ID: 1121-2

Mr. T.J. Sommer
President
White Bear Sales, Inc.
P.O. Box 16718
Milwaukee, WI 53216

Dear Mr. Sommer:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 28, 1995, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You report that Chicago's police department is using four- wheeled all terrain vehicles (ATVs) for patrol work in the downtown area, and that they have been licensed by Illinois for on-road use. You believe that the vehicles are illegal to use on the streets and that city employees are at risk. You have been asked by the director of Chicago's fleet "to compile all federal definitions and statutes which apply to the quad runners, regarding classification, certification, and compliance for street use." You have asked for our assistance.

I note first that while Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the individual States establish their own requirements for the licensing of motor vehicles. Therefore, the question of whether the ATVs may legally be used on the road is a matter of Illinois law rather than Federal law.

Your letter does, however, raise the issue of whether the manufacture and/or sale of the ATVs was consistent with Federal law. We do not have specific information about the ATVs at issue; however, I can provide general information about how Federal law applies in this area.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.

The issue of whether the ATVs were required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is dependent on whether they are considered "motor vehicles." I have enclosed several interpretation letters which address the criteria which NHTSA applies in determining whether a vehicle with on and off-road capability is a motor vehicle (addressed to Mr. Matthew Plache, dated December 3, 1991; Mr. Hiroshi Kato, dated October 31, 1988; Mr. Wayne Kirby, dated February 8, 1983; and Mr. Leonard Fink, dated March 25, 1982). If an ATV is a motor vehicle, it must be certified to comply with all applicable safety standards.

If, after reviewing this information, you believe that a violation of Federal law may have occurred, you may wish to contact Mr. Luke Loy of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-5288. If you have further questions about the applicability of our standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA d:9/19/95

ID: 11210

Fred H. Pritzker, Esq.
Pritzker & Meyer, P.A.
Suite 1275 Peavey Building
730 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Dear Mr. Pritzker:

This concerns your August 29, 1995 letter about the replacement of a rear seat in a 1993 GEO Tracker with a speaker box. In response to your request that we speak with you about the issues raised in that letter, Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff spoke with you by telephone. In that conversation, you requested a written opinion. Our opinion is set forth below.

According to your letter, the son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics "super store" to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. An employee of that store removed the rear seat and replaced it with a speaker box. As part of this process, the female portion of the seat belt buckle was removed. You stated that the speaker box has a ledge not unlike a bench-type seat, the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on, and was carpeted.

You represent a person who was sitting on this speaker box when the vehicle was involved in a serious collision, and believe that the electronics company violated the "make inoperative" provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b).

As Mr. Glancy explained to you by telephone, NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a company violated the "make inoperative" provision outside a compliance proceeding. I can, however, provide general information on how this provision applies in such a situation.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 required model year 1993 passenger cars and other light vehicles to have a Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward- facing rear outboard designated seating position, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear designated seating positions.

NHTSA's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. However, section 30122(b) applies in the case of used as well as new vehicles. That section reads as follows:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or 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 safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

I can offer the following thoughts concerning how section 30122(b) would apply in the context of a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business removing rear seat belts. First, electronics companies which install stereo equipment in motor vehicles are subject to section 30122(b), given the broad language "manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business."

Second, some specific examples will illustrate how answering the question of whether a particular action Amakes inoperative@ a device installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard depends on the underlying factual circumstances. As noted above, under Standard No. 208, seat belts were required to be installed at the rear designated seating positions in the Tracker. The definition of "designated seating position," set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, reads as follows:

Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. . . .

The simple removal of rear seat belts from designated seating positions, without other modifications to a vehicle, would obviously make inoperative a device, i.e., seat belts, installed in compliance with Standard No. 208. Similarly, the removal of rear seat belts, coupled with replacing the rear seat with another rear seat, would make the seat belts inoperative (assuming the rear seat belts were not replaced). However, if rear seat belts were removed as part of permanently converting a passenger van to a cargo van by removing the rear seat, the removal of the seat belts would not make inoperative a device installed in compliance with a safety standard. This is because Standard No. 208 would not have required rear seat belts in the absence of rear designated seating positions.

Your letter raises the question of whether a speaker box of the type installed by the electronics company would be considered to provide designated seating positions. I have enclosed a copy of the final rule establishing the designated seating position definition (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979). As discussed in that notice, any position likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position. The notice includes several discussions which are relevant to the issue of whether a position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion. Included is a discussion that a manufacturer would not be responsible for abusive or unorthodox use of a particular position.

If you have further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Glancy at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#VSA d:12/22/95

ID: 1122

Mr. Bryan Couch
Systems Zone Leader
Motor Coach Industries
Door 10
475 Clarence Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T IT5
Canada

Dear Mr. Couch:

This responds to your FAX of August 8, 1995, asking for our comments on a "preliminary drawing showing our proposed location for the front marker lamp and supplementary front marker lamp." The front marker lamp will meet all photometry requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and, in your opinion, will be placed as far forward as practicable on the vehicle. The supplementary lamp will not meet the 45 degree rearward photometry requirement.

We have only a couple of comments. The first is that initially the determination of practicability of the location of the front side marker lamps is that of the vehicle manufacturer who certifies compliance with Standard No. 108, and NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. In this instance, we see no reason to question your opinion.

Our second comment is that a supplementary side marker lamp need not meet any of the requirements for side marker lamps; it must not, however, as provided in paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment installed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. Given the small size and candela output of side marker lamps, we do not believe that your supplementary side marker lamp would have this effect.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:8/28/95

ID: 11221

Mr. Orlando Ferreira
Orion Bus Industries Ltd.
5395 Maingate Drive
Mississauga, Ontario L4W 1G6
Canada

Dear Mr. Ferreira:

This responds to your FAX message to Mr. Jere Medlin of this agency, asking whether your "master switch" on a transit bus must be illuminated pursuant to Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. Your master switch has four controls, "engine stop," "run," "lights," and "park." In a telephone conversation with Mr. Medlin, you explained that your "run" control functions as an "engine start" control, and your "park" control functions as a "clearance lamps systems" control.

As explained below, Standard No. 101 specifies illumination for the "engine stop" and "park" controls, but not for the "run" and "light" controls. In addition, there are identification requirements for those controls.

Your drawing of the master switch shows that the switch resembles a tuning knob on a radio. Like a knob, the switch can be turned to each of the above four positions, one position at a time. Because turning the master switch knob to each position activates the described function, we would consider each position to be a separate control.

You write that the master switch will be placed on a "driver's side control panel," a location that subjects controls to Standard No. 101's illumination requirements. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 (referencing Tables 1 and 1(a) Identification and Illumination of Controls), specifies that if:

C a control is provided, C is listed in column 1 of either Table 1 or 1(a), C and is accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4, Illumination, of the table,

the "identification ... of any control" shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated.

"Engine stop" control The identification of the "engine stop" control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. This is because in Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine stop" control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 of each table.

"Park" control Two issues are raised by your "park" control. The first relates to Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard, the control that regulates the parking lights is the "clearance lamps system" control, rather than the "park" control. Since your control regulates the parking lights, it must be identified as "Marker Lamps", "MK Lps" or (as you propose) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1. Labeling the control as "park" could confuse some persons into thinking "park" is a transmission park position.

The second issue is the illumination requirement. The identification of the control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. As noted above, your park control has to be identified as "Marker Lamps" or "MK Lps". In Table 1, the control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4. Thus, the control must be illuminated.

"Run" control The same two issues discussed in our answer directly above, pertain to this control. First is Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard the control that will start the engine must be identified as "engine start" (rather than "run") as described in both Tables 1 and 1(a), when it is separate from the key locking system (as is yours).

The control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine start" control (which is the correct identification of the control) is specified in column 1, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

"Lights" control The same two issues discussed above are relevant here. The illustration you enclosed with your letter shows that you use both the word "Lights" and an identifying symbol to identify your Lights control. We are not sure that you are correctly using the symbol. The symbol you use is listed in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 as that for the master lighting switch. A master lighting switch regulates all exterior vehicle lights. If your "lights" control only regulates headlamps and taillamps, and not all exterior vehicle lights, please designate the headlamps and taillamps as specified in column 3 of Table 1.

The "lights" control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "lights" control is specified in column 2, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101 d:10/25/96

ID: 1123

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, on the subject of "optical combination" as that term is used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You enclosed a copy of a letter sent to you from this Office on March 4, 1977, and refer to a "Rider" in "a proposed change [around 1990] that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, `NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING.'" You ask how "[u]sing the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976, and 1977, and the Re- Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support."

You are talking of events of 18 to 20 years ago that are no longer relevant today. The definition that NHTSA supports contains no reference to lamp housings. Standard No. 108 was amended four years ago, in 1991, to clarify that the term "optical combination" is to be interpreted as defined by SAE Information Report J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV87. Under the SAE definition, optical combination results when a lamp "has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb)", and when "its optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions." It is immaterial to this definition whether the light sources are in the same or different housings. I enclose a copy of a rulemaking proposal and final rules dealing with this issue that were published on November 6 and 8, 1990, and June 7 and November 7, 1991.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office by FAX (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:108 d:9/25/95

ID: 11233

Mr. James J. Gregorio
6704 Forsythia St.
Springfield, VA 22150

Dear Mr. Gregorio:

This responds to your letter of September 23, 1995, requesting "authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim." Your letter states:

Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviates a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand controls. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the car seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees.

You enclosed a letter from your physician stating that recovery could take several years.

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 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. 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 FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair 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 FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter does not provide any information regarding why the modification to your seat cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition.

However, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#207#208 d:11/7/95

ID: 11239-1PJA

Mr. Hai Tee Young
10313 Lower Azusa Road
Temple City, CA 91780

Dear Mr. Young:

This responds to your letter telling us of several types of outside rear-view mirror designs you have invented, and asking for funding, or assistance in obtaining funding, for you to develop and patent these inventions. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your purpose is to provide a wider view of the road behind the vehicle, and eliminate blind spots. Each of your mirrors consists of either a composite of two flat mirrors that are joined at an angle or a single convex mirror. Each is depicted as being mounted substantially in front of the driver.

I would like to begin by noting that, in a December 11, 1995 letter to you, this office told you about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) NHTSA has issued on a number of aspects of motor vehicle safety. Manufacturers of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors (I have enclosed a copy for your convenience), has a number of requirements that you should be aware of before you finalize plans for your invention. Based on your letter, you appear to intend to market these mirrors for buses, vans, and passenger cars. FMVSS No. 111 has different requirements for different classes of vehicles, such as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and schoolbuses. You should review S5 through S10 of the standard to determine what requirements apply to the specific vehicles for which you intend to market your mirror.

We have identified four instances, described below, where your mirrors may fail to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. These are not meant to be exhaustive. A manufacturer that uses your system is responsible for ensuring that all the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 are met.

1. The requirements for passenger cars (in S5.2 of FMVSS No. 111) basically require a horizontal field of view, extending 8 feet out from the side of the car at a point 35 feet behind the driver. This field of view must be provided by a "unit magnification" (flat) mirror. Therefore, your convex mirror design (Devices D-3, D-4 in your illustrations) alone would not comply with the standard. Your composite flat mirror design (Devices D-3, D-5, D-6, and D-7 in your illustrations) would comply only if the required field of view were provided by a single flat surface of the mirror. Any extra field of view, beyond what is required, could be provided by other pieces of mirror.

2. Some of your mirrors extend the mirror from the vehicle only at certain times, by having the mirror fold out or slide out of a housing. The caption for Device D-4 describes an electrical switch with which the driver would manually deploy the mirror. The caption for Device D-5 says that the mirrors would be deployed only when the driver signals for a turn, and only on the side that has the turn signal on.

These designs would not be allowed under FMVSS No. 111. S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 specifies the field of view that must be provided by the mirror at all times the vehicle is being operated. When your mirrors are not deployed, the requisite field of view would not be provided.

3. To deploy both mirrors simultaneously, you suggest that the driver would activate the emergency lights. The emergency lights are designed for emergencies. S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, prohibits installing motor vehicle equipment (including mirrors) that impair the effectiveness of the emergency flashers. We would consider a mirror system that requires non-emergency use of the emergency lights to impair the effectiveness of the lights, because other vehicles would not know whether there was an emergency or if the driver just wanted to deploy both mirrors to look around.

4. We also note a concern with Illustrations F and G. These depict the mirror position in the front left and right corners of the vehicle. We note that a mirror of unit magnification so far in front of the driver would have to be fairly large (possibly obscuring the driver's forward view of the road) in order to provide the required field of view. It would also have the potential to inflict injuries on pedestrians, being larger and at the front.

I would like to reiterate some of the information contained in our December 11, 1995 letter, because it also applies to your mirror inventions. The manufacturer of these mirrors would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Other legal requirements would apply depending on how your product would be marketed. Since your mirrors would not comply with FMVSS No. 111, they could not be installed on new vehicles to meet the standard=s requirements for mirrors. Similarly, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair business could not install your mirror on used vehicles to replace the original mirrors. While we do not prohibit individual vehicle owners from modifying their own vehicles in any manner, we encourage owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your mirrors would be permitted.

Regarding your request for funds, NHTSA's Office of Crash Avoidance Research does not have a grant or contract program to help inventors develop or market their inventions. Our vehicle research efforts are primarily directed toward obtaining technical data to support the development of motor vehicle standards. Your submission has been reviewed by the staff in that office and there are no funds available from this agency for development of your mirror inventions.

Since you have given so much thought to mirror-related safety, you may be interested in knowing about an upcoming public meeting on the subject of mirrors. It will be on March 13, 1996, in Detroit, and I have enclosed a copy of the meeting notice in case you want to go. Even if you cannot attend the meeting, there will be a public docket where you can send your written comments.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:111#108 d:3/6/96

ID: 1124

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a `Petition for Change of FMVSS #108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inches. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for

turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On September 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:9/20/95

ID: 11240-2PJA

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your September 20, 1995, letter asking three questions about school bus requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release.

Your first question is whether, under NHTSA's May 9, 1995, final rule amending FMVSS No. 217, a left side exit door would have to meet the emergency exit location requirements if there were also two exit windows that by themselves satisfy the additional exit requirement of Table 1. The answer is no. Table 1 requires buses with a seating capacity of 46 or larger to have as additional emergency exits "1 left side exit door or two exit windows" (emphasis added). The word "or" indicates that either is sufficient. Therefore, if both a door and two exit windows are provided, the manufacturer could designate either as satisfying the requirements, and the other would not be required to meet the location requirement. Section S5.2.3.2(a)(2)'s location requirement is explicitly limited in scope to only "the first side emergency exit door installed pursuant to Table 1." (emphasis added). Additional exit doors beyond those required would not be considered to be installed pursuant to Table 1.

Standard No. 217 formerly contained a provision requiring that emergency exits installed in addition to what is required for school buses have to meet the requirements for emergency exits from non-school buses. This requirement was dropped from the standard on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871). We note, however, that in an emergency, the extra emergency exit could be the exit

of choice by some occupants. To avoid confusion, the force and motion needed to open the exit should be consistent with the other emergency exits.

Further, the voluntarily installed side exit doors would still be subject to prohibitions and requirements that apply to side exit doors generally. For example, S5.2.3.2(a)(4) prohibits installing two side exit doors "in whole or in part, within the same post and roof bow panel space." In addition, section S5.2.3.2(a)(1) requires "each" side exit door to be hinged on its forward side (not merely those doors installed pursuant to Table 1).

If windows are used to comply with the additional emergency exit requirements of Table 1, they should be located in the same place as the emergency exit door would have been, "as near as practical to the mid-point of the passenger compartment." See the attached August 4, 1995, interpretation letter that NHTSA sent to Thomas Built Buses on this subject.

Your second question concerns the language in S5.2.3.2(c) of the same final rule stating that "[s]chool buses shall not be equipped with horizontally-sliding emergency exit windows." Blue Bird sells some buses with windows that have sections that slide horizontally to provide ventilation, but also push out to create an emergency exit opening. You were concerned that the literal language of the final rule would prohibit these windows because they are emergency exit windows and they slide horizontally. Instead, your understanding is that the language "horizontally-sliding emergency exit windows" was intended to mean "windows that create the exit opening by sliding horizontally."

Your understanding is correct, because NHTSA does not prohibit horizontally-sliding windows generally. There are no safety concerns about horizontally-sliding emergency exit windows that do not apply to other windows in the school bus, unless the window is opened horizontally to its wider, emergency exit-size opening.

Your third question concerns the requirement in the May 9, 1995, final rule that "[i]n the case of windows with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two force applications to release the exit." This language first appeared in a November 2, 1992, final rule. NHTSA acknowledged in a June 13, 1994, interpretation letter that the language was incorrect and should have read "[i]n the case of windows with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open." (emphasis added). The June 13 interpretation stated NHTSA's intention not to enforce the rule so long as the exit requires two force applications to open, and to issue a correction notice in the future. The language was unfortunately repeated in the May 9, 1995, final rule, but the June 13 interpretation still reflects the agency's position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at 202-366-5260.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:217 d:3/20/96

ID: 11241

Mr. Richard P. Cuvala
Trix Mfg. Co. Inc.
500 W. Irving Pk. Rd.
Bensenville, IL 60106

Dear Mr. Cuvala:

This responds to your letter of September 10, 1995, concerning "conference and display vehicles" you have been asked to manufacture for a client. The vehicles used are cargo vans with a gross vehicle weight rating of 9200 pounds. You convert the cargo area of the van to a product display and conference area. Your letter contained an illustration of the vehicle, indicating an L-shaped seating area behind the driver and front passenger seats. Your letter states that this area is not intended for transport of people. You asked whether such a vehicle must comply with "seating and occupant orientation and restraint directives." As explained below, the seats in such a vehicle would have to comply with federal standards on seats and seat belts if the modification is done prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards prior to their sale or import. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.

Conversion Prior to Sale

Your letter does not state whether the conversion of the cargo area of these vehicles is done before or after the first retail sale of the vehicles. Prior to the first retail sale of a vehicle, the vehicle is considered to be "new." If the conversion is done prior to the first retail sale, your company would be considered an "alterer" under our regulations. A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards (49 CFR '567.7).

The seats in a new vehicle must comply with federal regulations if they are "designated seating positions." A "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion.

While you indicate that the vehicles are not intended to transport people except in the front seats, the design of the seating area is similar to other vehicle seats. Therefore, it appears from their design that these seats are likely to be used and are therefore designated seating positions.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be relevant to seats in these vehicles: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302).

Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain limited exceptions not relevant to your conversion, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Standard No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation to minimize the possibility of their failure in a crash. Standard No. 207 does not require a specific orientation for seats. However, some of the requirements are different for side- and rear-facing seats like those illustrated in your attachment.

Standard No. 208 specifies seat belt requirements for seating positions in vehicles. For the seats in the rear of your vehicles, Standard No. 208 would require lap belts at each designated seating position. Standard No. 210 specifies performance requirements for seat belt anchorages. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the interior of motor vehicles. Standard No. 302 would affect not only the seats, but also installation of other materials in these vehicles.

Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, the manufacturer is required to certify that the seat belts comply with Standard No. 209. If you do not manufacture the seat belts yourself, you should install only belts certified by their manufacturer. This is true regardless of whether the conversion occurs before or after the first sale of the vehicle.

Conversion After Sale

If the conversion is done on a used motor vehicle, you do not have to certify that the vehicle complies with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302. However, 49 USC '30122 provides, in pertinent part:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or 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. . . .

Thus, you could not convert these vehicles if the conversion affected a device or element of design, installed prior to sale, so as to cause the vehicles to no longer comply with any of the safety standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:207#208#209#210#302 d:12/8/95