ID: 19873.ztv

Mr. Daniel R. Todd
Muth Mirror Systems
4221 High Tech Lane
Sheboygan, WI 53082-0418

Dear Mr. Todd:

This is in reply to your e-mails of April 15 and April 19, 1999, requesting confirmation that an interpretation that this Office provided John K. Roberts of Muth Mirror Systems on January 15, 1991, with respect to a "Stop Turn Mirror" ("STM") is valid also for a revised version of that device.

The original STM was designed to appear as a mirror to the vehicle operator, but as a stop and turn signal indication system to the operator of a vehicle following. Your current "Signal Mirror" provides a "high intensity chevron shaped signal which is mounted behind and projects through the mirror," and is operated by the turn and hazard warning signal system. That is to say, the chevron signal in the exterior rearview mirror on the driver's side of the vehicle will indicate a left turn, and the chevron signal in the exterior rearview mirror on the passenger side of the mirror will indicate a right turn. Both chevron signals will activate simultaneously when the hazard warning signal is activated.

You are also developing a "high extended mount stop lamp" (HEMSL) which is operated when the brakes are applied; this feature consists of "a straight line of high intensity lamps" centered near the top edge of the mirror, which also "are mounted behind and project through the mirror surface." As you explained to Taylor Vinson of this office on May 24, the stop signal will appear simultaneously in both exterior mirrors. You have asked us four questions about how our 1991 letter applies to these two new mirrors.

The first question relates to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108's prohibition of combining a center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) with any other lamp or reflective device. We advised in 1991 that a mirror was not a reflective device for purposes of Standard No. 108, and that the question would be whether the turn signal functions of the STM were clearly separated from the stop function so that the question does not arise as to whether they are combined. You have asked "Based on the updated device description provided above and current code interpretation, does the Chief Counsel's remarks still stand."

The original STM provided a stop signal through the interior rearview mirror, whereas the new mirror system provides a stop signal through the two exterior mirrors. The stop signals are supplementary to the stop lamps that are mounted on the rear of the vehicle. Paragraph S5.4 Equipment combinations of Standard No. 108 does not prohibit combining stop lamps, other than CHMSLs with other lighting devices. The question that must be answered with respect to supplementary lighting equipment is whether they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. With respect to the Muth mirror, we do not conclude that such an impairment exists. This also answers your final question: whether the stop and turn signal function may be combined in the Signal Mirror alone which does not incorporate a CHMSL. The answer is yes; Standard No. 108 does not prohibit the combining of supplementary stop and turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps.

Our 1991 letter also discussed the possibility of the STM replacing the original equipment CHMSL. We advised that the STM could not do so if it were intended to be located in the exterior rear view mirrors rather than the center interior mirror. This is the configuration of your HEMSL. Thus, the supplementary stop lamp HEMSL may not replace the original equipment CHMSL.

You next ask "If the HEMSL, mounted in the exterior rear-view mirrors, provided a certain geometric visibility and photometric output such that it contributed to the required CHMSL visibility and photometric standard, in this theoretic system of three lamps, could the lamp mounted on the centerline have its geometric and photometric requirements tailored such that when combined with the HEMSLs and provided the overall CHMSL requirements indicated in Standard No. 108?" The answer is no; Standard No. 108 requires that there be a single, not multiple, lamp comprising the CHMSL, and that that single CHMSL meet all specified photometric and visibility requirements, and not share them with an array of three lamps.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/14/99

ID: 1987y

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
National Truck Equipment
Association--Washington Office
1350 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005-4797

Dear Mr. Kastner:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) actions to extend certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) to light trucks and vans. The Secretary has asked me to reply.

Your letter was especially concerned with NHTSA's November 1987 amendment to FMVSS 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, and our denial of NTEA's petition for reconsideration of that rule. I regret that I am unable to respond to your comments at this time. As you know, the Department and NTEA are presently involved in litigation concerning those actions. In view of the litigation, we feel it would be inappropriate to address your comments in this letter.

We appreciate your interest in informing the Department of your views. I can assure you that Secretary Skinner is actively interested in each of the letters he receives regarding NHTSA's mission to improve motor vehicle safety. Let me assure you also that the potential impacts on small businesses is one of our concerns in each of our rulemaking actions.

A copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed in NHTSA's docket section.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Acting Administrator ref:204 d:8/22/89

ID: 19882.drn

Pastor Carlo DeStefano
Fairwinds Baptist Church
801 Seymour Road
Bear, DE 19701

Dear Pastor DeStefano:

This responds to your April 14, 1999, letter requesting information on Federal statutes governing school bus safety. Dorothy Nakama of my staff spoke to your secretary, who informed us that your church operates Fairwinds Christian School, which teaches students from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Ms. Nakama was informed that you seek information about the school bus safety laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to determine what your responsibilities are when transporting your students.

I am pleased to provide the following information. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

Our statute thus regulates primarily manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. Any person selling a new school bus must sell a vehicle that is certified as meeting our school bus standards. Conventional buses (including 15-passenger vans) are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold, as new vehicles, under circumstances where they are likely to be used to carry students on a regular basis.

In general, our school bus safety statute does not regulate school bus users. Instead, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. You should check Delaware law to see what your State law requires when your private school transports its students. For information on Delaware's requirements, you can contact Delaware's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Mr. Ronald Love, State Supervisor, School Transportation
Delaware Department of Education
P. O. Box 1402
Dover, DE 19903
Telephone: (302) 739-4696

In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.5/25/99

ID: 19883.wkm

Tim Broten, President
Skiddd Wheel Indicator
Box 129
Starbuck, Mb.
ROG 2PO
CANADA

Dear Mr. Broten:

Your letter to Mr. Ron Evenson, State Director, Office of Motor Carrier Safety, Bismarck, North Dakota, was forwarded to this agency for reply.

You stated in your letter that your company produces the Skiddd wheel lock indicator that is described as a strip of special nylon plastic that is attached to the wheel stud of a truck. The Skiddd protrudes out from the wheel about two inches, which allows the driver to see from his rear view mirror whether the wheel is turning. The intent is to permit the driver to determine from the truck cab whether the wheels are in fact turning or whether one or more of them are skidding. You asked for a "letter of approval" to indicate that the Skiddd indicator complies with applicable safety standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Turning now to the Skiddd wheel lock indicator, we would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30102(a)(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the Skiddd wheel lock indicator is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing your letter and its enclosed product brochure, we conclude that the Skiddd wheel lock indicator is an accessory. It was designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. Further, the pictures of the Skiddd in the brochure make it clear that the wheel lockup indicator is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, mostly truck drivers, to continuously monitor whether their wheels are turning properly.

While the Skiddd wheel lock indicator is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, the manufacturer, whether you or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 - 30121 (copies enclosed) which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge to the consumer.

Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 30122 (copy enclosed) provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the Skiddd could not be installed by one of those entities if such use would adversely affect the compliance of a vehicle with any FMVSS. This provision does not apply, however, to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner.

I note that the Department's Office of Motor Carrier Safety has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. On August 18, 1999, the Vehicle and Operations Division of that agency responded to your inquiry about using the Skiddd indicator on commercial motor vehicles. We have coordinated this response through the Acting Director of the Office of Motor Carrier Safety.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures

cc: Mr. Ronald O. Evenson
State Director
Office of Motor Carrier Safety
1471 Interstate Loop
Bismarck, ND 58501

ref:119
d.11/23/99

ID: 19884.ztv

Mr. Ron Woodward, P.E.
Section Supervisor Optics & Adv. Eng.
Federal Mogul
2513 58^th Street
Hampton, VA 23661

Dear Mr. Woodward:

This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1999, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment as it applies to a proposed horizontal alignment system for use with visual/optical aim headlamps.

Paragraph S7.8.2.1(c) of Standard No. 108 states that "A visually/optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam shall not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism unless such mechanism meets the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.2 of this standard." You reference previous interpretations of this office which state "that disabled horizontal adjusters are acceptable [i.e., are not horizontal aim mechanisms within the meaning of the phrase]," that "certain types of anti-tamper screws are not permitted" ("ones that can be driven in one direction"), but not all types of such screws, and "exposed screw heads were also rejected because pliers could be used to rotate the screw."

You have enclosed a drawing showing a horizontal alignment system that you propose to use. It "would be used during manufacturing to achieve proper mechanical alignment of the mounting surface and lamp optical system and is not meant to be adjustable after manufacture." The drawing you enclose shows both a plan and section view of your system. There is an "external shroud [which] prevents adjustment by wrenches and pliers." There is also a center section described as "center anti-tamper post [which] prevents entry of standard Torx driver bit, screw driver, & Allen wrench." You ask whether we would regard this as a horizontal adjustment mechanism as prohibited by S7.8.2.1(c).

Yes, we would regard this design as a horizontal aim mechanism within the meaning of S7.8.2.1(c)(and impermissible because it does not meet S7.8.5.2). Although the center anti-tamper post prevents entry of a standard Torx driver bit, non-standard Torx driver bits are readily available which would defeat your intent that the horizontal alignment not be adjustable after manufacture. Specifically, SK Drive Tamper-Proof Torx Bits are available through internet web sites, if not tool jobbers and mobile tool sales outlets, and these are intended to fit the center anti-tamper post and allow entry.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/28/99

ID: 19886.ztv

David H. Coburn, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-1795

Re: Request for Clarification

Dear Mr. Coburn:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1999, seeking a confirmation that a previous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 remains valid.

The interpretation is one that we sent your client, Baran Advanced Technologies, Ltd., on September 7, 1993. In that letter, we informed Baran that we did not believe that a device which activates a vehicle's hazard warning system upon sensing a sudden release of the accelerator pedal would impair the effectiveness of the stop, tail, and turn signal lamps required by Standard No. 108, assuming that the device is not activated under normal stopping conditions, that it is automatically deactivated when the brake pedal is applied, that manual deactivation is not required, and that the device would be overriden by manual activation of the turn signal lamps.

Regrettably, I cannot confirm that this interpretation remains valid. Our earlier interpretation did not consider the effect of the device upon the hazard warning signal itself. Since 1993, we have come to the conclusion that use of required lighting equipment for other than its original purpose may compromise and reduce its safety effectiveness. As we said in 1996,

It is important that the integrity of the required signal lamps be maintained, and that auxiliary signal lamps not detract attention from the messages that the required signal lamps are sending. A vehicle signaling system must be as simple and as unambiguous as possible to others who share the roadway if traffic is to proceed in a safe and orderly fashion. (61 FR 65516)

See also our Statement of Policy published in the Federal Register on November 4, 1998 (63 FR 59482, copy enclosed).

We believe that a hazard warning system should not be used for the auxiliary purpose of indicating sudden accelerator release, a signal that bears no relationship to a hazard warning signal and one which could create confusion were the hazard warning signal used for an unrelated purpose. We believe that our 1993 interpretation was superseded by our subsequent policy statement, and therefore reverse it and conclude that S5.1.3 prohibits the system as described.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref.108
d.8/6/99

ID: 1988y

Mr. Dan Trexler
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Trexler:

This is in reply to your letter of May 8, l989, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Erika Jones. You have received requests "to install a master electrical disconnect switch on many buses." When the switch is turned to the "off" position "it renders inoperative the warning signals (to the driver) required by FMVSS l05, 121 and 217. It also inactivates the hazard warning flasher required by FMVSS l08." You ask whether installation of the switch would constitute a noncompliance, or a "safety related hazard." if it is accessible to the seated driver, or if remotely located in the battery or engine compartment, without ready access to the driver.

Although you have not explained the purpose of such a device, we understand that a battery disconnect switch of this nature is deemed desirable by many bus owners to prevent drains on the battery when the bus is at rest. When the switch is activated, the bus cannot be started and driven because electric power is not available. Under this circumstance we do not believe that the switch either creates a noncompliance with any of the standards listed, nor constitutes a safety related defect, regardless of its location. When the bus is in operation the warning systems of the standards are not affected. The possibility of inadvertent activation when the bus is in use does not constitute a defect in performance, construction, components, or materials such as to create a safety related defect. To forestall any possibility of inadvertent activation, however, you may find it preferable to locate the switch away from the driver.

We understand that a purpose of this switch is to reduce the likelihood of fire after accidents in which there has been fuel spillage. In this circumstance, it is likely that the bus would be positioned either in the roadway or adjacent to it. Safety would be enhanced if the hazard warning signal power source were separate from the batteries inactivated by the disconnect switch, so that these warning lamps could continue to operate.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:VSA#l04#l08#l2l#2l7 d:8/30/89

ID: 19891.drn

Mr. Dennis Seavey
Plus Time New Hampshire
160 Dover Road, Suite One
Chichester, NH 93234

Dear Mr. Seavey:

This responds to your letter asking about our August 8, 1998, interpretation to Mr. Terry L. Voy, School Transportation Consultant for the Iowa Department of Education, concerning our school bus regulations.

In the letter to Mr. Voy, we explained that persons selling a new bus to a daycare facility must sell a "school bus" if the bus will be significantly used to transport school children to or from school or related events. As to whether a bus is "used significantly" for such use, we told Mr. Voy that regular use of a bus to pick up students from school five days a week would constitute "significant use" as a school bus. We also stated in that letter that "regular use on alternate days would be 'significant.'"

You ask about the latter statement, as to whether transporting school-aged children to and/or from a child care facility and school three days a week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) constitutes "significant use" as a school bus. You also ask if we would consider the bus to be "significantly" used for school transportation if it were used to take children to and/or from school on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Our answer is that regular use of the vehicle to transport school children to or from school on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, or on Tuesdays and Thursdays, is "significant use" of the vehicle for school transportation. We would also consider transportation provided to or from school on any two days during a week to be regular use and therefore "significant."

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) safety standards directly regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each state has the authority to set its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses. Please check with the appropriate New Hampshire officials to see if any State law regulates how New Hampshire school children must be transported between their school and after school programs. For information on New Hampshire's requirements, you may contact New Hampshire's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Ms. Bethia LaMarca, Pupil Transportation Supervisor
New Hampshire Department of Safety
10 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305
Telephone: (603) 271-1999

In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children" that describes the safety features of a school bus. I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.5/20/99

ID: 1989y

Mr. Bradley J. Baker
President
Classic Manufacturing, Inc.
21900 U.S. 12
Sturgis, MI 49091

Dear Mr. Baker:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with reference to a product your company manufactures, a "car dolly used to tow a vehicle behind motor homes." You question whether the dolly is a motor vehicle, and if so, whether identification lamps are necessary for it. I regret the delay in responding.

The car dolly appears to be a vehicle drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and thus a "motor vehicle" subject to the jurisdiction of this agency. Specifically, it would be a "trailer", since it is a motor vehicle without motive power, designed for carrying property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires identification lamps on all trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Therefore, if the overall width of your dolly is less than 80 inches, it need not be equipped with identification lamps.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ Ref:l08 d:8/3l/89

ID: 23134.rbm

Ms. Wendy Cohen
Assistive Technology Specialist
The State Education Department
VESID, 109 S. Union St.
Rochester, NY 14607





Dear Ms. Cohen:

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 whether the results of front, side and rear crash tests conducted on modified Grand Caravan vehicles with a 119 inch wheelbase are valid for a similarly modified Dodge Caravan with a 113 inch wheelbase. Your question is in connection with a vehicle modified to accommodate a person with a disability, and appears to raise issues regarding continued compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity (FMVSS No. 301).

NHTSA is unable to answer your question. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or vendors. Furthermore, we cannot provide specific information as to whether the types of potential modifications you have discussed would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. This responsibility lies with the business that makes the modifications. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass a FMVSS No. 301 crash test. We do note that, even though no changes were made to the frame or materials of construction, differences in the location of the fuel tank and the fuel fill and supply lines can affect crash test results. Any such differences could prevent a vehicle manufacturer, alterer, or modifier from relying on existing test data, especially in the case of the side impact test, where the impact target zone is based on the driver's seating position. A vehicle with a shorter wheelbase is likely to have its fuel tank and fuel fill line closer to the side impact zone than a similar long-wheelbase vehicle. We urge vehicle modifiers to exercise reasonable care including working with the vehicle manufacturer to determine whether a potential modification would take the vehicle out of compliance.

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, i.e., vehicles that are driven on the public roads and highways of the United States, be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. The statute ("Vehicle Safety Act") is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

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

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, which explains the extent of the exemption and provides parameters that repair businesses must stay within when performing modifications to a vehicle after first retail sale in order to take advantage of the exemption. Part 595 lists in section 595.7(c) the FMVSSs for which modifications are permitted to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle even though the modification may make inoperative a part of a device or element of design installed in or on the motor vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS.

Persons with disabilities often purchase vans or minivans to meet their particular needs. Crash testing is typically used by the original vehicle manufacturers to certify that these vehicles meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 (gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lb or less and unloaded vehicle weight of 4,000 lb or less), FMVSS No. 208 (GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 lb or less), FMVSS No. 212 (GVWR of 10,000 lb or less), FMVSS No. 214 (GVWR of 6,000 lb or less but does not apply to vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts), FMVSS No. 219 (GVWR of 10,000 lb or less), and FMVSS No. 301 (GVWR of 10,000 lb or less). Part 595 provides an exemption that would allow a vehicle modifier to take a vehicle out of compliance with portions of FMVSS Nos. 204, 208, and 214 if the modifications are necessary to accommodate a person's disability. FMVSS No. 204 modifications are limited to those that affect the original steering shaft. If modifications to the steering shaft are not necessary, the vehicle must continue to meet the standard's requirements. Modifications with respect to FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 are limited to those designated seating positions that are modified for use by a person with a disability.

The FMVSS most likely to be directly affected by a modification that lowers the vehicle's floor is FMVSS No. 301. This is because, at a minimum, the fuel lines from the engine to the fuel tank will usually need to be relocated; if large areas of the floor are lowered, the fuel tank itself may need to be relocated or replaced. FMVSS No. 301 requires that any spillage from the fuel system be within specified limits (on average, about one ounce per minute) when the vehicle is subjected to one of three test conditions: pulled forward into a fixed barrier at 30 mph, struck on the side by a 4,000 lb flat-faced, moving barrier traveling at 20 mph, or struck from the rear by the same moving barrier traveling at 30 mph. The vehicle will crush as it absorbs the crash energy in each test. The vehicle's fuel system is directly affected by the energy of the crash as that energy can cause the fuel tank to move. In addition, the fuel tank, lines, and other components may come into contact with other components in the same area of the vehicle. For example, in many cases where the agency's test vehicles have experienced spillage from the fuel tank, that spillage has been the result of the tank being pierced by another component of the vehicle.

Producers of equipment that is used in a system (e.g., fuel tank and lines) that is designed to comply with a particular FMVSS (e.g., FMVSS No. 301) are component suppliers and would not be directly subject to the requirements of the standard, ⁽¹⁾ although any manufacturer or alterer (see 49 CFR 567.7) using the product would be. A company that lowered the floor of an incomplete vehicle, or otherwise completed manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle, would be a final stage manufacturer. A company that lowered a vehicle floor on, or made other changes to, a completed vehicle prior to first retail sale would be an alterer. Both companies would have to certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured or altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. A company modifying a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to take the vehicle out of compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no make inoperative exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards. However, any modifier that avails itself of the make inoperative exemptions provided in 49 CFR 595.7 must affix a permanent label to each affected vehicle that includes the statement "this motor vehicle has been modified in accordance with 49 CFR 595.6 and may no longer comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect at the time of its original manufacture." Section 595.7 also requires the modifier to retain a copy of the document that must be provided to the vehicle owner. Section 595.7(e)(4) requires the document to include "a list of the FMVSS or portions thereof specified in paragraph (c) of this section with which the vehicle may no longer be in compliance."

Because there is no Part 595 exemption related to fuel systems, 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. One 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. Another possible 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 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. Finally, a modifier may 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.

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,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.4/12/02





---

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