ID: nht87-1.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Cameron-Nott

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott 90 Horace St: Stratford, CT 06497

This replies to your March 31, 1987 letter asking for a clarification of my January 16 letter to you regarding the importation of rebodied automobiles.

Specifically, you asked which Form HS-7 declaration is proper upon entry of a vehicle incorporating a 1966 chassis, upon which is mounted a new body whose individual equipment items meet current Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to them ( i.e. glazing, tires, brake hoses, lighting equipment, seat belts). The Customs officials you have contacted are unsure whether entry should be made under Box 1 or Box 3 of Form HS-7.

As we advised you earlier, a rebodied vehicle retaining its original chassis components, title, and identification number is considered to retain its original model year designation, even with a new body installed on it. Therefore, your vehicle would be considered a 1966 model. Accordingly, Box 1 would be the proper declaration: that the vehicle was manufactured on a date when no applicable safety standards were in effect. Box 3 is clearly inappropriate as there is no legal requirement for such a vehicl e to be brought into conformity with Federal safety standards. Should conformance of the individual equipment items be questioned - unlikely in our opinion -Box 2 would appear to be the appropriate declaration for these items: that they conform to all ap plicable standards and bear the manufacturer's certification to that effect (the DOT symbol on these items).

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you for your letter dated January 16th concerning my questions regarding rebodied cars(copy Enclosed). I do however have a point which requires clarification.

The car is a rebodied 1966 vehicle as per paragraph #1 however the windshield, tires, brake hoses, head lights and seat belts have been replaced and have the appropriate D.O.T. FMVSS markings on them as well as paid receipts for these items.

I have asked U.S. Customs in N.Y. how I should make the customs entry on form HS-7. They have suggested that I write to you for clarification because a pre 1968 car normally is entered under section #1 however because of these equipment changes they cann ot tell me whether I should file under section #1 or section #3.

In order to avoid delays and confusion upon arrival at customs I should be grateful if you would advise me under which section D.O.T. requires the entry to be made.

Your early reply would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Peter Cameron-Nott

See 1/16/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Peter Cameron-Nott

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: 1985-04.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Tony P. Hall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to Administrator Steed on behalf of your constituent, Mr. C. Daniel Raisch, Superintendent of the Oakwood City School District, regarding the school bus regulations issued by this agency. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Superintendent Raisch is concerned with the manner in which our regulations are applied to school vans that carry 10 or more passengers. He believes that only 10 persons are allowed to be transported in a van, and requests that this number be increased to 12. You inquired into a waiver from this agency that would permit the Oakwood City School District to transport more than 10 school children in a school van.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. To begin, I would like to emphasize that Federal law does not prohibit schools from carrying more than 10 passengers in a school van. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. Our regulations would permit the sale of new 12-passenger vans to the Oakwood City School District if the seller can ensure that the van meets all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, including the safety standards we issued in 1977 for school buses.

Some background information on this subject may be helpful. Our agency has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress expressly amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards on various aspects of school bus performance, such as seating systems, fuel systems, windows and windshields, and emergency exits. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date.

The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under our regulations, a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered to be a "bus," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. 49 C.F.R. 571.3(b). Thus, new 12-passenger vans sold to the Oakwood City School District are included in our definition of a "school bus," and may be sold to the school district if they meet our school bus safety standards. If any new vehicle does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties.

Superintendent Raisch suggested that NHTSA grant a waiver permitting manufacturers to sell 12-passenger vans as school buses when those vans do not comply with the school bus safety standards. While section 123 of the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue temporary exemptions of motor vehicles from our motor vehicle safety standards, our agency has no general waiver authority. Under @ 123, our authority to grant exemption is limited to certain very specific conditions involving a limited number of vehicles. Therefore, NHTSA has no authority to provide the type of relief your constituent requests.

Mr. Raisch may also be suggesting that we change our definition of a "school bus" to permit the sale of new 12-passenger vans as school buses when those vans do not meet our school bus safety standards. At this time, we have no reason to believe that such a change would be in the interest of school bus safety. Our safety standards for school buses were developed to specify comprehensive requirements for school buses that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Amending our definition of a "school bus" along the lines suggested by Mr. Raisch would restrict the applicability of our school bus safety standards to a smaller group of vehicles than buses presently subject to those standards. The safety record of school buses since the issuance of our school bus safety standards in April 1977 has been remarkable, and we believe that school vans carrying 10 or more passengers should continue to afford the high levels of passenger protection currently required for school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States house of Representatives

September 30, 1985

Honorable Diane Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed:

I am enclosing copies of correspondence I received from C. Daniel Raisch, Superintendent of School for Oakwood, Ohio. You will note that Mr. Raisch is seeking a waiver of the number of students which can be transported in school vans. He makes the point that today's vans are built to accommodate twelve individuals.

I would appreciate your review of this suggestion and your comments with respect to the possibility of waivers being permitted.

Tony P. Hall Member of Congress

ENCLS.

September 18, 1985

Rick Carne

Dear Mr. Rick Carne: Earlier this month I discussed with one of the representatives from your Dayton office the issue concerning the minimum number of student passengers permitted transportation in a van before the van must be equipped as a bus.

Currently, the number is ten persons allowed transportation in a van. I am requesting the number be elevated to twelve. This request is based primarily upon the fact that most vans built today are designed to accomodate twelve passengers.

Attached is a document which should aid in your review of the request.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

C. Daniel Raisch Superintendent

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Notice Expires September 1, 1977

SUBJECT: Guidelines for Implementing Highway Safety Program Standard 17, Pupil Transportation Safety

PURPOSE:

To provide new NHTSA information regarding:

a) definition of "school bus;"

b) interpretation of "to and from school;" and,

c) implementation/affect for NHTSA and the various State and local jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND:

1-Definition of "School Bus":

NHTSA regulates the manufacture of school buses under the National Traffic and Motor Vehilce Safety Act of 1966 and the operation of school buses under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Regulations under these Acts have provided somewhat differing, although not conflicting, definitions of school bus.

Congress, in passing the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Almendments of 1974, defined "school bus" in terms of function rather than design. In line with this undate, all vehicles manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, which are designed for carrying more than 10 persons and which are sold or introduced in (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, shall be considered school buses. In keeping with the (Illegible Word) of Congress as reflected in the legislative history of the 1974 amendments, these vehicles will be required to be equipped with a system of signal lamps conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Discussion related to the change may be found in the Federal Register for December 31, 1973, 40 FR 60033 (See Attachment "A") and August 26, 1976, 41 FR 36026 (See Attachment "B").

2 - Interpretation of "to and from school":

In an opinion dated May 5, 1977, the NHTSA's Chief Counsel has ruled that the phrase," to and from school in paragraph III of Highway Safety Program Standard 17, as interpreted in Notice 900, (dated April 11, 1974) is excessively narrow, and that the phrase should include any trip for a school-related event. However, buses in operation prior to April 1, 1977, for use soley in the transportation of students to and from school related events will not be required to meet the requirements of Standard 17. For ease of reference, see:

Attachment "C" Notice 900, Q and A #5, dated April 11, 1974 Attachment "D" Counsel Memo, May 5, 1977.

IMPLEMENTATION/EFFECT:

1 - Definition of "school bus" and identification and marking requirements:

Effective April 1, 1977, the definition of "school bus" in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR @ 571.3) reads as follows:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold or introduced in interstate (Illegible Word), for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

The definition for "bus" (49 CFR @ 571.3) will continue to read as follows:

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

Therefore, the impact on ESPS #17 is as follows:

In addition to all Type I vehicles, this new definition of "school bus" will include many of the van-type vehicles that are classified as Type II school vehicles under ESPS #17. If a Type II van is designed to carry more than 10 persons, and if it is sold for purposes that include "carrying students to and from school or related events," it will have to be sold with all the equipment specified for school buses by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It will, therefore, have to have school bus lights as specified by the Standard on lighting (49 CFR @ 371.108).

Since these vehicles will be equipped with the school bus lighting system, ESPS #17, Section IV.3.5, requires that they comply with two other requirements for identifying school buses; i.e., they must be painted, "National School Bus Glossy Fellow," and be identified format and rear with the words SCHOOL BUS. Of course, vehicles manufactured before April 1, 1977, will not be subject to this new requirement.

2 - Interpretation of "to and from school" Effective May 5, 1977, NHTSA's position is that "to and from school" includes any trip to and from school or school related events.

Previous interpretation/definitions in NHTSA Notices, correspondence, or program manuals/materials are hereby superseded.

Fred W. Vetter

ATTACHMENTS

ID: 23449ogm

Mr. Leonard Reisinger, Jr.
#EB-8933
301 Morea Road
Frackville, PA 17932

Dear Mr. Reisinger:

This responds to your letters addressed to former Administrator Martinez and former Secretary Slater. Your letters express concern that vehicles used by a private contractor for transporting prison inmates do not have seat belts. According to your letters, the vehicles at issue use school bus seats arranged to face each other to accommodate prisoners in transport. Your letter further indicates that these seats are located within a "cage" and that the seats are not equipped with seat belts. You are concerned that the failure to provide seat belts to prisoners violates both State and Federal safety belt laws.

Let me begin by making clear that this office has no special knowledge or expertise with respect to individual state laws. My answer will address only the requirements of the laws and regulations administered by this agency.

Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR 571.208) which, among other things, requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in motor vehicles. However, different requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the size and weight of the vehicle. In addition, there are separate requirements applicable to new school buses. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific requirements for the vehicles you are concerned about without knowing the vehicles' date of manufacture, seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating.

Chapter 301 provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208 (See 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). That section provides that:

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

Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of our standards. Thus, if an entity, such as a State or a contractor, purchases a vehicle and makes modifications itself, there is no violation of Federal law, even if the modified vehicle does not comply with our standards.

Your letter also asks if it is proper under state law for prisoners to be transported in highway vehicles without being restrained by seat belts. You also indicate that, when asked, a contractor that provides prisoner transport indicated that it was under no obligation to provide seat belts or air bags for prisoners. As noted above, this office cannot provide you with advice regarding the seat belt use laws of a particular state or states. I respectfully suggest that you contact the state or states whose laws may apply to your particular situation to determine if, and how, those laws apply.

Finally, you request "any information or studies" on seat belt safety and any hazards resulting from not having seat belts in vehicles. NHTSA has conducted many studies on this subject, including ones on the effectiveness of seat belts and automatic restraints in preventing or reducing injury. I am afraid that your request is so broad, and potentially encompasses so much material, that I cannot provide a specific response. If you have access to the internet, I would suggest that you visit the NHTSA website at www.nhtsa.dot.gov and review some of our most recent publications to determine if they contain the kind of information you require. If you do not have access to the internet, I would suggest that you call NHTSA's technical reference division at (800) 445-0197 to determine if there is a specific report or publication that is relevant to your particular concerns.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.1/17/02

ID: nht81-1.3

DATE: 01/13/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 14, 1980, regarding the warning devices required by Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, and Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You ask whether the sound of a voice repeating the phrase "please pull out the ignition key" or "please fasten seat belt" at 2-3 second intervals could be used to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 114 and Standard No. 208. You also ask whether a buzzer or chime that signals an unfastened seat belt or the presence of the key in the ignition could also be used to give the driver other warnings, such as turning off the headlights.

Standard No. 114 does not specify the nature of the warning that must be given to the driver in the event that the ignition key is left in the locking system. Thus the system you describe would comply with the rule. Note that the signal must be activated whenever the key has been left in the ignition and the driver's door is opened.

Standard No. 208 requires that the driver's seating position be equipped with a warning system that activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than four (4) seconds and not more than eight (8) seconds. The signal must begin when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" or "start" position and the driver's belt is not in use. If the system you have devised stops the warning only when the belt has been fastened, it would not comply with this rule. The signal must end within eight (8) seconds, irregardless of whether the driver's belt has been fastened. Regarding your specific question, an audible "voice" signal would be permitted under the standard.

The buzzers or chimes that are installed in accordance with Standard No. 214 or Standard No. 208 may also be used to warn the driver of other conditions.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION

October 14, 1980

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir;

Subject: Warning Device for FMVSS 114 and 208

This letter is for getting your interpretation to the following questions concerning the warning devices required by FMVSS 114 and 208.

1. Is it considered as complying with the requirements to use the voice sound such as "please pull out ignition key" or "please fasten seat belt" which is activated repeatedly with 2 or 3 seconds pause?

In order to avoid customers' unpleasant impression due to abrupt cut-off of the voice when the instruction is followed, these warning voices would be ceased after completing the phrase.

2. In case when adopting buzzer or chime sound as the warning of FMVSS 114 or 208, could the same sound be utilized as other additional warnings such as the headlamp turning-off?

For any questions regarding this letter, please contact with the following representative of ours in the U.S.A. and mail your response to him.

T. Shimada -- Senior Technical Manager, MMC Services Inc.; 3000 TOWN CENTER; SUITE 1960; SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 48075; TELEPHONE NUMBER: 313/353-5444

Your early response would be highly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Hidemi Ohya, Manager -- Homologation & Technical Liaison Section, Technical Administration Department

ID: nht88-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: MELANIE TURNER -- QUALITY CONTROL DIAMOND STAR MOTORS

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/26/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MELANIE TURNER; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 08/31/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 04/13/78 FROM JOSEPH J. L EVIN -- NHTSA TO MOE PARE; NOA 30; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

Diamond Star Motors is presently producing cars for Chrysler and Mitsubishi. In order to insure that DSM is meeting FMVSS STD 205 (Glass Markings) without fail we'd like to request a written interpretation of this Standard for clarification purposes. P lease address the following questions:

1. Must the manufacturer markings be in a specified position on the glass (particularly side door glass?) If so, what are the specifications?

2. Must the manufacturing markings be readily and completely visible without dissassembly of the vehicle and without manually moving any molding in order to make markings more visible to the eye?

3. Must the markings be readily readable in a certain position? For example . . . from left to right, right to left, right-side up, or up side down?

4. Must the markings be readable from the outside of the car of the inside of the car?

5. What is the specification for the height of the lettering, point size, and dimensioning of the markings?

6. What does the content of these labels consist of?

Thank you for your cooperation. I greatly appreciate your assistance in supplying any additional information with reguards to this topic. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Your reply is critical to the quality of our cars.

Thank you,

ID: nht95-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: PAUL D. KELLY, ALBERTSON, WARD & McCAFFREY

TO: Philip Recht, Esquire -- Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/1/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO PAUL D. KELLY (A43; VSA 108(a)(2); Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

Please be advised that this office represents Performance Van Shop, Inc., a New Jersey corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens. I write to you at the instruction of Ms. Pat Breslin of NHTSA.

Recently my client has been asked to modify a vehicle for a client named Terri Battisti who is approximately 35 years of age and suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed. She has no use of her lower torso and very l imited upper body mobility. She is confined to a power wheelchair from which she drives. This proposed van would be her third over the past 10-15 years.

My client has no knowledge of Ms. Battisti's past driving record concerning any particular difficulties or accidents or other driver violations. My client is currently confronted with a problem which I would ask that you please address if at all poss ible. Ms. Batissti's ability to turn the steering wheel and to see the gauges in the vehicle has, in the past been accommodated by having the steering box on a stock vehicle removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From that point after-market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed to accept this new steering wheel. This was a common adjustment made for disabled citizens in my client's industry and had pro ved to be very safe and efficient.

My client is lead to believe that as of 1992 the new federal safety laws regarding light truck and van driver's side airbags became effective and therein lies the problem. In the case with Ms. Batissti, if my client does not change the steering wheel Ms. Batissti will never be able to drive the van. She cannot turn the factory steering wheel because it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges when it is in the driving position. My client has proposed a zero effort steeri ng box on this van and have the steering column extended to position her in the driving position. She cannot turn the factory steering wheel. My client has the ability and the means to change to the steering wheel, but to do so would mean sacrificing t he airbag apparatus.

My client is anxious to be able to accommodate this nice lady so that she can continue to drive, but they are naturally concerned and want to be in compliance with any applicable regulations that might be issued through, among others, your office. If there is some provision for accommodating this special needs situation or some sort of a waiver provision. I would ask that you please let me know. The use of the vehicle in this altered condition would be with the full consent and understanding by Ms . Batissti that the safety device designed for her protection, i.e., the airbag, would be removed.

I ask for your guidance in providing assistance to this disabled citizen.

I thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

ID: 11689.MLV

Mr. Michael Pollard
Daleiden's Inc.
425 E. Vine St.
Kalamazoo, MI 49001

Dear Mr. Pollard:

This responds to your letter of March 21, 1996, requesting an exemption for "modifications of motor vehicles for drivers with physical disabilities." Your current issue concerns a modification to install an electric hydraulic seat base to allow the driver to transfer from a wheelchair to the supplied drivers seat on a 1996 Chevrolet Van. According to the seat base manufacturer, (B&D Industries of Mt. Carmel, IL) the airbag device must be disarmed to perform this modification.

In general, repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory 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. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment (such as an air bag) installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. While your letter does not explain why "the airbag device must be disarmed to accommodate" the apparatus to be installed, we are aware that some vehicles have air bag deployment sending units under the driver's seat and that the instructions provided by the OEM specifically prohibit relocation of these units.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative"

prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. In your situation, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against the business that modifies the seat on the vehicle to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made, and the person making the modifications should consider other safety issues that might arise from the modification. For example, in installing a new base below a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The modification may cause the air bag to deploy. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we encourage the owner to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

Your letter also suggests that a "blanket exemption" would be useful to modifiers. The current Standard No. 208 contains an exclusion from the automatic protection requirement for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Air bags are installed in vehicles as one means of complying with this requirement. The exclusion applies to "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities," 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 wheelchair 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 purposes 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 transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

Your letter does not contain enough information to indicate whether your situation falls within this exclusion. However, you may nonetheless rely on non- enforcement of the standard for the reasons I described above.

You should also note that the "blanket" exclusion will not be available under the new regulation that requires the installation of air bags to meet the automatic protection requirements. That regulation will be phased in beginning with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 (1998 model year). All vehicles must comply the following year.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref: VSA# 208 d:5/3/96

ID: aiam0966

Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in response to your letter of January 10, 1973, in which yo asked whether State 'user laws' that prohibit the sale or operation of a motor vehicle without seat belts would be preempted by Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to the extent that the standard allows vehicles to be manufactured with other types of restraint.; The position of this agency is that section 103(d) of the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), requires State laws or rules that have the effect of regulating vehicle design or equipment to be identical to any Federal motor vehicle safety standards governing the same aspects of performance, whether the State rules are phrased as regulating manufacture, sale or operation.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5542

Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your FAX of April 19, 1995 requesting clarification of an April 3, 1995, letter from this office. You asked for verification that the 'seat belt anchorages in the following scenario are exempt from the location requirement of Standard No. 210: A vehicle with 2 front seating positions that is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and such restraint meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the air bags alone and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested under FMVSS 208.' Your understanding is correct. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;