ID: 16689b.nhf

Mr. George W. Hicks
Ingenium Services
3889 Mildred Avenue
Rochester Hills, MI 48309-4269

Dear Mr. Hicks:

This responds to your letter requesting permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to modify a 1996 Braun Windstar II (Windstar) for a client who has progressive muscular dystrophy (MD). I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you need to replace the power seat base originally installed in the Windstar with the smaller power seat base from a 1989 Kneelcar your client drove for six years. You explain that the size of the Windstar's power seat base interferes with your client's ability to drive and requires her to exert considerable physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat, which you state is problematic due to your client's physical condition. You explain that, with the smaller power seat base from the Kneelcar, your client will only have to exert minimal physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat. Further, you explain that, due to its smaller size, the Kneelcar's power seat base does not interfere with your client's ability to drive.

While NHTSA cannot provide the specific relief you seek, since we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the seat base on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

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

Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with the power seat base from the 1989 Kneelcar could affect compliance with four standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. For example, Standard No. 208 requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with a smaller one could affect the vehicle's ability to meet the injury criteria specified in Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that replaces the original power seat base with the Kneelcar's power seat base to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to safely install and secure the power seat base to the Windstar. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested in knowing that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.5/113/98

ID: 1668y

William F. Canever
Ford Motor Company
Office of the General Counsel
The American Road
Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Canever:

In your letter of July 14, 1988 and in subsequent conversations, you have requested information concerning the proper classification of a new vehicle for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program. You also requested confidentiality, to protect future product plans of the vehicles in question. The agency has agreed to protect your identity as well as details of the request which may reveal specific new or innovative features that the product may contain when produced. In the spirit of this agreement, we have described the content of your letter only to the extent deemed necessary to provide a coherent context for our response.

Specifically, you are interested in whether the agency concurs with your opinion that this vehicle would be classified as a light truck for purposes of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) program. The vehicle has multiple purposes. You describe several features of this multipurpose vehicle, including that both the second and third seats are removable, by quick release levers in the case of the second seat, and by the use of simple tools in the case of the third seat, and that the vehicle has a variety of different seating/storage configurations. You also indicate that "[r]emoval of the second and third seat will create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle." You also describe other features of the vehicle, which need not be discussed in order to answer your letter.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "approve" the classification of a motor vehicle. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, in the first instance, to make any necessary classifications of vehicles and to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. For purposes of CAFE compliance, each manufacturer must classify its vehicles consistent with the definitions contained in 49 CFR Part 523. You are interested in knowing whether the vehicle, as described above, is properly classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. The definition of light truck (/523.5) provides, in relevant part: (a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) Transport more than 10 persons; (2) Provide temporary living quarters; (3) Transport property on an open bed; (4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume; or (5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

Your letter clearly indicates that both the second and third seats are removable easily, and when they are removed, what remains is a flat, floor level surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle. It appears from the description you have provided the agency that your vehicle would qualify as a light truck under /523.5(a)(5).

We note that this conclusion does not constitute or imply an opinion as to whether the vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck for purposes of the safety standards. Definitions for classification purposes under the safety standards may be found in /571.3 of 49 CFR.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref: 523 d:2/3/89

ID: 16695.jeg

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter asking about our regulation implementing the American Automobile Labeling Act (AALA), 49 CFR Part 583, as it pertains to an electric vehicle that has no gasoline or diesel-fueled engine. You ask several questions about the manner in which country of origin of engine parts and country of origin of transmission parts should be determined for electric vehicles.

In asking these questions, you note that many of the components used in electric vehicles are not the same as those used in a gasoline-powered vehicle. By way of example, you note that an electric vehicle does not have an "engine" in the traditional sense; rather it has an electric motor. Your questions are addressed below.

1. What is the "engine" in an electric car for AALA purposes? Is any component other than the electric motor to be included in the AALA determination of country of origin for engines with respect to an electric car?

The term "engine" is not defined by either the AALA (now codified as 49 U.S.C. 32304) or Part 583. We note that Ford, in a submission dated November 19, 1997, took the following approach in applying the provisions of Part 583 to electric vehicles:

In applying these provisions to electric vehicles, we sought to employ a common-sense approach. Since the motor is the component of an electric vehicle most analogous to the engine in a gasoline-powered vehicle, we are indicating the country of origin of the motor on labels affixed to electric vehicles. In order to make it clear to consumers that the label is referring to the motor rather than to an engine, the word "motor" will be inserted in parentheses after the country of origin. For example, the relevant portion of the label for a motor originating in Germany would look roughly as follows:

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:

ENGINE: Germany (motor)

We concur with the basic approach adopted by Ford. However, we note that 583.5 specifies the use of the term "engine parts" on the label, rather than just "engine." Also, for purposes of clarity, we would suggest placing the word "motor" in parentheses directly after "engine," the term it is explaining, rather than after the country of origin. Thus, in the example provided by Ford, we would suggest the following:

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:

ENGINE (MOTOR) PARTS: Germany

No component other than the motor would be included in the AALA determination of country of origin for engines with respect to an electric car.

2. How should a manufacturer determine whether electric car "engines" are "of the same displacement" for purposes of aggregating data for "engines of the same displacement produced at the same plant" as required by 583.8(a)?

Section 583.8(a) specifies in relevant part:

Each supplier of an engine or transmission shall determine the country of origin once a year for each engine and transmission. The origin of engines shall be calculated for engines of the same displacement produced at the same plant. . . .

The term "engines of the same displacement produced at the same plant" is taken directly from the AALA. The purpose of the provision is to provide a specification to ensure that all engines of the same type, produced at the same plant, are grouped together in making country of origin determinations for engines. However, just as the term "engine," in its traditional sense, does not apply to electric vehicles, the term "displacement" does not apply to motors. We believe that a common-sense way of ensuring that all motors of the same type, produced at the same plant, are grouped together is to make calculations for motors with the same power rating and same physical dimensions that are produced at the same plant.

3. What parts are considered components of the "transmission" in an electric car for AALA purposes?

The term "transmission" is not defined by the AALA or Part 583, and we realize that not all electric vehicles have transmissions. As to the meaning of the term, we note that the Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary defines "transmission," in definition 4, as follows:

Mach. a. transference of force between machines or mechanisms, often with changes of torque and speed. b. a compact, enclosed unit of gears or the like for this purpose, as in an automobile.

We would consider definition 4b to reasonably apply to transmissions for electric vehicles. We note that, assuming an electric vehicle has a transmission, it would generally include the components between the motor and the differential.

4. How should a manufacturer determine whether electric car "transmissions" are "of the same type" for purposes of aggregating data for "transmissions of the same type" as required by 583.8(a)?

The AALA specifies that "transmissions of the same type produced at the same plant" are grouped together for determining country of origin of transmissions. Section 583.8(a) defines the term "transmission of the same type" as follows:

. . . Transmissions are of the same type if they have the same attributes including: Drive line application, number of forward gears, controls, and layout. . . .

So far as we know, this definition can be applied directly to the transmissions of electric vehicles.

5. Is the electric battery part of the engine, transmission or neither for AALA purposes?

It is our opinion that the electric battery is neither part of the engine nor the transmission for AALA purposes.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:583
d.3/5/98

ID: 1669y

J.W. Lawrence, Manager, Compliance
Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation
7825 National Service Road
Airpark West, P.O. Box 26115
Greensboro, NC 27402-6115

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is a response to your letter of October 5, 1988, asking this agency to "reconsider and rescind" an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR /571.124). The interpretation which was the subject of your request was addressed to Mr. Leon Steenbock and dated March 17, 1988. Mr. Steenbock asked whether it is permissible under Standard 124 to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. In our response to Mr. Steenbock, we stated that while nothing in the Standard prohibits installing a hand-throttle control in a new vehicle, "'locking hand throttle controls' are expressly prohibited by Standard 124."

In your letter, you stated that most (and perhaps all) heavy truck manufacturers install hand throttles for engine warm-up, extended idle periods; and for vocational applications such as pumping, compacting, and mixing. You also stated that your company installs only locking hand throttle controls and that these locking hand throttle controls hold the driver-selected engine idle speed until such time as the driver selects a new idle speed, or disengages the throttle.

In support of your position that the letter to Mr. Steenbock was incorrect, you referred to the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard 124. NHTSA's response to requests that special provisions be made for hand throttles was as follows:

Mack and Alfa Romeo petitioned that "hand-throttles" and throttle positioners be specifically excluded from the definition of "idle position." Petitioners stated that in the event such a device is used a return to the preset throttle position occurs upon release of the driver-operated accelerator control system. This request is granted. If a driver choose to raise the lowest engine speed threshold by the use of a throttle positioning device, the throttle should return to that new position within the same time requirements specified in section S5.3. Accordingly, the NHTSA is amending the definition of "idle position" to provide for the use of throttle positioners. (37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.)

In accordance with this stated intent, the definition of "idle position" in S4.1 of Standard 124 was amended to read:

(T)he position of the throttle that will provide the lowest engine speed for existing conditions according to the manufacturers' recommendations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, engine speed adjustments for cold engine, air conditioning equipment, and emission control equipment, and the use of throttle setting devices.

Because of this language, we agree with your position that Standard 124 permits the installation of hand throttles, including locking hand throttle controls, provided that the vehicle's engine returns to the lowest engine speed threshold as adjusted by use of the hand throttle within the time and under the conditions set forth in S5 of Standard 124. To the extent that our March 17, 1988 letter is inconsistent with this interpretation, it is incorrect.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

/ref:124 d:2/l0/89

ID: 16788.ztv

Mr. L. W. Camp
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This replies to your letter of December 16, 1997, to Dr. Martinez asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S7.8.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that the mounting and aiming mechanisms of headlamps installed on motor vehicles be accessible without the removal of any vehicle parts "except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." You ask whether "a hard object, such as the vehicle ignition key" is a "tool" within the meaning of S7.8.2.

We have concluded that an ignition key is a "tool" as contemplated by S7.8.2. A "tool" is defined as "1. An implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file for performing or facilitating mechanical operation. 2. Any instrument of manual operation." (Random House Complete Unabridged Dictionary, Special Second Edition, 1996, at p. 1995).

The ignition key, or any other hard object, is an instrument of manual operation held in the hand to facilitate the removal of the headlamp covers, and therefore a "tool." Compare with S5.1.1.27(a)(5) and (b)(4) which specify that center high mounted stop lamps "shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulbs without special tools" (emphasis supplied). Had you asked whether an ignition key was a "special tool" we might well have said that it is not, because any hard object could be used to provide access to the bulbs and access does not require a tool specifically designed for that purpose.

We note that Ford initially intended that all covers be removable by hand, and that the reason for your request is that "manufacturing variation of the plastic push pins and vehicle structure can result in elevated retention forces" in "approximately 30% of the attachments." While this is regrettable, identification of the problem at this stage should allow Ford time to resolve this problem before production of your 1999 vehicle commences and forestall any question of compliance with S7.8.2.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/12/98

ID: 16803.ztv

Mr. Jeff Politano
834 Florida Avenue
McDonald, OH 44437

Dear Mr. Politano:

This responds to your letter of December 7, 1997, with respect to an idea of yours. As you describe it, "the product is a small lighted device to be attached to an automobile's front windshield and rear window." The purpose of this device is to enable two or more automobiles traveling together at night to stay in a group. The device would be sold in the after market.

You have asked if there are laws as to "size, color, flashing or blinking, special design, shape, etc."

As a general rule, the legality of the use of after market lighting devices is governed by State rather than Federal law. Therefore, we recommend that you consult the Ohio authorities for their comments on your idea.

Installation of the lamp would require a modification of the vehicle as originally manufactured. Under our laws, modifications performed by the vehicle owner do not violate Federal regulations. However, modifications performed by other persons, such as dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses, must not create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Although Standard No. 108 prescribes no specific performance requirements for a supplementary lamp such as yours, it does require that your lamp be steady burning, rather than flashing. In addition, your lamp must not impair the effectiveness of original lighting equipment required by Standard No 108. If your lamp emitted red light, we think its steady-burning presence would have the potential to impair the effectiveness of the intermittently operating center highmounted red stop lamp, most of which are located in the rear window area where your lamp might be. As for other lamp colors, States generally restrict blue lights to emergency vehicles.

If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office would be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/30/98

ID: 16805.ztv

Mr. A. Dorian Challoner
311 Carriage Place
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

Dear Mr. Challoner:

Representative Jane Harmon has asked us to address the problem you reported to her office about your mother's car.

According to the information you provided Ms. Harmon, the car is a 1990 Dodge Dynasty manufactured for the Canadian market. Since 1990, your mother has driven the car in the United States under Ontario registration. She has become a permanent resident of the United States, specifically, California. However, California will not register the car until you obtain a letter from its manufacturer saying that the vehicle is identical in all material respects to one that was manufactured to conform to all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Further, it requires that you contact this Department "for the proper clearance letter."

You have attempted to obtain such a letter from Chrysler Corporation. However, the company has informed you that it cannot grant your request because the Canadian-market car fails to comply with the requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 that a 1990 model car must be equipped with either an automatic seat belt system, or an air bag. It also advises that modification is not feasible, due to the cost.

Your mother's situation is similar to that experienced by a number of others in California who have tried to register a Canadian car. I would like to explain how the importation process was supposed to have worked in your mother's case. As a general rule, a motor vehicle must conform to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and be certified as meeting those standards, in order to be imported permanently into the United States. Non-residents of the United States are permitted to enter their non-conforming vehicles into the United States for a continuous period of up to one year, provided that they declare in writing that they will not sell the car in the United States and that they will export it at the end of that time. If the vehicle remains in the United States for longer than a year, there is a technical violation of the importation regulations. If your mother made yearly trips to Canada in her car, there would appear to be no violation of this regulation if the successive re-importations were for periods of a year or less.

There is a substantial similarity between Canadian and U.S. passenger car safety standards, so much so that the agency admits Canadian vehicles on a permanent basis if their manufacturer provides a letter to the owner attesting to the vehicle's compliance. However, if a manufacturer will not provide such a letter, the owner must follow the procedure established by statute. This procedure was established by Congress and requires the Administrator of this agency to have made a decision that the vehicle in question is capable of being conformed to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This decision is made on the Administrator's motion, or after a petition by a Registered Importer. A Registered Importer is a person that the agency recognizes as capable of modifying and certifying noncomplying vehicles to meet the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and who has agreed with the importer to modify and certify the car. If the Administrator finds that the particular vehicle model is capable of being so modified, the vehicle may be imported under bond. Conformance work would be performed by a Registered Importer, who then certifies the car to NHTSA. When the agency is satisfied with the Registered Importer's certification, it issues the bond release letter that California requires for registration. Thus, had your mother followed the course prescribed by law for permanent importations, she would have contracted with a Registered Importer, who would have petitioned on her behalf. If such a petition had been granted (no decisions have ever been made regarding 1990 Canadian Dodge cars), the Registered Importer would have brought the vehicle into compliance with Standard No. 208, and the vehicle then could have been registered in California.

At this point, your mother has two options. The first is to return the vehicle to Canada (or export it to Mexico, which is closer to you). Second, she may contract with a Registered Importer for the petition/modification and certification procedure described in the previous paragraph. The closest Registered Importer to you is G & K Automotive Conversions, 3231 South Standard Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (phone: 714-545-9503; fax: 714-545-7667). While this procedure may seem to be unduly burdensome for the owner of a vehicle that has been operated in the United States for some years, there are benefits to following it. If Chrysler Corporation, which manufactured the car, recalls 1990 Dodge Dynasty vehicles for safety or emissions reasons, the Registered Importer is required to notify your mother of the recall and provide an appropriate remedy. In addition, the presence of the certification label on the vehicle should relieve future owners of the car of the need to re-satisfy registration authorities in California or elsewhere that the vehicle meets all U.S. requirements, and thus make possible resale easier.

If your mother chooses to sell the car rather than to arrange for it to be brought into compliance with Standard No. 208, she would not be violating Federal law if she sold it in the United States. However, it would be in the best interest of motor vehicle safety if the sale of this nonconforming vehicle took place in Canada, its country of origin, where it conforms to local standards, or in Mexico, where the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not in effect.

We regret that we cannot be of greater assistance. If you have any additional questions, please contact Taylor Vinson of this Office at phone number 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Representative Jane Harmon
Torrance, CA Office
ref:591
d.2/18/98

ID: 16845.wkm

Mr. Harold E. Hutchings
10 Winslow Road
North Quincy, MA 02171

Dear Mr. Hutchings:

This responds to your letter following up on your earlier request for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), relating to this agency's rulemaking actions on antilock braking systems (ABS) for light duty vehicles. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your letter discusses problems you have encountered obtaining information on ABS. In your FOIA request, you had asked for, among other things, "a report you received from the General Motors Engineers [sic] who reported after extensive investigations the problems with A.B.S. were unresolvable." In response, Ms. Coleman of my staff stated that the agency was unable to locate this specific report. However, she stated that material provided by General Motors Corporation (GM) to the agency pertaining to the ABS rulemaking can be obtained from the agency's Technical Reference Library (which has since been renamed Technical Information Services (TIS)) , and provided the docket number for the ABS action (Docket No. 93-94). According to your letter, you contacted TIS and received a list of commenters and other entries to that docket. You said you then contacted the National Technical Information Service "regarding those numbers" but were informed that you need to provide "proper D.O.T. and other numbers" to obtain the information you seek.

As Ms. Coleman wrote you previously, the agency was not able to locate the GM report in our files. However, all material submitted to the agency by GM pertaining to the ABS rulemaking action is listed on the index you received from TIS. You may obtain copies of any document listed in the index by contacting TIS and referencing the document number shown on the listing. You may contact TIS by visiting, calling or writing to that office at the following address: NHTSA, Room 5108, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington D.C. 20590.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:105
d.6/5/98

ID: 16854.nhf

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

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the modification of a 1997 Ford E150 van for a driver with quadriplegia secondary to a spinal cord injury. Specifically, you request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will require replacing the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) steering wheel with a smaller steering wheel. The new steering wheel would be too small to be fitted with an air bag. You explained that the smaller steering wheel is needed to accommodate the driver's limited range of motion. I regret the delay in my response.

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

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA#208
d.5/22/98

ID: 16855.nhf

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

Dear Mr. Babirad:

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

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

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

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

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

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

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

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