ID: nht93-4.17

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Michael H. Dunn -- Vice President, Marketing, Micho Industries

TO: Greg Fera -- Pupil Transportation Specialist, Department of Education, Bureau of Pupil Transportation

COPYEE: M. Hecker; J. Heritscko; G. Gruber

TITLE: Re: R-Bar Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-29-93 from John Womack to Michael H. Dunn (A41; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 11-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael H. Dunn; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Michael H. Dunn to Paul Jackson Rice.

TEXT: To confirm our recent telephone conversation, Micho Industries is now making the arrangements to complete the testing of the R-Bar, with the latest modifications, for compliance with FMVSS 222, specifically for rear impact (4" clearance) requirements.

This testing should put to rest the only remaining concern about the safety of the R-Bar and its compliance with all applicable Federal standards, since all other aspects of those regulations have previously been tested and "certified" to meet those requirements.

We hope to have the complete test data package very soon and I will forward a copy to you immediately for evaluation. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions.

May 17, l993

Mr. Greg Fera, Pupil Transportation Specialist Department of Education Bureau of Pupil Transportation, CN-500 225 W. State Street Trenton, NJ 08625-0500

Re: R-Bar Passenger Restraint System

Dear Greg:

To confirm our telephone conversation, I wish to advise you that, due to several improvements made in the R-Bar design, we can not "CERTIFY" that it is in full compliance with all requirements of FMVSS No. 222, including the rear impact tests described in S5.1.4(c) of that regulation. Please advise Linda Wells for me and, if either of you have any questions, please let me know.

As you know, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer of a product to provide that certification and Micho Industries can now offer you that assurance.

While details of specific changes will not be made public for awhile, I wanted you to be one of the first to be aware of the fact that we can now offer the R-Bar for sale in New Jersey and other states that are looking for a practical and safe alternative to seat belts for school buses.

Thanks for your patience with us. I am sorry it took to so long to get here.

Regards,

Michael H. Dunn V.P. Marketing

MHD/md CC: M. Hecker, J. Heritscko, G. Gruber

ID: nht76-2.30

DATE: 12/06/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 28, 1976, asking several questions with respect to that portion of paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which prohibits the optical combination of clearance and tail lamps. You have also expressed your concern, in a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff, about the ACUTEK interpretation of October 22, 1976, to be discussed below.

The distinction between the hypothetical lamp in Question 2 of your letter of September 7, 1976, and the Acutek lamp is that there is no opaque barrier wall in the former, separating the tail lamp bulb and the clearance lamp bulb, while in the latter the barrier rises to the base of the bulb. Since Standard No. 108 does not require separate compartments (i.e., an opaque barrier) for tail lamps and clearance lamps, it is obvious that the prohibition against optical combination means that (a) a single bulb may not perform both functions and (b) a single bulb must not be perceived as performing both functions. This was the rationale behind Mr. Driver's advice to Acutek that the available data indicated "that when the tail lamp bulb [on the Acutek lamp] is activated independently from the clearance lamp bulb, and vice versa, there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp," and that "the amount of light 'spill' appears to be so small that it would not be interpreted (by a driver following the vehicle on which it is installed) as illuminating the lens of the tail lamp when operated in the clearance lamp mode, and vice versa."

If you apply this general principle to the questions you asked then I think you will have the answers. The principle is necessarily dependent upon the candlepower output of any lamp to which it is applied, a value not given in your questions. Thus, the principle cannot be quantified and the determination of the extent of light spill is necessarily subjective, and certification is dependent upon a manufacturer's good faith in attempting to achieve compliance.

After reviewing this matter I must admit that I am curious as to the safety rationale behind the prohibition. Paragraph S4.4.1 had its genesis in a similar provision in Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations (49 CFR 393.22(b)(3), formerly 393.22(c)) and was adopted in conformance with it. The Society of Automotive Engineers, however, does not prohibit combining these lamps. If clearance lamps are mounted below 72 inches -- the maximum allowable mounting height for tail lamps -- it may be that they could be combined with tail lamps, without any detriment to safety, and at a saving to the consumer. Perhaps you would like to comment on this.

SINCERELY,

WESBAR CORPORATION

October 28, 1976 Frank Berndt

Acting Chief Counsel

U.S. Dept. of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: N40-30

1. Thank you for your October 7, 1976 response to our inquiries. Your answers have clarified several grey areas of various manufacturers interpretations of S 4.4.1 of DOT 108.

2. There is one further design on which we would ask for your interpretation in regard to the combination of clearance lamp and tail lamp in approximately the same cell.

3. Your response (paragraph 2 of your letter) to our question: "Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp and tail lamp bulb?" was concise and direct but it left one consideration unanswered. Your reply was directed to a lamp which had one lens serving both functions and no opaque barrier between the tail lamp and clearance lamp bulbs respectively.

4. We now ask your interpretation of S 4.4.1 as it would apply to a combination lamp designed as follows:

1. Only a partial partition exists between the clearance lamp and tail lamp compartments.

2. There are separate lenses for clearance and tail lamp functions (though contiguous).

3. The tail lamp partially illuminates the clearance lamp compartment and lens.

4. The clearance lamp partially illuminates the tail lamp compartment and lens.

5. The turn signal filament, when flashing illuminates both clearance and tail light lenses and compartments.

5. Based on your interpretation contained in paragraph 2 of your letter, we believe this lamp would not be approved since the lamps designated for each separate function would illuminate the individual lenses of each function.

6. However, we would prefer not to accept our own interpretation of this design but rather have you give us an NHTSA official interpretation to the following questions:

a. Would a lamp with the design features described in paragraph 5 be approved under S 4.4.1?

b. Does, in fact, the clearance lamp have to be totally isolated in a separate compartment from the tail lamp so that no light from the tail lamp bulb illuminates the clearance lamp lens?

c. Does the fact that there are separate lenses, contiguous to one another, change your interpretation as given in paragraph 2 of your October 7, 1976 letter since both lenses would be illuminated when both or either lamp is in use and, therefore, considered combined optically?

7. For your study and consideration we submit the attached sketch and photos of a model depiciting the conditions outlined in paragraph 5 of this letter.

Your early response will be appreciated.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

SIDE VIEW SHOWING RELATIVE POSITION OF CLEARANCE LAMP & TAIL LAMP NOT COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM ONE ANOTHER

(Graphics omitted)

(LACK OF A FULL DIVIDING WALL PERMITS THE TAIL LIGHT BULB TO ILLUMINATE PART OF THE CLEARANCE LAMP COMPARTMENT AND CONVERSITY, THE CLEARANCE BULB ILLUMINATES PART OF THE TAIL LIGHT COMPARTMENT

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-3.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Motors Saipan, Inc.

TO: Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re REF: 2013-138

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. J ones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas

TEXT:

I have written letters to you in the past regarding the FMVSS compliance in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), but have never seen any action.

It is my understanding that the FMVSS apply in full force to the CNMI. As such, I have dutifully refrained from bringing in nonconforming vehicles. Due to the apparent complete failure of any local enforcement (as admitted by local officials--see enclos ed letter), my competitors are not so constrained and are engaging in what seems like unfair competition by bringing in cheap nonconforming vehicles.

Now it is okay with me if you have no interest in "compliance enforcement" in the CNMI. Perhaps it's better for the people? I can get the cheap nonconforming cars too. All I want is a level playing field, and to know the rules. Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?

Attachment

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Office of the Governor Capitol Hill, Saipan MP/USA 96950 The Honorable Ben Blaz Phone: (670) 322-5091/2/3 Member of Congress Telefax: (670) 322-5096/99 1130 Longworth House Office Building Telex: 783-622 Gov.NMIWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Blaz:

Re: Triple J Motors - Bob Jones - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Applicability to the CNMI

We reply to your letter to us of October 5, 1990. You explain that Mr.

Bob Jones, of Triple J Motors, has a problem. It goes like this. Triple J, apparently, makes sure all the vehicles it imports and registers in the Commonwealth are in compliance with the FMVSS. Triple J fears possible federal enforcement action or. po ssibly worse, a customer law suit arising

from an auto accident and grounded on the company's failure to sell cars safety equipped to federal standards.

Compliance with these standards raises Triple J's investment in the automobiles so equipped. This added investment must be taken into consideration when Triple J sets its retail prices. Triple J's competitors in the Commonwealth, by design or accident, don't uniformly follow the federal standards. The competitor's retail prices need not, therefore, include consideration of the added cost of equipping vehicles for compliance with the FMVSS. Because of this, Triple J feels at a competitive disadvantag e in the market place. Triple J seeks a level playing field: It wants all CNMI automobile dealers compelled to follow the federal safety rules or, alternatively, that none of them including itself, be compelled to follow the rules.

Mr. Jones asks you for help. What would he have you do? He wants you to see to it that the CNMI enforces the FMVSS or he wants you to obtain a declaration, preferably from the U.S. Attorney and the Department of Transportation, that the federal safety standards don't apply in the CNMI. Before taking action, you ask for our comments and views. Here they are.

We only enforce laws that apply in the CNMI. Do these federal safety standards apply in the CNMI? By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since 1966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979. It looks like we get the law. But this is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for sel f-government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI.

These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal Commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands. Besides, consider the practicality of the situation. We move slowly on two lanes roads up and down twelve and fourteen mile long islands. Our drivers aren't hooked into a vast system of U.S. interstate highways where uniform safety equipment might be necessary to protect highspeed free ways carrying commerce between the states. We can't even drive to Tinian. We're small, wind-swept islands out here without even a traffic light.

I will say this, however: If I find that our people need the protection of some or all of the motor vehicle safety standards included in the FMVSS program, I'll be the first to move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law. Until then , it is our position that the FMVSS does not apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

If you address this matter on a national level, Congressman, please take our views into consideration. Thank you so much for consulting us. You

are a true friend of the Northern Marianas.

Sincerely,

LORENZO I. DE LEON GUERRERO Governor

cc: Lt. Governor Resident Representative to the United States Director, Department of Public Safety Director, Department of Finance Triple J Motors

ID: 1985-03.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of FMVSS 101; Controls and Displays

The Daimler-Benz AG (DBAG) Petition for Reconsideration dated August 22, 1984 was denied. The rationale behind the Agency's decision for denial was that DBAG did not adequately address the concerns raised in the Preamble to the final rule of July 27, 1984.

Daimler-Benz AG respectfully petitions the Agency to reconsider its decision in view of the following:

1. Horn Control Symbol:

While we concur with some of the arguments set out by the Agency, we would like to draw attention to the importance of the driver's responsibilities. This would respond to the Agency's concern that certain drivers may have difficulties in locating the horn control in an emergency situation when manufacturers place the horn control in areas other than the traditional location in the steering wheel hub.

Location of controls and displays is specified in paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS 101 in that each required control and display must be visible (when activated) to a driver who is restrained by the crash protection provisions required by FMVSS 208.

From the above it follows that the location of control and displays - even if identified by symbol or words - may vary significantly between manufacturers or even models.

Examples:

- The windshield washer and wiper control may be located either on the right or left side of the steering column and may or may not be combined with the turn signal control.

- The hazard warning signal control may be found anywhere on the dashboard, the steering column or the transmission tunnel.

- Lights may be activated by dashboard controls or separate stalks.

- Even gear shift patterns may be varying.

DBAG firmly believes that the identification of controls by symbols or words can only assist either to distinguish between otherwise similar controls or to locate their position if there is sufficient time left for searching. It will not, however, produce shorter driver reaction times in situations where he is required by circumstances beyond his control, to act immediately and intuitively as long as he is not aware of the general location and operating direction of any one control.

Hence, it follows that it is imperative for a driver, prior to using a car that he is not familiar with, to verify the location and function of every control and display, if necessary with the aid of the owner's manual. If he fails to undergo this learning process it must be assumed that he will also fail to correctly operate the appropriate control in a critical moment - regardless of whether or not that control is labeled.

The above considerations lead us to be convinced that the main distinctive features of the most essential controls in a car - as far as the problem of intuitive operation is addressed - are the variations in location, operating direction and shape, rather than their marking with different symbols. Yet, we would not go so far as to request that the hitherto required control symbols be omitted provided such distinctive features are maintained. We feel, however, that a horn control in such a prominent location as in the steering wheel hub - i.e. closest to either hand of the driver -, with such a simple and unequivocal operating mode -i.e. pressing of a usually adequately large area - can, even if not identified by a symbol, be at least as safely and intuitively operated as any other customary control having a symbol.

On the grounds explained above, DBAG reiterates its petition that the exemption of horn control identification be extended and footnote 4 to table 1 be modified to read: "provided there are no other controls incorporated, identification is not required for horn controls in, or on, the steering wheel hub, or for narrow ring-type controls and air-horns".

2. Brake Symbol

Our request to permit the ISO brake failure symbol has also been denied by the Agency. We would like to comment on the arguments presented in the June 4, 1985 Federal Register as follows:

The rationale of adopting certain ISO symbols, according to the NPRM of November 4, 1982, is that they convey information more quickly and are easily and immediately recognizable. DBAG fully supports this opinion. On the other hand, the Agency mentions the results of a SAE investigation, according to which the percentage of recognition of the ISO brake symbol is only 26 and 21 per cent, respectively, vs. 87 and 52 per cent, respectively, of the word "Brake". This leads the Agency to conclude that it is not appropriate to adopt this particular ISO symbol.

However, in order to fully appreciate the meaning of the above-mentioned percentages, it has to be kept in mind that the ISO brake symbol has not been permitted in the USA so far. Therefore, it is to be assumed that the persons interviewed by the SAE have been confronted with a symbol that they had never seen before. Given this fact, a 21-26 percent recognition of statement and function is not, as the Agency suggests, "extremely low", but has, in fact, to be considered as remarkably high.

Moreover, we would like to emphasize that there is a very strong general trend to replace words by symbols or pictograms, e.g. in public buildings, airports, railway stations, etc. It can be stated that people become very quickly accustomed to such symbols and pictograms even if they are not internationally standardized.

For this reason, we again petition to permit the use of the ISO brake failure symbol instead of the word "Brake".

ID: 86-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steward Stanley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Steward Stanley Junge Baking Company 3102 Ohio Place Joplin, MO 64801

Dear Mr. Stanley:

This responds to your letter dated November 8, 1985, inquiring whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulation apply to electric vehicles. They do so apply.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Under the Act. NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations for motor vehicles and their equipment. Under section 102(3) of the Act, a motor vehicle means "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. Therefore, since electric vehicles are "drawn by mechanical power," they must comply with Federal requirements.

Enclosed are an information sheet for new manufacturers, a form for ordering copies of safety standards and regulations, and a copy of 49 Part 555. Under Part 555, manufacturers of motor vehicles may apply for a temporary exemption from these safety standards, for a period up to three years, if the exemption would facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle and would not unreasonably degrade the safety of such vehicle. A copy of a report prepared by this agency. "Applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards to Electric and Hybrid Vehicles," is also enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

Administrator Nat'l. Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C.

I am told that your office has no rules or regulations (other than bodies be equipped with seat belts) as pertains to Electric Vehicles.

If it is true I would appreciate you confirming that otherwise I would like to have a copy of that provision that deals with such vehicles.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Stewart Stanley 3102 Ohio Place Joplin, Mo. 64801

SMS:vb

ID: 11538ZTV

Mr. Gene Noll
Buyer
Fitz Auto Parts, Inc.
24000 Highway 9
Woodinville, WA 98072-9753

Dear Mr. Noll:

This is in reply to your letter of January 26, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company's business is "the buying and selling of used auto parts". You would like to buy and import Canadian vehicles to be "dismantled for parts and then destroyed." You state that none of these vehicles "will be resold or have a chance of being put back on the road as a whole vehicle." You have asked for our opinion on how you might do this under the importation regulations that this agency administers.

Our laws do not address the question of the importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle for salvage purposes. There is no specific provision, therefore, that will permit you to do so. However, under our interpretations, a vehicle without an engine and transmission may be considered an assemblage of motor vehicle parts, rather than a motor vehicle. The assemblage can be imported as motor vehicle equipment. But it would be better to forego importation of the engines and transmissions in order to avoid creating the impression with Customs, E.P.A., and NHTSA that the engines and transmissions will be reinstalled, and that motor vehicles are, in fact, being imported without the intent of conforming them.

However, even under this scenario, certain equipment installed on a vehicle cannot be legally imported unless the equipment meets applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This equipment includes brake hoses, lamps and reflectors, tires, rims for vehicles other than passenger, brake fluid, glazing, and seat belt assemblies. Generally, conformance of these items is indicated by the presence of a "DOT" symbol on them (lighting equipment may have "SAE" instead). Any of the items listed above that do not bear these symbols must be removed from a motorless vehicle before the assemblage may be imported.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:591 d:2/27/96

ID: nht90-4.71

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert B. Roden -- Roden & Hayes

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-90 from R.B. Roden to P.J. Rice (OCC 5036); Also attached to letter dated 6-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to L.J. Strobel (VSA 114)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter that asked whether section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403) requires some form of certification on "every replacement item of motor vehicle equipment." The answer to this question i s that manufacturers of replacement items of motor vehicle equipment that are regulated by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must certify these items. The background for this response is provided below.

Section 114 requires manufacturers or distributors of motor vehicle equipment to furnish dealers and distributors of such equipment with a certification that the items of motor vehicle equipment conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety stan dards. The first issue to be discussed, therefore, is whether replacement parts are encompassed within the definition of "motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle equipment" is defined at Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). This defi nition includes systems, parts and components of motor vehicles that are "manufactured or sold for replacement."

The second issue to be discussed is what items of replacement motor vehicle equipment must be certified. In an interpretation letter of June 3, 1977 to Mr. Larry Stroble, this agency stated if there are no safety standards in effect regulating particula r items of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of the equipment would not be required to certify in accordance with Section 114 and in the regulation promulgated thereunder (49 CFR Part 567). I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of this lette r. Examples of items of motor vehicle equipment that have corresponding Federal motor vehicle safety standards are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106); lighting (Standard No. 108); brake fluid (Standard No. 116); tires (Standard No . 109 and 117); glazing (Standard No. 205); seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209); and wheel covers (Standard No. 211).

I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam0940

Dear Mr. Tydings: This is in response to your recent inquiries to Berkley Swee concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 101 and 108.; You ask whether S4.2.2 of Standard No. 101 applies to push-pul switches. This paragraph requires identification for the extreme positions of any heating and air conditioning system control that regulates a function over a quantitative range, and you state that you currently do not indicate the quantitative range for the heater switches.; S4.2.2 does apply to push-pull switches, and I enclose a notice tha the agency published on December 3, 1971, clarifying our intent. A legend such as 'push off' and 'pull high' would be sufficient to meet the requirements of Standard No. 101. You would not have to redesign your switch cabinet to provide a slide or lever-type switch.; You have also asked whether the school bus lighting description on you attached pages numbered 34 and 35 is 'legal'. The system as described conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the items listed.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 23299.rbm

Ms. Rebecca D. Plank
Executive Director
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
11211 N. Nebraska Avenue, Suite A-5
Tampa, FL 33612





Dear Ms. Plank:

This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask about NHTSA's position on vehicle conversions that require a lowered floor. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) most likely to be affected by a modification that lowers the vehicle floor is FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity. Your question is in response to a magazine advertisement that claims NHTSA has recommended dealers purchase completed lowered floor vehicles when such a conversion is needed.

By way of background, 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. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must self-certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act also 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 FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, 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 at 49 CFR Part 595. While portions of several FMVSSs were included in the exemption, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, was not. Additionally, the exception was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

FMVSS No. 301 is a vehicle standard that addresses a vehicle's fuel system integrity. How and if the standard applies to a particular business is dependent upon the product or services that the business provides. Producers of equipment that is used in a system designed to comply with a particular FMVSS are component suppliers and would not be directly subject to the requirements of the standard, ⁽¹⁾ although any manufacturer or alterer using the product would be. Final stage manufacturers or alterers of vehicles that modify a vehicle system that the previous-stage manufacturer had certified as compliant must certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured or altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. Vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to negate the vehicle's compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards.

Since NHTSA has not included FMVSS No. 301 as part of the exemption from the make inoperative provision, a business cannot modify a vehicle in a manner that negates compliance with that standard, even if it is a modifier rather than a manufacturer or alterer. Accordingly, vehicle modifiers must take care to ensure that they do not modify the vehicle fuel system in a manner that takes it out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301.

The surest way to provide such assurances would be to purchase vehicles where the floor has already been lowered by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer, who has certified compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, this is not necessarily the only way to assure a vehicle with a dropped floor still complies with FMVSS No. 301. Another way to provide assurance that compliance has not been compromised is by modifying the vehicle pursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of crash-testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, we believe that your organization, the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA), has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. If the resulting protocol were carefully followed, a modifier may be able to satisfy itself that the vehicle has not been taken out of compliance. Finally, a modifier may be able to use engineering analysis alone to determine whether the vehicle modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. This last option is the most risky since there is no crash-test data to verify the soundness of the modifier's judgment.

NHTSA cannot provide information as to whether specific types of modifications would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. This is the responsibility of the modifier. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass a FMVSS No. 301 crash test. Absent such vehicle specific test data, we urge vehicle modifiers to work closely with the vehicle manufacturers to determine whether a potential modification would take a vehicle out of compliance.

I hope the addresses your concerns. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202)366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.2/22/02




---

¹ As a practical matter, component suppliers often assume some responsibility to the vehicle manufacturer for the compliance of their products to applicable FMVSSs. This is done through a contractual relationship between the supplier and the vehicle manufacturer that certifies compliance.

ID: nht91-6.47

DATE: November 1, 1991

FROM: John C. Buonora -- Director, The City of New York Police Department, Motor Transport Division

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA Administration, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John C. Buonora (A38; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

As per our telephone conversation regarding the removal of the operating handle for the reclining mechanism of the 1991 Chevrolet police car split bench seat, I am requesting a written determination stating whether or not the removal of the operating handle violates the seat safety standard and any possible NYPD legal liability in the event of an accident.

Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.