ID: nht72-2.18

DATE: 10/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Schlen Body and Equipment Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22 to Mr. Ed Leysath of this Office regarding Interpretations of FMVSS No. 108 on required mounting of marker lights on your dump trailers.

In answer to your first problem, a combination front clearance and side marker lamp must meet the requirements for both; therefore, the full 180-degree visibility is required. If you determine that it is not practicable to mount the combination lamp in your alternate location, because of a greater possibility of damage, then separate lamps should be considered.

In answer to your second problem, because of the configuration and end use of your dump semi-trailers, your interpretation that rear clearance lamps mounted in a light box just below the rear trailer crossmember are as high as practicable is correct.

ID: nht72-2.19

DATE: 08/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Imperial Fire Apparatus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 21 to Mr. (Illegible Words) Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., concerning interpretations of FMVSS No. 108 requirements relating to fire trucks.

The answers to the questions you asked are as follows:

I. Flashing Identification, Clearance, and (Illegible Word) Lights. (Illegible Word) calls for all identification clearance, and (Illegible Words) to be wired into a motor driven (Illegible Word) with a selector switch for "steady on" or "flashing". Is this procedure allowable?

(Illegible Word). Flashing side (Illegible Words), but not clearance and identification lamps, are permitted by FMVSS No. 108.

II. Flashing Lights.

Customer calls for a second set of identification and clearance lamps ((Illegible Words) and power) to be mounted adjacent to the existing lighting. This second set of lights is to be wired into a motor driven flasher with a separate control switch located in the cab. Is this procedure allowable?

Yes. The additional or supplemental lamps are permitted by FMVSS No. 108, and flashing these additional lamps is (Illegible Word) in non-compliance with the standard. Regulations of individual states may, however, be applicable to this arrangement.

III. Battery Disconnect Switch.

On many trucks, the battery is wired into a master switch whereby the battery can be completely isolated from the electrical system. When this switch is in the "off" position, all light switches including identification, clearance, and four (4) way hazard flashers become in-operative. With the vehicle's engine shut down, the four (4) way hazard signals may only be activated by turning (Illegible Word) to "on" and turning four (4) way hazard switch to "on". Is this installation in compliance with SAE (Illegible Words) 4.21. If there are lights that must be activated by a single driver action, could you please note them.

This installation is in compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, providing the master switch is separate from the ignition switch and the hazard warning signal lamps will flash with the master switch on and the ignition switch off.

ID: nht72-2.2

DATE: 02/23/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cosco Household Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1972, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." You ask specific questions, enclosing 3 diagrams, regarding the application of certain provisions of the standard to a child seat you wish to build. You state that this seat in its present form is composed of a tubular steel frame, and has a molded plastic shell to seat the child, to provide head restraint, and to assist in containing the child under lateral decelerations.

You ask whether the shell is a rigid component, stating that it will most probably be manufactured of polyethylene of about .100 inch thickness, and will be deformable by hand. We believe that such a shell could be considered a non-rigid component. There is not at present a definition of "rigid" in the standard and manufacturers should rely on generally available definitions of the term in determining whether or not components are rigid.

You state further that in those areas where the shell contacts the tubular frame it is unquestionably rigid, and ask whether energy-absorbing material could be applied between the frame and the shell, rather than between the shell and the child as specified in S4.10 of the standard. In the particular case you present, it is not clear whether the rigidity of the shell is inherent or results because of its attachment to the frame. If by cushioning this attachment the rigidity will be eliminated, we would no longer consider the component to be rigid. However, the amount of cushioning needed would depend upon the amount necessary to eliminate the rigidity, and would not necessarily be the 1/2-inch thickness specified in S4.10 for covering rigid components. This determination would be for the manufacturer to make, based upon his analysis of when the rigidity has been removed from the component.

With reference to the question presented on sketch 1, we believe it is answered in the preceding paragraphs. Concerning sketch 2 you ask what the standard requires at point N, where there is "essentially no energy-absorbing material between the bottom of the groove and the rigid tube." S4.10 of the standard requires rigid components that may contact the head or torso, with certain exceptions, to be "covered" with energy-absorbing material having a thickness of at least 1/2 inch. If the point N with which you are concerned can contact the head or torso of the child during impact, taking into account compression of the material adjacent to it, then it must be covered with at least the specified thickness of energy-absorbing material.

Your third sketch asks whether energy-absorbing material is required where the shell loops over the tubular steel frame, when the side of the shell is greater than 24 square inches. You are apparently assuming that the area in question is contactable as that term is used in S4.10. In our view the answer to this question depends upon whether the part of the seat in question is actually a "side" and if so if its rigidity is uniform. If the area in question creates a frontal projection we would not consider it to be a "side" under S4.10. If it does not, but the side is significantly more rigid in the area of the tubular frame, then we would not consider the exemption in S4.10.3 to apply, since the shell would not be one component. The hazard created would be identical if the tubular frame were exposed, and not covered by the shell.

Finally, you ask for any information on the status of Notice 5, published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786). A final rule based on this notice is in preparation, and we expect that it will be issued in the near future. At the same time, we have placed in the docket a report entitled "Report of Test on Child Vehicles and Their Energy Absorbing Materials." This report summarizes recent test work done to investigate test procedures for head restraints and energy absorbing materials for child seats.

ID: nht72-2.20

DATE: 10/02/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 25 to Mr. Lewis C. Owen of this Office concerning the mounting of front clearance lamps on trucks and buses over 80 inches in width.

You are correct in your interpretation that these lamps must be mounted to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as near the top as practicable. The width and height of the body in relation to that of the cab on a van type truck governs the proper location; therefore, each application must be judged individually. However, you are correct that the proper location should be the top front corners of the body when the height of the body is significantly higher than the cab.

Since this name question has been directed to us repeatedly and some manufacturers are installing cab mounted lights and others body mounted lights on quite similar vehicles, we anticipate that this aspect will be addressed in future rulemaking actions.

ID: nht72-2.21

DATE: 01/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1971, to Lawrence R. Schneider requesting an interpretation on the mounting of front identification lamps.

Standard No. 108 requires that identification lamps be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" (Table II). The "vehicle" is the vehicle as completed, and not the incomplete vehicle. Therefore, if the "top" of the vehicle, i.e., the highest point, is a location other than the cab, the identification lamps must be mounted at the "top", and not on the cab, if it is practicable to do so. Generally, manufacturers of van-body vehicles have found it practicable to mount identification lamps on the van body. Modified lighting diagram 0-1 which you enclosed originally depicted the correct location of identification lamps for a truck with a van body.

If the manufacturer of the cab portion of a truck has placed identification lamps on the cab, the lamps need not be removed when the lamps necessary for conformance are added at the "top."

Sincerely,

December 21, 1971 Mr.

Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U. S. Department of Transportation

Subject: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON MOUNTING HEIGHT OF FRONT IDENTIFICATION LAMPS.

Re: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

The above referenced FMVSS No. 108, becoming effective January 1, 1972, establishes the location and mounting heights of the front identification lamps by stating-----

" . . . as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle . . ."

"On the front only-- and No part of the lamps or mountings shall extend below the top of the vehicle's windshield."

Insofar as trailers are concerned, identification lamps are not required on the front of the trailer. The reasoning for this is that the identification lamps stop the truck tractor will serve the requirement.

We shall use a typical van body truck as an example. (See attached Lighting Diagram O-1.) It is our contention that if identification lamps are mounted on top of chassis-cab vehicles--i.e. incomplete vehicles--as supplied by the chassis manufacturers, it is permissible to leave these lamps in place. We contend that it is not necessary to remove these chassis supplied lamps, nor is it necessary to add an additional set of identification lamps at the top of the body. Of course we realize that if there are not any identification lamps on top of the cab (vehicles 80 or more inches overall width), we would be held responsible to equip the truck with front identification lamps (as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle) as required by FMVSS No. 108.

Please advise us in writing if our interpretations are correct and in full compliance with FMVSS No. 108.

Your earliest response will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION --

Paul A. Tatarski

Manager Engineering Services

Enclosure:

(Graphics omitted)

FOR VEHICLES OF 80 OR MORE INCHES OVERALL WIDTH

RECOMMENDED LAMP AND REFLECTOR LOCATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108

(DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE)

The general areas indicated for lamps and reflectors are acceptable to the U.S. Department of Transportations National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. Consult Federal MVSS No. 108 and the applicable tables therein for exact requirements such as: mounting height limitations lamp combinations and alternative locations.

LEGEND

1. Headlamps (2)-white (4 optional)

2. Front side-marker lamps (2)-amber

3. Front side reflectors (2)-amber

4. Front turn-signal lamps (2)-amber

4a. Front turn-signal lamps (2)-amber (optional location)

5. Front identification lamps (3)-amber 5a. Front identification lamps (3)-amber (optional location)

6. Front clearance lamps (2)-amber

7. Rear side-marker lamps (2)-amber

8. Rear side reflectors (2)-red

9. Rear identification lamps (3)-red

10. Rear clearance lamps (2)-red

11. Rear reflectors (2)-red

12. Rear stop-tail & turn-signal lamps (2)-red

13. Rear licence plate lamp (1)-white

14. Rear backup lamp (1)-white (location optional provided optical requirements are met)

15. Intermediate side-marker lamps (2)-amber (if vehicle is 30' or more overall length)

16. Intermediate side reflectors (2)-amber (if vehicle is 30' or more overall length)

NOTE

LAMPS AND REFLECTORS MAY BE MOUNTED AT OTHER PRACTICABLE LOCATIONS PROVIDED LOCATION AND VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 ARE MET.

Lighting Diagram

Supplement 1/1/71

ID: nht72-2.22

DATE: 02/18/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: FMC Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to the questions you ask in your letter of January 7 concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

In your first question you ask whether a vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit must conform to SAE Recommended Practice J910 specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 106, or to the newer SAE J910s. The answer is J910; the revision J910a cannot become a requirement of Standard No. 103 without ruleasking action by this agency. As of (Illegible Words) has issued no proposal that (Illegible Word) be adopted. You also ask whether hazard lamps at both ends of the vehicle must flash simultaneously. The operating unit is defined in (Illegible Word) as a device "which causes all turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously . . ." This means that all turn signal lamps must flash on the same cycle, and that separate cycles for froat and rear turn signal lamps are not permissible.

In answer to your second question, Standard No. 108 does not yet specify requirements for side turn signal lamps, and thus does not prohibit their use on your motor home. As indicated in our "Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards," October 1971, this agency intends to issue a notice in the near future proposing to incorporate requirements for side turn signal lamps in Standard No. 108

Finally you ask whether Standard No. 101 requires illumination (Illegible Words) handlamp switch with park ponition to operate clearance, I.D., and the marker lamps. Standard No. 101 does not require illumination of the headlamp switch, even if the switch does (Illegible Word) is the operation of other lamps whose controls, if separate, would have to be illuminated.

ID: label_removal_5298

Ms. Jennifer Ross
P.O. Box 49, 120 Place Versailles Station
Montreal, Quebec H1N 3TG
Canada




Dear Ms. Ross:

This responds to your letter in which you ask if an interior label on a motorcycle helmet may be removed by its owner. As you are writing from Canada, I note that my response refers only to regulation under the United States Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). With that clarification, U.S. Federal law does not prohibit an individual owner from removing labels from his or her motorcycle helmet after first retail sale of the helmet.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle helmets. S5.6 of the standard establishes a labeling requirement that specifies information with which a helmet must be permanently and legibly labeled. FMVSS No. 218 specifies that the DOT symbol appear on the outer surface of the helmet but does not specify a location for placement of the additional information, except that it must be read easily without removing padding or any other permanent part.

Generally, our standards apply to motor vehicle equipment as manufactured up until the point of first retail sale. However, even after first retail sale a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business cannot "knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard" (49 U.S.C. 30122). In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218. Therefore, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed a label affixed to the exterior or interior of a helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218, then that entity would be making the label inoperative, in violation of U.S. Federal law.

This "make inoperative" provision does not extend to an individual consumer after a helmet is first sold for retail. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove or cover the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of U.S. Federal law.

If you have any further questions about motorcycle helmets, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:218
d.7/5/05

ID: Labelpermanency_6507

Mr. Randy Kiser
Evenflo Company, Inc
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, Ohio 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your letter in which you requested clarification of the permanency requirement for labels under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. As explained below, we would consider "permanent" a label conforming to the requirements you described in your letter and remaining legible for the life of the child restraint system (CRS) to which it is attached.

In your letter, you stated that your company believes that permanency definitions provided by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), when taken together with previous interpretations provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), provide an appropriate definition for label permanency, as it applies to a CRS. The ASTM standard for CRSs provides that a label, excluding a label attached by a seam, is permanent if, during an attempt to remove it: (1) the label cannot be removed without the aid of tools or solvents; (2) if it is a paper label, it tears into pieces; or (3) such action damages the surface to which it is attached. [1] Your letter also cited language from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 49 CFR Part 541, Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standards, in which the agency stated that the removal of a label must "create a 'footprint' (i.e., physical evidence that an affixation was originally present or required to be present) on that part." [2]

S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 213 requires that each CRS be permanently labeled with specified information, including information on proper use. A CRS may not protect a child in a crash if the CRS is not properly installed or the child is not properly secured. The label provides a constant reminder on how to correctly use the restraint. [3] However, a label cannot be effective if it does not remain affixed to the restraint or cannot be read. Label permanency is particularly important for subsequent owners of a restraint, who may not have access to the original instructions. Further, the model and manufacturer information must remain legible in order to identify a restraint that is the subject of a recall.

For a label to be permanent, it must remain affixed and legible under normal conditions for the life of the restraint to which it is attached. If a label used by your company were to meet the ASTM and agency criteria you outlined in your letter and listed above, and remain legible for the life of the restraint, we would deem it permanently attached.

Note two caveats, however. Labels should not be attached in a manner that invites their removal. In a June 26, 1997, letter to Mr. Strawn Cathcart, we stated that an air bag warning label could not be sewn on only one side into a seam. We determined that, by virtue of the location of the label (where an infants head would be located) and ease of detachment by cutting, tearing or pulling off a single row of stitching, the sewn-in label invited removal. As such, we concluded that the label was unlikely to stay attached during the lifetime of the child restraint in satisfaction of the permanently affixed requirement of FMVSS No. 213.

Second, the durability of labels is evaluated under NHTSAs Ease of Use CRS rating program. If a label is already peeling when the new CRS is removed from the packaging material at the test lab, the CRS will receive a lower score on the durability of its label than a CRS whose label is not peeling.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref.213
d.12/18/03





---

[1] See, ASTM F 833 00, Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Carriages and Strollers, Sections 7.8.1 and 7.8.2.

[2] 50 Federal Register 19728, 19731; May 10, 1985.

[3] 44 FR 72131, 72316; December 13, 1979.

ID: labelsonuppertetherandloweranchorage

Mr. John Nagel
AMSAFE Commercial Products
240-C North 48^th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85043





Dear Mr. Nagel:

This responds to your letter of February 9, 2001, which you transmitted to this office via facsimile. In that letter, you ask whether under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), the following statement should be put on the lower anchorage belt and/or the upper tether belt:

"CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213/ FMVSS 302."

By lower anchorage belt and upper tether belt, you mean, respectively: (a) the straps of a child restraint system which attach to components that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system (see S5.9(a) of FMVSS No. 213); and (b) the strap of a child restraint system to which a tether hook is attached (S5.9(b)). You explain that your company supplies the belts to a child restraint manufacturer, which then sells the belts with the completed child restraint. You also plan on selling the lower anchorage belts directly to parents who then use the belts to retrofit their existing child restraint systems.

Is the Label Required by FMVSS No. 213?

FMVSS No. 213 does not require you to put such a label on either belt. FMVSS No. 213 applies to new child restraint systems, and not to components of child restraints, such as the belts you supply to child restraint manufacturers.

Manufacturers of child restraints are required to certify that their child restraints meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213. They certify their restraints by placing a label on the child restraint system that reads: "This child restraint system conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." (S5.5.2(e)). Because FMVSS No. 213 does not apply to component parts, such as lower anchorage belts or upper tether belts, which are supplied to manufacturers for installation in child restraints, such component parts are not required to have a similar label.

May You Voluntarily Label the Belts?

Whether the label is permissible depends, in part, on how you market and sell the belts. As noted above, you plan to market and sell the belts in two different ways. You plan to sell the lower anchorage belt and upper tether belt to manufacturers and you plan to sell the lower anchorage belt directly to the public. The answer to your question differs for each of these situations, so each situation will be discussed separately. One consideration to bear in mind is that a manufacturer cannot certify that its product meets the requirements of a standard if that particular standard does not actually apply to that product. To do so would be misleading to consumers.

1. Selling the Belts to a Manufacturer

A. "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213"

Your label is permissible with respect to the statement on the tether strap that refers to FMVSS No. 213, ("CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213..."). However, S5.9 (a) of FMVSS No. 213 does not require child restraints to have the lower anchorage belts until September 1, 2002. A manufacturer cannot certify to a requirement that has not yet become mandatory. Accordingly, you may label the upper tether belt as conforming to FMVSS No. 213, but until September 1, 2002, you can not label the lower anchorage belt with a certification or a "conforms to FMVSS 213" statement.

B. "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 302"

You may label the belts "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 302." Paragraph S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213 specifies that each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to S4 ("requirements") of FMVSS No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Thus, FMVSS No. 302 is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 213 and applies to the belts. Therefore, a label stating that the belts conform to FMVSS No. 302 would not be misleading.

2. Selling the Lower Anchorage Belts to the Public

You also wish to sell the lower anchorage belt with the abovementioned label directly to the public so consumers can purchase it to retrofit their existing child seats. The use of the label in this instance is not permissible. FMVSS Nos. 213 and 302 do not apply to items of equipment sold in the aftermarket. Accordingly, in this instance, you cannot label the lower anchorage belt as conforming to either FMVSS No. 213 or FMVSS No. 302 because doing so would be misleading.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#225#302
d.6/1/01

ID: lamb.nhf

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

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting permission to modify a Plymouth Grand Voyager lowered floor minivan van for a driver with quadriplegia. You explain that your client has limited strength and range of motion due to her disability and needs to replace the vehicle's original steering column 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.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that removes the air bag and 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. However, 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 vehicle's original steering wheel and air bag would affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. 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. However, as noted above, 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. Accordingly, 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 vehicle 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, the seller should advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

As we mentioned in an earlier letter to you, NHTSA is undertaking rulemaking to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition for certain standards. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, the agency is proposing to give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking is enclosed for your information.

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,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA
d.12/1/98