedal force obtained in the cold effectiveness stops, as the baseline for thermal performance assessment; or

(3) Stipulate that the pedal force used during cold effectiveness testing can exceed neither 500 Newtons nor the pedal force necessary to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance.

You recommended that NHTSA adopt Option #1 for a near term solution of this testing issue, and Option #2 as the longer term solution. You believe that Option #1 is practical, objective, repeatable, and provides a well defined pedal force constraint for the subsequent thermal tests. You acknowledged that there is a drawback to this option, i.e., that it may not result in a comparison of braking performance based upon the lowest possible average pedal force for the cold effectiveness stop. You stated that Option #2 would require rulemaking and the associated delay to implement. You stated that Option #3 would provide the intended "apples-to-apples" comparison of cold versus hot brake performance. You stated, however, that this option is not practical from a testing standpoint, since, for an ABS-equipped vehicle, a test driver could not be expected in the allowed six cold effectiveness stops to determine the minimum pedal force yielding the shortest possible stopping distance.

We anticipate that test drivers will utilize a variety of pedal forces during the six cold effectiveness stops in an effort to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance consistent with the test procedures. The average pedal force that resulted in the shortest stopping distance of

these six tests would be used to ascertain compliance with the thermal and recovery performance requirements under S7.14 and S7.16. If, as you suggest, the shortest distance can be achieved at more than one average pedal force level (e.g., if the ABS cycles at a variety of pedal forces below 500 Newtons, or the test driver is able to modulate braking forces to avoid wheel lock while matching the stopping performance of the ABS system), the vehicle must be capable of satisfying the thermal and recovery performance requirements at all such average pedal force levels.

This is consistent with the agency=s long-standing view that, as a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit the unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions. However, nothing about Standard No. 135 or its purposes provides a reason to limit the range of average pedal forces.

I hope you find this information helpful. 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

ref:135 d:5/16/96

ID: 002661cmc

Ms. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs
Installation Management Agency
North East Region Office, Logistics Division
Transportation Branch
SFIM-NE-LD-T, Bldg 5A, Rm 204
Fort Monroe, VA 23651-1048

Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs:

This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. 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 (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply.

While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) 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[.]

Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection; FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below.

FMVSS No. 207

FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard.

FMVSS No. 208

Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210.

If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position.

FMVSS No. 209

FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard.

FMVSS No. 210

FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard.

FMVSS No. 225

If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle.

I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.6/20/03





---

[1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.

ID: 002661cmc_new

Ms. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs
Installation Management Agency
North East Region Office, Logistics Division
Transportation Branch
SFIM-NE-LD-T, Bldg 5A, Rm 204
Fort Monroe, VA 23651-1048

Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs:

This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. 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 (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply.

While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) 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[.]

Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection; FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below.

FMVSS No. 207

FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard.

FMVSS No. 208

Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210.

If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position.

FMVSS No. 209

FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard.

FMVSS No. 210

FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard.

FMVSS No. 225

If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle.

I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.6/20/03





---

[1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.