ID: aiam0833

Dear Mr. Graham: This is in reply to your letter of August 25, 1972, concerning th application of section S4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 to a folding dinette seat manufactured by your company for use in recreational vehicles.; The seat you describe has a back that folds flat to make a bed. A sea back that travels through such a large arc does not fall within the limited exceptions provided in S4.3 for a 'back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants,' and it must therefore be equipped with a restraining device conforming to S4.3. The quoted language applies to the type of seat whose back is adjustable through a few degrees of arc to provide a variety of riding positions for persons of different sizes and postures. A seat back that folds to the point where it no longer restrains the longitudinal motion of the occupant is required to have a device that prevents it from assuming that position accidentally.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4870

"Dear Mr. Wakamatsu: This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter t Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for 'derating' the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request. NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR 'shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles. I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0560

Dear Mr. Tatarski: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1971, to Lawrence R Schneider requesting an interpretation on the mounting of front identification lamps.; Standard No. 108 requires that identification lamps be mounted 'a close as practicable to the top of the vehicle' (Table II). The 'vehicle' is the vehicle as completed, and not the incomplete vehicle. Therefore, if the 'top' of the vehicle, *i*.*e*., the highest point, is a location other than the cab, the identification lamps must be mounted at the 'top', and not on the cab, if it is practicable to do so. Generally, manufacturers of van-body vehicles have found it practicable to mount identification lamps on the van body. Modified lighting diagram O-1 which you enclosed originally depicted the correct location of identification lamps for a truck with a van body.; If the manufacturer of the cab portion of a truck has place identification lamps on the cab, the lamps need not be removed when the lamps necessary for conformance are added at the 'top.'; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5298

Dear Mr. McCue: This responds to your letter to Mr. Ed Jettner of thi agency concerning an occupant restraint system you have developed to protect medics and attendants in the back of ambulances. I apologize for the delay in our response. The system consists of a vest worn by the attendant which is attached by a tether strap to the ambulance. During an August 23, 1993 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the tether straps include retractors which lock during a crash. During this phone call you also stated that the back vest can be attached to two tethers on the vehicle wall adjacent to the bench seat, and that the front of the vest is attached to another tether on the opposite wall. You asked for advice on 'how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish three safety standards that may be relevant to a vest and tether system for ambulance attendants. The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Ambulances, which are classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles under our regulations, are required to have safety belts at each designated seating position. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, including ambulances. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standards No. 208 and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, is responsible for certifying compliance to these standards. Standard No. 209, however, 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. Standard No. 209 defines a 'seat belt assembly' as 'any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle.' Thus, your vest and tether system would be considered a 'seat belt assembly,' and the manufacturer of the system would be required to certify that it complies with Standard No. 209 before it could be sold. If the vest and tether system was installed as original equipment by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable safety standards with that equipment installed in the vehicle. If the device was added to a new ambulance prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. I note that in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, you stated that your ambulances do have safety belts on the bench seat, however, these do not provide the mobility needed by the attendants when they are caring for a patient. It is our understanding that you intend the vest and tether system to supplement the original safety belts. If your vest and tether system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts. After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section 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 provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing your system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in your system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. The render inoperative provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law. In addition to certifying that your vest and tether system complies with Standard No. 209, I urge you to exercise care in evaluating how effective this system would be in an actual crash situation. The original belt system supplied with the vehicle limits the motion of the occupant by keeping the occupant attached to the seat. Your system would have a dual purpose: allowing the attendant sufficient mobility to care for a patient and protecting the attendant in a crash. The tether on your system will not achieve this second purpose if it allows too much motion within the compartment. You may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business. I also note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5332

"Dear Mr. Mason: This responds to your request for an interpretation o labeling requirements under 49 CFR part 541 Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard. Your letter has been referred to my office for a reply. You asked whether a label that leaves a fluorescent 'footprint' of a vehicle identification number (VIN) on a vehicle part, complies with section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) of part 541. The answer is yes. Section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires that if a theft program label is removed from a vehicle part, 'residual parts of the label' be left in the area of the part where the label was affixed. The residual parts, also known as 'footprints,' provide investigators evidence that a label was originally present. 'Footprint' requirements for theft labels were discussed in the preamble to the final rule establishing 49 CFR part 541 (See 50 FR 43166, at 43174, October 24, 1985): ... this standard requires only that removal of the labels must leave residual parts of the label ... , on the part, and that these residual parts must be discernible by trained investigators. For purposes of this requirement, 'discernible' does not mean that residual parts must be visible under natural light. (50 FR 43174) In your letter, you stated that Avery Dennison's VIN marked labels have a fluorescent agent that transfers onto vehicle parts when the label is applied. If the label is removed, and the formerly labelled area is viewed under an ultraviolet light, a reproduction of the VIN is visible. If the labels, when removed, leave 'residual part s of the label ... on the part' that is 'discernible' under ultraviolet light, the Avery Dennison label would fulfill section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B). I hope this responds to your question. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0130

Dear Mr. Wuddel: Thank you for your letter of February 11, 1969, to Mr. David A. Fay concerning your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 108.; Subsection (d) of Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966 states 'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item or equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard...'; Since Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is now in effect and permits red or amber rear turn signal lamps, the States cannot restrict these lamps to be red only.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam3931

Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your February 13, 1985 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting clarification of the agency's definition of a bus. A 'bus' is defined in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.3) as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' You asked whether a vehicle's classification under our regulation is based on the seating capacity of the vehicle as designed, which may vary, or the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act require manufacturers to certify that their vehicles as manufactured, comply with our safety standards. Thus, the agency uses the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured to determine the classification of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. 'Designated seating position' is defined in S571.3 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 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....' Consistent with this definition, we have also counted positions designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Under our regulations, a vehicle having a total of more than 10 designated seating positions and wheel chair positions is a bus and a vehicle having a total of 10 or less positions is either a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV).; The vehicles you manufacture must be certified as meeting all th standards applicable to those vehicle types. For example, you must certify your MPV's as complying with all the safety standards applicable to MPV's. You may also voluntarily manufacture a MPV in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.; In the materials you enclosed with your letter, you indicate that som of the vehicles you manufacture are equipped with wheelchair lifts. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a final rule recently published in the Federal Register (50 FR 12029, March 27, 1985) amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components* to exclude doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and audible or visual alarms from the requirements of the Standard.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K-D Lamp Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION

NOA-30

Mr. Chris Tuerck Assistant Chief Engineer K-D Lamp Company 1910 Elm Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45210

Dear Mr. Tuerck:

This responds to your letter asking whether your sample turn signal and hazard switch design complies with the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Your letter states that the switch is used primarily on Class 7 and Class 8 trucks and truck tractors. We therefore assume that it would only be used on trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more. We make that assumption because Standard No. 101-80 includes requirements for a vehicle's displays in addition to its controls if it has a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, it is our opinion that the sample switch does comply with the labeling requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

The sample turn signal and hazard switch is designed to be clamped onto a vehicle's steering column to the left of the driver and looks something like a box. We assume that the box is to be installed so that the side of the box which has two pushbuttons on it, marked 'R' and 'L,' is on the left. Pressing the 'R' pushbutton, which is located toward the back, activates the right turn signal. Pressing the 'L' pushbutton, which is located toward the front, activates the left turn signal. Both buttons must be pushed simultaneously for the hazard warning signal.

Most of the identification for the switch is located on top of the box. Just above the right turn pushbutton is a thick black arrow pointing to the right. Just above the left turn pushbutton is a thick black arrow pointing to the left. Above each pushbutton there is also a triangle outlined in black, i.e., the hazard warning symbol specified by Table 1 of Standard No. 101-80. Between those identifications is located a pushbutton, identified by the use of both words and symbols, which clears the turn signals or hazard warning signal. The top of the box also includes three jewel-type pilot indicators which indicate when the turn signals or hazard warning signal are activated and additional labeling explaining the method of operation for the hazard warning signal.

Section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 101-80 states in relevant part:

Vehicle controls shall be identified as follows:

(a) Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand-operated control listed in column 3 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol. Such a control may, in addition, be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Any such control for which no symbol is shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The identification shall, under the conditions of S6, be visible to the driver and, except as provided in S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.2, appear to the driver perceptually upright.

Both the turn signal and the hazard warning signal are listed in column 1 of Table 1 and have symbols designated in Column 3. Therefore, Standard No. 101-80 requires that those controls be identified by the designated symbols.

The primary issue raised by your design is whether the turn signal control symbol specified by Table 1, a pair of arrows, may be split where there are independent controls for the left and right turn signals. As explained below, it is our opinion that the pair of arrows may be split in that particular circumstance.

The symbol for the turn signal control is the same as the symbol specified by Table 2 for the turn signal display. A footnote to Table 2 explains that while the pair of arrows is a single symbol, the two arrows will be considered separate symbols when the indicators for the left and right turn operate independently and may be spaced accordingly.

Table 1 does not include that footnote for the turn signal control. A turn signal control would normally be expected to consist of one button or lever and would be required to be identified by the pair of arrows as one symbol. It is our interpretation, however, that the two arrows may be considered separate symbols where there are independent controls for the left and right turn signals, as in your sample switch. Separating the two arrows in such an instance has the advantage of indicating the direction of the signal activated by each pushbutton.

Table 2 also includes a footnote that indicates that the framed areas of the turn signal display symbol may be filled in. While Table 1 has a footnote that indicates that the framed areas of several symbols may be filled in, the turn signal control is not among those listed. It is our interpretation, however, in light of the footnote in Table 2, that a manufacturer may fill in the framed areas of the turn signal symbol whether it is used for a control or a display.

Thus, the symbols used on the sample switch for the turn signal controls are those specified by Standard No. 101-80.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 13, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

ATTH: Mr. Frank Berndt-Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is a request for a legal opinion regarding compliance of our Model KD723 Turn Signal and Hazard Switch with FMVSS 571.101-80 Controls and Displays. It is a push button switch of the clamp on style (see attached Instruction Sheet) and is used primarily on Class 7 and Class 8 trucks and truck tractors. This switch has been manufactured by K-D Lamp Co. for approximately twenty years and is specified by the McLean Trucking Co. on all their new truck tractors.

The push button design had led to some problems in marking the switch to meet 571.101-80 requirements. We had tried and discussed various designs of labels which would properly identify the various switch functions and had arrived at a design which we felt would be satisfactory. At about the same time an order was received from GMC Truck and Coach for their version of this switch. We discussed the label with their engineers and they in turn submitted the label design to their legal department for review. Their legal department was of the opinion that the label would bring our Model 723 switch into compliance with FMVSS 571.101-80.

There are three jewel type pilot indicators in the center of the cover. The two (2) outer indicators are green and meet the size (area of 3/16" dia. circle) and functional requirements of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps which is a part of FMVSS 108. The same green indicators also meet the requirement of flashing simultaneously when the hazard system is turned on as specified in SAE Standard J910 Hazard Warning Switch. This standard is also a part of FMVSS 108. This latter function agrees in part with Note 2 under Table 2 of FMVSS 571.101-80. The center pilot indicator is red and serves only as a delineator between the two green indicators.

Early this year I visited with Mr. John Carson, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Edward Glancy of your office to discuss the subject switch. They, quite properly did not offer any solutions for bringing the switch into compliance. They suggested that, when we developed a method and design for marking the switch, we send you all the pertinent information along with a print of the label and switch (print attached) and a sample switch with label to show the color scheme. They felt that the print and the sample switch would provide sufficient data so that your office could determine if the switch is in compliance with FMVSS 571.101-80. Under seperate cover we are sending the switch via UPS to your attention.

We apologize for being so late in requesting your opinion and respectfully ask that this matter be handled as expeditiously as possible since the final dead line of September 1,1981 is very near.

Sincerely,

Chris Tuerck Ass't. Chief Engineer

ID: 1982-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept. Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success, New York 11042

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether Michelin could use two different size codes in the tire identification number to identify tires of the same size. You asserted that this assignment of differing size codes would not impair Michelin's ability to conduct a recall of tires of that size, should such a recall be necessary. As long as Michelin maintains accurate records of the size codes assigned to the various tire sizes, it would be permissible to assign more than one size code to each tire size.

At the outset, it is important to note that the size code in the tire identification number is not the means used by the consumer to determine the size of the tires on his or her car. Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 and section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specify that the tire size designation must be labeled on both sidewalls. The size designation is the exact size and is not the same as the size code. To satisfy this requirement, Michelin should label all tires of the same size with just one size designation.

For purposes of record keeping, paragraph S574.5 requires that each tire be labeled with a tire identification number, and that this identification number contain four groupings of information. The first grouping is a symbol identifying the manufacturer (the symbol is assigned by this agency); the second grouping is a symbol identifying the tire size; the third grouping is an optional symbol containing further information on the specific characteristics of the tire; and the fourth grouping is a symbol identifying the week the tire was manufactured.

There is no requirement in Part 574 which prohibits more than one tire size code from being assigned to each tire size. Additionally, the purpose of the tire identification number requirements in Part 574 is to facilitate effective recalls of the tires from the public if those tires are found not to comply with an applicable safety standard or if the tires contain a safety-related defect. For tire manufacturers such as Michelin, this purpose is served by the requirement that the manufacturer keep records of the names and addresses of the initial purchaser of each of its tires for at least three years, as specified in paragraph S574.7. As you noted in your letter, this purpose would not be defeated if a manufacturer assigns more than one size code to a given tire size. Accordingly, a manufacturer may assign more than one size code in the tire identification number for a given tire size, since this is not specifically prohibited by Part 574 and does not conflict with the purpose of that Part.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

REF: PART 574

18 January 1982

General Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

This is to request an interpretation of Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping.

Paragraph R574.5(b) requires that the second group of two symbols be used to identify the tire size. In addition, it requires that each new tire manufacturer shall maintain a record of each symbol used with the corresponding matrix or tire size and shall provide such record to the NHTSA.

Circumstances have arisen that will require us to use a size code for particular tire sizes that will be different than the code used on other tires of the same size. In other words in some cases we will have two different size codes for tires of the same size. This will, in no way, prevent us from maintaining control of tire location and tire records as required by the standard. Nor would it interfere with our ability to effectively recall such tires if necessary.

We do not think that this would be in violation of the standard but respectfully request your confirmation.

Yours truly,

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

abb

ID: 1982-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transportation Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 17 1982

NOA-30

Mr. E. L. Anderson Project Engineer Transportation Products Inc. P.O. Box 329 Suffern, New York 10901

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your February 18, 1982, letter asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In particular, you question the requirement of section S5.3.3 which specifies that a continuous warning device shall sound when a school bus ignition is in the "on" position and the release mechanism for an emergency door is not closed. You ask whether depressing the button on the outside of the door should activate the warning device.

The actual requirement of S5.3.3 states that the warning device must be audible when the release mechanism is not in the closed position. The release mechanism is that mechanism that keeps the door from opening. So, for example, if the outside button were depressed but the actual door latch did not open and the door would not itself open, it would not be necessary for the warning device to actuate. However, I assume that the outside button releases the latch which in turn allows the door to open. If this is the case, then at the moment that the latch is released, the warning device must be audible. If this did not occur, it would be possible that the door could be in an open position with the vehicle operating and without the knowledge of the occupants.

I hope that this resolves the question for you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 18, 1982

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

We are requesting an interpretation of Paragraph S 5.3.3. of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217. The paragraph in question is: "When the release mechanism is not in the closed position and the vehicle ignition is in the "on" position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible at the driver's seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency door having the unclosed mechanism."

The standard two and three point locking mechanism used on our school buses complies with this paragraph. However, in compliance with a specific application for a customer, the van manufacturer's locking mechanism which consists of a push button outside the van body and a pull type handle on the interior of the van body were retained. In order to comply with the aforementioned paragraph, a warning light and buzzer, a door jamb switch and related micro switch and related wiring were installed by us. (Wiring schematic attached).

The question concerns the push button outside the van body that actuates the door release mechanism. Does depressing the button on the outside of the door require a visible and audible device as outlined in paragraph S 5.3.3?

Trusting we have provided you with sufficient information to provide me with an answer in the next few days, we remain,

Very truly yours,

E. L. Anderson Project Engineer

EA/ms Enc. cc: Paramount