ID: 22044

Mr. Matthias Friedrich
Managing Director
Van Riesen GmbH+CoKG
IndustriestraBe 10
D-32130 Enger
Denmark





Dear Mr. Friedrich:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the buckle release on your child restraint system meets the area requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." The answer is no.

S5.4.3.5(c) of Standard No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 ( 571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for push button application shall be 0.6 square inch." You state that your buckle release design would meet this requirement if we add the "press" area (0.39 square inch) of the release button to the bottom area (0.23 square inch) of the release button.

We do not consider your buckle release to be designed for push button application because a sliding action activates the buckle release. In fact, it is apparent from your letter that you concur that the buckle release is not of a push button type. You state in your letter: "The button is not a push-button as described in the FMVSS-standard, [sic] it is as [sic] slide action release button . . . ." Since your buckle release is not designed for push button application, the 0.6 square inch minimum surface area requirement in S5.4.3.5(c) does not apply.

S4.3(d)(2) of Standard No. 209 reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.

(Emphasis added.)

Because your buckle release is designed for slide application rather than push button or lever application, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category. Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), it must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release. None of our staff working on this response was able to place two fingers into your slide action release button to actuate release, and you do not claim otherwise. Thus, we do not agree that your buckle release meets the requirement of S4.3(d)(2).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#209
d.2/6/01

ID: 22052

Mr. Wade Vandiver
Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering
400 Two Allen Center
1200 Smith Street
Houston, TX 77002





Dear Mr. Vandiver:

This responds to your letter in which you request information on Federal seat belt regulations. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your letter raises the issue of whether Federal law requires a person who is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business and who installs temporary benches in the bed of a used pickup truck to equip each seating position with a seat belt. As discussed below, the answer is no.

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 1988 pickup trucks to have a Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing front outboard designated seating position, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other designated seating positions.

NHTSA's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Since the benches were installed in the pickup bed after the first purchase of the vehicle, Standard No. 208 does not apply directly to those benches. However, 49 U.S.C. 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.

Section 30122(b) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Accordingly, looking at the specific factual situation identified by your letter, modifications made by a contractor who has been provided a vehicle for the contractor's sole use and operation are not subject to the provisions of this section .

As I am sure you are aware, however, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles and the operation of these vehicles. We offer no view on the impact of such State laws or whether they would apply to the operation of vehicles off of public roadways. Therefore, you should determine if any state laws govern this particular modification. In addition, while Federal law does not apply to a modification an individual makes to his or her own vehicle, NHTSA urges vehicle owners to exercise care when installing new seats, and to install seat belts for each seating position.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke in NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.4/26/01

ID: 22054.drn

Vincent P. Schulze, Chief
Commercial Bus Inspection and Investigation
State of New Jersey Department of Transportation
Division of Motor Vehicles
P.O. Box 160
Trenton, NJ 08666-0160






Dear Mr. Schulze:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 2000, to Mr. Chris Rotondo, of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) concerning test procedures for bus windows. Because you had questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, which is administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), I have been asked to respond.

In your letter, you state that New Jersey State bus investigators are issuing summonses for safety violations during roadside bus safety inspections. The summonses are issued under the guidelines of a New Jersey statute, the "Bus Safety Compliance Act." One serious violation for which bus operators may be cited is "inoperable emergency exit windows." In your letter, you write:

However, it appears that the lawyers may have found a loophole to have most of these summonses thrown out of court (not guilty) due to a technicality in the Federal regulations that govern the operation of emergency exits. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 217, under Test Conditions, part S6.2 states: "The inside of the vehicle and the outside environment are kept at any temperature from 70 degrees to 85 degrees immediately preceding the tests, and during the tests."

Apparently, a bus company attorney has successfully argued in a New Jersey state court that the New Jersey Department of Transportation did not meet the test conditions specified in Standard No. 217 because it inspected the bus when the outside temperature was below 70 degrees. You are writing for clarification of S6 "Test conditions" in Standard No. 217.

Some background information about NHTSA's statutory authority may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling a new motor vehicle to sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Each manufacturer of a new bus must assure that the bus meets all applicable FMVSSs, including Standard No. 217. Section 30112 does not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale." 49 U.S.C. 30112(b). Nor does it govern operational requirements for vehicles, which are generally established by the States and, for certain trucks, buses, and commercial vehicles, by the FMCSA.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111(a), all FMVSSs must "be stated in objective terms." For this reason, NHTSA includes test procedures in each of its FMVSSs so that manufacturers will be aware of the manner in which NHTSA will conduct its compliance tests. The provision of S6.2 quoted in your letter simply specifies the range of temperatures at which our compliance tests will be conducted, to ensure that the tests are conducted as uniformly and objectively as possible. The specification of test temperatures does not mean that emergency exits are only required to open when the ambient temperature is between 70 and 85 degrees.

We agree with you that the emergency exits should be operable under all the driving conditions to which a bus could be subjected. However, as stated above, this is a matter governed by State law, not by the NHTSA standard. Unless New Jersey has specifically incorporated Standard No. 217 in its entirety, including its test procedures, into its operational requirements, we see no reason why law enforcement officials in New Jersey would only be able to issue citations for inoperable emergency exit windows if they showed that the windows did not function properly within the temperature range specified in the NHTSA standard.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

cc:	Peter Chandler, Transportation Specialist FMCSA Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations 400 Seventh Street, SW Room 3419 Washington, DC 20590

ref:217
d.9/29/00

ID: 22058

Mr. Bob Snyder
Vice President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
424 Fourth Street, Suite C
Annapolis, MD 21403





Dear Mr. Snyder:

This responds to your letter asking about the audible seat belt warning requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response. Specifically, you ask the following questions:

1. Are vehicles allowed to have an intermittent audible warning longer than 8 seconds if a front seat occupant (driver or passenger) does not buckle his or her seat belt?
2. If so, when did the requirement change to allow an intermittent audible warning longer than 8 seconds?
3. Can the intermittent audible warning remain on indefinitely if the seat belt is not buckled?
4. Are continuous audible warnings allowed indefinitely?
5. What were the differences in the audible requirements for automatic and manual seat belt systems?

You asked your questions in the context of an article you read about Ford's "Belt-Minder" device. The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

Paragraph S7.3 has long required that the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

To meet this requirement, a manufacturer must provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that lasts for a period no shorter than 4 seconds and no longer than 8 seconds. The issue raised by your letter is whether a manufacturer that meets this requirement may also voluntarily provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that sounds outside the required 4-8 second period.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that a manufacturer may voluntarily provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that sounds outside the required period. However, as we discuss below, some means must be provided for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal.

We note that the 8-second limitation on the audible signal required by paragraph S7.3 reflects a statutory requirement. 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by . . . using . . . a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position." Congress enacted the predecessor to this provision in 1974 as part of legislation responding to public resistance to seat belt interlock systems, which prevented a vehicle from starting unless its seat belts were fastened. The Conference Report noted that the legislation prohibited the establishment of a continuous buzzer (one longer than 8 seconds) "as a mandatory or optional motor vehicle safety standard." See House Report 93-14521, pp. 44-45.

Given this statutory provision, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have the authority to require, or specify as a compliance option, an audible seatbelt warning that sounds outside the specified 8 second period. However, the statute does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from voluntarily providing audible signals that sound outside that period. Nor do we believe it appropriate to interpret Standard No. 208 to prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily providing audible signals outside that period. We note that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are "minimum standards," and manufacturers are permitted to go beyond the requirements of a standard. Moreover, we believe that Congress, in prohibiting this agency from specifying an audible seat belt warning longer than 8 seconds as a requirement or as an option, wanted to ensure that the Federal government would not be in the position of requiring or inducing vehicle manufacturers to provide a device that was unduly annoying or irritating to vehicle occupants, even though such a device might provide safety benefits. This does not, however, mean that vehicle manufacturers should be precluded from providing audible seat belt warning devices that sound outside the 8 second period that provide safety benefits without being unduly annoying or irritating.

Given Standard No. 208's requirement that the required seat belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Such differentiation could be provided in various ways, e.g., by time (the voluntarily provided signal begins well after the required signal ends) or sound (the voluntarily provided signal has a different sound than the required signal).

I believe the above discussion is responsive to your first four questions. You also asked about the differences in the audible signal requirements for automatic and manual seat belt systems. However, you did not explain what sort of differences you are interested in. I note that the warning requirements for automatic seat belts may be found in paragraph S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208. While there are a variety of differences between S7.3 and S4.5.3.3, both paragraphs require activation, under specified circumstances, of a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

Finally, I note that in a letter to Joseph W. Phebus, Esq., dated August 7, 1996, we took the position, in the context of S4.5.3.3, that a chime that sounded at intervals of one minute if the belt is not buckled would not be permitted, given the requirement that the required audible signal may not be activated for a period of more than 8 seconds. For the reasons discussed above, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.5/25/01

ID: 22060.ztv

Mr. Joel Martin
Malaguti USA
7368 NW 12^th St.
Miami, FL 33126





Dear Mr. Martin:

This is in reply to your undated fax to George Entwistle of this agency, received in August 2000, asking three questions about motorcycle importers.

These questions are:

"1.   Does NHTSA prefer one importer per brand or does it allow several importers to bring in the brand from the same foreign manufacturer."

The foreign manufacturer determines the number of importers of its product. The manufacturer does not consult with NHTSA on this matter, and NHTSA has no preference.

"2.   Second if testing for the importation of a motorcycle was paid for and done by one importer would another importer be allowed to use the same test results in order to verify compliance? In the case of the second importer would they have to provide their own test results if the first set of tests was privately owned and commissioned by the first importer?"

We are unsure of the basis for your question. A motorcycle, like other motor vehicles, must be manufactured to comply and be certified by its manufacturer, through a plate affixed to the vehicle, as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported into the United States. If the motorcycle is certified by its manufacturer, no further testing by any importer is required. If the motorcycle is not certified, it can only be imported for resale by a registered importer pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 591-594, after we have determined that the motorcycle is capable of being modified to comply with the applicable FMVSS.

We can interpret your question two ways. If the first importer conducts tests on behalf of the foreign manufacturer who then certifies its product on the basis of these tests before the vehicle is imported into the United States, a second importer does not have to test the product.

Our alternative response to your question assumes that the foreign manufacturer of the motorcycle has not certified it as meeting the FMVSS, that both importers have registered as importers under 49 CFR Part 592, and that we have decided, on the basis of a petition submitted by the first importer, as provided in 49 CFR Part 593, that the motorcycle is capable of being modified to meet all applicable FMVSS. As importers of motor vehicles for resale, each registered importer of the motorcycles becomes a "manufacturer" under our laws, responsible for compliance, certification, and notification and remedy when safety recalls are required. In filing its capability petition, a registered importer must establish the technical feasibility of modifying a vehicle to conform, but need not disclose the exact methods it will use to conform the vehicle. The information accompanying the petition is available in a public docket, and only rarely does a petitioner ask that portions of it be withheld from disclosure as confidential business information. To the extent that the first importer has disclosed conformance methods in the publicly available materials, a second importer may use this information in its own conformance operations without further testing.

In addition to affixing its certification label to a vehicle, a registered importer must also "certify" compliance to NHTSA, submitting information which may disclose the tests it conducted in conforming the vehicle. These submittals are not in a public docket and may be treated as confidential business information which is not available to other registered importers of the same vehicle. If the first importer chooses not to share test data and compliance methods with the second importer on a contractual or other basis, the second importer must independently develop its own conformance methods to assure the validity of its certification of the vehicle and to NHTSA.

"3.   I have noticed that there are three importers for the scooter brand Derbi in the United States, but that all three carry different lines of product from the same manufacturer. * * * Is this because of an NHTSA guideline for multiple importers for the same product?"

No. NHTSA has no "guidelines for multiple importers for the same product." In this instance, the manufacturer appears to have different agreements with each of the three importers of its products.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:592
d.11/9/00

ID: 2855yy

William J. Bethurum, Esq.
Patent Attorney
Jefferson Place - Suite 302
350 North Ninth Street
Boise, Idaho 83702

Dear Mr. Bethurum:

Your letter of December 14, 1990, to the "U.S. National Highway Safety Commission" for reply. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is the Federal agency responsible for establishing and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your client, Mr. E.D. Farnsworth, has asked about "when and how side lights adjacent to the main head lights came to be first used with head lights on automobiles." You have, in turn, asked to be apprised of the regulations which govern new headlamp designs for automobiles and other motor vehicles.

The Federal regulations that apply to motor vehicle headlamps are found in 49 C.F.R. 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The current version of the CFR volume (Parts 400 to 999) containing that standard is updated to October 1, l990.

We are uncertain as to what you mean by "side lights adjacent to the main head lights". Standard No. l08 requires amber or white parking lamps on the front of passenger cars and other types of motor vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, amber turn signal lamps, and amber front side marker lamps. Other types of lamps that are sometimes found on the front, and on the side at the front, are fog lamps and cornering lamps. They are not required by Standard No. l08, and are permissible as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard.

Standard No. l08, which has been in effect for passenger cars since January l, l969 (the mandatory requirement for a side marker lamp replaced the earlier provision giving manufacturers a choice of lamp or reflector effective January 1, l970), has always prescribed lamp location in general terms. Thus, parking lamps and headlamps are to be installed "at the front" and "as far apart as practicable" (Table IV of Standard No. l08). Similarly, turn signals are to be located "at or near the front" and "as far apart as practicable." Amber side marker lamps are to be on the side but placed "as far to the front as practicable." Because Standard No. l08 does not otherwise specify lamp location, we surmise that the head lamp and adjacent side lamp relationship to which you refer resulted from the choice of the vehicle manufacturer within the overall general parameters of the Federal specifications.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:2/26/9l

ID: 2856o

Mr. Wayne Apple
14738 Bronson Avenue
San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1987, in which you ask whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-turn indicator. However, a U-turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the importance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. l08 does not cover a U-turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment that was installed pursuant to Standard No. l08. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) The legality of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 120l Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the general type of crash for which U-turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-turn crashes is substantially less than the 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles. We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing our Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

ref:108 d:4/18/88

ID: 2856yy

State Representative Jim Holperin
34th Assembly District
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708

Dear Mr. Holperin:

This is in reply to your letter of January 3, l99l, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, on behalf of your constitutent LeRoy E. Mueller. Mr. Mueller is a manufacturer of trailers, and is concerned that if he builds certain tilt deck trailers to specifications they will fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. Specifically, a stationary ramp "might obscure a clear view of the trailer's tail lights from a 45 degree angle . . . ." You have asked whether his concern "regarding an obstructed view of the tail light" is a legitimate one.

As Mr. Mueller indicates, Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, incorporates by reference SAE Standard J585e, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), Sept. 1977, which applies to trailers. This standard requires that "Signal from lamps on both side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right." The SAE standard further specifies that "To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." We note that stop lamps and rear turn signal lamps must also meet this requirement.

You have enclosed a photocopy of a photograph of the rear of a trailer taken from what we assume represents a 45 degree angle to the left of the horizontal centerline of the trailer. Certain lamps, visible from another photocopy of a picture taken on the centerline, appear to be obscured at the 45 degree angle. Thus, it appears that Mr. Mueller's concern to be a legitimate one. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine whether his vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to ensure that it does before affixing a certification of compliance to it upon completion of its manufacture. If this agency has reason to believe that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment has been manufactured and/or certified in violation of the Vehicle Safety Act, this agency conducts an investigation and, if appropriate, an enforcement action.

However, we would like to point out that if trailer equipment prevents compliance of a required lamp, like a tail lamp, with any of Standard No. l08's requirements, paragraph S5.3.1.1 of the standard permits a manufacturer to install an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's requirements.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:2/26/9l

ID: 2857o

Mr. Troy C. Martin
Specifications/Inspections Chief
Texas State Purchasing & General Service
Commission
Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Bldg.
P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is a response to your letter of last year where you stated your concern respecting the installation of "latches" on the rear doors of a school bus of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR (small school bus), and asked a number of questions on release mechanisms for required rear emergency doors on these small school buses. I regret the delay in this response.

You said that the State of Texas has a school bus specification that requires "the first-closed (left-hand) door)" to have a latching mechanism at the top and bottom. Your supplier tells you that this specification conflicts with provisions of Federal safety standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (Standard 217). You go on to express your concern that a single mechanism would hold both doors closed, and that this feature increases the risk of injury from accidental or intentional opening. You believe that where a small school bus has two rear doors, if each door is secured independently, then there is a decreased risk of a student's falling through a door opened inadvertently.

Let me begin my answer with some general information on the requirement for a rear emergency door in a small school bus. As your supplier suggests, there can be instances where independently securing the rear doors on a small school bus would violate Standard 217. Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires a manufacturer of these buses to install either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) one emergency door on the vehicle's left side and one push-out rear window. Where a manufacturer chooses to meet this requirement by installing one rear emergency door, the door may be hinged on either side of the vehicle.

When a manufacturer installs more than one rear door exit, the question of whether both exits are "emergency doors" under paragraph S5.2.3.1 of Standard 217 depends upon whether one or both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of a specified parallelepiped under paragraph S5.4.2.2. The purpose of the school bus emergency exit requirements is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency. (44 FR 7961, 7962, February 8, 1979.)

Question 1: Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217?

If a manufacturer installs more than one rear door on a small school bus, and intends one door to be a rear emergency door under S5.2.3.1 and one to be a regular door for loading and unloading passengers, then the designated rear emergency door is a sufficient rear emergency exit so long as it will permit unobstructed passage of the device specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2 of the Standard. In a case such as this one, the manufacturer must label the emergency door appropriately, and otherwise ensure that the designated rear emergency door meets the performance, accessibility, and release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus.

On the other hand, if the manufacturer installs two rear doors on a small school bus, and if both of those doors must be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, then both doors constitute a rear emergency exit under S5.2.3.1. In this case, the two doors together must meet the applicable provisions of Standard 217.

There is yet another possibility that a manufacturer may install a second rear exit and designate it as an emergency exit. Assuming that at least one exit meets Standard 217's requirements for a rear emergency door exit, NHTSA would not prohibit installing this additional emergency exit. However, as the agency long has held, that "extra" emergency exit must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Question 2: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require separate, independent operation; that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

Again, the answer to this question depends upon whether one door can meet the unobstructed test measurement for a required rear emergency door. Let me begin this answer by explaining the release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus.

Under paragraph S5.3.3, a required small school bus rear emergency door generally must have a release mechanism that allows (1) a single person (2) to operate the door manually (3) from in or outside the vehicle's passenger compartment without the use of remote controls or tools (4) irrespective of whether the vehicle's power system fails. (Paragraph S5.3.3 also sets the maximum permissible magnitude of force and the permissible direction in which a force must be applied to operate the release mechanism.)

In an interpretation of March 17, 1982, this agency stated that the release mechanism is the mechanism that keeps the door from opening. In other words, the release mechanism is what you refer to in your letter as the door "latch." If the test device described in my answer to your first question passes through unobstructed only when both doors are open, then the door release mechanism must be operable for both doors from inside the vehicle passenger compartment irrespective of whether a person outside the vehicle operates the outside release mechanism. Further, this same release mechanism must be operable from outside the vehicle. In this circumstance, a separate release mechanism for each door would not comply with the Standard.

If only one door needs to be open, and the manufacturer has designated the second door as an emergency exit, then this additional emergency door still must be operable from inside the passenger compartment. In this case, independent release mechanisms may be appropriate, but a release mechanism on an additional emergency exit need not be operable from outside the vehicle. (S5.3.2.)

If only one door needs to be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, and the manufacturer neither intends the second door to be an emergency door, nor designates it as an emergency exit, then the second door is a regular door for loading and unloading passengers. Standard 217 would be inapplicable to this second door.

Question 3: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened to insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelepiped?

If both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of the specified parallelepiped, then there must be a single emergency release mechanism (or latch) for both doors. In a case such as this, there must be an audible alarm under S5.3.3 whenever the release mechanism is not closed and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." That alarm should sound if either door is unsecured.

Question 4: Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelepiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand door closed?

In your question, the manufacturer may designate either door as the required S5.2.3.1 emergency exit if the door accommodates the test device. The warning system then must sound when the release mechanism on the designated rear emergency door is open and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." For example, if in your question, the manufacturer designated the right-hand door as the required rear door emergency exit, then the warning system must sound whenever the release mechanism for that door is open and the vehicle ignition position is "on." As I stated in Question 1, the second rear door could be an "additional" emergency exit, or a regular means for loading and unloading passengers; then the additional door would have to meet such other requirements as may apply to these exits.

Question 5: Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelepiped even though the left-hand door is close by the latches of the right-hand door?

In this circumstance, Standard 217 would prohibit installing a separate release mechanism on each door. Recall that S5.2.3.1 requires on a small school bus, "one rear emergency door," or one side door and one push-out window. If the manufacturer chooses to install the rear emergency door, then under S5.4.2.2, the specified parallelepiped must pass through that rear emergency door without obstruction. If both doors must be open to accommodate the test device, then both doors constitute the single, rear emergency door which the Standard requires. Under paragraph S5.3.3, the required rear emergency door must have its own release mechanism.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:4/29/88

ID: 2857yy

Mr. Terry Rowe
President
Show Trucks U.S.A., Inc.
114 National Drive
Rockwall, Texas 75087

Dear Mr. Rowe:

This responds to your letter asking whether your company would be considered a vehicle "alterer," within the meaning of 49 CFR Part 567 Certification, and Part 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. I apologize for the delay in this response. Based on the statements in your letter that your company modifies only new vehicles before delivery to customers and that the modifications performed by your company do not affect the vehicles' gross axle or gross vehicle weight ratings, your company would be considered an "alterer," and would be subject to additional certification requirements, if the modifications involve something more than the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable" components. A more complete explanation of your responsibilities under NHTSA's laws and regulations follows.

567.7 imposes additional certification requirements on "a person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ..." You stated in your letter that your company can provide features such as a 3-piece seating system, removable headrest, custom walnut steering wheel, and tinted windows. Your company is an "alterer" subject to the requirements of 567.7 to the extent that your modifications do not involve "readily attachable" components.

A determination of whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching these components. To ascertain whether the installation involves "readily attachable" components, the agency in the past has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. Absent extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats, headrests, and steering wheels to involve "readily attachable" components. To the extent your company is involved in such modifications, then, it would have to affix an additional certification label pursuant to 567.7. Further, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and remedy for defects or noncompliances with the safety standards, and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

You should also note that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act sets forth certain prohibitions and requirements that would apply to these vehicle modifications, even if the modifications involved only "readily attachable" components. For example, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce or importation of any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This provision of Federal law means that all of the vehicles modified by your company must continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after the modifications have been made. In addition, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly "render inoperative," in whole or in part, 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.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. Again I apologize for the delay in this response. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of may staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#567 d:3/7/9l