ID: aiam3473

Dear Mr. Shafer: This responds to your September 8, 1981 letter enclosing correspondenc from Mrs. Barbara Stephens asking about extending the seat spacing in a school bus that is designed to transport handicapped children. You ask for general guidance in this area.; First, let me say that the safety standards apply to manufacturers o vehicles as well as those individuals that alter new motor vehicles. Further, repair businesses are not permitted to render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. On the other hand, nothing prohibits an individual from rendering inoperative the compliance of his or her own vehicle with any safety standard.; In specific reference to seat spacing in school buses, two genera rules apply. First, seat spacing is not regulated in vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Accordingly, any modification of seat spacing in these vehicles is permissible. Second, in vehicles with GVWR's in excess of 10,000 pounds, seat spacing is regulated, and a manufacturer may not produce a vehicle whose spacing exceeds the specifications set in Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Further, a repair business may not affect the seat spacing in a way that would violate the standard. An owner, however, may change the spacing in her or her own vehicle.; The agency has specifically provided for the transportation of th handicapped by allowing the installation of side-facing seats in school vehicles designated for handicapped transportation. We would suggest that this is a more suitable approach than extending seat spacing. By extending seat spacing, a school would be taking its vehicles out of compliance with the safety standards. In the event of an accident involving one of these vehicles, the school might be subject to unnecessary liability for having made these modifications to its vehicles.; I hope that this will be of use to you in advising schools of th Federal requirements, and if I can be of further assistance, please contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-2.8

DATE: 02/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Arctic Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 7 setting forth certain facts about the manufacture and marketing of Arctic mini-bikes, and asking for assurance that Arctic is not a "manufacturer" of "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

The criteria determinative of this question were published in the interpretation on mini-bikes (34 F.R. 15416). Persons who manufacture mini-bikes are not "manufacturers" if they

"(1) do not equip them with devices and accessories that render them lawful for use and registration for use on public highways under State and local laws; (2) do not otherwise participate or assist in making the vehicles lawful for operation on public roads (as by furnishing certificates of origin or other title documents, unless those documents contain a statement that the vehicles were not manufactured for use on public streets, roads, or highways); (3) do not advertise or promote them as vehicles suitable for use on public roads; (4) do not generally market them through retail dealers in motor vehicles; and (5) affix to the mini-bikes a notice stating in substance that the vehicles were not manufactured for use on public streets, roads, or highways and warning operators against such use.

The facts as you state them indicate that Arctic fulfills all but the first criterion. Your letter is not clear on this point,

but it implies that you furnish lighting equipment that is sufficient even without a manufacturer's title documents, to render your mini-bikes registerable in some States. Our position is that a manufacturer who equips his vehicle in such a manner that it is registerable for use on the public roads is a "manufacturer," not withstanding his fulfillment of the remaining criteria, and must comply with all applicable regulations including provision of lighting equipment meeting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, appropriate certification, and motorcycle consumer information.

ID: aiam0653

Dear Mr. Gerth:#On November 9, 1971, you wrote concerning th requirement in Standard No. 101 that a control be provided to adjust the intensity of control illumination, continuously variable from an 'off' position to a position providing illumination sufficient for the vehicle operator to readily identify controls under conditions of reduced visibility. You asked an interpretation that 'the term 'off' means a control position which provides minimal control illumination which is not distracting to the driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.'#In our opinion, the word 'off' means a control position providing no illumination, and we therefore do not concur in your interpretation. You have asked, however, as an alternative, that your letter be considered as a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 101 to provide an option permitting the type of control already incorporated in Mercedes-Benz vehicles.' We have tentatively determined that your petition has merit, and that quantitative levels for control illumination intensity should be established in Standard No. 101. We shall therefore initiate appropriate rulemaking with a proposed effective date of September 1, 1973.#Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator;

ID: aiam2708

Dear Mrs. Foster: Your recent letter to President Carter concerning the installation of bench seat in a cargo van was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for reply. You were apparently told by your local Ford dealer that Federal law prohibits the installation of a seat in the cargo area of a van vehicle.; The Ford dealer's representation to you was incorrect. There is n Federal law that precludes installation of a seat such as your letter describes, although, depending on the time and manner of the installation, the seat might be subject to Federal safety standards.; If the vehicle manufacturer (Ford) or your dealer installs the sea prior to the time you take possession of the vehicle, either will have to certify that the vehicle, including the seat, is in compliance with all applicable safety standards, as provided in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). Specifically, the installation of the seat would require compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*. If done by your dealer, he would be required to attach a label or tag to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle was in compliance with all safety standards, including the three just mentioned (49 CFR 567.7).; If you first take possession of the vehicle, you or your dealer ma then install an additional seat without certifying compliance with Federal safety standards (15 U.S.C 1397). Your dealer would, however, be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that the dealer would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's conformity to any safety standard by his installation of the additional seat. We do strongly recommend that, for the safety of your child, you assure the seat and safety belts conform to the minimum performance requirements of our safety standards.; Perhaps it is the policy of Ford Motor Company and its dealers not t install additional seats in cargo vans because of the responsibilities mentioned above. The policy is not, however, a Federal law. I suggest you show this letter to your local dealer.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 77-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bruce Ducker

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 2, 1977, letter requesting copies of regulations issued pursuant to section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).

I am enclosing a copy of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations). This part details the recordkeeping requirements imposed by the agency upon tire manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and manufacturers of motor vehicles. In response to your question concerning the availability of customer lists, the agency has not issued any regulations on that point. You should note that these customer lists are retained by the manufacturer, not by the agency. Therefore, only the manufacturer would be in the position to divulge his customer lists. Should the agency obtain customer lists, they would not be disclosed unless disclosure was determined to be necessary to carry out the purpose of the Act as permitted by section 158(b).

SINCERELY,

BRUCE DUCKER ATTORNEY AT LAW

August 2, 1977

Office of the General Counsel Department of Transportation

Can you please supply me with a copies of regulations adopted by the Secretary pursuant to Section 158(b), of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-492. I am particularly interested in all rules and regulations which "provide reasonable assurance that customer lists of any dealer and distributor, and similar information, will not be made available to any person other than the dealer or distributor . . . ."

BRUCE DUCKER

ID: aiam3742

Dear Mr. Ziwica: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standar No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. Your request was in regard to a type of brake reservoir you are considering producing which would contain common fluid for the brake circuits and the brake hydraulic power assist unit. The issue raised by your letter was whether section S5.4.2 of the standard permits the common fluid to be counted as part of the minimum capacity required for the braking system. As discussed below, the answer to that question is no.; The first sentence of section S5.4.2 states: >>>Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders of other type systems shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard.<<<; As noted by your letter, the agency has previously interpreted thi section with respect to a brake reservoir servicing both the braking system and the clutch. In an October 9, 1981, letter to Toyota, we explained:; >>>This section specifies the total minimum fluid capacity that vehicle's braking system reservoirs must have. That amount is determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system, i.e., by the fluid displacement which results when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes.; The agency interprets section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum flui capacity requirements be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. If fluid is available to both the brakes and the clutch, some of that fluid will be used by the clutch in normal service and thus be unavailable to the brakes. In the event of clutch failure, all of the common fluid may be used by the clutch. Therefore, while Standard No. 105 does not prohibit manufacturers from producing master cylinders with reservoirs that have some fluid available to both the braking system and the clutch, none of that common fluid may be counted toward meeting the minimum requirements of section S5.4.2.<<<; This same rationale applies to a reservoir which contains common flui for the brake circuits and brake hydraulic power assist unit. As indicated in our October 1981 letter, the minimum fluid capacity requirements were determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system for the purpose of assuring that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes, i.e., the wheel cylinders and pistons. More specifically, the requirement for minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position, was based upon maintaining a sufficient supply of fluid to enable a vehicle to stop even when there was complete brake lining wear-out in the service brakes. Put another way, the requirement assures an adequate supply of brake fluid over the lifetime of the brake linings, even if a driver fails to add fluid as part of routine maintenance.; This purpose would not be met if fluid available to both the brak circuits and brake hydraulic power assist unit was counted toward meeting the minimum fluid capacity requirements. Some of the common fluid would be used by the brake hydraulic power assist unit in normal service and thus be unavailable to the brake circuits. Moreover, in some instances of brake hydraulic power assist unit failure (e.g., a failure in the brake hydraulic power assist unit return line), all of the common fluid might be used by that unit.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4692

"Dear Mr. Higgins: This responds to your letter on behalf o Skill-Craft Enterprises, which is designing and manufacturing a fiberglass seat to be installed in the bed of a pickup truck. You were interested in learning which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to this product. You indicated that you believed Standards No. 207, 209, 210, and 'possibly 302' would apply to this seat. I am enclosing a December 1, 1986 interpretation letter from this office to Mr. Scott Muirhead, which explains the application of NHTSA's safety standards and regulations to seats in the cargo bed of a pickup. You will see that this letter specifically addresses the applicability of Standards No. 207, 208, 209, and 210 to such seats. I am also enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly describes our laws and regulations, and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. You also asked whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, would apply to your client's product. That standard applies only to new vehicles in areas located in the 'occupant compartment air space,' which the standard defines as 'the space within the occupant compartment that normally contains refreshable air.' I am enclosing a copy of a February 15, 1983 interpretation to Mr. H. Nakaya in which the agency explained that the determination of whether any particular area is within the 'occupant compartment air space' turns on whether people can and do ride in the area in question. Given that your client's product is a seat, it is designed and intended so that people will ride in it. Hence, the area around the seat would be an area where people could and would ride, and would be considered within the 'occupant compartment air space.' Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 expressly lists seat cushions, seat backs, and seat belts as items of equipment that must meet the flammability resistance requirements of section S4.3. Based on the above, we conclude that a seat installed as original equipment in the bed of a pickup would be required to comply with Standard No. 302. If the seat will be sold exclusively as an item of aftermarket equipment, Standard No. 302 would not directly apply to it. Nevertheless, other Federal laws indirectly affect your client's manufacture and sale of such a seat in the aftermarket. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) to ensure that any aftermarket installations of additional equipment or vehicle modifications its addition would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of this 'render inoperative' provision. Your client should also be aware of an additional aspect of the Safety Act. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your client is also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that your client or NHTSA determines that the seats contain a safety related defect, it would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam3197

Dear Mr. Lust: This is in response to your conversation with Mr. Hugh Oates of m office concerning the manufacture and installation of replacement fuel tanks.; Enclosed please find (1) a copy of a letter concerning the lega implications of replacing a vehicle's fuel tank with a larger tank, (2) a copy of a letter concerning the legal implications of building and installing auxiliary fuel tanks which discusses issues also relevant to replacement fuel tanks and (3) a notice describing how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.; In addition to the points raised in the enclosed letters, I would lik to point out two additional factors. First, please note that if you go into the business of manufacturing replacement fuel tanks you must submit identifying information and a description of the items you produce to this agency in accord with 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed).; Second, as you will note from the enclosed letters, a manufacturer o other person specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act who installs an auxiliary or replacement fuel tank in a new or used vehicle must not compromise the vehicle's compliance with relevant safety standards. Thus, in installing replacement fuel tanks you should be aware not only of any effect that your installation may have upon the vehicle's fuel system (see Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*), you should also be aware that your installation might affect, among other things, the vehicles braking system (see Safety Standard No. 105-75, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*) or the vehicle's weight as it relates to safety standards concerning tires (see Safety Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims*, applicable to passenger cars, and Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*).; I hope that you will find the enclosed material helpful. If you hav any further questions, please feel free to call Ms. Debra Weiner at my office at 202-426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: wheelchairlifts

Mr. Kenneth Conaway
Adaptive Mobility, Inc.
7050 Guion Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268





Dear Mr. Conaway:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding questions you have about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (FMVSS No. 206), which specifies various performance requirements for the door latches, locks and hinges of motor vehicles. In that letter, you posed four questions regarding the exception contained in FMVSS No. 206 for doors equipped with wheelchair lifts.

S4(c) of FMVSS No. 206 provides that "[c]omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily detached from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, and doors that are equipped with the wheelchair lifts and that are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visible signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver that is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard."

As with all of NHTSA's safety standards, FMVSS No. 206 only applies to new vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, after first retail sale, a manufacturer, dealer, or repair business may not remove or make inoperative safety features installed in compliance with the FMVSS No. 206 or other Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless NHTSA has issued an exemption from the "make inoperative" provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. ⁽¹⁾

First, you ask whether you may make the door locks and door retention components on a vehicle's side doors inoperable if 1) all the seating accommodations are removed except for a wheelchair lockdown and occupant restraint system that is installed directly across from the side doors and 2) a wheelchair lift with power door operators is installed in the side doors.

NHTSA addressed this and similar issues faced by vehicle modifiers in an amendment to 49 CFR Part 595 (66 Federal Register 12637, February 27, 2001). In amending Part 595, NHTSA struck a balance between maintaining an appropriate level of safety and increasing the mobility of the disabled. Accordingly, under the amended version of 49 CFR Part 595, a manufacturer, dealer, or repair business can now legally remove or make inoperative certain safety features installed in compliance with certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards when accommodating a vehicle for a disabled person. This exemption is limited to those portions of the safety standards specifically referenced in the regulation.

NHTSA did not include FMVSS No. 206 in the exemption because of the high level of fatalities associated with occupant ejection. Therefore, manufacturers, dealers, and repair businesses are generally prohibited from making door locks and retention components inoperative even when making accommodations for disabled persons. However, in the preamble to the final rule that amended 49 CFR Part 595, NHTSA also indicated its intention to preserve the wheelchair lift exception contained in FMVSS No. 206, which would allow manufacturers, dealers, and repair businesses to make door locks and door retention components inoperative for the specific and limited purpose of installing a wheelchair lift. Because compliance with FMVSS No. 206 is not required in the case of doors equipped with wheelchair lifts equipped with an alarm system, no exemption from the make inoperative provision is needed. Thus, you may make the door locks and door retention components inoperative as long as you install a wheelchair lift system that includes the alarm system specified in FMVSS No. 206. Although the standard does not require you to remove all designated seating positions adjacent to the lift, doing so may reduce the risk of ejection through the lift-equipped door and the possibility of injury from the lift in a crash.

Next, you would like to know whether you will qualify for the wheelchair lift exception in FMVSS No. 206 if you install either side or back doors that do not contain the original door locks and door retention components but do have a wheelchair lift and the alarm system specified in FMVSS No. 206 installed. The key to qualifying for the wheelchair-lift exception in FMVSS No. 206 is installing both the wheelchair lift and the specified alarm system. Any door for which you install both a wheelchair lift and the specified alarm system will be eligible for the exception contained in FMVSS No. 206 and need not comply with the door lock and door retention requirements of that standard. Accordingly, there is no requirement that you retain the original, complying latch systems for that door.

Third, you ask whether a wheelchair lift that has a folding platform qualifies for the exception in FMVSS No. 206 (assuming that it is installed in a door that has the alarm system specified in FMVSS No. 206). The exception in FMVSS No. 206 for wheelchair

lifts applies to all wheelchair lifts regardless of type, model, or brand. All wheelchair lifts, including those with folding platforms, will qualify for the exception in FMVSS No. 206 if they are installed on doors that have the specified alarm system installed. However, we note that a lift that does not block the affected door may not provide a vehicle occupant with protection from ejection. Such a risk is particularly great when the designated seating position adjacent to the affected door has not been removed or has been equipped with a wheelchair retention device.

Finally, you ask whether the date of manufacture for the vehicle has any bearing on the answers to the above three questions. The provision creating a wheelchair lift exception from the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 was implemented in 1985 (50 Federal Register 12029, March 27, 1985). Any vehicle manufactured after that date that is equipped with a wheelchair lift meeting the requirements of S4(c) need not meet the requirements of the standard with respect to the door that is equipped with the lift. Likewise, we do not consider modifications on vehicles that were manufactured prior to the effective date of an amended standard to constitute a violation of the make inoperative provision as long as those modifications are consistent with the new requirements. Thus, this type of modification may be made to any vehicle subject to the terms of the exception in FMVSS No. 206.

I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at the address provided above or at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.4/1/02





---

¹ 49 U.S.C. 30122 states in pertinent part that a "motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard."

ID: nht78-1.32

DATE: 02/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 5, 1978, letter asking whether the joint connecting the front roof cap to the windshield header is considered a joint subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Standard No. 221 applies only to joints connecting body components to body panels in a bus body. Bus body is defined as "the portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space, exclusive of the bumpers, the chassis frame, and any structure forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting." Any joint falling outside the area prescribed for the definition of bus body is not considered a joint subject to the standard.

If the joint to which you refer is forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting, it is not subject to the requirements of the standard. The location of this joint, however, is not clear from your letter. The second paragraph of your letter indicates that the lower portion of the windshield glass extends forward of the referenced joint. If the lower portion of the windshield mounting as well as the glass is forward of the joint in question then that joint lies within the area defined as the "bus body" and is subject to the requirements of the standard.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

January 5, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

SUBJECT: 571.221 Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength

Section S4 defines a bus body as follows: "Bus body" means the portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space, exclusive of the bumpers, the chassis frame and any structure forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting.

Blue Bird school buses have a joint between the front roof cap and windshield header which is forward of the upper portion of the windshield glass, rubber and metal flange mounting. This joint "A" is illustrated in the enclosed photograph. The lower portion of the windshield glass protrudes forward of the subject joint. Based on paragraph S4, it is our understanding that joint "A" between the front roof cap and windshield header is exempt from the requirements of S5 because it is forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting.

Would you please give us a ruling on this at your earliest convenience.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

Windshield Glass

Windshield Mounting Rubber

(Graphics omitted)