Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Associate Director, Government. Relations
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway
PO Box 1100
Brea, CA 92822-1100

Dear Mr. Bush:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, "Occupant protection in interior impact". Specifically, you ask whether side curtain air bag tethers are considered a part of the "stowed system" that is subject to reduced impact speed upper interior component performance requirements. As discussed below, the answer is yes.

By way of background, S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201 sets minimum performance requirements for upper interior components by establishing target areas that must be properly padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to minimize head injury in the event of a crash. Compliance with the upper interior component requirements is determined, in part, by measuring the forces experienced by the Free Motion Headform test device (FMH) when it is propelled into certain targets on the vehicle interior at the speed of 24km/h (15 mph), or in some cases, at the reduced impact speed of 19 km/h (12 mph).

Air bag systems are frequently stowed (in their un-deployed state) in the same interior areas where certain test targets are located. Targets located on or near air bag systems are subject to reduced impact speed test requirements because the agency is concerned that requiring areas over the stowed portion of an air bag (or its attachment and other hardware) to meet more stringent 15 mph impact requirement could hinder their development and use. Thus, in order to accommodate the current systems and the development of new or additional air bag systems, we determined that use of a 12 mph impact speed, in conjunction with a full-vehicle dynamic side impact pole test, would best help realize the safety benefits of air bags. In relevant part, S6.2(b)(2) of FMVSS No. 201 reads as follows:

"Targets that are over any point inside the area measured along the contour of the vehicle interior within 50 mm (2.0 inch) of the periphery of the stowed system projected perpendicularly onto the vehicle interior surface, including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers, when the dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system is not deployed, shall be impacted by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 at any speed up to and including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the system undeployed" [emphasis added]

You ask if stowed side curtain tethers are considered part of the "stowed system" under S6.2(b)(2).As used in S6.2(b)(2), "stowed system" refers to a stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system. The language ofS6.2(b)(2) specifies that in determining the area subject to reduced impact speed test requirements, consideration is taken of the stowed system, including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers. Side curtain air bag tethers are a part of the stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system, and they are not "covers". Therefore, they are considered in determining whether the target issubject to reduced impact speed test requirements.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.4/17/06

Mr. Siyamak Ahl
KMAK INT'L INC.
639 Maple Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Dear Mr. Ahl:

This responds to your e-mail regarding requirements for brake pad importers. Specifically, you ask whether a brake pad importer must obtain DOT approval or certification. The answer is no.

Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 30101, et seq. (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) specifically applicable to brake pads. Instead, several FMVSSs regulate entire brake systems. Specifically, Standards No. 105, 121, 122, and 135 regulate brake systems for various types of motor vehicles. Vehicle manufactures are responsible for certifying that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSSs, including relevant brake system requirements. Accordingly, brake pad manufactures or importers are not directly responsible for any certification requirements.

We note that despite the fact that NHTSA does not directly regulate brake pads, any brake pad designed to be used on a motor vehicle is an item of motor vehicle equipment and is subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Enclosed please find an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:121
d.2/6/04

Mr. Richard Keller
Director of Business Development
Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc.
1780 Executive Drive, PO Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

This is in response to your letter concerning legal responsibilities of vehicle modifiers (i.e., entities that modify motor vehicles after the first retail sale) with respect to the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle modifiers are obligated to replace the tire safety information placard required by S4.3, if the relevant information on the placard becomes inaccurate as a consequence of their actions. As explained below, the answer is no.

By way of background, S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less contain a placard showing certain critical tire safety information, including but not limited to, the vehicle capacity weight, the recommended inflation pressure, and the tire size designation. This information enables consumers to ascertain the cargo carrying limitations of their vehicles, and to properly inflate their tires. It also enables consumers to purchase correct size replacement tires.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

In your letter, you ask whether it would be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision if modifiers changed the vehicles such that the information of the tire placard is no longer accurate, but do not update the tire placard.

In evaluating this question, we have focused on the language of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. One of the items of safety information required by that section is identified in paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

"Tire size designation, indicated by the headings "size" or "original tire size" or "original size," and "spare tire" or "spare," for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement "see above" may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word "none" must replace the tire size designation;" [Emphasis added]

Thus, the requirement for one of the critical items of safety information to be provided on the tire placard is specifically expressed in terms of the "tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale." We also note that there is a relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard.

We observe that regardless of what changes a modifier may make to a vehicle, it does not change the size of the tires that were installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale (the information S4.3 of FMVSS 110 requires to be on the placard).Given this, and recognizing the relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard, it is our opinion that it would not be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision, with respect to S4.3 of FMVSS 110, if modifiers change the vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

We note that while our regulations do not require changes to the tire safety information placard if the changes to the vehicle occur after it is first sold for purposes other than resale, the potential inconsistency between the information on the placard and the actual vehicle could in some cases be misleading and dangerous to vehicle operators. Specifically, relying on what has become inaccurate information, vehicle operators could over-inflate or under-inflate their tires, thereby creating a safety hazard. Also, vehicle operators could overload their vehicles, which also would create a safety hazard. Finally, vehicle operators could end up purchasing incorrect replacement tires (e.g., original tire size not appropriate for aftermarket rim), erroneously relying on the placard that is no longer accurate.

In light of these concerns and consistent with previous interpretation letters concerning post-sale modifications relating to a vehicles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (May 24, 1993, letter to Mr. John Paul Barber, Esq., and April 2, 1997, letter to Mr. James Baker), we would urge a party which modifies a used vehicle so that the tire safety information is no longer accurate to either add a new label to the vehicle which indicates the correct tire safety information or add a warning label (preferably proximate to the placard)indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate.

I note that this interpretation applies only to modifications occurring after the first retail sale. With respect to vehicles altered prior to first retail sale, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

Finally, we note that with respect to modifications of vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities, 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5) requires modifiers to provide the vehicle owner with a document that indicates a reduction in the load carrying capacity of more than 100 kg (220 lb) after the modifications are completed.

If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood,
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Ms. Dana Roeling
Executive Director
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
3327 W. Bearss Avenue
Tampa, FL 33618

ref:110
d.4/7/06

Mr. Dave Adams
Market Manager Automotive, N.A.
Tesa Tape
5825 Camegie Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28209

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your December 3, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin of my staff, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). Specifically, you ask us to clarify the requirements in 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) with regard to the residual parts of a removed parts making label.

By way of background, the purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard requires that a parts marking label, containing identifying numbers or symbols (usually the Vehicle Identification Number is used), be placed on major parts of certain passenger motor vehicles.

541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires that removal of the parts marking label must: "discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present. "(Emphasis added.) These residual parts are also known as "footprints."

In your e-mail, you indicate that you have encountered labels that leave a footprint upon removal, but that the footprint "can easily be wiped away thus providing no evidence that a label was originally present."You ask whether such an easily removable footprint satisfies the requirements of 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B). Our answer is no.

Section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires the footprint to be of a quality that will alert investigators that a label was once present. Since the vehicle would be inspected by an investigator some time after the removal of the label, the requirement envisions the footprint to have a degree of permanence. As indicated in the final rule establishing the footprint requirement, the agency thought that footprints that could not be removed with most solvents would be effective (see 50 FR 43166, at 43174; October 24, 1985). We note however, that the standard does not require that the footprint be visible under natural light (see April 8, 1994 letter to Daniel T. Mason).

In sum, unless removal of the label creates or uncovers lasting physical evidence that the label was originally present, the effectiveness of the theft prevention standard would be substantially reduced. In fact, allowing for an easily removable footprint would frustrate the very purpose of the requirement.

If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.2/2/05

Mr. Karl Genest
518 Jodoin
St-Bruno, Quebec
CANADA
J3V 6G8

Dear Mr. Genest:

This responds to your letter of December 9, 2004, asking if any Federal regulations apply to your invention, which you describe generally as an accessory that attaches to the seatback of a vehicles front seat. You did not provide a description of your product except to note that it attaches to the seatback, and that "when attached to the back of a cars front seat, [my device] would intrude somewhat into the space occupied by passengers of the back seat". You state that the intrusion would be similar to those of two "car seat organizers," the photographs of which you enclose in your letter. In a phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff, you indicated that you intend to market your product in stores directly to consumers (in the "aftermarket").

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment sold in or imported into this country. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

Because you did not describe your product, we are unable to provide an interpretation of the standards that could apply. However, we have the following general observations. Most of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to the completed motor vehicle. Some FMVSSs apply to aftermarket equipment, including lamps and reflective devices, seat belt systems, and child restraints. Even if an FMVSS does not directly apply to your aftermarket product, there are several requirements that may affect you.

First, 30122 of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. That is, your device could not be installed by such businesses if they determine that the installation of your invention would adversely affect the vehicles compliance with any safety standard.

With regard to your question about "possible intrusion zone" requirements affecting your product, it is possible that installation of this device could affect compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. This standard establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. S5.2 of FMVSS No. 201 specifies that an area of the seat back that is within the "head impact area," as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 (enclosed), is subject to the head impact protection requirements of the standard. In addition, installation of your product could affect the vehicles compliance with the flammability resistance requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (enclosed). That standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including seat backs.

The make inoperative provision does not apply to vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. However, we recommend that owners not degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Second, please note that motor vehicle accessories are items of "motor vehicle equipment" subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the product and remedying the problem free of charge.

Third, I am enclosing a copy of a procedural rule that applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D, requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate an agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;
2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;
3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:201
d.2/16/05

John Russell Deane III, Esq.
General Counsel
Specialty Equipment Market Association
1317 F Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Deane:

This is in response to your November 30, 2005, letter concerning legal responsibilities of vehicle modifiers (i.e., entities that modify motor vehicles after the first retail sale) with respect to the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle modifiers are obligated to replace the tire safety information placard required by S4.3, if the relevant information on the placard becomes inaccurate as a consequence of their actions. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By way of background, S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less contain a placard showing certain critical tire safety information, including but not limited to, the vehicle capacity weight, the recommended inflation pressure, and the tire size designation. This information enables consumers to ascertain the cargo carrying limitations of their vehicles, and to properly inflate their tires. It also enables consumers to purchase correct size replacement tires.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

In your letter, you ask whether it would be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision if modifiers change a vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

In evaluating this question, we have focused on the language of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. One of the items of safety information required by that section is identified in paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

"Tire size designation, indicated by the headings "size" or "original tire size" or "original size," and "spare tire" or "spare," for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement "see above" may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word "none" must replace the tire size designation;" [Emphasis added]

Thus, the requirement for one of the critical items of safety information to be provided on the tire placard is specifically expressed in terms of the "tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale." We also note that there is a relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard.

We observe that regardless of what changes a modifier may make to a vehicle, it does not change the size of the tires that were installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale (the information S4.3 of FMVSS 110 requires to be on the placard). Given this, and recognizing the relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard, it is our opinion that it would not be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision, with respect to S4.3 of FMVSS 110, if modifiers change the vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

We note that while our regulations do not require changes to the tire safety information placard if the changes to the vehicle occur after it is first sold for the purposes other than retail, the potential inconsistency between the information on the placard and the actual vehicle could in some cases be misleading and dangerous to vehicle operators. Specifically, relying on what has become inaccurate information, vehicle operators could over-inflate or under-inflate their tires, thereby creating a safety hazard. Also, vehicle operators could overload their vehicles, which also would create a safety hazard. Finally, vehicle operators could end up purchasing incorrect replacement tires (e.g., original tire size not appropriate for aftermarket rim), erroneously relying on the placard that is no longer accurate.

In light of these concerns and consistent with previous interpretation letters concerning post-sale modifications relating to a vehicles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (May 24, 1993, letter to Mr. John Paul Barber, Esq., and April 2, 1997, letter to Mr. James Baker), we would urge a party which modifies a used vehicle so that the tire safety information is no longer accurate to either add a new label to the vehicle which indicates the correct tire safety information or add a warning label (preferably proximate to the placard) indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate.

We would like to conclude this letter with a couple of observations. First, I note that your letter suggested that the "make inoperative" provision should not apply to the situation because it was not discussed by the agency during the FMVSS 110 rulemaking. However, because the "make inoperative" provision is statutory and applies to all FMVSSs, the agency does not separately address this statutory prohibition in each rulemaking action.

I also note that this interpretation applies only to modifications occurring after the first retail sale. With respect to vehicles altered prior to first retail sale, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood,
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.4/7/05

Christopher E. MacDonald, President
Best Golf Cars, Inc.
P.O. Box 2717
Myrtle Beach, SC 29578

Dear Mr. MacDonald:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110; "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less" apply to low-speed vehicles. As explained below, they do not.

By way of background, a low-speed vehicle is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as follows:

"Low-speed vehicle (LSV) means a motor vehicle,

(1) that is 4-wheeled,

(2) whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, and

(3) whose GVWR is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds)".

There are only two FMVSSs applicable to low-speed vehicles. They are, FMVSS No. 500; "Low speed vehicles," and FMVSS No. 205 "Glazing materials."I enclose both standards. I note FMVSS No. 500 incorporates certain requirements found in other FMVSSs by reference. However, the requirements in FMVSS No. 110 are not referenced in FMVSS No. 500.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

ref:110
d.4/7/06

Mr. Richard Coffel
456 Coos Bay Wagon Rd.
Roseburg, OR 97470

Dear Mr. Coffel:

This responds to your e-mail dated December 14, 2004, asking "what wattage bulb is legal in a motorcycle headlight?"

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.   The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment, including motorcycle headlamps, is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. FMVSS No. 108 does not regulate the wattage of light sources (bulbs) used in replaceable bulb headlamps that are marked "motorcycle".Instead, these headlamps must conform to the photometric requirements, measured in candela, in Figure 32 of FMVSS No. 108.

For all other motorcycle headlamps that incorporate replaceable bulbs, S7.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires, in part, that each replaceable light bulb be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to 49 CFR Part 564, Replaceable Light Source Information (these specifications are available online at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm, Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3397). That is, a replacement bulb must be manufactured to conform to specifications applicable to the original bulb. Replaceable light bulb manufacturers are required to certify compliance with the requirements of S7.7 by marking the light bulb with the symbol "DOT".

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

/s

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/17/05

Ms. Susan Gabel
Rockland Coach Works LLC
120 Lyons Road
Mertztown, PA 19539

Dear Ms. Gabel

This responds to your December 14, 2004, letter asking whether a "coach" manufactured by your company using a previously used bus chassis requires a new Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) in accordance with 49 CFR Part 565.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which motor vehicle manufacturers are responsible for certifying that their vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

NHTSA does not generally regulate rebuilding or re-manufacturing of used motor vehicles. However, if the rebuilding or remanufacturing involves sufficient manufacturing operations and new parts, the vehicle may be considered newly manufactured. This would mean that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of rebuilding (re-manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards. Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, your letter (and the pictures on your web site) demonstrates an extensive manufacturing process, which includes the following:

1. A used MCI-9 bus is "stripped" completely leaving only the chassis and certain frame components;
2. Damaged frame components are replaced;
3. The rear of the vehicle is extended by 5 feet;
4. The vehicle roof is raised 8 inches;
5. All exterior body panels are replaced with a custom fiberglass body panels;
6. The vehicle is equipped with a different (new or remanufactured) engine and transmission;
7. Wiring, heat, and air components are all replaced;
8. The vehicle is equipped with a new, custom designed interior featuring living quarters.

The extent of manufacturing operations and new parts described in your letter indicate that the vehicles in question are newly manufactured motor vehicles. Particularly, we note that vehicles remanufactured by your company feature different, engines, transmissions, and entirely new bodies except for certain frame components. Thus, your company must assign a new VIN to these remanufactured vehicles. We note that these vehicles would be treated as newly manufactured for the purposes of NHTSAs safety standards and regulations. Among other things, this would mean that your company is required to certify that the vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards in effect as of the date the remanufacturing operations are completed on the vehicles. The information for new vehicle manufacturers is available at our web site at www.nhtsa.gov.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:565
d.2/16/05

Dick Keller, Director of Business Development
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

This is in response to your letter regarding Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 202; "Head restraints".That standard provides several compliance options until September 1, 2008. You ask whether a vehicle modifier; i.e., (an entity that modifies a motor vehicle after the first retail sale) would be permitted to substitute seats in vehicles certified to one compliance option with seats that would enable the vehicle to meet a different compliance option during this period.

By way of background, on December 14, 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule upgrading our head restraint standard. See 69 FR 74848.The new standard becomes effective September 1, 2008. In the final rule, we explained that between the date of issuance and September 1, 2008, vehicle manufacturers may comply with the existing NHTSA standard, the upgraded NHTSA standard, or the current European regulations pertaining to head restraints.

In your letter, you explain that Bruno is a manufacturer of motor vehicle devices designed to assist mobility impaired persons. One of your products is "Turning Automotive Seating" (TAS). The TAS is designed to swivel in order to allow easier egress/ingress for mobility impaired persons. The TAS is installed in place of regular seats provided by vehicle manufacturers. You state that vehicles equipped with TAS meet the requirements of the existing FMVSS No. 202, but not the requirements of the upgraded standard or the applicable European regulations. With respect to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2008, you ask whether replacing a seat in a vehicle certified to the upgraded standard or the applicable European regulations with a seat that enables vehicles to meet the existing FMVSS No. 202 would violate 49 U.S.C. 30122.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" 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.

With respect to FMVSSs providing several compliance options, it is our opinion that the "make inoperative provision" does not prohibit substitution of equipment in vehicles certified to one compliance option with equipment enabling vehicles to meet a different option. Thus, until September 1, 2008, the substitution of seats in vehicles certified to the upgraded or European requirements with seats enabling vehicles to meet the existing FMVSS No. 202 would not violate 30122 with respect to our standard on head restraints.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:202
d.4/7/06