ID: 20811.ztv

Mr. Robert N. Clemens
President
Automobile Consumer Service Corp.
2007 Poole Drive
Huntsville, AL 35810

Dear Mr. Clemens:

This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, enclosing copies of "RI policy and Certificate of Insurance with an endorsement [by] National Warranty Insurance Group." You have asked for our approval, so that you may proceed to order the printing of the policies.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30141(c)(1)(C) and 30147(b), as implemented by 49 CFR 592.5(a)(8), (a)(9), and (e) require this agency to ensure that a registered importer (RI) provide and maintain evidence of sufficient financial responsibility to meet certain obligations, principally to notify purchasers and remedy safety-related defects or noncompliances occurring in motor vehicles for which the RI has import certification responsibility. The regulatory method we chose was to require an RI to obtain a "mandatory service insurance policy issued by an independent insurance company," in an amount up to $2,000 for each motor vehicle imported or conformed by the RI.

When the regulation went into effect early in 1990, the initial RIs were unable to find any company registered as an insurer which was willing to issue such a service insurance policy. However, Automobile Consumer Service Corporation developed a "warranty" to serve the same purposes as an insurance policy, and we acceded to this arrangement. We assisted ACSC in drafting an acceptable document, even though we had no information on its financial reserves and its financial ability to honor the "warranty." However, we are not aware of any instance in which one of these warranties was presented to ACSC, let alone presented and not honored.

Nevertheless, the question of the adequacy of reserves to honor policies has continued to concern us. Your letter of November 2 informed us of the willingness of the National Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group ("National Warranty") to insure ACSC on its issuance of its warranties. In turn, on November 23, 1999, Signet Star Reinsurance Company ("Signet Star") agreed to reinsure National Warranty under its agreement with ACSC, a copy of which you furnished us on November 29.

After reviewing these documents, we have concluded that an RI who obtains an ACSC warranty that is covered by ACSC's agreement with National Warranty, and by National Warranty's agreement with Signet Star, provides a satisfactory assurance of financial ability to fulfill the RI's statutory obligations. You may proceed to order your policies. However, our consent to this arrangement does not preclude us from considering other ways in which the statutory objectives may be effected. Any changes, of course, would be the subject of public notices to afford interested persons an opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:592
d.2/3/2000

ID: 20822.ztv

Mr. Timothy J. Flanagan
Manager, Gas Methods & Training
PECO Energy Company
300 Front Street
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2723

Dear Mr. Flanagan:

This is in reply to your letter of October 6, 1999, requesting permission "to install additional lighting for visibility and safety purposes" on PECO Energy Company emergency service vehicles.

You report that your vehicles currently are equipped with an "amber strobe light on the roof and the regular hazard lights." You would like to add "additional strobe lights in the rear and front" of your vehicles to be used while the vehicles are stationary, and state that this additional lighting "will not interfere with any other warning or safety devices on the vehicle such as headlights or turn signals."

Strobe lamps are not permitted as original equipment on motor vehicles. This is because all lamps with which a vehicle is supplied must be steady burning, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, and headlamps which may be automatically flashed for signaling purposes (see S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). We regard a strobe lamp as one that flashes, and hence prohibited as original equipment.

As for vehicles in the field, such as yours, Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122) prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative safety equipment installed in accordance with FMVSS No. 108 (and any other applicable FMVSS as well). Installation of a strobe lamp would create a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 which we equate with "making inoperative" within the meaning of the statute. However, the list of persons prohibited from making safety modifications affecting compliance do not include vehicle owners. Thus, if PECO Energy has its own vehicle repair facilities, your company may install the strobe lamps without violating Federal law. Use of these lamps is subject to the laws of Pennsylvania.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d:1/7/00

ID: 20832.ztv

Mr. Joel Martin
1231 SW 3^rd Ave
Suite 123C Building A
Gainesville, FL 32601

Dear Mr. Martin:

Thank you for your fax of October 19, 1999, asking for information on "how I can apply for a financial exemption for a new manufacturer of 49cc Scooters." You relate that the manufacturer "meets all the CFR requirements," but is concerned that one of the lamp manufacturers does not label his product with a DOT symbol. You report, however, that "the light in testing meets the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration testing standards."

Mr. Vinson of this Office, with whom you spoke, recalls that the lamp in question is the headlamp for motor driven cycles. Paragraph S7.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, requires the lens of any headlamp used on a motor vehicle, including motor driven cycles, to be marked with the symbol DOT which shall constitute the certification required by 49 U.S.C. 30115. If the headlamp is not so marked, and if testing of the headlamp shows compliance with the motor driven cycle headlamp specifications of SAE J584 April 1964, that would afford a basis upon which its manufacturer could certify compliance. In that event, a temporary exemption would not be required. Please note that S7.9.5 requires that headlamps meeting SAE J584 must also have the word "motorcycle" permanently marked on the lens.

Our temporary exemption procedures are set forth in 49 CFR Part 555. Because of the statutory requirement that we afford the public an opportunity to comment on petitions for exemptions, the process from receipt of an acceptable petition to action on it requires three to four months. While you may submit it on behalf of the manufacturer, the manufacturer must sign the petition. If the manufacturer is located outside the United States, it must first designate an agent for service of process pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45.

A person who is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified for sale in the United States may import a non-conforming motor vehicle for research or investigations pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j)(1) and (2)(i) after receiving written permission from the agency (49 CFR 591.6(f)(1)).

You may access our regulations at in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations through website

www.nara.gov/fedreg.

If you have any further questions, you may telephone Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.567#108
d.12/6/99

ID: 20836.ztv

Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara
Project Manager
Regulation and Compliance
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado Isehara-City
Kanagawa Pref. 250-1192
Japan

Dear Mr. Aihara:

This is in reply to your letter of October 21, 1999, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108's requirements for visibility of front turn signals. You have made this request for a specific design which you have enclosed. I am sorry that our reply has been delayed.

This design depicts a lamp assembly containing a headlamp and a turn signal lamp. The assembly has a transparent lens. The turn signal lamp has a separate amber lens inside the assembly. Standard No. 108 requires that "to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex reflectors, of at least 12.5 square cm measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." (paragraph 5.4.1 of SAE Standard J588 NOV84 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108). Your question, in essence, is whether the "outer lens surface" is the surface of the amber lens of the turn signal lamp alone, or that portion of the surface of the transparent lens of the entire lamp assembly that is in front of the amber lens of the turn signal lamp. The drawing you furnished identifies the "unobstructed view area" measured at the 45 deg. observation angle with respect to the amber lens alone as

" C." The "unobstructed view area" measured at the 45 deg. observation angle with respect to the amber lens projected on the transparent lens in front of it is identified as "B." The area of "B" is much larger than the area of "C." You have asked for confirmation that the transparent lens surface may be regarded as the "outer lens surface" and that unobstructed view area "B" is acceptable under Standard No. 108.

I regret that we cannot confirm your interpretation. It is clear to us that the term "outer lens surface" as used in SAE's and NHTSA's turn signal lamp standard, SAE Standard J588 NOV84, for the purpose of observable lens area of a signal lamp, means the lens of the turn signal lamp itself. When the turn signal lamp is part of a larger assembly with a separate lens, the term"outer lens surface" continues to mean the lens surface of the turn signal lamp, the lamp that is actually providing the light, without reference to the surface of the lens of the larger lamp assembly. Thus, area "C" is the area that must meet the visibility requirements.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/14/00

ID: 20837.ztv

Mr. Tadzio Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Regulation & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan

Re: Headlamp Optical Axis Marking

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1999, asking whether the marking intended to designate the optical axis on a new headlamp complies with S7.8.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This section requires the optical axis of visually/optically aimable headlamps to be designated by a mark.

The headlamp assembly will be used on cars intended both for Japan/Europe and the United States and has a common lens, though the light sources will differ. The headlamp intended for Japan/Europe will contain two light sources, each with its own reflector, whereas the U.S. version will be equipped with a single HB5 bulb and a single reflector. The optical axes will be marked on the lens, the U.S. version with a single circle, and the other version with two small diamonds. You relate that the lens is a clear one so that the light sources can be seen easily from outside the lens, and do not believe that multiple markings will create confusion.

The lens is properly marked as required by S7.8.1(b). The two non-required optical axis markings are permissible so long as they do not cause confusion with respect to the required marking. You indicate that the HB5 light source can be clearly seen behind the transparent lens. Therefore, we agree with you that there should be no confusion about the location of the optical axis of the U.S. version headlamp when it is necessary to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the aiming screen or optical aiming equipment.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/27/00

ID: 20856.ztv

Mr. Mark Steele
Steele Enterprises
225 Merrill Place
Goshen, IN 46528

Dear Mr. Steele:

Thank you for your letter of October 21, 1999, enclosing a copy of my letter to you of October 7, 1999, regarding the unacceptability of automatic activation of rear lamps to signal that the ABS has been activated. You have asked the following three questions:

" Where does Standard 108 designate the method of actuation of the hazard warning signal?"

Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 require motor vehicles to be equipped with vehicular hazard warning signal operating units, as specified in SAE Recommended Practice J910, February 1966. Paragraph 1 of SAE J910 defines the operating unit, in part, as "a driver controlled device which causes all turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously." This means that the hazard warning signal unit must be activated by the driver and not automatically. Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, complements this requirement by specifying identification and illumination requirements for hand-operated hazard warning signal controls.

"Since the hazard warning signal is one of the required signals per Standard 108 (ref. S5.1.1.5 and S5.5.5 . . .), how can the hazard warning signal be considered an 'additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment' per S5.1.3?"

When a lamp is modified to perform in a manner that differs from its original design, we consider it to be an "additional lamp" within the meaning of the phrase during the time of its non-standard operation. When it performs in a manner that differs from its original performance, it must not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

We don't understand your references to S5.1.1.5 (whose subject is turn signals).

"If you do not know the position, color and candlepower of the additional lights proposed, how can they be said to 'impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard?'"

We advised you on October 7 that S5.1.3 would prohibit motor vehicles from being equipped with separate lamps that flashed immediately after activation of the stop lamps because of "the potential to cause confusion and momentary hesitation in a following driver, and, in that sense, impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps." We do not need to consider "position, color and candlepower" to reach a conclusion that a steady burning stop signal immediately followed by a flashing signal from a new and unfamiliar lamp has the potential to cause confusion and momentary hesitation. It's the performance that is relevant.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d.12/6/99

ID: 20862.ztv

Herr P. Binder
Valeo
Stuttgarter Strasse 119
74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

Dear Herr Binder:

This is in reply to your fax of October 29, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether certain rear lighting configurations comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The vehicle in question is equipped with a spoiler. You tell us that "if the rear foglamp/and or the Backup lamp will be switched on and the spoiler is in rest position (e.g. low speed or stationary vehicle) the spoiler will be extend[ed] first of all." The time to extend/restore the spoiler is about 4 seconds.

In the first configuration, your "Variant A," the rear fog lamp and/or backup lamp will be covered by the spoiler when it is not extended. The fog lamp is not an item of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 and it is immaterial to compliance with the standard if the spoiler covers it. The backup lamp, however, is an item of required equipment. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In order not to impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp, the spoiler must be deployed at the time the backup lamp is activated (i.e. when the transmission is placed in reverse gear), at least to a position that allows the entire backup lamp to be instantly visible. We read your description as indicating that the spoiler is deployed during a 4-second period after the backup lamp is switched on; this is not acceptable. Nor would a configuration be acceptable in which activation of the backup lamps is delayed for 4 seconds when the transmission is placed in reverse gear, to allow deployment of the spoiler.

In "Variant B," the rear fog lamp and/or backup lamp are located in the spoiler "and therefore movable." However, "if the spoiler is in rest position the lamps are covered, if the spoiler is extended the lamps are visible." We don't quite understand how a backup lamp integrated into the rear spoiler is covered when the spoiler is at rest, but, as we advised in the previous paragraph, the backup lamp must not be obscured by the spoiler at any time when the lamp has been activated, and the lamp is activated when the transmission is placed in reverse gear. Furthermore, the backup lamp as installed in the spoiler, must comply with all photometric and visibility requirements that apply to backup lamps when it is activated.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d.11/24/99

ID: 20867.ztv

Sig. Alessandro Rotta
USA Project
Two Wheelers Platform
Vehicle Division
Piaggio & C. S.p.A.
Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 25
56025 Pontedera (Pi)
Italy

Dear Signor Rotta:

This is in reply to your fax of November 3, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You ask for a clarification of two issues related to the possibility of your company entering the American market with its motor scooters.

You first ask whether your equipment suppliers should perform tests in accredited laboratories, and, if so, which ones. You want to ensure, "if any accident occurs because of a component failure," that Piaggio "is relieved from the consequences and the supplier of the item will be considered solely responsible." You ask for suggestions in order to avoid such troubles.

Your question relates to the responsibility of a manufacturer under both the Federal law of the United States, and the separate laws of the individual states. Under Federal law, Piaggio must ensure that its motor scooters comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and certify that the scooters meet those standards. We do not tell you how to ensure compliance and to certify. Piaggio may certify on the basis of test reports from its supplier, or it may conduct its own tests, or it may certify on a basis other than testing, such as conducting engineering or computer studies. We do not characterize laboratories as "accredited," nor do we make recommendations. However, for your information, we have used the following independent laboratories to conduct compliance testing for us, for the standards indicated. For Standard No. 108 (lighting equipment): CalCoast Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 8702, Emeryville, CA 94662-0702 and Intertek Testing Service, P.O. Box 2040, Cortland, NY 13045-2040 ; Standard No. 111 (rearview mirrors): General Testing Laboratories, Route 1 Box 310, Colonial Beach, VA 22443; Standard No. 119 (tires): Smithers Scientific Services, Box 351, Ravenna, OH 44266; Standard No. 120 (rims): Veridian Engineering, Inc., 4455 Genesee Street, Buffalo, NY 14225, and General Testing Laboratories (see address above); and Standard No. 122 (motorcycle brake systems): Carter Engineering, 1134 Beech's Tavern Trail, Franklin, TN 37064. A more complete listing of independent laboratories which are conducting (or have conducted) tests for us is on our website at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/procedures/testlabs.html.

Piaggio must also ensure that the motor scooters are free of safety related defects. In the event that a noncompliance or safety related defect is deemed to exist in its vehicles, Piaggio is required to notify us and the owners of the motor scooters, and to remedy the problem, even if the noncompliant or defective component was manufactured by one of your suppliers.

Liability for accidents is a matter to be determined under the laws of the state where the accident occurred. In the event of a crash attributable to a defective component in a Piaggio, it is possible that both Piaggio and the component supplier would face action in a state court of law, even if the supplier had certified that component as complying with a Federal regulation. In short, there is no way that Piaggio can ensure that a supplier would be "solely" liable. There may be steps that Piaggio can take to reduce its exposure to liability, but that is not a matter on which we can advise you. To consider this matter further, Piaggio should consult a lawyer in the United States whose specialty is product liability law.

Your second question relates to motorcycle headlighting. You comment that S7.9 of Standard No. 108 and SAE J584 do not require any vertical or horizontal aiming mechanism for motorcycle headlamps, but that S7.8.2 does require it for "motor vehicles." You believe that this requirement does not apply to motorcycle headlamps and ask that we confirm your interpretation. You are correct. Although S7.8.2 states that "each headlamp shall be installed on a motor vehicle with a mounting and aiming mechanism ," we do not intend this paragraph to apply to motorcycle headlighting systems. These systems are covered by S7.9 and the certification requirements of S7.2(a). Although S7.9 allows motorcycles to be equipped with one half of a headlamp system used on four-wheeled motor vehicles, the headlamps need not be manufactured with aiming mechanisms if they are intended for motorcycle use (provided that these mechanisms are on the four-wheeled vehicle when such headlamps are installed). We have never required motorcycle headlighting systems to have aiming mechanisms, and we did not intend to create such a requirement when we issued S7.8.2.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d.12/6/99

ID: 20869NichirinDF

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice President
Nichirin Inc.
139 Copernicus Blvd.
Brantford, Ontario
N3P 1N4

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, "Brake Hoses," and its application to automotive vacuum brake tubing. I regret the delay in responding. You ask us to clarify the meaning of S9.2 of the standard and several requirements set forth for vacuum brake tubing.

S9.2 of Standard 106 states:

Each vacuum brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be capable of meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading, when tested under the conditions of S11. and the applicable procedures of S10. However, a particular hose assembly or appropriate part thereof need not meet further requirements after having met the construction [sic] requirement (S9.2.1) and then having been subjected to any one of the requirements specified in S9.2.2 through S9.2.11.

You first ask whether S9.2.1 is a "construction" requirement, as referenced in S9.2, or a "constriction" requirement. The answer is the latter. S9.2 should refer to S9.2.1 as a "constriction" requirement.

You next ask whether S9.2 requires a vacuum brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof to meet only one of the requirements specified in S9.2.2 through S9.2.11, or all of the requirements. The answer is generally, all of the requirements. Under the second sentence of S9.2, a particular hose assembly must be subjected to the constriction requirement of S9.2.1, followed by any one of the tests in S9.2.2 through S9.2.11, considering the appropriateness of the test for the assembly. Manufacturers must ensure that their brake hose assemblies or parts thereof will pass all of these tests. NHTSA explains, in 49 CFR 571.4 (copy enclosed), the use of the word "any" in our safety standards and regulations. That section states, in part, that: "The word any, used in connection with a range of values or set of items in the requirements, conditions, and procedures of the standards or regulations in this chapter, means generally the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing, except where clearly specified otherwise." (See 571.4 for several examples and further explanation.)

You question the applicability of the adhesion test (S9.2.9) and the deformation test (S9.2.10) to vacuum brake tubing. You believe that these tests were written for rubber hose and are inappropriate for brake tubing.

Automotive vacuum brake tubing is "brake hose" under Standard 106. The standard defines "brake hose" as (S4): "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes...." Automotive vacuum brake tubing must meet all applicable requirements of Standard 106.

NHTSA has stated in past interpretations that brake hose (tubing) will not be tested to requirements that are obviously inapplicable. The adhesion test (S9.2.9) of Standard 106 is conducted on brake hose (tubing) that has more than one layer, such as an inner tube and outer cover. We have also stated that the adhesion test is not applicable if there are no layers in the hose's construction which could fail to adhere. (See enclosed copy of September 13, 1984, letter to R.S. Anson.)

You state that the deformation test (S9.2.10) of Standard 106 should not apply to brake tubing because "plastic under 'light duty' applications would not meet the first application of 50 lbs. force." In previous letters on this subject, NHTSA indicated that brake tubing is subject to the deformation requirement of the standard. (See enclosed copies of a July 8, 1974, letter to Bendix and June 19, 1981 and November 2, 1981, letters to Meiji Rubber and Chemical Company.) If you believe that the deformation test is inappropriate for plastic vacuum tubing, you may petition the agency to change the standard in this regard. However, such a petition must be accompanied with data and information to support your views. We will consider your information in deciding whether to initiate a rulemaking to amend the standard.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:106
d.4/21/2000

ID: 20872nhf

Mr. Robert J. Carlson
Warranty Specialist
City of Everett Transportation Services
Motor Vehicle Division
3200 Cedar Street
Everett, WA 98201-4599

Dear Mr. Carlson:

This responds to your letter requesting guidance as to whether you may obtain authorization to relocate or exchange the original manufacturer's driver's seat in your Ford/El Dorado National ParaTransit Buses, and as to whether you may add a driver's side air bag on-off switch. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that these Paratransit vans are used to transport people with disabilities, some of whom are seated in wheelchairs. You explain that your drivers must often assist the passengers with entering and exiting the van and with fastening their seatbelts. Your drivers generally exit to the right of the driver's seat due to concerns with roadside traffic. You explain that your drivers have experienced difficulty entering and exiting the vehicle because of the lack of room between the seat and engine component cover. Your drivers have complained of back, shoulder and arm pain. You also explain that an ergonomist has examined the vehicles and determined that the seats could cause work-related claims. You state that your drivers have threatened to take union and legal action against the City, Ford, and El Dorado National (the manufacturer of the paratransit buses). You have had three Ford seat bases and two seat back frames fail since March 1999. You believe that these seat base and seat back frame failures are caused by the frequent side to side movement of the drivers entering and exiting the vehicles. You explain that you did not experience these problems with your old paratransit buses which were equipped with heavy-duty air ride seats.

You explain that you have investigated the possibility of either moving the existing seat back four inches or installing heavy-duty air ride seats. You state that Ford Motor Company has told you that any change to the driver's seat will void the vehicle's certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and release Ford of any safety or product liability. Specifically, you ask whether you may replace the original manufacturer's seats or move the existing seats back several inches, or add a driver's side air bag on-off switch. Your question is addressed below.

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

After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. Thus, a dealer or repair business could relocate or exchange the original manufacturer's driver's seat so long as such action did not negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The make inoperative prohibition does not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Therefore, it does not apply to any of the modifications you may perform to the vehicles you own and use for paratransit. Thus, you may modify the vehicle regardless of the effect on compliance with FMVSSs. You may, however, wish to consult a private attorney concerning any state law implications associated with modifying your vehicles, including potential liability implications, and whether such modifications will void your warranty with Ford.

We note that the purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure that current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Therefore, we encourage you not to unnecessarily compromise the safety of the vehicles you modify. Finally, if you sell the vehicles, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider repositioning the seat and reinstalling any removed safety equipment if appropriate.

We are unsure why you would want to add a driver's side air bag on-off switch in the event that you relocated the driver seat rearward. Air bags create risks to persons who are too close to the air bag at the time of deployment. Relocation of the driver seat rearward would therefore appear to make it less likely, rather than more likely, that a person would be at risk from the air bag. It is possible, however, that relocation of the seat could adversely affect the air bag sensing system. Installing an air bag on-off switch would not resolve such a problem. We would urge you to consult with Ford about the potential consequences of relocating the seat and what actions could be taken to minimize any adverse safety consequences.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/7/00