ID: nht73-2.25

DATE: 03/15/73

FROM: B.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: WARREN M. HEATH -- DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TITLE: N41-34

TEXT: Dear Mr. Heath:

This is in reply to your letter of February 28th to Mr. Dougins W. Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the mounting of lamps and reflectors on mini-pickup trucks.

The December 8, 1972, letter from Commissioner M. Pudinski was placed in Docket 69-19; Motion No. 3. We inadvertently failed to knowledge this action to Mr. Pudinski.

The visibility requirements of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 100 are predicated on the normal driving or closed tail gate position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with tail gates down or[Illegible word] lids open or otherwise having the lights and reflectors obscurred by a particular load on the vehicle, is under the jurisdiction of the individual states, we do not anticipate rule making on this subject.

Sincerely,

ID: nht80-3.12

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kansas Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 2, 1980, letter asking whether a school bus that is to be sold to a school district in your State will meet the Federal minimum requirements applicable to gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) and gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR).

To the best of my knowledge, the Federal government has no minimum specifications for GAWR or GVWR. Certainly, this agency does not specify minimum weight ratings. Our only requirement is that the GAWR and GVWR be appropriate for the size and weight of a vehicle taking into consideration the type of equipment installed on it. From the information that you have provided us, we cannot say that the vehicle in question would or would not comply with that requirement. It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the Federal safety standards. No school bus manufacturer can sell you a school bus that they know will not comply with the requirements.

ID: nht72-5.48

DATE: 11/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Dalmon Enterprises Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1972, in which you enclose a brochure describing your feed mover as requested by Mr. (Illegible Words), of my staff.

In (Illegible Word) of the material submitted would seem to indicate that your classification of the land owner as farm machinery is valid. We would not, therefore, consider it to be a "motor vehicle" within the (Illegible Word) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) based on the information furnished.

In addition to the Act (FL 87-563) and 49 C.F.R. 12.50, that you have requested, we are also enclosing Part 571 (formerly Part 371) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Of particular interest to you would be the interpretation on mini-bikes that set forth criteria to assist manufacturers in classifying their products insofar as off-road use is concerned.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

ID: 21419.drn

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865





Dear Mr. Yousry:





This responds to your request for an interpretation of wiped or cleared areas specified in Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You asked two questions, which are answered below.

Your letter concerns S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104, which establishes three windshield areas, designated as "A," "B," and "C," for passenger cars. Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the windshield area wiped as indicated in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a (May 1966), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III and IV of Standard No. 104. The standard also provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

You note that Standard No. 104 does not specify whether Areas A, B and C must fall inside the boundaries of the daylight opening of the windshield. You state that new passenger car designs may utilize smaller windshields, even though the overall width of the vehicle may not be any narrower than typical passenger cars. You believe that on such smaller windshields, parts of Areas A, B, and C may fall outside the daylight opening or even outside the area bounded by the windshield frame.

Your first question asks "Must all of the area of windshield areas A, B and C fall inside the area of the windshield bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening?"

The answer is no. In an interpretation letter of May 6, 1997, to Mr. Jiri Misik (copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated that Area A is that portion of the total area bounded by the angles in Tables I through IV of Standard No. 104 that is also within a perimeter 25 mm within the daylight opening of the windshield frame. The agency noted that it is not necessary that the windshield be large enough to contain the whole area bounded by angles (of which 16 to 18 is the left border).

Although the answer to Mr. Misik addressed only Area A, the analysis also applies to Areas B and C.

Your second question asks:

(a)  Should the percentage of the areas A, B and C, which must be wiped, be calculated utilizing the full areas of A, B, and C even if parts thereof are outside the daylight opening of the windshield?

(b)  Or, should the percentages of areas A, B and C, which must be wiped, be calculated utilizing only parts of areas A, B and C that actually fall inside the area of the windshield bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening?

As explained below, the answer to the second question is (b). In Standard No. 104, S4.1.2 states the following:

Wiped area. When tested wet in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, and C of the windshield (established in accordance with S4.1.2.1) that (1) is specified in column 2 of the applicable table following subparagraph S4.1.2.1 and (2) is within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

The description and control of the minimum windshield area to be wiped is described at S3.1 of SAE Standard J903a (copy enclosed). S3.1.2.1 states in part:

The minimum windshield area that shall be wiped is described by the use of three specific areas on the windshield glazing surface. The three areas are identified in Table 1 as areas A, B, and C. Each area has been established using the angles of Table 1 applied as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. In Fig. 1 (side view), the upper and lower boundary of the area is established by the intersection of two planes, tangent to the upper and lower sides of the eye range contour, with the windshield glazing surface. The planes are fixed by angles above and below the glazing surface reference line. In Fig. 2 (plan view), the left and right boundaries of the area are established by the intersection of two planes tangent to the left and right sides of the eye range contour. The planes are fixed by angles to the left and right of the plan view reference line. ...

S3.1.2.1's description means that Areas A, B and C are not fixed, predetermined areas for all windshields, but are areas that vary from windshield to windshield. The variables are the angle of measurement and the width of the car. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 adds another variable by describing Areas A, B and C as within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

Please note that in Standard No. 104, Tables I, II, III, and IV all specify that after the test is conducted, a minimum of 80% of Area A must be wiped, a minimum of 94% of Area B must be wiped, and a minimum of 99% of Area C must be wiped.

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





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:104
d.8/11/00

ID: 3301yy

Mr. 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 responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device to be installed on the MY 1992 General Motors Pontiac Bonneville line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Pontiac Bonneville vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. The agency has reviewed the changes to the system and for the following reasons concludes that the differences between the original system and one installed on the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville constitute a de minimis change.

As you are aware, the Pontiac Bonneville car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because General Motors showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This antitheft device is known as the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system. The exemption was issued on April 4, 1991, and appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14413).

As was stated in the April 1991 Federal Register notice, the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system utilizes an ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. Before a vehicle can be started, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a fixed resistance in the decoder module.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1992, two design changes were made in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Pontiac Bonneville. The new system on the Bonneville is known as "PASS-KEY II," and differs from "PASS-KEY" as follows. First, in "PASS-KEY II," if a key other than the one with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes plus or minus eighteen seconds. In "PASS-KEY," this shut down period is two to four minutes. Second, if, during the time the decoder module has shut down in "PASS-KEY II," trial and error attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer will not reset to zero, as is the case with "PASS-KEY." GM states that this difference in functions will provide a similar level of performance as "PASS-KEY" since the "PASS-KEY II" module, while shut down, will ignore further attempts to start the system by means other than use of a key with the proper resistance pellet. Any further unauthorized attempt after the initial three minute shut down time will result in the module shutting down again.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. In addition to providing some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, "PASS-KEY II" also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for General Motors to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If General Motors does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter for MY 1992, we request that this agency be notified of such decisions.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking / ref:Part 543 d:2/7/92

ID: 10194

August 26,
1994

Mr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York School Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan, NY 14527

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your facsimile transmittal letter to me of July 19, 1994.

Your letter referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), and asked whether emergency exits on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and a passenger capacity of 2 to 16 seated and/or wheelchair positions, are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape as specified in paragraph S5.5.3(c) of the standard.

In 49 CFR 571.3, this agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a school bus as

[A] bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Whether or not a vehicle is a school bus, therefore, depends on its use (transporting the specified students) and seating capacity (more than 10), and not GVWR. Accordingly, if the seating capacity of a vehicle is 10 or less, it is not a bus and likewise not a school bus, regardless of use or GVWR. Such a vehicle would not be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 217.

Vehicles meeting the definition of school bus would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Section S5.5 of the standard, Emergency Exit Identification, specifies the marking

requirements for emergency exits on all buses. Sections S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 apply to non-school buses, while section S5.5.3 applies to all school buses, without regard to GVWR.

Paragraph S5.5.3(c) provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

We would like to emphasize two points with regard to your letter. The first is that only those emergency exits that are required by the standard are subject to this provision. Extra emergency exits added as options are encouraged, but not required, to be outlined with the tape. The other point is one that I made in a May 18, 1994 letter to you. A technical amendment is pending publication which will amend the size requirement for the width of the retroreflective tape, from a minimum of 3 centimeters (cm.) to a minimum of 2.5 cm. That amendment is necessary because retroreflective tape is not commercially available in 3 cm. widths. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape width size against a manufacturer who uses one inch wide (minimum 2.5 cm.) retroreflective tape.

In closing, bear in mind that all school buses are required to have a specified number of emergency exits, the number and location of which depend on the seating capacity of the vehicle, regardless of the GVWR, and all required emergency exits must be outlined with the retroreflective tape.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:217 d:8/26/94

ID: 11517WKM

Under Secretary
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Post Office Box 2944, Code No. 13030
Kuwait

Dear Mr. Under Secretary:

This responds to your letter of December 25, 1995, to the Department of Transportation asking about conformity certificates for tires. You stated that Ministerial Decree No. 3/82 of Kuwait states that every consignment of motor vehicle tires entering Kuwait should have a conformity certificate issued by an authorized body in the country of origin. You asked whether the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) is authorized to issue such certificates after testing in accordance with U. S. safety standards.

Please find enclosed a copy of a November 13, 1992, letter written to the Ministry by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which we described in detail the requirements for certification of tires under U.S. law. The requirements described in that letter are still in effect.

Briefly stated, U.S. law establishes a self-certification system in which tire manufacturers certify, normally based on testing and/or analysis, that their tires comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers must indicate their self-certification by marking the letters ADOT@ on the sidewalls of their tires. Under U. S. law, a manufacturer's self-certification is legally equivalent to a type approval under the law of a country whose conformance procedures rely upon type approval. We respectfully suggest that you recognize self-certification as a way of meeting Ministerial Decree No. 3/82, adjusting for the particulars of the U.S. system. There is precedent for regarding type approval and self-certification as equivalent in this context. Although neither the U.S. nor Kuwait are signatories to the UN/ECE AAgreement concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions@ (E/ECE/TRANS/505 Rev.2, 5 October 1995), we note that Article 1 of that agreement recognizes self-certification as an acceptable alternative to type approval.

All tires bearing the symbol ADOT@ are recognized by the United States as having been certified by the tire manufacturers as being in conformity with all applicable U.S. safety standards. There

is no provision in U.S. law for prior certification or approval by NHTSA, the U.S. agency responsible for the law=s implementation, or by any other entity. NHTSA monitors compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing tires in the retail market and testing them in accordance with test procedures specified in the standards. If a manufacturer's tires fail to meet applicable standards during NHTSA testing, the manufacturer is requested by NHTSA to provide any available test data and/or the results of any analysis underlying its certification. If the tires are ultimately determined to be in noncompliance with applicable standards, the manufacturer is required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, known as a Arecall,@ to correct the problem at no cost to consumers.

In summary, U.S. law establishes a self-certification system in which tire manufacturers themselves certify that their tires comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, since conformance procedures for U.S. tire standards are based on self-certification instead of type approval, no independent body, governmental or nongovernmental, is authorized to issue conformity certificates with respect to U. S. tire safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any additional questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref: #109#119#574 d:3/19/96

ID: nht94-4.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York School Bus Distributors Association (Penn Yan, NY)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 7/19/94 from Richard Kreutziger to John Womack (OCC 10194)

TEXT:

This responds to your facsimile transmittal letter to me of July 19, 1994.

Your letter referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), and asked whether emergency exits on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less that 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and a passenger capacity of 2 to 16 seated and/or wheelchair positions, are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape as specified in paragraph S5.5.3(c) of the standard.

In 49 CFR 571.3, this agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a school bus as

(A) bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportati on.

Whether or not a vehicle is a school bus, therefore, depends on its use (transporting the specified students) and seating capacity (more than 10), and not GVWR. Accordingly, if the seating capacity of a vehicle is 10 or less, it is not a bus and likewis e not a school bus, regardless of use or GVWR. Such a vehicle would not be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 217.

Vehicles meeting the definition of school bus would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Section S5.5 of the standard, Emergency Exit Identification, specifies the marking requirements for emergency exits on all buses. Sections S5.5.1 and S 5.5.2 apply to non-school buses, while section S5.5.3 applies to all school buses, without regard to GVWR.

Paragraph S5.5.3(c) provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 o f 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

We would like to emphasize two points with regard to your letter. The first is that only those emergency exits that are required by the standard are subject to this provision. Extra emergency exits added as options are encouraged, but not required, to be outlined with the tape. The other point is one that I made

in May 18, 1994 letter to you. A technical amendment is pending publication which will amend the size requirement for the width of the retroreflective tape, from a minimum of 3 centimeters (cm.) to a minimum of 2.5 cm. That amendment is necessary becau se retroreflective tape is not commercially available in 3 cm. widths. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape width size against a manufacturer who uses one inch wide (minimum 2.5 cm.) retroreflective tap e.

In closing, bear in mind that all school buses are required to have a specified number of emergency exits, the number and location of which depend on the seating capacity of the vehicle, regardless of the GVWR, and all REQUIRED emergency exits must be ou tlined with the retroreflective tape.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 86-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: W.L. Hammer, P.E. -- Equipment Engineer, Wisconsin Electric Power Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W.L. Hammer, P.E. Equipment Engineer Wisconsin Electric Power Company 620 S. 76th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214

This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1986, asking for an interpretation of the stop lamp and turn signal requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is whether paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986. No. They apply to original equipment stop lamps on vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1973 and September 1, 1978 (S4.1.1.6), and to original equipment turn signal lamps on vehicles other than motorcycles manufactured between January 1, 1972, and September 1, 1978 (S4.1.1.7). However, they also apply to stop lamps and turn signal lamps manufactured after September 1, 1978, which are intended as replacement equipment for the original equipment manufactured between the inclusive dates. This is not exactly clear from a reading of the two paragraphs and we are considering a clarifying amendment to the standard. In summary, these paragraphs do not apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986, but they could apply to certain lighting equipment being manufactured today.

You also comment that S4.1.1.6 is silent as to the minimum luminous lens area required for stop lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which you recall as once being 12 square inches, and you ask if a final sentence has been omitted pertaining to wide vehicles. There has been no omission: SAE Standard J586b Stop Lamps, June 1966, the standard referenced in S4.1.1.6, never specified a minimum effective projected luminous lens area for wide vehicles. The requirement for wide vehicles today is found in paragraph 3.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970. This establishes a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches for single compartment lamps. However, paragraph 3.1 allows manufacturers of wide vehicles to mount a maximum of two lamps and/or compartments per side closer together than 22 inches providing that each compartment and/or lamp meets single compartment photometric requirements and has a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 12 square inches.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

January 29, 1986 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: 49CFR571.108 PARAGRAPH 4.1.1.6 STOPLIGHTS PARAGRAPH 4.1.1.7 TURN SIGNALS

I have been reading 571.108 as published in the 1984 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations. At first glance, Paragraphs 4.1.1.6 and 4.1.1.7 appear to only pertain to certain vehicles manufactured between 1972 and 1978 and not to those made before or after those dates. On a second glance, these paragraphs refer to a design option to meet SAEJ586b or 588d, or to meet SAEJ575d. Do these paragraphs apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986;

Also, in the case of Paragraph 4.1.1.6, a 3.5 square inch rule pertains to vehicles less than 80 inches in width, but there is no comment made for those vehicles over 80 inches in width. (I seem to remember it once was 12 square inches). Has a last sentence pertaining to vehicles over 80 inches been omitted:

A written reply is not required. A phone call would be satisfactory.

Sincerely,

W. L. Hammer, P.E. Equipment Engineer (414) 259-4152

ID: Braun_0001630v2

Barry E. Wolff, Director of Risk Management
The Braun Corporation
631 West 11^th Street
P.O. Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Wolff:

This responds to your request for the agency to refrain from taking enforcement action on account of vehicle alterations your company intends to make. You stated that certain alterations to accommodate individuals with disabilities would result in a non-compliance under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. As explained below, we have decided against providing the requested relief.

Under the Federal motor vehicle certification requirements, a business that modifies fully certified vehicles prior to first sale for purposes other than resale is classified as an alterer (49 CFR 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles). An alterer must identify all of the safety standards affected by an alteration and certify that, as altered, each vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected.

In your letter you explained that Braun, as a vehicle alterer, converts new, fully certified motor vehicles to accommodate wheelchairs and then sells the newly-certified motor vehicles. You explained that a minivan conversion to provide for wheelchair access typically eliminates the second row of seating, including the compliant child restraint anchorage systems (LATCH systems) installed in that row. Under FMVSS No. 225, vehicles with three or more forward-facing rear designated seating positions must have in the rear seating positions a minimum of two LATCH systems and an additional tether anchorage. To bring the vehicle back into compliance with FMVSS No. 225, you stated that two LATCH systems are added to what was originally the third row of seating.

As explained by your letter and in a subsequent telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, one version of the model year 2005 Chrysler minivan is presenting a problem. This is because the new "Stow and Go" seat installed in the third row of the more expensive version of the minivan utilizes a 60/40 split bench seat design. The larger portion of the seat is already equipped with a compliant LATCH system. However, according to your letter, the smaller portion of this split bench seat is too narrow to permit installation of an aftermarket LATCH system that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 225. Thus, Braun would be unable to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 225 using the existing "Stow and Go" seat. Additionally, simply replacing that seat with another seat is difficult because the "Stow and Go" seat folds into the floor pan of the vehicle.

NHTSA has established a limited exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to accommodate individuals with disabilities (49 CFR 595 Subpart C, Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate People With Disabilities). The exemption is only available to motor vehicle repair businesses making certain vehicle modifications after first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale). Under limited circumstances, a vehicle manufacturer, including an alterer, can qualify for the exemption as a motor vehicle repair business. However, it appears from your letter that this exemption would not be available to Braun as the vehicle modifications your company makes are completed prior to first retail sale. Accordingly, we are unable to provide the relief you request regarding this vehicle.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.6/18/04