ID: nht73-5.25

DATE: 10/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: R. Debesson - E.T.R.T.O.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your(Illegible Words) 71, dated September 14, 1973,(Illegible Word) that the(Illegible Words) designation in incorrectly stated in Appendix A of Standard No. 109, Table(Illegible Words) will be changed to(Illegible Words) will make the necessary correction in the next quarterly(Illegible Word)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(Illegible Words)(Illegible Lines) on or about October(Illegible Words) April 1, and July 1 of each year. It is anticipated that your(Illegible Words) will be published in the Federal Registra on or about January 1, 1974.

The addition of(Illegible Words) designations to the table is accomplished through(Illegible Words) publication in the(Illegible Words)(Illegible Line)(Illegible Lines) pursuant to(Illegible Words) motor vehicle standards will be considered.

ID: nht91-2.48

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Dan P. Strauser -- Manager, Research and Development, Elgin Sweeper Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dan P. Strauser (A37; VSA 102(3)

TEXT:

I would ask that you review the enclosed literature on Elgin Sweeper model Whirlwind, Crosswind and Eagle 4-wheel street sweepers, along with Pelican "SE" and Pelican "P", 3-wheel street sweepers. I am also enclosing literature from our sister division Ravo, Models 4000 and 5000 street sweepers.

I would like a letter of interpretation on the above models.

We would also be interested in determining what the criteria is for sweepers classified as falling under the FMVSS requirements.

If additional information is required, please call me at (708) 741-5370.

ID: nht89-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

FROM: JOHN G. SIMS -- CHAMPION MOTOR COACH INC

TO: Robert F. Hellmuth -- Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 217 Your Reference No. NEF-31RSh CIR 2996

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/26/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN G. SIMS -- CHMPION MOTOR COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; INTERPRETATION STANDARD 217

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hellmuth:

This is in response to your September 8, 1989 letter to Jim Nolin of our Imlay City, MI manufacturing division and a series of telephone conversations we have had with Roy Shannon of your office. This also serves as our defect and noncompliance repor t and proposed notification, in accordance with Parts 573 and 577.

After carefully reviewing our bus design, we have determined that we have not been properly labeling the passenger side exit door on our cut-away chassis buses as an "emergency exit" and we have not always been providing the necessary operating instru ctions for use of that exit. Our vehicle design has been based on the assumption that the door which is normally the main passenger entrance way or the passenger side OEM cab door would also serve as part of the required emergency exit requirements, how ever, we failed to mark the door accordingly. We, therefore, intend to voluntarily recall all affected buses in the manner described below.

The side mounted main passenger entrance door for our cut-away buses are one of six different designs, each of which provides over 536 sq. in. of exit area and which when properly marked, can serve as an emergency exit or is used in conjunction with a nother side door that can be the emergency exit. See enclosure 1. We have reviewed your charts 1 and 2 and we are in agreement with them except for chart 2 where you did not permit credit for 536 sq. in. provided by door type A (extended cab front door ) on the right side. If that credit is given then each of the identified "failures" would become "passes". We believe that if properly marked, the door will meet the requirements of "emergency exit" and therefore the credit should be given.

All cut-away buses built since 1984 and not accounted for on your charts have similar egress characteristics, specifically:

1) One emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in. on each side of the bus at the rear of the bus.

2) A rear emergency exit door or window with an area of at least 536 sq. in., or an emergency exit roof hatch with approximately 400 sq. in.

3) A left (driver's) side emergency exit front OEM cab door with greater than 536 sq. in.

4) A main passenger entrance/exit door with a minimum 536 sq. in. area, provided by one of the type doors described in enclosure 1. When the main passenger entrance/exit door is a rear door (designated C on enclosure 1) or a passenger side bi-fold do or in the body side (B), a OEM cab door is always provided.

Also, some buses had optional additional emergency exit windows installed at the customer's request, thereby providing at least two on each side of the bus, each with greater than 536 sq. in. opening.

The maximum seating capacity of any of these buses is 30 passengers so they will all meet the emergency exit area requirements when a passenger side door is treated as an emergency exit. Currently, all main passenger exit side doors are marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" and none of the doors are provided with operating instructions except the rear door and the curved side door.

In addition to our cut-away buses, Champion has developed two new rail chassis buses: the "CTS/Challenger" floor plans with seating capacities ranging from 20 to 32 passengers, and the "CTS-Star" with capacity ranging from 31 to 38 passengers (see att ached brochures). The buses have the following egress characteristics:

1) One emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in. on each side of the bus at the rear of the bus.

2) A rear emergency exit window or roof escapt hatch with an area of at least 536 sq. in. for the window or 400 sq. in. for the hatch.

3) The CTS-Star has an additional emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in.

on each side of the bus towards the front of the bus.

4) Each bus has a main passenger entrance way which is marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit".

Based on the above analysis, it appears that we will need to conduct two separate recalls of buses. The first will be to recall all applicable cut-away buses in order to identify a passenger side door as an "emergency exit". That will involve provid ing a decal for the appropriate door which states "EMERGENCY EXIT", and a decal for each operating mechanism which will be placed on the door within six inches of the operating mechanism, except for the curved side door which already has operating instru ctions.

We have produced approximately 3,900 cut-away buses, of which we estimate approximately 900 do not need to be included in the recall because they were either equipped with optional added emergency exit windows or had 20 or fewer designated seating pos itions. We will prepare a list of each of the applicable cut-away buses and mail a letter and decals, to each owner of record, based on the letters a, b, and c given in enclosure 2.

The second recall will be for all CTS/Challenger buses that did not have optional additional emergency exit side windows in order to add additional emergency exits at both front sides. There are approximately 50 such buses and we will provide each ow ner of record a latter similar to that given in enclosure 3.

Two other issues raised in NHTSA's May 12, 1988 letter do not require any corrective action. The allegation that the driver door was not labeled with the words "emergency exit" is not correct. The label was located on the stanchion immediately behin d the driver's seat. It is our opinion that S5.5.1 of FMVSS 217 only requires that operating instructions be located within 6 inches of the operating mechanisms. The bases for that opinion include:

a) The words of the standard can be read that way.

b) There is no logical basis for tying in the location of "emergency exit" marking to the operating mechanisms.

c) The operating mechanisms are often located below shoulder level of seated passengers where the visibility of an "emergency exit" sign would be substantially reduced.

d) The more stringent (and clearer) requirement for school buses in S5.5.3 clearly permits separation

of the emergency exit sign and the operating instructions.

e) NHTSA's contractor called the marking "confusing" rather than in violation of the standard (Report No. 217-MSE-87-11-TR7122-11).

f) In NHTSA's 8/24/88 letter, NEF-31MPa, CIR 2996, our initial offer to relocate the emergency exit sign for clarification reasons was accepted by NHTSA as fully adequate even though the relocation would not move the sign to within 6 inches of the ope rating mechanism. Even though NHTSA now states that that letter was in error, the letter still indicates that some staff agreed with our position.

g) IN NHTSA's 6/12/84 letter, NEF-31RSh, CIR 2678.1, we were asked to supply details of "a) Location of each emergency exit identification. b) Operating instructions of the release mechanisms for the emergency exits and the distances of these instruc tions from the release mechanisms." It is plain from the way the question was worded that NHTSA considered that the required location of the emergency exit identification was separate from the location of the operating instructions and that only the latt er had to be within 6 inches of the operating mechanisms.

The other issue raised in the 5/12/88 letter was if the operating instructions for the side window emergency exits were legible to occupants standing in the aisle. However, it is our opinion that the legibility requirement of S5.5.2 applies only to t he "emergency exit" marking and not to the operating instructions. The bases for that opinion include:

a) The words of the standard can be read that way.

b) There is no practical reason to require the operating instructions to be legible until a person is about one arm's length away from the mechanisms.

c) The level of performance anticipated by the standard does not require the operating instructions to be visible even to someone in the adjacent seat, inasmuch as it is is permissible to place a sign that refers an occupant of the adjacent seat to th e operating instructions that may be located in the seat ahead.

d) Herr International, Inc., a major industry supplier of windows discussed this issue with Jeff Jiuseppe on October 23, 1989. Herr specifically stated the position that ". . . the legibility requirements of paragraph 5.5.2 require and apply to anoth er (other than operating instructions) label that identifies the emergency exit." Herr has reported to us that Jiuseppe agreed with that position along with Robert Kraus' concurrence.

Because of the above analysis, it is not our intention to include these two issues in the recalls we intend to initiate.

If further information is needed, please contact me. We will be prepared to send out our mailings on the recall upon approval from your office. The recall of the cut-away buses will be completed upon the mailing, and we will make appropriate reports to you on the progress of our repairs of the Challenger buses, as is required under the regulation.

Sincerely,

John G. Sims Governmental Affairs CHAMPION DOOR DESIGNS Door Door Operating Operational Designation Type Location Mechanism Instructions A Extended Cab OEM Door Pull handle Cab Handle and push door B Bi-fold Body None * C Rear Body RV Lock ** E Curved Side Body RV Lock *** F Single Leaf Cab Cleveland Pull handle Door Operator and push door G Bi-fold Cab Cleveland " Door Operator H Passenger- Cab OEM Door Pull handle side OEM Handle and Push door * Bi-fold door in body cannot be used for emergency exit because the operating mechanism is not located within the area required by the standard. However, whenever this door is used, a passenger side OEM cab door (H) is also used which can be made an emergency exit.

** Rear door, when used, has already been properly designated as emergency exit. Rear door used in addition to side passenger entrance/exit door (A,B,E,F, or G) and/or OEM cab door (H) which will be designated emergency exit.

*** Operating instructions already provided for RV locks.

Enclosure 1

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For Main Passenger Door

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirments for emergency exit capacity on buses. Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requriements but, unfortunately, the main passenger door was marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. Furthermore, operating instructions for the operatin g mechanisms of those doors were not provided. This may have some negative effect on a passenger's ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside glass of the main passenger entrance/exit door. We are also providing a decal which provides the operating instr uctions for the operating mechanisms. The decal must be placed within 6 inches of where the mechanism connects to that door.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter a

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For OEM Cab Doors

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer: This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirements for emergency exit capacity on buses . Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requirements but, unfortunately, one of the passenger side doors was not marked "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. Furthermore, operating instructions for the operating mec hanisms for that door were not provided. This may have some negative effect on a passenger's ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside panel of the OEM cab door. We are also providing a decal which provides the operating instructions for the opera ting mechanisms. The decal must be placed within 6 inches of the door handle.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter b

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For Curved Side Passenger Door

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirements for emergency exit capacity on buses . Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requirements but, unfortunately, the main passenger door was marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. This may have some negative effect on a passenger' s ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside glass of the main passenger entrance/exit door.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter c

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Challenger Bus Owners

Re: (Champion Serial No. )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirement of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion Motor Coach, Inc. has determined that certain CTS/Challenger buses, including the one referenced above, fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which requires that a certain amount o f area for emergency exit be provided for each designated seating position on the bus. Champion's design was two emergency exit windows located on each side of the bus but several of the CTS/Challenger buses were erroneously produced with only one such window per side. The reduced emergency exit capacity may restrict passenger's ability to evacuate the bus in the case of emergency.

Champion will remedy this noncompliance without charge to you by replacing front windows on both sides of the bus with emergency exit windows, and provide the proper markings and operating mechanisms. This work will only take a few hours of time and will not affect the appearance or utility of the vehicles.

Please contact your selling dealer to arrange for the work to be done. The dealer should already be stocked with the necessary parts, or if not, we will provide him with those parts within 10 days of his request.

If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 3

ID: 1982-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/20/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: David Traxler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to follow-up your telephone call of October 29, 1981, asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to "hatchback" door latches.

Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, includes requirements for side door latches. We have enclosed a copy of that standard for your convenience.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the rear latch of a hatchback. However, even in the absence of a safety standard, the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may be applicable. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge.

ENC.

ID: 1983-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co.; Shizuoka Works -- M. Iwase, Manager, Technical Administration Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co., Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 27, 1983, to Mr. Elliott of this agency asking whether your "lighting device with 1 bulb and 2 functions" is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The front combination lamp design (parking lamp and side marker lamp functions) is permissible provided that, as you note, all color and photometeric requirements for the respective functions are met.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J.W. Hughes -- Vice President, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. W. Hughes Vice President - Executive The Kansas City Southern Railway Company 114 W. Eleventh St. Kansas City, MO 64185

Your letter of November 7, l984, does not note the dates of previous correspondence with us, and we are unable to find copies of what we recall as at least two letters from this office to the Railway or its representative on the Mercedes Zwei Weg rail conversion.

However, it is our recollection that because the van uses the public roads from one rail inspection site to another it is a "motor vehicle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and that this interpretation has been previously furnished the Railway. Your letter contains no new facts that warrant a reconsideration of our earlier interpretations. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John Scott Hatt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John Scott Hatt 1215 N. Quinn Street, Apt #2 Arlington, VA 22209

This is in reply to your letter of June 8, 1987, to this agency asking about the legality of having "a lighten sign on the side of a car door used for advertising purposes." You have also asked whether such a sign would be a safety hazard to other driver s. There is no Federal prohibition against installation of such a sign. Its legality would be determined under local laws where a vehicle with a lighted sign would be registered and operated. You might wish to seek the advice of Arlington traffic officia ls and the Virginia State Police on this subject. It is not possible to say whether such a sign would be a safety hazard. Unlit advertising signs seem permissible in some areas on the sides of buses.

ID: 77-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

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

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 6, 1977, letter asking whether two proposed labels satisfy the requirements for certification and information labels found in 49 CFR Part 567. Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with NHTSA regulations. From the illustrations you present, it appears that you have closely followed the format suggested in our regulations, and therefore, the labels seem to comply with the agency's requirements. Section S5.3(b) of Standard No. 120 permits the use of both labels when affixed in accordance with Part 567.4(b)-(f).

ID: nht73-5.41

DATE: 11/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Green Bus Lines, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of July 30 and August 21, 1973, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, for materials used in windshields.

(Illegible Word) understand and share your concern over the damage and the hazards caused by vandalism toward buses. Standard No. 205 currently prohibits the use of plastics in windshields simply because today's commercial plastics, including the one for which you enclosed a brochure, cannot meet the abrasion resistance test specified in the standard. As long as windshield wipers are used, we are of the opinion that this requirement is essential. We hope that glazing manufacturers will develop materials that will protect against the problems you have described, while at the same time meeting the necessary performance requirements. When such materials are developed, we, of course, would amend the standard as necessary to permit their use.

ID: nht74-1.1

DATE: 10/16/74

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

TO: British Leyland Motors, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 16 1974 N40-30 (ZTV)

Ms. Dianne Black Engineering Liaison British Leyland Motors Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, N. J. 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in reply to your letter of September 27, 1974 asking whether paragraph S5.3.2 of Standard No. 105-75 allows activation of a brake indicator lamp "whilst the engine is cranking".

Under the system, you describe the lamp would be activated with the key in the "start" position while the engine is turning over. Aposition between "on" and "start" designated by the manufacturer as a check position, within the meaning of S5.3.2, includes both "on" and "start", and your proposed system therefore would meet Standard No. 105-75.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel