ID: 9540

Mr. Dale E. Dawkins
Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs
Chrysler Corporation
CIMS 429-10-02
Featherstone Road Center
2301 Featherstone Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2808

Dear Mr. Dawkins:

This responds to your letter of January 7, 1994, requesting confirmation that Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, "would permit the sun visor air bag caution label required in S4.5.1(b) to be combined with the utility vehicle information sticker required by 49 CFR Part 575.105."

Your letter notes that you are aware that both General Motors and Ford petitioned the agency to amend S4.5.1(b)(2) of Standard No. 208, as amended by a September 2, 1993 final rule, to permit the utility vehicle label on the sun visor. A March 10, 1994, final rule responding to the petitions for reconsideration amended S4.5.1(b)(2) to allow the installation of a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR Part 575.105(c)(1).

While the utility vehicle label will continue to be allowed on the sun visor, the language of the final rule does not allow the combination of the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label. The September 2 and March 10 final rules specify (1) that no information other than that in the air bag maintenance label is allowed on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that other than the air bag alert label or a utility vehicle label, no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Thus, the clear language of the final rules do not permit the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label to be on the same side of the sun visor.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if the language of the final rules do not allow combination of the labels. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:3/21/93

ID: nht94-7.31

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale E. Dawkins -- Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/7/94 from D. E. Hawkins to John G. Womack (OCC-9540)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 7, 1994, requesting confirmation that Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, "would permit the sun visor air bag caution label required in S4.5.1(b) to be combined with the utility vehicle information sticker required by 49 CFR Part 575.105."

Your letter notes that you are aware that both General Motors and Ford petitioned the agency to amend S4.5.1(b)(2) of Standard No. 208, as amended by a September 2, 1993 final rule, to permit the utility vehicle label on the sun visor. A March 10, 1994, final rule responding to the petitions for reconsideration amended S4.5.1(b)(2) to allow the installation of a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR Part 575.105(c)(1).

While the utility vehicle label will continue to be allowed on the sun visor, the language of the final rule does not allow the combination of the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label. The September 2 and March 10 final rules specify (1) that no information other than that in the air bag maintenance label is allowed on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that other than the air bag alert label or a utility vehicle label, no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Thus, the clear language of the final rules do not permit the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label to be on the same side of the sun visor.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if the language of the final rules do not allow combination of the labels. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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

ID: nht88-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MORRIS EAST -- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA BUREAU OF SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 7, 1987 LETTER FROM EAST TO JONES IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you state that one of your local school systems intends to remove a bus body from "an existing chassis, and place that body onto a new chassis." You state further that the system's school bus maintenance shop would perform the work. You ask a number of questions which I shall answer in order. My answers as sume that, at a minimum, the engine, drive axles, and transmission of the new chassis are new components.

Question 1: Is it permissible under the (Vehicle Safety Act as amended) for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bus chassis?

The answer to this question is "yes." The Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from altering, modifying, or manufacturing a vehicle; nor has NHTSA established such a prohibition in its regulations.

Question 2: Would this action (in Question 1) violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220, 221)?

The act of removing a school bus body from one chassis and placing that body on a different chassis does not violate any Federal safety standard. However, when a person uses a new body and mixed new and used chassis components in refurbishing a vehicle, the question arises whether the vehicle is new. In past interpretations, NHTSA has applied @ 571.7(e) to school buses that combine a new body and either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used chassis components from different vehicles. If a school bus is considered "new" under the criteria set out in this provision, then the person who refurbishes the vehicle must

certify that the school bus meets all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the chassis was manufactured - including Standards 208, 220, and 221 if they apply - and affix a certification label under 49 CFR Part 567.

On the other hand, if an old bus body is placed on a chassis that is completely new, a different provision applies. In this case, the chassis is an incomplete vehicle. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR @ 568.3 as: an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the ad dition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis meets this description, a subsequent person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, and must certify the completed vehicle as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as of a d ate no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle (the new chassis). (49 CFR @ 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.)

Neither @ 571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to recertify a school bus when the body and all other vehicle components are not new.

Question 3: If permitted, can the work described in (Question) 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehi cle repair shops such as body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

The answer to each of these statements is "yes." Remember, though, that if the refurbished buses are considered new under the criteria discussed in Question 2, they must meet all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture , and a certification label must be affixed to each refurbished vehicle to that effect.

If the refurbished buses are not "new" under these same criteria, then there is no obligation to recertify the vehicles. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business works on your buses, then there is restriction on what these commercial businesses can do - even if the vehicle is used. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits these persons from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any device or element of design incorporated into the vehicle in complia nce with an applicable Federal safety standard. Note that this restriction does not apply when the vehicle owner (e.g., a local school system) makes a modification, or if a repair facility that does not hold itself out to the public as being in the busi ness of motor vehicle repair (e.g., a maintenance shop that works only for the school board) makes the modification.

Question 4: If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

As I stated in my answers to Questions 2 and 3, under certain circumstances, the vehicle must be recertified by the refurbisher. The refurbisher is responsible for the vehicle's compliance status just as any vehicle manufacturer, and must be able to sho w that he exercised due care in certifying the vehicle. The agency examines issues of due care on a case-by-case basis evaluating all relevant facts. This evaluation would include assessing technological limitations, availability of test equipment, the market position of the manufacturer, and most importantly, the degree of manufacturer diligence.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht89-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/89

FROM: KEITH A. MCDOWELL -- VICE PRESIDENT -- ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS GROUP AMERICAN SEATING CO

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/22/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM KEITH A. MCDOWELL TO NHTSA, OCC 2908

TEXT: Honorable Chief Justice:

I have not received a reply on my letter dated December 9, 1988 regarding seat belts on buses. May I have your answer?

Sincerely,

ID: nht81-3.1

DATE: 07/26/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 19, 1981, letter making several comments about the agency's plan to modify Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, as it applies to maintenance access panels in school buses. I want to apologize for the delay in responding to your letter which was inadvertently combined with another agency action.

First, you disagree with an agency statement that manufacturers have taken advantage of the existing maintenance access panel exemption from the standard's requirements. The agency's concern arises from several types of practices. Several manufacturers have produced buses with panels that have no wiring or other mechanisms behind them requiring maintenance. Other manufacturers have declared almost the entire rear walls of their buses as access panels. We believe that this is beyond the scope of the exemption of maintenance access panels from the standard's requirements.

Second, you ask several questions about supporting data for the standard and our planned modification of the standard. The agency is gathering information at this time and will make that data public when and if a rulemaking notice is issued.

Finally, you refer to unspecified agency statements relating to enforcement issues of noncomplying buses. We are unable to respond to this series of questions, because we are not immediately familiar with the correspondence to which you refer. If you could be more specific in your reference and in your questions, we would be happy to respond to you. If the correspondence to which you refer is from our Enforcement office, you might want to direct your inquiry to them.

SINCERELY,

School Bus Manufacturers Institute

January 19, 1981

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The School Bus Manufacturers Institute, SBMI, which represents manufacturers who produce the majority of all school buses is concerned over certain interpretive rulemaking actions and unfounded criticism that have recently appeared in NHTSA correspondence.

First, in a letter of December 19, 1979 (NOA-30), NHTSA states, in paragraph two, that is has "discovered through its compliance testing that most school bus manufacturers have been taken advantage of the maintenance access panel exemption from the Standard."

The SBMI objects strenuously to the implications of this statement, that "most school bus manufacturers" have in some underhanded or dishonest manner sought to evade their obligations to fulfill a legal and moral obligation, by cheapening or changing their bus structures to take advantage of a "loop hole" in the standard. The true facts of the matter are as follows:

1. The NHTSA was requested to join with members of the industry in interpreting the design requirements of school buses to meet the directives of the various Standards. The NHTSA declined, stating that this was not their function, but that the bus manufacturers should interpret the Standards and in good faith build their vehicles accordingly.

2. The bus manufacturers then did, in good faith, change the design of their school buses to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the Standards as they saw them but retaining the best design features where possible. In most cases, the existing access panels were retained from the original bus configurations that had been arrived at over years of building school buses to meet requirements for safe, economical and maintainable school transportation. These access panels are in almost all cases, clearly visible and need no compliance testing to determine that they are exempt from the applicable Standards. Their status may be determined by visual observation in most cases.

3. Currently, the NHTSA has decided, after 2 1/2 - 3 years of examining school buses, that they are in disagreement with the interpretation of most school bus manufacturers regarding access panel design. They have expressed the opinion that these access panels compromise the structural integrity of school buses, and have a potential for injury to occupants in the event of a wreck. Although this opinion is contrary to the great bulk of experience in school bus transportation, they have stated their intent to change or limit the exemption status of these panels as found in FMVSS 221.

In light of these facts, the SBMI denies that any of its members have attempted to take advantage of or get any special benefit from the exemption granted in FMVSS 221 for access panels in school buses. We do not deny that further changes in bus body structure can be made, but we seriously question that substantial benefit would be realized.

The NHTSA is reminded of the excellent safety record compiled by school buses, which may have been enhanced to some degree, recently, through compliance with Standards 220, 221 and 222. School buses have been built under the requirements of these standards since April, 1977. We would believe at this time that some of these vehicles have been involved in accidents, and some of these accidents have no doubt been investigated by or at request of the NHTSA. Therefore, the SBMI feels that the following questions are in order:

1. What evidence has NHTSA seen to cause or support its contention that current configurations of access panels do significantly reduce the structural integrity of school bus bodies, in the range of wreck situations that such bodies may reasonably be expected to withstand?

2. What evidence has NHTSA seen to cause or support its contention that current access panels make the bus body more hazardous for occupants in the range of wreck situations that such bodies may reasonably be expected to withstand?

3. What wreck environments, in terms of impact speeds, g-loadings, etc., has the NHTSA contemplated as the basis for FMVSS 221?

Finally, in other correspondence NHTSA has stated that certain planned designs were not in compliance with specific standards and would not qualify for exemption. However, NHTSA, using "selective enforcement", would not "find" them in noncompliance.

1. What will be the NHTSA position if such vehicles are involved in accidents causing injury, grave injury or loss of life?

2. In the event of accident of such vehicles, how will the manufacturer's liability be effected by NHTSA's finding in-advance that such design plans are in noncompliance?

3. Does NHTSA intend to rectify such a ruling by future rulemaking?

4. Does NHTSA have the moral prerogative and legal authority to apply "selective enforcement" procedure, regardless of how worthy the cause may be, to cases that are clearly in noncompliance?

5. Is NHTSA certain that a reasonable alternative cannot be found that would be in compliance?

Your timely consideration of these matters, which represent the majority view of the SBMI members, is respectfully requested for future guidance.

Berkley C. Sweet President TBEA

ID: 9549

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of January 6, 1994, asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Our response to each of your questions follows.

1.Your first question requested confirmation that a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) would meet the location requirements of S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) if it is located in the center one- half of the passenger compartment.

Your question concerns the first required additional emergency exit installed on a bus with a rear emergency exit door. Section S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires this exit to be a side emergency exit door "located on the left side of the bus and as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." Locating the door or the 12-inch required aisle opening for the door in the center one-half of the passenger compartment would not ensure compliance with this requirement. This is because it may be possible to locate a door in the center one-half without locating the exit "as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." In determining the permissible location for this exit, you should determine where the exit would be located if it was located at the midpoint of the passenger compartment. If it is not practicable to locate the exit there, you should move the door only as far as necessary for a practicable location.

2.Your second question requested confirmation that there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors other than the requirements for a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i).

You are correct. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, the only location requirements for side emergency exit doors concern the side of the bus on which the exit must be located. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

3.Your third question requested confirmation that all side emergency exit doors, including any voluntarily installed, are required to comply with the requirements of the new final rule, including the seat placement requirements in S5.4.2.1(b).

You are correct. Your letter referred to a March 9, 1977 interpretation that voluntarily installed side emergency exit doors were not required to meet the school bus requirements, but were required to meet the non-school bus requirements. Previously, the school bus emergency exit door requirements in Standard No. 217 referred to "the emergency door." At that time school buses were required to have either one rear emergency exit door or one side emergency exit door and one rear push-out window. Thus, any school bus was required to have only one emergency exit door. The reference to "the emergency door" was to the required door.

In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements for emergency exits apply to "each" emergency exit. See, for example, S5.4.2.1(b). This change in the language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus. Other requirements apply to "required" emergency exits. See, for example, S5.5.3(c). These requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:217 d:4/14/94

ID: 86-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jon F. Gasper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jon F. Gasper Box 13 Fairbury, NE 68352

Dear Mr. Gasper:

This is in reply to Your letter of January 21, 1986, to the Office of Standards Enforcement of this agency with respect to the applicability of Federal regulations to "a kit car, especially a turn key unit".

For purposes of discussion, I shall assume that a "turn key" kit car is one that is assembled by the kit car supplier before its sale or delivery, even though it may also be available in kit form. If a person is manufacturing or supplying all parts necessary to produce a completed motor vehicle, and all those parts are newly fabricated, that motor vehicle must comply upon assembly with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to its vehicle type (e.g. passenger car, truck). In this situation, the kit supplier is regarded as the "manufacturer" responsible for compliance, and for attaching a certification label to the vehicle attesting to its compliance. If final assembly is performed by a person other than the kit supplier, the supplier nonetheless under agency interpretations must provide a certification label in the kit, and instructions sufficient to inform the assembler what must be done so that the vehicle conforms to Federal requirements when it is assembled.

If the "turn key" kit car is assembled using the chassis of a motor vehicle previously in use, and which is likely to retain its original title, then it is regarded as a "used vehicle". A familiar example of this type of vehicle is one comprising a new body placed upon the chassis of a Volkswagen Beetle. If the chassis has been purchased without the body, no Federal motor vehicle safety standards will apply to the vehicle upon its completion, nor will it have to be certified. However, if the operation entails removal of the old body and the installation of a new one, and the person removing the body (if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) is the person installing the new one, he must ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to comply with standards effective upon its original manufacture (for example, a vehicle comprised of a 1986 body mounted upon a 1972 chassis must meet all applicable 1972 safety standards). A few individual parts such as tires, glazing, brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, and seat belt assemblies are subject to standards at the time of their manufacture and must comply regardless of the age of the vehicle for which they are intended (for example, the windshield in the 1986/1972 hybrid must meet the 1986 glazing standard if it is newly manufactured, but meet only the 1972 safety standard on windshield retention).

There are some fact situations in which combinations of new and used parts different than those discussed above are used, and for which no general answer applies. However, I hope that this letter has been sufficiently clear to provide an answer for you.

Finally, a manufacturer of vehicles or equipment items will be responsible for notification of purchasers and remedy of any safety related defect or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that exists in its products.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

cc (NEF 30) Armstrong/Shifflett

ID: 05-007521drn-2

Mr. Eric J. Zerphy
Executive Vice President & COO
Solar Technology, Inc.
7620 Cetronia Road,
Allentown, PA 18106




Dear Mr. Zerphy:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning whether your companys "Agile Displays" products are "motor vehicles" making you subject to the requirements of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act to provide certain specified "early warning reporting" (EWR) information to NHTSA. You have enclosed literature describing the products, which are all portable, solar-powered LED displays that are intended to convey messages. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated.

The information you provided, along with your website, indicate that your products fall into a number of categories, such as portable trailer mounted displays, vehicle mounted displays, and wall mounted displays.

You asked whether any of the Agile Displays products are considered "motor vehicles". 49 CFR Part 579, "Reporting of Information and Communications About Potential Defects" at Section 579.4(a) states that for purposes of EWR, "motor vehicle" is used as defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 30102. This statutory provision is also used to determine applicability of the FMVSSs. 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle". Whether the agency considers your products with axles to be "motor vehicles" depends on their use. It is the agencys position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of our statute, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental".

We have carefully reviewed the product literature included with your letter. We note that among the descriptions of the products are the following:"with trailer-mounted options, Agile Displays answers your needs for both permanent and temporary, easy-to-move signage;" "easy portability, Agile Displays mobile LED signage goes anywhere you need your message to go;" and "Easily relocated to any location where information is needed immediately". These descriptions indicate that the Agile Displays products on wheels are intended to regularly use the public roads.

Thus, it is our opinion that the following products are motor vehicles, specifically trailers: all Silent Messenger models; the Silent Messenger II; the Silent Messenger III; and the Silent Sentinel. The agency would consider the use of these products on the public roads to be a primary purpose, and not incidental. Since these products are motor vehicles, they would be subject to the FMVSSs. Each of these products would be considered a trailer, defined in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

I am enclosing an information package, "Requirements for Trailer Manufacturers" issued by NHTSAs Enforcement Office, which explains in some detail NHTSA regulations that apply to the manufacture of trailers.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identifying information on your company and its products to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification and vehicle identification number (VIN) deciphering information in accordance with 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable FMVSSs. The certification procedure is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

I also note that the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs appear to be items of motor vehicle equipment. The two-pronged test for whether a product is "motor vehicle equipment" is first, whether a substantial portion of its expected use is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles and second, whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Based on the product literature, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs is related to being placed on a motor vehicle. The product description includes: "Dimensions at base are designed to fit a wide variety of truck beds" and "Skid takes minimal space in truck bed, leaving room for cargo and tools". Photographs of the stand depict them as being exactly wide enough to fit into the beds of Ford F150 pick-up trucks.

Further, the advertising of the product focuses on ease of use - "quick programming" and "rapid, simple, one-person deployment and transportation". These statements lead us to conclude that the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. For these reasons, we conclude that the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs are motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has not issued any Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly regulates the performance of products such as the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs. Nevertheless, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your company is subject to the requirements in Title 49 U.S.C. Sections 30118 30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In a telephone conversation, you advised Dorothy Nakama of my staff that SolarTech manufactures more than 500 trailers per year. Early warning reporting requirements for your company as a manufacturer of trailers are specified at 49 CFR Section 579.24. You may review NHTSAs early warning information on-line at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ewr. Under the heading "March 19, 2004" is listed the "Compendium for Early Warning Reporting for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles Having an Annual Production of 500 or More Vehicles" and a compendium for motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to "Requirements for Trailer Manufacturers," I am enclosing a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment". If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.1/4/06

ID: nht93-9.22

DATE: December 22, 1993

FROM: Derrick Barker -- John Martin Designs

TO: Mary Versilles (Versailles) -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/8/94 from John Womack to Derrick Barker (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Please could you advise me of the following.

Regarding Child Car Seat Buckles.

1) Tensile load requirements for the buckle and tongue.

2) Send relevant data regarding temperature resistance on plastic parts. Believed to be Procedure D of American Society for Testing and Materials D756- 78.

3) Advise of appropriate test house for child safety seats and buckles.

ID: 16855.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, New York 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding modification of a 1997 minivan for a driver with muscular dystrophy. I regret the delay in responding. You request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will require the removal of the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) steering wheel. In a telephone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explained that your client has limited range of motion due to his disability. You explained that your client needs to replace the OEM steering wheel and air bag with a high-tech steering system that incorporates a reduced diameter steering wheel and reduced effort steering. The new steering wheel would be too small to be fitted with an air bag.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot provide the specific relief you seek, since we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that 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.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the original steering wheel and air bag and replacing it with the high tech steering system would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The vehicle manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA
d.5/22/98