Interpretation ID: Bruno

Mr. Dick Keller
Product Development Manager
Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc.
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

This is in response to your letter requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. You state that Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc. ("Bruno") is "the manufacturer and distributor of a motor vehicle occupant transfer device called the Turning Automotive Seating (TAS) system." You describe the TAS product as being "used to facilitate the transfer of a mobility-impaired . . . passenger or driver between a motor vehicle and a mobility aid such as a cane, walker, or wheelchair." You state that the TAS is designed to replace seats that are supplied with a vehicle as original (OEM) equipment, and that "[i]t is installed by removing the OEM seat assembly and bolting the TAS into the motor vehicle using the same seat structural mounting as the original." You state that it should take the average mechanic less than two hours to install the TAS and that the only tools required for the installation are those typically found in a motor vehicle maintenance shop.

You state that "when a person decides to purchase a new motor vehicle using the motor vehicle manufacturer's Mobility Program and/or new vehicle finance program . . . the Bruno TAS will likely be installed in a motor vehicle prior to first sale to meet the program requirements and also as a convenience to the purchaser." As you are aware, the certification regulations require a person who alters a previously certified motor vehicle, before the vehicle is first purchased for purposes other than resale, to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR 567.7. The regulations provide, however, that a person

who alters . . . a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies . . . in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle . . . .

See 49 CFR 567.6.

You have asked what constitutes "a readily attachable component" for the purpose of this provision. You note that in a prior interpretation letter, to Katzkin Leather Interiors, Inc., we stated that because the leather interiors there at issue "require several hours to install by professional installers and require specialized tools for their installation, we would not consider [them] to be readily attachable." From this you have drawn the conclusion that "if persons having average mechanical ability using normally available tools, such as wrenches and screwdrivers, can install the Buno TAS in less that two hours with the Bruno-supplied installation kit and instructions, it could reasonably be considered a readily attachable component," precluding the need for the vehicle to be certified under 49 CFR 567.7 as conforming to all applicable FMVSS affected by the installation of the TAS.

As we have stated in a number of past interpretation letters, a determination of whether a modification involves the addition of "readily attachable components" depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching the components. In assessing this issue, the agency has identified the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise as factors that must be taken into consideration. The agency has taken the position that absent extraordinary ease of installation, it would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve "readily attachable components." See, e.g., letter to Terry Rowe dated March 7, 1991 and letter to Samuel Albury dated July 12, 1991.

Based on the information you have provided, we have concluded that the Bruno TAS cannot be installed with sufficient ease for it to be regarded as a "readily attachable component." From the literature that accompanied your letter, we note that the installation of this equipment would require the removal of seating originally supplied with the vehicle and the installation of a seat base that allows the seat to be automatically raised and lowered, and swiveled so that it extends outside the vehicle. We would not regard this task as one that can be performed with "extraordinary ease." Your statement that it would take "less than two hours" to install the Bruno TAS confirms that this cannot be characterized as an extraordinarily easy task. Based on this conclusion, if the Bruno TAS is installed in a vehicle before the vehicle is first purchased for purposes other than resale, the installer will have to affix a label certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS affected by the alteration, as required by 49 CFR 567.7. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an interpretation letter to B&D Independence Co. Inc. dated August 21, 2001, which identifies the standards that are impacted by the installation of an adjustable seat pedestal device that appears to serve a similar function as the Bruno TAS, and addresses a number of compliance issues that are raised by the installation of such a device.

If the Bruno TAS is installed after the vehicle's first retail sale, the installation of the device would not constitute an alteration. In this circumstance, the installer would not be required to certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, but would be prohibited, under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), from "knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [the] motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .." On February 27, 2001, NHTSA issued a final rule (at 66 FR 12628) that creates an exemption from this prohibition for motor vehicle repair businesses that modify a motor vehicle to enable persons with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger in the vehicle. A copy of the final rule is enclosed. In the preamble of the final rule, the agency stated that it intended to define the phrase "first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail (sic)," for the purposes of the rule, "as the point at which the seller and the end user enter into a sales contract that identifies a specific vehicle to be delivered." See final rule at p. 12644. The agency explained that "[t]his definition will reduce the risk of a business being deemed an alterer because it is unable to transfer title at the time the modifications are made." Id. The agency further observed that "[i]f a dealer or manufacturer adds or removes features to or from a vehicle, or otherwise customizes a vehicle after the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail (sic), then the dealer or manufacturer may utilize" the exemption established under the rule. Id. Applying this exemption, if the Bruno TAS were to be installed in a vehicle after a sales contract is entered for the delivery of that vehicle, but prior to the actual transfer of title, the installation of the device would not constitute an alteration that would trigger the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7, and the installer would not be subject to the "making inoperative" prohibitions of 49 U.S.C. 30112(b).

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
Ref:567
d.5/24/02