ID: 17885a.nhf

Mr. Jerry G. Sullivan, Jr.
The Braun Corporation
P.O. Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the conversion of vans for the transportation of physically challenged persons. I apologize for the delay in my response. In a telephone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explained that the vans you convert come equipped with a driver and right front passenger seat and an on-off switch for the passenger air bag. You explain that these vehicles do not have rear seats and that you install rear seats in all of the vans as part of the conversion. Further, you explain that you permanently remove the right front passenger seat in 90 percent of these vehicles and install a permanent ambulatory walk-through entrance door in that area. You ask whether in those cases you can turn the passenger air bag switch to the off position and permanently cover and seal the bezel so that the air bag will remain off permanently. Further, you ask whether in the remaining cases, where you leave the right front passenger seat and install rear seats in the vehicles, you can turn the switch to the on position and cover and seal the bezel so that the air bag remains permanently activated. Based on the information supplied with your letter, it appears that the modifications as described in your letter would be consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs 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. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item conforms to all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or their vendors. Instead, the motor vehicle safety statutes, found in Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, establish a self-certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

From the description you included with your letter, it appears that Braun would be considered an alterer for purposes of certifying compliance with the safety standards. An "alterer" is one who, before the sale of a previously-certified new motor vehicle to its first retail purchaser, modifies the vehicle other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or by altering a vehicle so that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid (49 CFR 567.7). Alterers must ensure that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to the FMVSSs affected by the alteration(s) and certify to that effect in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires all trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less) to be equipped with air bags at the driver and passenger designated seating positions. On-off switches for passenger side air bags may be installed in vehicles that either lack forward facing rear seats or which have rear seats that are too small to accommodate a rear facing child restraint. (49 CFR 571.208, S4.5.4.1(a))

With respect to the vehicles you modify, installing rear seats in them alters the vehicles in such a way that they no longer qualify for the on-off switch exclusion. I will now discuss the implications of this for the two types of modifications you make.

A fully operational air bag is required in the vehicles you modify which continue to have a front passenger designated seating position after the modification. You ask whether in those vehicles you may turn the switch to the on position and then cover and permanently seal the bezel so that the air bag remains activated and cannot be shut off with a key. The modification you propose would effectively disable the on-off switch function so that the air bag would operate as if it were originally manufactured without a switch. Such a modification is permitted so long as the bezel is permanently sealed so that it cannot operate as a switch.

A passenger side air bag would not be required in the vehicles you modify by removing the right front passenger seat and installing a permanent ambulatory walk-through entrance door. Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an air bag is only required if a seating position is there. The Standard also does not prohibit an air bag at that location. You ask whether in these vehicles you can turn the passenger air bag switch to the off position and permanently cover and seal the bezel so that the air bag will remain off permanently. Since NHTSA neither requires nor prohibits an air bag at that position, the proposed modification is permissable provided it does not adversely affect the operation of the driver side air bag. We suggest that you contact the original equipment manufacturer to ensure that you perform the modifications safely.

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,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.2/4/99

ID: nht95-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Merridy R. Gottlieb

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/14/95 LETTER FROM MERRIDY R. GOTTLIEB TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 10723)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gottlieb:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1995, requesting an "exemption" from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow a business to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter states:

I am disabled and need 3-4" of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent for long periods of time, I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all the way out, there is no pain at all.

You state that you were told that this modification cannot be done as it would "interfere with the functionality of the air bag."

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted an exemption from NHTSA to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles w ithout obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowa nces to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should prov ide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 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 safe ty standards before they can be offered for sale. 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 appl icable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair 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 applic able FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in a vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standar d No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic saf ety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle installed air bags as the means of complying with Standard No. 208's requirement. Your modifier is concerned that the modification of the seat would "make inoperat ive" the air bag. I would like to note that accident data would suggest that a person is at greater risk of injury from an air bag from sitting too close to the air bag, rather than further away from the air bag. However, I understand that, due to the d ynamic testing requirement, the modifier will be unable to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 208's requirements.

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 any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modi fier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the sa fety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

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

ID: 11043

Mr. D. L. O'Connor
Manager
Government & Customer Compliance
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, OH 44316-0001

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on July 12, 1995, followed up by your letter of July 13, 1995.

You stated that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Colombia, South America, in that Colombia wants verification that Goodyear complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) when placing the DOT symbol on tires. You believe that Colombia will permit importation of Goodyear tires if NHTSA recognizes that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and that Goodyear's placing the DOT symbol on its tires is accepted as valid certification of compliance by the U.S. government.

As Mr. Myers stated in your telephone conversation, other U.S. tire manufacturers and exporters have had similar difficulties with Central and South American countries. All those countries regard the FMVSSs as acceptable assurances of tire safety, but they do not seem to understand or are skeptical of our system of manufacturer self-certification. They want assurances from a responsible U.S. government agency that manufacturer self-certifications are accepted as valid by the U.S. government.

Enclosed is a statement similar to those that we have provided other manufacturers and exporters. Since the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment, this statement is as far as we can go in getting the Federal government involved in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility.

I hope the enclosed statement will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:8/9/95

ID: 002721cmc

Mr. Lane Francis
Rem Manufacturing Ltd.
2180 Oman Drive
Swift Current, SK S9H 3X4

Dear Mr. Francis:

This responds to your e-mail letter dated April 23, 2003, and phone conversations with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, in which you ask if a diesel-powered grain vacuum (the Grain Vac) manufactured by your company would be classified as a "motor vehicle." As explained below, based on the information you provided us, we would not consider the Grain Vac a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our regulations.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations. Title 49 U. S. Code (U.S.C) Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

In your letter you stated that the Grain Vac is manufactured primarily for use in agricultural operations, and that it "will occasionally be towed on highways and roads between its actual operation at agricultural venues." You described the Grain Vac as being permanently mounted to an undercarriage, "which is essentially a guarded hollow frame."

Based on the information you provided, including the pictures enclosed with your letter, it is our opinion that the Grain Vac is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. The Grain Vac is manufactured primarily for agricultural operations, and is intended for use on public roadways only to move between job sites. Contrast this with a

grain trailer, which may be used to transport grain to market. Because the Grain Vac is not a Motor vehicle, it is not subject to any of our regulations including the FMVSSs. While our initial determination is that the Grain Vac is not a "motor vehicle" for purposes of our regulations, we may revisit this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant further examination.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.5/27/03

ID: 003066drn

Ron Love, State Director of Pupil Transportation

Delaware Department of Education

The Townsend Building

P. O. Box 1402

Dover, DE 19903-1402

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with agency staff in this office and in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance about the sale, for pupil transportation, of a new vehicle whose seating capacity you believe may have been reduced from that of a bus (seating 11 persons or more).

As to your general inquiry, if a buss seating capacity were permanently reduced to less than 11 before the vehicles sale, the vehicle would no longer be a "bus" and thus would not be subject to our school bus standards. The modified vehicle would instead be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV). While a dealer may sell or lease a new MPV to a school (provided there are no local regulations that would prohibit the sale), the entity altering the vehicle from a bus to an MPV must certify the vehicle as an MPV and ensure that it complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to MPVs. I have enclosed a copy of an April 2, 1996, letter to Sgt. Stephan C. Turner that provides a helpful discussion of this issue.

As to the particular vehicle you ask about, information available to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) has indicated that the van was originally manufactured as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. According to this information, the vehicles classification had not been changed from a bus to an MPV. Thus, the vehicle, as originally manufactured, would have had to have been certified as meeting the FMVSSs that apply to MPVs.

If you have further questions about NHTSAs school bus laws, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Questions you might have about the van you saw may be directed to Mr. James Jones, OVSC, at (202) 366-5294.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#571.3

d.4/11/03

ID: nht90-4.25

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 28, 1990

FROM: Lawrence W. Rusk -- Project Engineer, Drum Brakes, Allied-Signal, Inc., Bendix Automotive Systems

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Ref: FMVSS105, Revision to Standard Effective September 1, 1991

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated November 7, 1990 from P.J. Rice to L.W. Rusk (A36; Std. 105)

TEXT:

This standard is being modified to no longer permit the "locking out" of drum brake automatic adjusters. In the past, release type automatic adjusters used on duo-servo rear drum brakes were made inoperative during the 105 test to prevent the tendency o f such mechanisms to overadjust during the test procedure. Overadjustment can cause poor cooling in the rear brakes, and eventually may lead to dragging rear brakes. An apply type auto adjuster is not subject to overadjustment during the 105, but most Bendix current production duo-servo drum brakes are fitted with the release type. Apply type adjusters have more piece parts than release type, and therefore do cost more in any brake they are used in.

Both current and revised standards allow for manual adjustment of the rear brakes after the initial burnish, and after each of three subsequent reburnishes. With inoperative adjusters, this is done to compensate for lining wear that occurs during the te st. Therefore, such manual adjustments were to expand the drum brake shoes to be closer to the drum. Since the revised standard still allows for adjustment at each burnish, with operative release type adjusters, manual adjustments could be made to back the shoes away from the drum and therefore counteract the release adjuster's tendency to overadjust.

In summary, it seems to us at Bendix Automotive Systems that duo-servo brakes with release type adjusters could be made to pass the revised 105 by making manual brake adjustments to offset overadjust tendencies. On September 26, 1990, I discussed this p roposal with Zach Fraser in the Enforcement Group. He suggested that I request a written interpretation from you on this proposal. Please consider this our formal request for an NHTSA position on the concept described herein.

If you or other representatives of NHTSA would like to discuss this issue further, I can be reached at (219) 237-2074. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

ID: 20563.ztv

Lance W. Shinder, Esq.
Barket & Shinder, P.A.
Biscayne Bldg., Suite 112
19 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130

Dear Mr. Shinder:

This is in reply to your letter of August 23, 1999, asking for an opinion.

You write that your client "is desirous of importing vehicles, displaying them on a car lot to purchasers, then my client will be exporting the vehicles." You ask whether that practice would be in compliance with the laws that we administer.

We assume that the vehicles to which you refer have not been manufactured and certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) (because the practice you contemplate would be legal if they had been so manufactured and certified). Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), no person shall (among other things), sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless it complies and is certified as complying with the FMVSS. However, an exception is made for importation of a motor vehicle "intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle . . .and on the outside of any container of the vehicle . . . and exported." (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(3)).

The export provision is intended to allow manufacturers in the United States to ship nonconforming vehicles to ports for export to destinations where the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply. It also facilitates transshipment of nonconforming vehicles through the U.S. for destinations elsewhere. Under the practice you describe, your client would not be importing vehicles "intended only for export," they would be intended for display before export. Thus the condition of Sec. 30112(b)(3) would not be met and your client would be in violation of Sec. 30112(a). Your use of the word purchasers also raises an inference that the nonconforming vehicles could be offered for sale, even if later exported, and such an offer would also violate Sec. 30112(a).

You have also asked "is it proper to have the cars exported to either Puerto Rico, Guam, and/or the Virgin Islands?" The answer is no. The statute that I have cited applies within the United States. Under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10), "State" means a state of the United States, "the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands."

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.9/21/99

ID: nht91-6.46

DATE: November 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ronald Van Campenhout -- US Liaison Officer, ABC Coach/Van Hool

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 29, 1991, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a situation you recently encountered in Florida.

You state that "one of our client's coaches was stopped by a DOT-inspector and a compliance-audit with FMVSS-standards was performed." According to the DOT inspector, "the third, centrally mounted, rear stoplight needs to be illuminated, not only when the brake pedal gets activated, but also whenever the coach is parked with the engine running at high idle speed . . . ." It is your interpretation that the center light "should only come on when pressure is applied to the brake pedal."

Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that applies to the center highmounted stop lamp. Standard No. 108 does not require that the center highmounted stop lamp be activated when a vehicle is parked with the engine running at idle. In fact, S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 specifies that the center lamp shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes. Thus, your interpretation is the correct one.

There are other anomalies reported in your letter that I would like to address. First, Standard No. 108 does not require buses manufactured before September 1, 1993, to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp (and, after that date, only buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds and less than 80 inches in overall width must be so equipped). Apparently, the inspector was not informed that the requirement for certain buses to be equipped with center highmounted stop lamps does not take effect for nearly two more years. Second, this agency has no inspectors performing compliance audits of vehicles in service. We surmise that your coach may have been inspected by either the Florida State DOT, or the U.S. DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for compliance with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The FHWA, which concurs in this letter, does not require in its Motor Carrier Safety Regulations or elsewhere that stop lamps on a bus be illuminated when the service brakes are not being applied, even if the vehicle is idling.

ID: nht92-5.50

DATE: June 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John W. Arnold, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from John W. Arnold, Jr. to NHTSA (OCC 7296)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 5, 1992, concerning requirements for after-market seats. Your letter states that you had a vehicle accessories dealer, Orig. Equip. of San Angelo, install bucket seats in your 1992 Dodge Diesel Ram pickup. You state that, because the bucket seats seemed unsafe, you removed the bucket seats and reinstalled the original seats. You asked if the dealer was required to comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards when installing the bucket seats.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment to a consumer unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable FMVSSs.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in Section 108(a) (2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Based on the allegations in your letter, it is possible that the accessories dealer that installed the aftermarket seats in your truck violated this provision of Federal law.

I have forwarded a copy of your letter to our Office of Enforcement for appropriate action. You may also wish to follow up by contacting NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline at (800) 424-9393.

ID: 004593-as