Kazuo Higuchi, Senior Vice President

TK Holdings, Inc.

888 16^th Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Higuchi:

This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of the abrasion resistance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as they relate to an inflatable seat belt your company is developing. You request confirmation of your interpretation that since the inflatable portion of your seat belt assembly never contacts any hardware in the system, it need not meet the abrasion resistance test requirements for that portion of the seat belt assembly. Based on the information supplied to this agency and for the reasons explained below, it is our opinion that the inflatable portion of the seat belt assembly must meet the abrasion requirements of S4.2(d) of the standard after being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) but not S5.3(c) of the standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes NHTSA to develop and enforce FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which require minimum levels of safety performance for motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 209 prescribes requirements for seat belt assemblies.

In your letter, you described an upper torso restraint that is intended to inflate in crashes above a specified severity. You stated that this inflatable seat belt assembly deploys in conjunction with a vehicles air bags and is intended for use in the front outboard seating positions of motor vehicles. Your letter stated that the inflatable portion of the upper torso restraint has a section of the assembly that crosses the upper torso consisting of an inflatable bladder enclosed in an internal fabric tube that is encased in an external fabric cover. In your letter you explained that, when deployed, one side of the external fabric cover tears open, allowing the internal bladder to inflate. Your letter further stated that upon inflation, the length of this section of the assembly is reduced with results similar to the pretensioning function of a conventional torso belt.

The abrasion resistance requirements of FMVSS No. 209 are specified in S4.2(d), which reads as follows:

d) Resistance to abrasion. The webbing of a seat belt assembly, after being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or S5.3(c), shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75 percent of the breaking strength listed in S4.2(b) for that type of belt assembly.

S5.1(d) specifies a hex-bar abrasion test, in which the webbing is repeatedly passed over a hexagon bar. S5.3(c) specifies a test in which the webbing is abraded by repeatedly passing it through the assembly buckle or manual adjustment device. NHTSA added the latter test in 1971 because it was concerned that the hex-bar abrasion test does not adequately simulate the type of webbing abrasion caused by some buckles. The agency noted that the standard as amended retained the hex-bar test, but supplemented it with an additional abrasion requirement. See 36 Fed. Reg. 4607 (March 10, 1971).

In your letter, you argue that since the inflatable portion of the seat belt assembly never contacts any hardware in the system, it would serve no purpose to demonstrate compliance with S4.2(d) for that portion of the assembly. You ask that we interpret the standard not to require such compliance.

We decline to provide such an interpretation. We recognize, however, that the S5.3(c) test may not be appropriate for the type of design you describe. As noted above, the agency specifically added that test requirement because of concern about the type of abrasion caused by some buckles, and in that test, the webbing is abraded by repeatedly passing it through the assembly buckle or manual adjustment device. The inflatable portion of the seat belt assembly you described in your letter never goes through assembly hardware, and it appears unlikely that it would fit through the assembly hardware. Given these considerations, we would not apply the S5.3(c) test but would apply the S5.1(d) hex-bar abrasion test. The standard does not provide an exclusion for the type of design you describe, and there does not appear to be any reason why the S5.1(d) test could not be conducted for such a design.

In your letter, you suggest, as an alternative interpretation, that the inflatable portion of your seat belt assembly falls outside the definitions of webbing and strap, and therefore this portion of the assembly need not demonstrate compliance with any of the requirements for webbing in S4.2 (which straps must also meet). We also disagree with this suggested interpretation. Even if the inflatable portion of the seat belt assembly does not fit within the definition of webbing, we believe the definition of strap is sufficiently broad to include the product.

You ask that if we do not agree with your suggested interpretations that we provide additional information as to how the provisions of S4.2(d) would be applied, and how the portion of the inflatable belt assembly would be selected for evaluation. As discussed earlier, we would not apply the S5.3(c) test but would apply the S5.1(d) hex-bar abrasion test. Moreover, we would conduct that test without disassembling the inflatable portion of the seat belt assembly.

We note that in preparing this interpretation, we have considered a number of issues related to FMVSS No. 209 and testing of inflatable seat belts, including issues specific to the inflatable seat belt design you described. It should not be considered as precedent for how we would address requests for interpretation with any differing facts.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/7/2010

Yoshinao Yamazaki, Technical Manager

Industrial/Packaging MKT Tape Technical Dept.

Tape and Adhesive Division Technical

Sumitomo 3M Limited

3-8-8, Minami Hashimoto, Sagamihara-shi

Kanagawa 229-1185, Japan

Dear Mr. Yamazaki:

This letter responds to your e-mail asking questions regarding compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). You stated that your company has been developing a new laser marking label for motor vehicles. You stated that the label has two features to prevent forgery: (1) It is made of a brittle film that makes it impossible to remove the label without blemishing or scratching it, and (2) the logo of the car company appears on the label to authenticate the brand. You then ask three questions. First, you ask whether this label meets the requirements of Part 541. Second, you ask if there are any specifications for evaluating this type of label. Third, you ask whether three types of logos would satisfy the labeling requirement. The three types of logos you describe include a logo that is printed on the labels surface and is covered with a protective transparent top layer, a logo that is indented in the transparent top layer, and a logo that is imbedded in the transparent top layer. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

NHTSA does not provide approvals or endorsements of specific labels. Our opinion is based on the facts provided in your e-mail, which have been outlined above, and on the analysis presented below.

By way of background, Part 541 requires that certain passenger motor vehicles have identifying numbers affixed or inscribed on certain specified parts. See  541.5(a). Part 541 also sets forth a number of labeling requirements for affixing the identifying number to a part. See  541.5(d) and (d)(1). These requirements are also generally applicable to the labeling of replacement parts. See  541.6(a). Pertinent to your inquiry, section 541.5(d)(1)(v)-(viii) requires:

(v) Removal of the label must

(A) Cause the label to self-destruct by tearing or rendering the number on the label illegible, and

(B) Discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present.

(vi) Alteration of the number on the label must leave traces of the original number or otherwise visibly alter the appearance of the label material.

(vii) The label and the number shall be resistant to counterfeiting.

(viii) The logo or some other unique identifier of the vehicle manufacturer must be placed in the material of the label in a manner such that alteration or removal of the logo visibly alters the appearance of the label.

In response to your first inquiry regarding whether your new laser marking label satisfies the requirements of Part 541, our general answer is that we do not provide approvals of motor vehicle equipment. However, your description of the fragility of the label appears to indicate that it would comply with the requirements in section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(A) regarding destruction of the label. Your description provides no information regarding the requirements in section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) regarding whether removal of the label discernibly alters the appearance of the area of the part where the label was affixed and section 541.5(d)(1)(vi) regarding whether alteration of the label leaves traces of the original number or otherwise visibly alters the appearance of the label. Finally, although you claim that the fragility of the label makes it resistant to reuse for counterfeiting, section 541.5(d)(1)(vii), the provision concerning counterfeiting, addresses more than the ability to reuse the label. Under section 541.5(d)(1)(vii), the label must also be designed in a manner that makes it extremely difficult for an unauthorized person to systematically duplicate it.

In response to your second inquiry, all of the specifications for evaluating these type of labels appear in Part 541, particularly in section 541.5(d). We have stated that these general criteria are sufficient to alert label manufacturers what is required. See 50 FR 43174 (Oct. 24, 1985).

In response to your third inquiry regarding the placement of the logo on the label, again we note that we do not provide approvals of motor vehicle equipment. Moreover, section 541.5(d)(1)(viii) does not set forth any requirements regarding the manner in which the logo must be placed in the material of the label. As long as the logo is placed in the material of the label in such a manner that alteration or removal of the logo would visibly alter the appearance of the label, it does not matter how the logo is placed in the material.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/18/09

Mr. Robert Lane

Director of Product Development

Heil Trailer International

1125 Congress Pky

P.O. Box 160

Athens, TN 37371-0160

Dear Mr. Lane:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact protection. Specifically, you ask whether a pintle hook described in your letter would be considered a nonstructural protrusion for purposes of determining the rearmost point of the vehicle. Based on the information you provided, we would consider the pintle hook a nonstructural protrusion.

By way of background, 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 (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

Paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 224 defines a rear extremity as:

[T]he rearmost point on a vehicle that is above a horizontal plane located 560 mm [22 inches] above the ground and below a horizontal plane located 1,900 mm [75 inches] above the ground when the vehicle is configured as specified in S5.1 of this section and when the vehicle's cargo doors, tailgate, or other permanent structures are positioned as they normally are when the vehicle is in motion. Nonstructural protrusions such as taillights, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches are excluded from the determination of the rearmost point.

According to the information provided in your letter, the lowest point of the pintle hook is situated 25 inches above the ground, and the hook extends 7.125 inches rearward from the (otherwise) rearmost point of the vehicle. The diagram included with your letter indicated the total area of the pintle hook attachment plate is approximately 50 square inches.

We note that, as we have stated in the past, merely because something is attached to the body, as opposed to the chassis, does not mean that an object is nonstructural. The definition of rear extremity refers to the rearmost point on a vehicle, not the rearmost point of the chassis, or the rearmost point of the steel structure. The attributes that the examples of nonstructural protrusions listed in this definition have in common are that they are relatively small and localized and would not have a major impact on a colliding passenger vehicle.[1]

We have previously issued several interpretations regarding rear attachments where there was a question as to whether they might be considered nonstructural. In these interpretations, several factors were considered. First, we took into account the width of the protrusion. Second, we took into account how rigid the protrusion was, as it related to the damage it could cause if it struck the occupant compartment of a vehicle in a rear impact. Finally, in two cases, we analyzed the height of the protrusion, also with regard to how likely it was to strike the occupant compartment of a vehicle.

Several letters found that the protrusion did not qualify as a nonstructural protrusion. In one letter[2] we determined that a 0.19 inch thick steel deflector plate that extended across the entire width of the trailer was part of the vehicle, and thus not a nonstructural protrusion. Similarly, we found that an 18 inch deep spreader pan, located 52.75 inches above the ground and extending the width of a trailer, was not a nonstructural protrusion,[3] noting that at that height the spreader pan could penetrate the passenger compartment of a colliding passenger vehicle. Finally, NHTSA also found that a plastic rear apron extending 27 inches from the rear of the vehicle and that wraps around the tailgate was not a nonstructural protrusion.[4] In making this determination, we noted that [i]f [the writers] flexible rear apron did not contact any metal structure of the colliding passenger vehicle but instead penetrated the windshield, it could be harmful if its lower edge struck the head or neck of the front seat occupants as they are thrown forward by the force of the crash. Copies of these letters are enclosed for your convenience.

The pintle hook you describe appears to be markedly different than the three examples above where NHTSA determined the protrusions to be structural. The three previous analyses all concerned devices that extended across the entire width of the trailer. Unlike them, the pintle hook attachment, according to your letter, only occupies 50 square inches of space on the rear of the trailer, and it appears that the part of the hook that extends outward occupies only a relatively small part of that area. Furthermore, we note that the pintle hook is located only 25 inches above the ground, which means it is unlikely that the hook would impact the occupant compartment of a passenger car directly. However, it is our understanding that a pintle hook is a rigid metal structure. Nonetheless, based on the totality of these facts, we would consider the pintle hook a nonstructural protrusion, similar to the taillights, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches listed in paragraph S4 of the standard.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dated: 7/24/09

Valrie Fortin

Regulations and Standards Technician

Girardin Minibus

Trans-Canada Highway

Drummondville, Qubec  J2B 6V4

Canada

Dear Ms. Fortin:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR  571.10(b)(1) and (2).  Those paragraphs include formulas for determining the required number of designated seating positions (DSPs) in a seating surface area.  In your letter, you cite an example of four adjacent seats in a line with a total width of 1778 mm.  You observe that, using the calculation procedure set forth in section 571.10(b)(2), the seating surface would have three DSPs.  You ask whether the regulations would allow you to designate four DSPs for that seating surface area instead of the result of the calculation.  The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, for the purpose of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA has defined a designated seating position as a location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5^th percentile adult female.  On June 22, 2005, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for a revised definition of designated seating position that would be more objective.  NHTSA had identified a problem of three people occupying a seat with only two DSPs.  It was believed that providing a more objective definition of designated seating position would help alleviate this problem.

In the October 2008 final rule, NHTSA amended the definition of designated seating position for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011.[1]  The new definition states that a seat location that has a seating surface width of at least 330 mm is a designated seating position.  The final rule also established a procedure, codified in section 571.10, for measuring seating surface width and calculating the number of DSPs at a seat location.  For seat locations with a seating surface width of less than 1400 mm, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 350, rounded

down to the nearest whole number.  For seat locations with a seating surface width of 1400 mm or greater, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 450, rounded down to the nearest whole number.

In your letter, you put forth a scenario where four seats are placed adjacent to each other, each one having a width of 444.5 mm, such that the total width of the seating surface area, as calculated under section 571.10(c)(2), is 1778 mm.  You observe that, under the formula used to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating surface width of at least 1400 mm, there would be three DSPs at the seating area.  You ask whether you may, under the new DSP definition set forth in the October 2008 final rule, consider the actual designated capacity (represented by the defined seating positions) instead of the result of the calculation in section 571.10(c)(2).  You stated that you believe the goal of the new regulation is to prevent the possibility of having more occupants on a seat than the allowed capacity of the vehicle without reducing the actual capacity of the vehicle.

As indicated above, we changed the definition of designated seating position because of a concern that, in certain situations, more people were occupying a seating surface area than the number of DSPs.  You put forward a scenario in the opposite direction, where a manufacturer wants to designate more DSPs than the number required by the formulas in section 571.10(b), and also where the seating area is specifically designed for that greater number of occupants.  However, the definition of designated seating position was also revised to be more objective.  NHTSA developed a procedure, set forth in section 571.10(b)(1) and (b)(2) to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating location.

Our rulemaking was not intended to limit manufacturers from designating more DSPs than specified by the formulas or to permit manufacturers to designate a smaller number of designated seating positions than the number they actually intend to be used by occupants.  In light of the issue you have raised, we will consider clarifying the language of section 571.10(b) in a future rulemaking or in the responses to petitions for reconsideration of the new DSP definition.  Nothing in this letter should be construed as a response to any of the petitions for reconsideration.

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

                                                                                    Sincerely yours,

                                                                                    O. Kevin Vincent

                                                                                    Chief Counsel

Ref: Std. 571

8/5/2011

Frank K. Saito, President

K&S Technologies, Inc.

Centre West Plaza, Suite 150

9710 Scranton Road,

San Diego, CA 92121

Dear Mr. Saito:

This responds to your question about how NHTSAs standards would apply to a motorcycle replacement turn signal lamp that would rely on wireless signals for actuation. Our response is provided below.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the replacement turn signal lamp at issue would rely not on the use of physical wires between the actuation switch and the lamp for actuation, but on the use of radio frequencies or other wireless means. You further explained that the lamp is not depicted on your companys website: www.kandstech.com because this lamp is still under development.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

As you are aware, requirements for replacement turn signal lamps are specified at Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. In developing the replacement lamp, your company must ensure that it can certify that the lamp meets all applicable FMVSS No. 108 requirements for replacement turn signal lamps.[1]

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of an October 8, 2004 (69 FR 60464) Federal Register notice in which we provide an interpretation of how FMVSS No. 108 applies to replacement equipment. As a general matter, replacement lamps must not take a vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 108. In this regard, we note that the design of replacement turn signal lamps could potentially affect the compliance of a vehicle with the turn signal failure indication requirements specified in paragraph S5.5.6 and hazard warning signal operating unit requirements in paragraph S5.5.5. We also note that one of the subjects discussed in the notice is possible compatibility issues between a vehicles electrical system and replacement lamps that impose larger or smaller electrical loads than the original equipment light sources.

We note that since your proposed lamp would function by using radio signals or other wireless transmissions, laws enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may also apply. The FCCs Office of the General Counsels address is: Office of the General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12^th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

Finally, I note that on your stationerys letterhead and at your companys website, the term D.O.T. approved lights is used. Please do not continue to use this term, as it is misleading. As earlier explained, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles, or motor vehicle equipment, including replacement turn signal lamps.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff by mail or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

cc: Office of the General Counsel

Federal Communications Commission

445 12^th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

Enclosure

Dated: 9/14/09

Ms. Valrie Fortin

Regulations and Standards Technician

Girardin Minibus Inc.

3000 rue Girardin

Drummondville, Qubec

J2E 0A1

Dear Ms. Fortin:

This responds to your letter concerning a February 6, 2007 final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. Among other matters, that rule removed an exclusion of vehicle doors equipped with wheelchair platform lift systems from FMVSS No. 206 requirements. As explained in the enclosed agency response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule, Thomas Built Buses petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to reinstate the exclusion, and we have done so. See the enclosed Federal Register document (75 FR 7370, February 19, 2010) for a detailed explanation as to the agencys rationale.

Please note, however, that NHTSA determined that the former exclusion of all doors equipped with a wheelchair lift was too broad, given that some lifts made today do not completely block the doorway. Therefore, in the enclosed document, the agency has amended the February 2007 final rule (the requirements at S4 of FMVSS No. 206) to exclude doors equipped with a permanently attached wheelchair lift system meeting the following criteria: (a) When the lift is in the retracted position, the lift platform retracts to a vertical orientation parallel to and in close proximity with the interior surface of the lift door; (b) in that position, the platform completely covers the doorway opening, has fixed attachments to the vehicle and provides a barricade to the doorway; and (c) the wheelchair lift door is linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visible signal located in the drivers compartment or an alarm audible to the driver that is activated when the door is not fully closed and the vehicle ignition is activated.

These requirements appear to not exclude the wheelchair lift system in one of the pictures you enclosed because that platform only halfway covers the door opening. As to the second picture you enclosed with your letter, we cannot determine from that picture whether that door meets all the requirements for the exclusion set forth above.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Dated: 3/18/2010

Ms. Sherry Lafferty

Manager, Engineering

Maxon Lift Corp.

11921 Slauson Avenue

Sante Fe Springs, CA 90670-2221

Dear Ms. Lafferty:

This responds to your letter asking two questions regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and Standard No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles.

Your first question asks whether the area that is used for detecting occupancy while the lift is lower than the vehicle floor bed should include 18 inches of the floor area. As explained below, our answer is yes. Your second question asks about the responsibility of a lift manufacturer to provide instructions in the installation manual to ensure that a vehicle manufacturer installs the lift in such a way as to detect the entire 18-inch area.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

Extent of Platform Threshold Area

Your first question asks whether under the definition of the platform threshold area in FMVSS No. 403, the area that is used for detecting occupancy while the lift is lower than the vehicle floor bed should include 18 inches of the bus floor area.

Platform threshold area is defined in the standard (S4) as:

The rectangular area of the vehicle floor defined by moving a line that lies on the portion of the edge of the vehicle floor directly adjacent to the platform through a distance of 457 mm (18 inches) across the vehicle floor in a direction perpendicular to the edge. Any portion of a bridging device that lies on this area must be considered part of that area.

The platform threshold area is also illustrated graphically as the shaded area in Figure 2 of the standard.

As indicated by the above definition of platform threshold area and by Figure 2, the platform threshold area encompasses parts of the vehicles floor. Further, as you indicate in your letter, the platform threshold area is relevant for determining the area in which detection of an occupant must occur when the lift is lower than the vehicle floor bed. S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 require that an alarm activate when a passenger or mobility aid is on the platform threshold area, and the lift is more than 1 inch below it. Thus, the platform threshold area encompasses the 18 inches of bus floor area across the vehicle floor.

Installation Instructions

Your second question asks whether, if a lift sensing mechanism does not physically cover the platform threshold area, a lift manufacturer must provide instructions that ensure a vehicle manufacturer install the lift in such a way as to detect the entire 18-inch area. Our answer is yes.

The responsibilities of the lift manufacturer, with regard to installation instructions, are set forth in S6.13 of FMVSS No. 403. S6.13.2 requires lift manufacturers to provide installation instructions with each lift, including procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational. Such checks include, but are not limited to, the threshold-warning signal. Id. It is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to provide a lift that, when installed according to manufacturer instructions, complies with all the applicable requirements of FMVSS

No. 403.

Furthermore, under S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift Installations in Motor Vehicles, it is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to install an FMVSS

No. 403-compliant platform lift according to the instructions provided by the platform lift

manufacturer. Under S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404, the platform lift, as installed, must continue to comply with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Therefore, the lift manufacturer would have to provide instructions on how to properly install a lift that meets FMVSS No. 403s threshold warning signal requirement of S6.1.

If you have any further questions, please contact my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

11/19/2010