ID: nht94-6.42

DATE: April 11, 1994

FROM: David Huff -- Co. Chairperson Special Transportation, Central Missouri State University

TO: Charles Holt -- NHTSA

TITLE: Wheelchair Restraint Standards Clarification

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/14/94: Letter from John Womack to David Huff (Stds. 209 & 222)

TEXT: The Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation, 1995 Standards for Special Needs Bus Body Committee is currently working on appropriate standards for wheelchair and occupant restraint systems. During our research, we have encountered a situation we feel requires clarification by your office.

Wheelchair securement anchorages as defined in FMUSS 222, $ 5.4.1.1 through $ 5.4.1.3 requires that the anchorage(s) withstand certain force. Paragraph $ 5.4.1.3 indicates when more than one securement device share a common anchorage, the anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 newtons multiplied by the number of securement devices sharing that anchorage. We agree with this requirement.

Wheelchair securement devices as indicated in paragraph $ 5.4.2, if incorporating webbing or strap, shall comply with the requirements of type 1 safety belt systems in $ 4.2, $ 4.3 and $ 4.4(a) of FMUSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

Many of the wheelchair and occupant restraint systems use an Integrated occupant restraint system which is anchored in series with the wheelchair securement device, such that, the lap belt anchors to the wheelchair securement near the wheelchair seat.

Our concern is that the webbing or strap for the wheelchair securement device in the integrated system has not been addressed in the amendments to FMUSS 222. It is our feeling that the wheelchair securement device webbing or strap on the integrated system should be required to withstand twice the normal load indicated in FMUSS 289, since this webbing or strap is actually securing both the rear of the wheelchair and the occupant simultaneously.

Several manufacturer's adjustment hardware is designed in such a manner that the webbing or strap is doubled in order to remove slack from the securement device. However, there are others who use only a single webbing for this purpose.

Please advice us of your understanding or interpretation of the load requirements for the webbing or strap used in the integrated systems. This information is needed as soon as possible so we may continue drafting our proposed standards.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht93-6.39

DATE: September 20, 1993

FROM: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/25/94 from John Womack to Lawrence Henneberger (A42; Std. 105)

TEXT:

I am submitting this request for interpretation on behalf of my client, MICO, Incorporated (MICO), located in North Mankato, Minnesota, concerning the use of a brake lock supplementing the original equipment mechanical parking brake on a motor vehicle which in our opinion, (1) is not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 105, and (2) does not otherwise impair braking operations in compliance with FMVSS 105. (1)

MICO believes that its brake lock will not cause noncompliance with or impairment of compliance with FMVSS 105 since: (a) the MICO brake lock is the type of auxiliary parking brake device which has consistently been determined by NHTSA not to raise compliance problems with respect to FMVSS 105; (b) based upon test results and in-service use of over 30 years, these brake locks have not had any adverse effect upon the hydraulic service brakes of the vehicle involved; (c) there have been no confirmed accidents attributable to the use of the brake locks for the 30 year period; and (d) the brake locks are installed after the vehicle manufacturer has certified the brake system of the vehicle with the requirements of FMVSS 105.

MICO recognizes that NHTSA does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment, and emphasizes that the Company is not here seeking any such approval. Rather MICO requests from the agency an interpretation that FMVSS 105 does not preclude the installation of a MICO hydraulic brake lock as a supplement to the systems installed to comply with the FMVSS 105 requirements.

BACKGROUND

MICO manufactures a hydraulic brake lock which supplements the mechanical parking brake of a motor vehicle by providing supplemental holding capacity for the vehicle. The brake lock is installed by a body builder or owner of a vehicle after the manufacturer of the vehicle has certified its compliance with applicable safety standards. The brake lock consists of a one-way check valve which, when it is in the release position, does not in any way impede or interfere with the use and application of the hydraulic service brakes on the vehicle. The brake lock is installed in the hydraulic brake lines between the master brake cylinder and the foundation brakes.

The brake lock does not render inoperative any device or element of the hydraulic service or parking brakes as originally installed on the motor vehicle but serves only to supplement the existing parking brake in a positive manner. The brake lock is not to be applied during normal driving operations but is only activated after the vehicle has been brought to a stop, the mechanical parking brake applied, and the brake lock armed. When the operator steps on the hydraulic service brake pedal and produces pressure in the brake system, the brake lock is activated. When activated, the brake lock acts as a

one-way check valve which will allow hydraulic system fluid to pass from the master cylinder to the foundation brakes as the brake pedal is applied, but will not allow the brake fluid to travel back to the master cylinder as the operator removes his foot from the brake pedal. (2) When the brake lock is not activated, brake fluid passes freely in both directions of the braking system. The brake lock does not increase brake pressure. It merely locks in pressure generated by applying pressure to the brake pedal when the vehicle is not in motion.

REGULATORY APPLICATION

In the case of a hydraulic brake lock, there is no safety standard which applies to it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. Previous interpretations of NHTSA have indicated that installation of a hydraulic brake lock does not affect compliance with FMVSS 105. See July 10, 1985 Letter of Interpretation from NHTSA Chief Counsel Jeffrey R. Miller to Mr. Bernard Cantleberry.

This position "is consistent with the agency's long-standing view about the (non-preclusive) use of auxiliary parking brake systems." See, e.g., May 6, 1993 Letter of Interpretation from Acting Chief Counsel John Womack to Mr. Bob Brinton (attaching a December 9, 1976 Interpretation from then Acting Chief Counsel Frank H. Berndt to Mr. Leon W. Steenbock); August 5, 1993 Letter of Interpretation from Acting Chief Counsel John Womack to Mr. Richard Muraski.

MICO submits that, in view of the fact that its brake lock demonstrably does not affect the operation of a vehicle's hydraulic brake system and, as long term usage has shown, has had no adverse effect upon the vehicle's hydraulic brake system, the vehicle will not be rendered noncompliant with FMVSS 105 upon the installation of the MICO brake lock.

TEST RESULTS

MICO has performed systematic and continuous testing of its hydraulic brake lock product to determine its effect on the performance of vehicles. MICO has conducted tests on the product in its own facilities under a number of different vehicle applications since the product was introduced in approximately 1960. The results of these tests show that the MICO brake lock does not adversely affect the continued satisfactory and compliant operation of the hydraulic brake system with FMVSS 105.

In addition, MICO also commissioned Bendix Corporation to conduct repetitive cycle tests of the product on a vehicle chassis in 1976, and these test results indicated that the brake lock is not detrimental to the continued satisfactory operation of the brake system. A copy of the May 1976 Bendix test evaluation is attached hereto as Appendix 2.

Several fleets have used and monitored the operation of these brake locks over substantial periods of time. MICO brake locks have operated for these fleets on a trouble-free basis on vehicles which travel between 25,000 to 40,000 miles per year. See, Report on Use of MICO Brake Locks, supra, at 3-4 and attached surveys. The locks have not caused any brake failure of any brake system component and there have been no accidents attributable to the use of the MICO brake lock. The results of this in-service experience have confirmed that the

MICO brake locks do not adversely affect the performance of the original hydraulic service brakes and associated parking brake systems in normal operation with the MICO brake lock released.

Based upon the test and usage data, MICO believes that the addition of the brake lock to a motor vehicle will not affect the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS 105.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, MICO, Inc. respectfully requests an interpretation confirming its view that the addition of a MICO brake lock to a motor vehicle is not precluded by FMVSS 105, and does not impair braking performance in compliance with FMVSS 105.

We appreciate your consideration of our request for interpretation and encourage you to contact the undersigned should questions remain.

1 Copies of MICO's brake lock product catalogs, including materials relating to its newest product, the MICO 690 Series, were provided to representatives of your staff and the Crash Avoidance Division on August 17, 1993.

2 For a detailed discussion of the description, application and usage of MICO brake lock products, see Report on Use of MICO Brake Locks by Messrs. Hall and Vogel (June 29, 1993), attached hereto as Appendix 1.

ID: nht71-2.33

DATE: 04/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Ashimori Industry Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1971, regarding self-fastening seat belt systems.

Any system which requires no action by vehicle occupants can be used to meet the appropriate options of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection. "The action," in this case, means that no action is permitted by vehicle occupants other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.

We have received a number of petitions for reconsideration or clarification of Notice 9, particularly in reference to the role of a passive (no action) safety belt system as it relates to the requirements for Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt installations prior to August 15, 1975. We are now in the process of resolving the petitions received, and our final decisions in response to the petitions will be issued in the Federal Register as soon as possible.

Your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs is most appreciated.

ID: nht94-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 11, 1994

FROM: David Huff -- Co. Chairperson Special Transportation, Central Missouri State University

TO: Charles Holt -- NHTSA

TITLE: Wheelchair Restraint Standards Clarification

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/14/94: Letter from John Womack to David Huff (Stds. 209 & 222)

TEXT: The Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation, 1995 Standards for Special Needs Bus Body Committee is currently working on appropriate standards for wheelchair and occupant restraint systems. During our research, we have encountered a situati on we feel requires clarification by your office.

Wheelchair securement anchorages as defined in FMUSS 222, $ 5.4.1.1 through $ 5.4.1.3 requires that the anchorage(s) withstand certain force. Paragraph $ 5.4.1.3 indicates when more than one securement device share a common anchorage, the anchorage shal l be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 newtons multiplied by the number of securement devices sharing that anchorage. We agree with this requirement.

Wheelchair securement devices as indicated in paragraph $ 5.4.2, if incorporating webbing or strap, shall comply with the requirements of type 1 safety belt systems in $ 4.2, $ 4.3 and $ 4.4(a) of FMUSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

Many of the wheelchair and occupant restraint systems use an Integrated occupant restraint system which is anchored in series with the wheelchair securement device, such that, the lap belt anchors to the wheelchair securement near the wheelchair seat.

Our concern is that the webbing or strap for the wheelchair securement device in the integrated system has not been addressed in the amendments to FMUSS 222. It is our feeling that the wheelchair securement device webbing or strap on the integrated syst em should be required to withstand twice the normal load indicated in FMUSS 289, since this webbing or strap is actually securing both the rear of the wheelchair and the occupant simultaneously.

Several manufacturer's adjustment hardware is designed in such a manner that the webbing or strap is doubled in order to remove slack from the securement device. However, there are others who use only a single webbing for this purpose.

Please advice us of your understanding or interpretation of the load requirements for the webbing or strap used in the integrated systems. This information is needed as soon as possible so we may continue drafting our proposed standards.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht70-1.17

DATE: 03/17/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The Auto Sun Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of February 13 indicates that your understanding of the regulatory situation is correct. There is no prohibition in the motor vehicle safety standards against the sale of a non-conforming attachment bolt as a separate item. All that Standard No. 209 requires is that the seat belt assemblies which your firm supplies must be accompanied by conforming attachment bolts.

Before you act on your understanding, however, you should give special consideration to the consequences of any widespread use of attachment bolts which do not conform to the strength and other requirements of the standard. If, for example, we found that vehicle owners were being induced to secure their aftermarket seat belts to anchorages by the use of attachment bolts that do not provide adequate strength in crash situations, we would be compelled to consider whether the public interest would require rulemaking action aimed at preventing the marketing of such understrength bolts. We appreciate your desire not to evade the regulations or take advantage of what may be considered a loophole in them.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Andrew G. Baird -- Executive Director, North Platte Development Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 9/15/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to W. Alex Cantrell (Std. 114)

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew G. Baird, II Executive Director North Platte Development Corporation P.O. Box 968 North Platte, NE 69101

This responds to your letter concerning a design for a remote automatic starting system for motor vehicles. Enclosed is a copy of a September 15, 1986 letter, addressed to C&A Control Systems, Inc., which discusses the general issues raised by your l etter. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet which we prepared for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

While remote automatic starting systems can be designed so that they do not conflict with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, you should be aware that this agency strongly advises that cars should never be left unattended with the engine running. Remote automatic starting systems create that vehicle condition. I am enclosing a copy of a recent press release which cautions motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period of time could lead to a fire. The agency has previously w arned of the danger of inadvertent movement by unattended cars which are left running.

I urge you to consider these and other safety issues as you evaluate the safety of your device.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY NHTSA 07-87 March 13, 1987 Contact: Barry McCahill Tel.: (202) 366-955)

SAFETY AGENCY WARMS MOTORISTS TO AVOID LONG ENGINE WARM-UPS

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today cautioned motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period could lead to a fire.

The safety agency explained that when an engine is cold, most vehicles equipped with a carburetor will idle fast while the choke is on until the operator depresses the accelerator pedal to return the idle to normal. If the operator neglects to do this, o r is away from the vehicle, the engine may operate too long with the choke on, the catalytic converter could overheat and a fire could result. Due to vehicle differences, NHTSA suggests that drivers should consult their owner's manual to determine how lo ng the manufacturer advises that an engine can be idled safely.

"Fortunately, these fires are rare events," according to NHTSA Administrator Diane K. Steed. "But incidents have been reported to us, typically when a car is left idling and the operator goes back into the house while it warms up. Under no circumstances, even in warm weather, should a car be left unattended with the engine running."

Steed urged motorists to follow carefully the manufacturer's warm-up procedure. In addition, these safety precautions should be followed:

o The engine should not be running while someone is clearing the windshield or windows of frost, snow or dew.

o If, after a brief warm-up, the vehicle hesitates or stalls, have it serviced rather than opting for a longer warm-up period.

o Before leaving any vehicle, turn off the ignition and set the parking brake. If the vehicle is equipped with an automatic transmission also, make sure the gear selector is in the "park" position.

Motorists who experience a fire associated with engine warm-up, or any other safety-related motor vehicle problem, are urged to call NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline on (800) 424-9393.

December 15, 1968

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway & Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th, S.W. Washington' D.C. 20590 NOA-30

Dear Sirs:

Please find enclosed a diagram and explanation of a Remote Automatic Starting System for motor vehicles. Please review and notify me if there are any problems with this system under Federal Regulations or Statutes.

I have spoken to Mr. Kenneth Rutland of N.H.T.S.A. about this device and he referred me to your office. From our conversation I feel that he will probably do the review of the system.

If you have any questions, please contact either myself or the inventor, Mr. Dale Gleason at 308-532-8466.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

ANDREW G. BAIRD, II Executive Director North Platte Development Corporation

/mjh Encl. cc. Dale Gleason Rex Martin, NE Tech. Assistance Center

REMOTE FREQUENCY CENTER, Similar to a Garage Door Opener

The Signal receiver activates a number one relay, and as soon as that is activated it puts juice to the ignition side of the coil or the electronic module, in case of electronic ignition. . . . Also supplies power to an electric switch that is closed unt il the rpm reaches 500 rpm. The juice then goes to a timer, starts a timer sequence that activates the glow plugs for 30 sec., and after 30 sec. it activates a number 3 relay, which throws juice to the starter solonoid and also to a throttle solonoid. Th e throttle solonoid cracks the throttle open one-third throttle and lets the automatic choke close. . . . . Same time we're crankin' the engine. As soon as the engine starts, the rpm reaches 500 rpm the electric switch closes, shutin' off the power to th e timer, which sets off power to the starter solonoid and throttle lever. The throttle goes back into normal position of high-idle and choke that's already on the car. In case of a No-start the timer will activate starter for 15 seconds, then off for 30 seconds, and then the whole cycle will start over. . . . . glow plugs, starter & throttle lever.

We have a master toggle switch to are the number 1 relay, which is turned on after you park your car that arms the number 1 relay, and when you hit your remote button in the morning, you can start the machine from inside the house, or wherever you want t o be.

We are going to hook it up on the neutral side of the safety switch so the unit would have to be in Park or Neutral before it would activate the starter.

Until the key is in place and release the steering column the car cannot be placed in gear. The system does not bypass the locking mechanism.

What we're doin' is starting the car, defrosting the windows , warming the engine up, and stop some people from driving while looking through a little three inch hole cuz they're too lazy to scrape the windows! A safety precaution. Also precludes cold en gine stalls.

The car must be "in tune", because if you have a car that you have to go out there an pump the throttle, this is not going to work... and it will not work if the car is sittin' out in 20o below 0 weather either, unless the car is well "in-tune". But we a re not bypassing any neutral safety switches, and will absolutely NOT start the car, if the car is in gear! At this time it is for automatic transmissions only. . . .We have not figured out a way to put it on a standard transmission that could accidently be started in gear. All the automatics do have a neutral safety switch.

ID: nht70-2.38

DATE: 12/08/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 26, 1970, submitting a petition for reconsideration concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, "Child Seating Systems", published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14478). Because of the timing of your petition, it has been treated as a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR @@ 553.35, 553.31. Your letter requests that two amendments be made to the standard before its effective date of April 1, 1971. First, you request that paragraph S4.3 be amended to substitute the language proposed for that paragraph in the notice of proposed rulemaking concerning Standard No. 213, also published on September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786). Second, you request that the standard be amended to provide an alternative test procedure that is specified in your petition, as you believe "the test procedure under S4.11.1 and S5 of the standard to be wholly inappropriate for the Ford child restraint system."

With reference to your request concerning paragraph S4.3 of the standard, the Bureau did not intend the standard to require all child seating systems to have adjustable components to directly restrain the child. Consequently, the Bureau will not consider that a child seating system without adjustable components to directly restrain the child fails to comply, for that reason, with paragraph S4.3 of the standard. The language of the notice of proposed rulemaking, insofar as it states, "Each child seating system component that is adjustable and is designed to restrain the child directly . . ." is a clarification of the present language. For the proposed amendment to be made effective before April 1, 1971, is therefore unnecessary.

Regarding your request for an alternative test procedure, you state in your letter that "using the test procedures in S5.1, the torso block applies an unstabilized, concentrated load on the Tot-Guard shield much like that which would be applied by one cylinder loading another with their axes at 90 degrees to each other." It is not mandatory under S5.1(d) that the load be applied to the torso block at a single point. It may be applied at two or more points as long as the intersection of the load application line and the back surface of the torso block is not more than 8 inches or less than 6 inches above the bottom surface of the torso block. In the case of an unstabilized loading condition, such as that which you state occurs with the Tot-Guard, the load could be applied through a fixture attached to both the top and bottom of the torso block as long as the load application line is within the limits specified. During the test, however, only the torso block and not the attachment fixture may contact the seating system.

For the reasons specified above, the amendments you have requested have been found unnecessary and unjustified, and your petition is accordingly denied.

ID: nht90-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ALLEN R. ANDRLIK -- AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION AUSTRALIAN CONSULATE GENERAL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/28/89 FROM ALLEN R. ANDRLIK -- AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION TO DEE FUJITA -- NHTSA; OCC 3896

TEXT: Dear Mr. Andrlik:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal regulations that would apply to the "Milford Cargo Barrier" that Milford Industries, an Australian company, manufactures. Your enclosure indicates that the barrier is a type of wire screen that is genera lly anchored to the sides and floor of a vehicle directly behind the front seat(s). The barrier is intended to protect occupants in a crash from impact with objects carried in the rear of cars, trucks and vans.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new moto r vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl e Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information pro vided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you describe. Our standard for glazing materials (Standard No. 205) applies only to interior barries or partitions that contain glazing, and not to wi re screens.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of Milford's barriers. If the barrier were installed as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Installation of the barrier could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, installation of the barrier could affect complianc e with Standard No. 201, Occupant

2 Protection in Interior Impact, which sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat, to protect occupants in the rear seat who may be thrown forward in a crash. The barrier could also affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupa nt Crash Protection, (safety belts and other restraint systems), and Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (driver field of view). Copies of each of these standards are enclosed.

If the barrier were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle (e.g., a completed van) prior to the vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR @ 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the barrier constituted something other than a "readily attachable" component (such as tires or rim assemblies). To determine whether installation of the barrier involves a readily attachable component, the agency considers factors such as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise in installing the barrier.

The advertising brochure you enclosed states: "Expert installation available Australia wide." It also indicates that the barriers are "designed . . . to the individual dimensions" of the consumer's motor vehicle and are "load rated" (which we understand to mean that the barrier and its attachment are capable of withstanding a rated load). These factors appear to indicate that a degree of special expertise and analysis are needed to install the barrier so that it will perform in the manner intended. In light of these considerations, the barrier appears to be something other than a readily attachable component under @ 567.7. (If Milford would like to send us information indicating otherwise, we would be happy to review it.)

If the cargo barrier were installed in a new or used vehicle by a commercial business such as a motor vehicle dealer or repair shop, the installer would be subject to Safety Act considerations affecting the installation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicabl e Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Thus, the commercial installer would have to make sure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety s tandards (such as Standards 111, 201 and 208). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

In addition to the FMVSS considerations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment should also be aware that they are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to m otor vehicle safety. I have enclosed a copy of our regulation for defect responsibility of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers (49 CFR Part 579) for your information. Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

3

In addition to the regulations described above, we also bring to your attention a procedural rule which applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. Subpart D of 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, requires all manufacturers he adquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highw ay 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 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.

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

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht95-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: Yvonne Anderson -- Todd Wans

TO: Mary Versailles, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YVONNE ANDERSON (A43; VSA 108 (A) 2))

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

Our company, Todd Vans in the state of Minnesota does handicap van conversions. We are currently converting a van for a school system. The van was purchased by the school system at a local car dealer and was then brought to us to raise the roof, extend the side door, install wheelchair tiedowns and a wheelchair lift. The original manufacturers rating of the vehicle is that of a "Bus". When the handicap equipment is installed and a seat removed it would change the vehicle to a MPV and thus reducing the seating in a 12 passenger van.

My question is this, "Does this vehicle have to be recertified by us or anyone else to conform with Federal guidelines?"

I would appreciate an answer as soon as possible, as they want the vehicle in use by the end of August.

ID: nht95-5.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: Yvonne Anderson -- Todd Wans

TO: Mary Versailles, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YVONNE ANDERSON (A43; VSA 108 (A) 2))

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

Our company, Todd Vans in the state of Minnesota does handicap van conversions. We are currently converting a van for a school system. The van was purchased by the school system at a local car dealer and was then brought to us to raise the roof, extend the side door, install wheelchair tiedowns and a wheelchair lift. The original manufacturers rating of the vehicle is that of a "Bus". When the handicap equipment is installed and a seat removed it would change the vehicle to a MPV and thus reducing the seating in a 12 passenger van.

My question is this, "Does this vehicle have to be recertified by us or anyone else to conform with Federal guidelines?"

I would appreciate an answer as soon as possible, as they want the vehicle in use by the end of August.