ID: 24115.rbm

Mr. William Gest
Vice President of Engineering and Quality
Vantage Mobility International
5202 South 28th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85040

Dear Mr. Gest:

This responds to your request for clarification of the responsibilities set forth in 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5) regarding certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in this section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds). You are specifically interested in determining whether the disclosure requirement applies to vehicle alterers, i.e., persons or companies that modify a vehicle prior to its first retail sale.

The short answer to your question is that alterers do not have to specifically disclose a reduction in load carrying capacity that is the result of their alterations. They do, however, have to take adequate load carrying capacity into account when they determine whether the alterations have changed a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the GVWR.

NHTSA's regulations impose certain requirements on those who alter a vehicle that has been previously certified by a manufacturer but not yet sold in good faith for purposes other than resale. Alterers are considered to be manufacturers and are responsible for ensuring that the vehicle continues to meet all applicable federal safety standards when delivered to the first retail customer. Alterers must determine whether their modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must apply a label adjacent to the original manufacturer's certification label stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable standards.

Alterers must also determine whether their modifications affect the manufacturer's stated GVWR, gross axle weight rating (GAWR), and vehicle type. If such a change has been made, the alterer must specify the new GVWR, GAWR, or vehicle type in a manner consistent with the capability of the vehicle to comply with applicable standards and operate at higher weight rating and/or as a different type of vehicle. NHTSA expects both manufacturers and alterers to assign GVWR and GAWRs that reflect the manufacturer's or alterer's good-faith evaluation of how the vehicle's braking, load bearing items (including tires), suspension, steering, and drive train components will react to the vehicle's weight, size, cargo-carrying capacity and intended use.

The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may be safely loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards.

The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." "Unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use." Although the term "rated cargo load" is not defined by regulation, generally it is the GVWR of the vehicle minus the combined weight of the occupied designated seating positions (150 pounds times the total number of designated seating positions) and the unloaded vehicle weight.

Those who modify a completed vehicle after the first retail sale are considered to be repair businesses by NHTSA and are typically called "modifiers" by the industry. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA may assess a civil penalty to enforce this provision. NHTSA may also, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption.

An underlying premise of Part 595 is that the individual for whom the modifications were made is unlikely to realize that the vehicle, as modified, may no longer meet all applicable FMVSS and may have a different load carrying capacity than listed in the owner's manual or on a tire placard. These vehicle changes could have an effect on the overall performance of the vehicle. Accordingly, we determined that vehicle modifiers who decide to take advantage of the exemption set forth in 49 CFR Part 595 should be required to provide the customer with certain safety information and place a permanent label on the vehicle. The language for the label is set out in 49 CFR 595.7(d), and a detailed breakdown of the required information is contained in 49 CFR 595.7(e). One of the required pieces of information is the vehicle's load carrying capacity when it has been reduced by 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or more.

This requirement was intended to address circumstances in which the load carrying capacity has been reduced as a result of the modification. Although the term "load carrying capacity" was not specifically defined in the February 2001 final rule, the term was intended to convey the same meaning as vehicle capacity weight, as defined in FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims. "Vehicle capacity weight" is defined in that standard as the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle's designated seating capacity, i.e, the number of designated seating positions.

The vehicle capacity weight for passenger cars is stated on a placard located on the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location. For other vehicles, such as vans, vehicle capacity weight and/or rated cargo load and luggage values may be stated on a label voluntarily affixed by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer or in the owner's manual. If no information is provided, a vehicle's load carrying capacity prior to modification is its GVWR minus its unloaded weight. Likewise, the term "available load capacity" means that load carrying capacity that remains after the modifications are completed. For a comprehensive discussion regarding the determination of "reduction in load carrying capacity," see the enclosed letters to Mark S. Lore and Kenneth Conaway, dated April 25, 2002.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.7/15/02

ID: nht87-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/87

FROM: RICHARD J. STROHM

TO: CHEVROLET DIVISION

TITLE: 1987 CHEVROLET CAPRICE 1G1BL51HOHX163146 9000 MILES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RICHARD J. STROHM. REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 207; VSA 108 [A] [2] [4] LETTER DATED 11/09/87 FROM RICHARD J. STROHM TO EDWARD JETTNER -- NHTSA; FMVSS 207; OCC 1362

TEXT: Gentlemen:

It appears that the front bench seat in my 1987 Caprice has been mounted closer to the front of the passenger compartment than the Impales I have driven over the past 10 years. Less leg room was evident when I first drove the new car and I have been una ble to move the seat back for enough to provide the past comfort I enjoyed.

By my measurement the seat is 3/4 of an inch closer to the dash and floorboard, and the same distance farther from the back seat than in my 1983 Impale. I use this car for business travel and would like to have the seat position adjusted back, to where I feel it was for many years. The delivering dealer (Horizon Chevrolet) is unable to do anything for me and I ask that you give them direction and authorization to make the seat adjustment under warranty.

I can bring the car by for examination if it would help.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-3.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/88

FROM: LANCE E. TUNICK -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL MASERATI AUTOMOBILES INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Maserati Automobiles Incorporated (MAI) requests an interpretation of the requirements in S.4.1.3. of FMVSS 208 concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with passive restraints. More specifically, because the s tandard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. and because, under Section 108 (b) (5) of the Safety Act, the standard does not apply to vehicles intended solely for export, MAI assumes that if, during a "phase-in" period, vehicles that we re previously imported into the U.S. by MAI are exported to Canada (where we have one dealer) would be deducted from the U.S. production total to arrive at the base figure to which the phase-in percentage would apply.

We would greatly appreciate your confirming this interpretation as soon as possible, so that we can report under 49 CFR Part 585.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht89-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/89

FROM: DAN TREXLER, -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC SPECIFICATIONS ENGINEER

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO DAN TREXLER; REDBOOK A34 [7]; STANDARD 105; STANDARD 108; STANDARD 121; STANDARD 217

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

We, as well as other body companies, have received requests to install a master electrical disconnect switch on many buses. This switch disconnects the entire electrical system from the battery(ies) (i.e., battery cut-off switch).

The requests have been both in the form of state requirements (on school buses) and by individual customers. Additionally, it is a recommendation contained in the Baseline Advanced Design Transit Coach Specifications (UMTA "White Book") (Part II, page I I-75, section 3.6.5.3).

When this switch is turned to the "off" position, it renders inoperative the warning signals (to the driver) required by FMVSS 105, 121 and 217. It also inactivates the hazard warning flasher required by FMVSS 108.

Would the installation of such a switch constitute a safety related hazard or noncompliance if, a) it is accessible to the seated driver or, b) it is remotely located in the battery or engine compartment without ready access to the driver?

We would appreciate an interpretation of this matter at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

ID: nht81-1.22

DATE: 03/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carbonneau & Turgeon Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mar 3, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Wilfrid Carbonneau President Carbonneau & Turgeon Inc. 4E, Ave Centre Industriel St-Romuald, CTE Levis, P.Q.

Dear Mr. Carbonneau:

In response to your recent letter, to Mr. Schwartz of my office, I have enclosed a copy of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and two recent amendments. The Canadian authority for the issuance of the three or six character manufacturer identifier is:

MVMA of Canada Suite 1602 25 Adelide Street E. Toronto, Ontario MSC-1Y7 ATT: Mr. Brian Hickey Phone: 416-364-9333

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ST-ROMUALD, le, 6 fevrier 1981

M. Frederic Schwartz, junior National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400, Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C., 20590

U.S.A.

Monsieur,

Auriez-vous l'obligeance de m'envoyer de plus amples details au sujet de la nouvelle norme americaine, la FMVSS 115.

Vous remerciant a l'avance de votre attention, veuillez agreer, Monsieur, l'expression de nos sentiments les meilleurs.

Bien a vous,

CARBONNEAU & TURGEON INC.

Par: Wilfrid Carbonneau President

WC/cc

ID: nht81-1.49

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Friedman and Medalie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Leonard A. Fink Attorney at Law Friedman and Medalie 1899 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firrm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 4, 198O

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: VIN Coordinator

Gentlemen:

On behalf of our client, Steyr-Daimler-Puch A.G., and in accordance with FMVSS 115, we furnish the following information regarding the VIN number code to be used by our client:

ID: nht89-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/24/89

FROM: JAMES A. COWAN, -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CROWN COACH INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 11/29/88 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; RE FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Twelve months ago, the attached letter was sent to your office requesting guidance. On March 31, 1989, we received a telephone call from Joan Tillgham of NHTSA wanting to know if we still needed the information; the answer was affirmative.

We have subsequently dropped our plans to widen the emergency door on our buses due to the lack of response from NHTSA and reverted to the design originally developed in 1977. (The new bus has recently been tested for and passed all requirements of F MVSS 217).

However, we now plan to sell the pilot bus with the door referenced in our November 29, 1988 letter. Could you please give us a response? As a last resort, we will simply remove the passenger seat at the wider door and install a restraining barrier.

Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

ATTACHMENT

ID: nht93-2.18

DATE: March 16, 1993

FROM: Bob Brinton -- Friction Advisory Service

TO: Office of Chief Council -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Interpretation of Parking

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to Bob Brinton (A41; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 12-9-76 from Frank A. Berndt to Leon W. Steenbock (Std. 121)

TEXT: According to FMVSS 121 a mechanical locking device must be in place within 3 seconds of actuating the parking brake control. In the case of some vehicles, especially refuse type trucks with right hand side drive, there are several systems that use either an I.C.C. flip switch valve or a push pull valve to park the vehicle on air only when the driver leaves the vehicle to pick up trash. The air park is used so that spring brakes are not applied avoiding extreme wear cycles on the spring. Is this type of parking considered legal or should all vehicles when they are parked and the driver leaves the cab have a mechanically held parking brake function? It is my understanding that new O.E.M. certified vehicles are being built with this air park work brake and many right hand drive conversion companies are also installing this type of air park configuration.

As an accident investigator I need to know if NHTSA considers this air park illegal or non-certifiable to meet the intentions of FMVSS 121 Sec. 5.6.3. Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated.

ID: nht74-3.31

DATE: 09/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 14, 1974, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (Docket 1-5, Notice 11, published on June 28, 1974), regarding its applicability to specific hydraulic brake booster hoses used on General Motors products.

As indicated in Notice 11, it is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) intention to exempt from the requirements of the standard hydraulic booster lines subject to a different working environment than brake hose, pending development of special performance requirements for such lines. General Motors' interpretation that the hydraulic booster hoses used in the systems described in your August 14 letter are exerpted from the standard requirements is correct. The system described in your Attachment A is considered to incorporate an accumulator integral with the brake booster assembly. Hence all of the hoses run between the power steering pump and the accumulator (either directly or via the power steering gear) and are accordingly exempted per the Notice 11 preamble. The hoses used in the system described in your Attachment B are exempted by virtue of the provision of redundant booster power by the independent electrohydraulic pump.

A future amendment to FMVSS 106 to eliminate ambiguity in respect to the standard's applicability to hydraulic booster hoses is currently under consideration. Any such amendment will be consistent with the present interpretation.

ID: nht95-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 22, 1995

FROM: Douglas Miyashiro -- ATTB System Engineering, Northrop Grumman

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- NHTSA

TITLE: Clarification of Title 49, Part 581

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DOUGLAS MIYASHIRO (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 581)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Nakama,

Thank you for your recent help in providing clarification on a previous issue regarding the FMVSS title 49 part 571. Currently, our system engineering department is defining design requirement for the Northrop Grumman Advance Technology Transit Bus (ATT B) program working in conjunction with the Federal Transit Authority. We have been researching bumper safety standard concerning any applicable federal regulation for transit buses. Title 49, part 581 is the only reference on the subject of bumper stan dard and it states the following:

Title 49, Part 581.3 states, "This standards applies to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicle."

We are requesting clarification regarding the word "passenger motor vehicles." We feel that this pertains only to a passenger car but request clarification if a bus is inclusive in the definition of a "passenger motor vehicle." We have reviewed all the d efinitions listed in the FMVSS (title 49 part 571) for all different variation to the specific types of vehicle.

We would appreciate a written response clarifying the word "passenger motor vehicle" in order to determine what our design requirements are.