ID: 23947.ztv

Mr. Raymond Campanile
President/GM
Motorrad of North America
771 Fentress Blvd., Unit 22
Daytona Beach, FL 32114





Dear Mr. Campanile:

Thank you for your letter of January 21, 2002, responding to ours of January 10, asking for clarification of the relationship between Motorrad of Germany, Motorrad of North America, and CPI of Taiwan, as it affects the Moskito 125 for which you have filed a petition for temporary exemption.

As we now understand it, Motorrad of Germany has contracted with CPI to manufacture the Moskito, and the German company has tested the design for compliance with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Motorrad of Germany's certification of compliance with the FMVSS would be affixed by CPI and the vehicles shipped directly to Motorrad of North America.

Under 49 CFR 555.9 Temporary exemption labels, the certification label applied to an exempted vehicle "shall meet all applicable requirements of part 567 of this chapter" (Sec. 555.9(c)). Part 567 is the vehicle certification regulation. Section 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to state the name of the manufacturer of the vehicle, which is the name of the "actual assembler" of the vehicle. The actual assembler of the Moskito 125 is CPI, not Motorrad of Germany. Thus, under our regulations, CPI appears to be the entity that should petition for a temporary exemption of the Moskito 125 and certify its compliance with the FMVSS. Further, as the "manufacturer," CPI would share with the importer for resale, Motorrad of North America, the obligation to notify and remedy noncompliances and safety related defects that might occur in the Moskito 125. However, were the Moskito 125 to be shipped to the United States in complete but unassembled form and, after importation, assembled by Motorrad of North America, your company would be the "actual assembler" which, as the certifying manufacturer, could petition for a temporary exemption as you originally did.

There is another possibility. If CPI is controlled by Motorrad of Germany or Motorrad of North America, and the controlling company assumes responsibility for conformity with the FMVSS, the name of the controlling company may be used as the manufacturer on the certification label (Sec. 567.4(g)(1)(i)). In any event, we cannot proceed further with your petition until we have had your response to this letter.

We appreciate your providing a copy of Motorrad of Germany's designation of agent for service of process, dated May 1, 1997. Our Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, Heidi Coleman, will write you shortly about its acceptability.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:555#567

ID: 2394y

Mr. Frederick H. Dambach
President
Execuline
997 Brook Rd.
Lakewood, NJ 08701

Dear Mr. Dambach:

This is in response to your letter requesting that I reconsider my conclusion in a July 26, 1989, letter to you interpreting emergency exit requirements contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in responding. As is explained below, after reconsideration, I must still conclude that exits located in the roof of a bus do not satisfy the requirement contained in S5.2 of Standard 217, that 40% of the required emergency exit space on a transit bus must be located on each side of the bus.

Your August letter argues that roof exits must be counted in determining compliance with S5.2 because the standard does not specifically state that a side is that part of a bus that is perpendicular to the floor. Instead, relying upon provisions of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) regulations at 49 CFR Part 393, you assert that the side of a bus is any part to the left or right of the roof centerline. While this may be true under the FHWA regulations, those regulations are being used in a completely different context than Standard No. 217, and concern lighting and marker requirements and specifications for towing for motor carriers. Standard 217, on the other hand, specifies requirements for the operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits in buses to ensure readily accessible emergency egress from these vehicles. Because of the different purpose and context of Standard 217 and the FHWA regulations, the definition of the word "side" is not necessarily the same for those regulations. In fact, as I explained in detail in my previous letter to you, the structure and purpose of Standard 217 show that the word "side" has a different meaning in Standard 217 than it does when used by the FHWA in Part 393.

Moreover, and contrary to the assertion in your letter, Standard 217 is not a subpart of Part 393. Standard 217 is found in 49 CFR Part 571. The Standard is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), administered by NHTSA. Under Federal law, these standards are applicable to manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles. On the other hand, Part 393, administered by the FHWA, is a part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which are applicable to motor carriers. Although NHTSA and FHWA coordinate with each other to avoid conflicts in our respective regulatory programs, the FHWA does not have authority over motor vehicle manufacturers. Likewise, NHTSA does not have authority over motor carriers.

This agency has statutory authority to regulate the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Additionally, our statute prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. However, this agency has no authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. Hence, NHTSA cannot require the vehicles used in your company's fleet to comply with Standard 217 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, the individual States are free to regulate the operation and use of vehicles within their borders, provided that those regulations do not contravene any Federal laws or regulations. In this case, the State of New Jersey has chosen to adopt the provisions of Standard 217 and make it applicable to vehicles operated within New Jersey. This choice by the State of New Jersey does not contravene any of this agency's statutes or regulations. Thus, while I appreciate that New Jersey's decision to apply Standard 217 to vehicles operated in the State may have caused you difficulties, the wisdom and fairness of that decision is a matter to be decided by the State of New Jersey, not this agency.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA d:4/9/90

ID: 2395y

Mr. R.W. Schreyer
Senior Sales Engineer
Transportation Manufacturing Corp.
Box 5670 (R.I.A.C.)
Roswell, NM 88202-5070

Dear Mr. Schreyer:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Harry Thompson of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210). You posed two questions, which I will answer in the order presented.

First, you noted that the State of Nevada will be procuring some prison buses, equipped with lap-only safety belts at the passenger seating positions. You correctly noted that no safety standard requires safety belts to be installed for passenger seating positions on buses, but asked if this agency could "provide direction on what course of action [TMC] should take." You asked particularly whether you should design the anchorages for the lap-only safety belts to conform with the requirements of Standard No. 210.

NHTSA answered this question in a March 22, 1989 letter to Mr. Keith McDowell, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. As we said in that letter, NHTSA must decline to issue any "guidelines" beyond or in addition to the requirements set forth in the safety standards. Therefore, since Standard No. 210 expressly exempts passenger seats in buses from the standard's anchorage requirements, Federal law leaves the question of how any such anchorages should be designed entirely up to the judgment of the bus manufacturer. Please note, however, that the State of Nevada is free to specify certain design and performance criteria with which these anchorages must comply in its contract for these buses.

Second, you asked for a clarification of the testing conducted to determine compliance with Standard No. 210. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test with which anchorages must comply. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 reads as follows: "Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to those anchorages." You asked whether all seats in the coach must be tested simultaneously or whether a single seat would be tested, and then the next seat tested, and so forth.

Please note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are "floor-mounted" anchorages for "adjacent designated seating positions." Assuming that there is an aisle or some other separation between the seat assemblies in your buses, the only "adjacent" designated seating positions would be those common to one occupant seat. Therefore, no more than one occupant seat's anchorages would be tested simultaneously under Standard No. 210. Even those anchorages common to one occupant seat would be tested simultaneously only if the anchorages were floor-mounted.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:210 d:4/9/90

ID: 2396y

Robert A. Rogers, Director
Automotive Safety Engineering
Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
30400 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9015

Dear Mr. Rogers:

This is in reply to your letter asking for confirmation that an interpretation of a notice of proposed rulemaking remains in effect with respect to the final rule based upon that proposal. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, you reference an interpretation dated September 12, l988, that this Office provided Koito Corporation, informing it that each of the two Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) designs depicted "complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2" of Standard No. l08. The second design consisted of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. We informed Koito that "under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for "the VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)", and that this meant that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly or separate from it. However, we also cautioned that our comments were based upon the proposal, and could change with the issuance of the final rule.

You have commented that the final rule was the same with respect to the pertinent VHAD wording. This is not entirely true. The final rule (paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(vii)) omitted the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)". You also noted that paragraph S7.7.5.2(c)(l) of the final rule defines a headlamp assembly as "(the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism)". The intent of this language is to specify a VHAD that is a permanent part of the headlamp, and hence integral, or to have a separate VHAD that is part of the mounting mechanism. It was not meant as permitting a VHAD that could be physically separated from headlamp or the mounting mechanism. Thus, in our view and upon our further consideration of the matter, a detachable VHAD does not meet the "intent" of the final rule. This means that the spirit level design described in your letter, which is not integral to the headlamp or mounting mechanism, is not permissible. We shall provide Koito with a copy of this letter.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:4/9/90

ID: 2397y

Mr. Gary R. Balanza
P.O. Box 88112
Honolulu, HI 96830

Dear Mr. Balanza:

This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation whether your invention "will interfere with the standard equipment" required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. I regret the delay in responding.

Your invention, "Pinlights", is described as an auxiliary lighting system designed to fit an automobile's side contours. Its purpose is to light up the entire length of a vehicle, so that it will be more conspicuous at night. We note your uncertainty as to "number of stripes allowed on a car", "colors allowed on a car", and "maximum brightness allowable."

There are two ways to approach your invention under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, our authority for the issuance of the motor vehicle lighting standard, Standard No. l08. The first is as an item of original equipment, in place on the vehicle at the time it is bought by its first owner. You have asked the correct question: does the invention impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08? The equipment most likely to be impaired are the side marker lamps and reflectors. These items are located near the front and rear of the vehicle, to enhance vehicle conspicuity by affording an approximation of vehicle length, and an indication of the vehicle's front and rear. The lamps are amber to the front, and red to the rear. Your invention would be located along the side of the vehicle, from front to rear. This suggests that the color of your device should similarly be amber to the front and red to the rear, so as not to impair the effectiveness of the directional function of the side marker lamps.

The second way to approach your invention is as an item available in the aftermarket. Standard No. l08 does not apply to a vehicle in use. However, as it applies to your question, the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, any of the required lighting equipment. In most cases, we consider an impairment of new vehicle equipment to be equivalent to a partial inoperability. Further, if installation of aftermarket equipment directly affects the performance of original equipment (such as a reduction of light output through an interference with the wiring), that would certainly be considered a partial inoperability.

Lighting equipment that is not covered by Standard No. l08 remains subject to the requirements of each State in which a vehicle on which it is installed is registered and/or operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that, for an opinion, you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:VSA#l08 d:4/9/90

ID: 2398y

Mr. Michael S. Kmiecik
5601 Western Avenue
Omaha, Nebraska 68132

Dear Mr. Kmiecik:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to vehicle modification kits you wish to purchase, to be used in conversion of Datsun 240-280Z cars from closed to open vehicles. You have asked for the safety standards that apply to l974-78 convertibles, and whether the conversion kit meets these standards. I regret the delay in responding.

We appreciate your efforts to meet the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As you appear to realize, the Act requires, in essence, that vehicle alterations by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business must not render wholly or partially inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a vehicle at the end of its conversion process must continue to meet the standards that applied at the time that it was first manufactured. This does not preclude conversions that render compliance with a standard physically impossible; obviously an open car cannot meet, for example, the standard for roof crush resistance (Standard No. 216), and convertibles, are, in fact, exempt from it. Such a conversion would allow substitution of a two-point (lap belt) restraint system in a convertible for a three-point (lap-shoulder belt) restraint system that may have been installed when it was a closed car (Standard No. 208).

After the vehicle alterations are complete, the vehicle must conform to the barrier tests specified in several standards. We note that the items that comprise the kit are intended to add rigidity to the body and frame after removal of the top, but are unable to advise you of the effect these modifications would have upon the safety performance of the vehicle as converted.

There are no Federal safety standards that apply to the individual items in your kit. The standards that apply to motor vehicles, including convertibles, manufactured from October 1, l973, through September 30, l978, will be found at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. Specifically, the standards appear in volumes titled 49 CFR Parts 200 to 999, revised as of October 1, l973, l974, l975, l976, and l977. Originally, these volumes were available through the U.S. Government Printing Office (which may have an Omaha outlet). If they are no longer available through the GPO, we recommend that you consult a local law library.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:4/8/90

ID: 2399y

Mr. Herbert E. Stoel
3772 Prairie Street
Grandville, MI 49418

Dear Mr. Stoel:

This is in reply to your letter to John Womack of this Office, suggesting that the color of taillamps on motor vehicles be green.

The agency is concerned about methods to effectively improve rear lighting and signaling. The issues involved include lamp size, location, operation, combinations and separation, and color. We are learning that changes in lamp function, operation, and color should be approached in a conservative fashion, so as not to confuse the operators of other vehicles.

With specific respect to use of the color green on rear lighting equipment, we are aware that some research suggests a green/red color scheme may enhance driver performance. In such systems, a green lamp indicates that the accelerator pedal is applied, amber that the foot has been lifted from the accelerator pedal, and red, that the brake is being applied. Some years ago, an experiment was conducted with such a system using transit buses in the D.C. area. The results were inconclusive. Although some research suggests a possible improvement in driver performance with green/red lamps, there are no data addressing the possible driver confusion that might arise from multiple color lighting arrays.

Thank you for your suggestion to enhance motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:4/8/90

ID: 2400y

Mr. Bill Waltz
Wagner Division
Cooper Industries, Inc.
155 Algonquin Parkway
Whippany, NJ 07981

Dear Mr. Waltz:

This is in reply to your letter requesting permission for deviations from marking requirements for round sealed beam headlamps.

Wagner has been asked to assemble some headlamps designed to appear as closely as possible to those produced by Guide Lamp in the l950's. The lamps would be marked "l" and "2" in accordance with the nomenclature of the day, rather than "2Dl", "1C1", and "2C1", as required by Standard No. l08. The DOT symbol would not be provided, "since this obviously was not on the original lamps." You have informed us that the lamps "will be made to today's photometric standards" and "subjected to all the tests currently required of the round headlights." Finally, "they will be distributed on a limited basis through antique parts dealers."

I am sorry, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment from any requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our temporary exemption authority under l5 U.S.C. 1410 extends only to motor vehicles. Further, we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of either vehicles or equipment from their statutory obligation to certify through use of the DOT symbol that their products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the motor vehicle lamps which you have identified, and for which you ask an exemption are designated Type C and Type D sealed beam headlamps. As such, they must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c, December l978, which are incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08. They are considered replacement equipment, and must conform to all requirements of Standard No. 108, including marking and certification.

Standard No. l08 covers both original and replacement vehicle equipment. Depending on the vehicle category, it became effective for original equipment on January 1, l968, and January 1, l969. On January 1, l972, it became effective for equipment intended to replace original equipment on all motor vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, l972. Therefore, it might appear that the standard would not apply in any event to replacement equipment for l950's vehicles. However, the headlamps you describe are designed to conform to all contemporary requirements, except marking and certification. Even though intended for use on l950's vehicles, these circular headlamps are interchangeable with circular headlamps installed on any vehicle manufactured after the effective dates of Standard No. l08. Therefore, they must be designed to conform with Standard No. l08, and marked and certified accordingly.

The intended markings "l" and "2" would signify mistakenly that the headlamps were designed to conform to SAE Standard J579a, October l965 (which also did not require the DOT symbol on the lens). Until June l989, SAE J579a was incorporated in Standard No. l08 as a permissible option to SAE J579c, but the agency deleted it as the lamps appeared to be out of production. However, even had J579a been retained, we could not have allowed the lenses of headlamps manufactured to J579c to be marked according to J579a.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:4/8/90

ID: 2401y

Mr. George B. Maday
President
Network USA Inc.
136 Walker St., SW
Atlanta, GA . 30313-1326

Dear Mr. Maday:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to the automatic light switching device whose potential for the U.S. market you are assessing. The device automatically activates the headlamps at a pre-determined (but adjustable) level of darkness. There is a manual override for the operator. I regret the delay in responding.

You have asked two questions:

"l. What legislation is in force or pending regarding the mandatory utilization of such daytime running lights for vehicles?"

None. The agency once proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytime running lamps as an option, but it terminated rulemaking on this subject without taking action.

"2. What regulations, standards, forms, etc. have to be submitted to you or the appropriate agency to ensure that the product meets any U.S. specifications or standards prior to importation.

None. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to this item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if you intend it to be installed as an item of original equipment, it must not create a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, or result in an impairment of the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. For example, the standard requires the taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. Therefore, when your device activates the headlamps, the taillamps must also be activated. Though expressed in somewhat different terms, the acceptability of your device in the aftermarket is governed by a similar consideration: it may not be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business if the installation would render inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with Standard No. l08. The device would remain subject to the laws of any State in which it is sold or operated. We are unable to advise you as to its acceptability under State laws, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:4/8/90

ID: 24023

Dick Keller, Product Development Manager
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
PO Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066





Dear Mr. Keller:

This responds to your recent correspondence where you ask whether defeating a seat cushion occupant classification system on a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 2006, would constitute making the system inoperative when the vehicle modification is performed to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability. I am pleased to be able to provide a response.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's 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 and providing the vehicle gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Alterers of motor vehicles are companies that modify a completed vehicle prior to first retail sale. Alterers must determine whether those modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with those safety standards that were affected by the modification.

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 in 49 CFR Part 595. Only portions of some FMVSSs are covered by the exemption. Additionally, the exemption only applies to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

On May 8, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to add several new requirements to minimize the risk of air bags to children and small adults, while maintaining the benefits of the air bags for all other front seat occupants. These requirements are collectively referred to as the "advanced air bag" requirements of FMVSS No. 208. They apply to all vehicles manufactured for sale or use in the United States with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less (other than walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles manufactured exclusively for the U.S. Postal service).

The advanced air bag requirements are subject to a phase-in, whereby, generally speaking, ⁽¹⁾ at least 35% of a given vehicle manufacturer's fleet must comply with the requirements between September 1, 2003, and August 31, 2004, 65% of its fleet must comply between September 1, 2004, and August 31, 2005, and 100% of its fleet must comply between September 1, 2005, and August 31, 2006. Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages or by companies manufacturing less than 5,000 vehicles for the U.S. market per year must meet the advanced air bag requirements in all vehicles produced on or after September 1, 2006.

In amending FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA contemplated three different types of technologies that could be used, individually or in combination, to minimize air bag risks to children seated in the front seat of a vehicle. First, the rule allows vehicle manufacturers to certify compliance with the new requirements by using a system that suppresses the air bag when a small child is sitting in the front seat (automatic suppression system requirements). Second, manufacturers may deploy the air bag for a small child using a system that is unlikely to injure the child when the air bag deploys (low-risk deployment system requirements). Finally, manufacturers may use a system that suppresses the air bag whenever any occupant moves far enough into the air bag's deployment zone that an air bag related injury could result (dynamic automatic suppression system requirements).

Some of the technologies contemplated by manufacturers to meet these requirements are located in the passenger seat. When such systems are used, removal of the seat would make the suppression system inoperative.

Subpart C of Part 595 does not include the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 among the provisions for which an exemption may be granted. We are reviewing a petition for rulemaking that requests us to amend Part 595 to allow modifiers to make these systems inoperative. We anticipate that if we decide to so amend Part 595, the amendment will become effective before September 1, 2003, the beginning of the phase-in.

Until we amend Part 595 to include the advanced air bag requirements, a vehicle modifier must retain the vehicle features relied upon by the manufacturer for compliance with those requirements. A vehicle manufacturer is permitted to certify compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 before the beginning of the phase-in. If a vehicle manufacturer relies on a seat-based occupant detection system to certify a vehicle's compliance, regardless of whether it manufactures the vehicle before the beginning of the phase-in, removing a seat containing the system would make the vehicle's compliance "inoperative" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

In such a case, a modifier may not remove the system unless NHTSA has issued a letter stating that it will not enforce the make inoperative prohibition for the work performed on the vehicle. Accordingly, a vehicle modifier should assure itself that the vehicle manufacturer is not relying on a seat-based occupant detection system to comply with the advanced air bag requirements before removing the passenger seat. If the seat-based system is relied upon for compliance, the modifier may request written agency approval of to the required modification. Any requests for such a letter should be submitted to this office.

I hope this addresses your concerns on this issue. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.5/2/02

---

¹ Manufacturers who produce two or fewer car lines for the U.S. market may opt out of the phase-in schedule if 100% of their vehicles meet the advanced air bag requirements beginning September 1, 2004. Final-stage manufacturers and very small vehicle manufacturers (no more than 5,000 vehicles per year) are not required to comply with these new requirements during the phase-in period.