ID: 9783

Mr. David A. Scott
President, RKS International L.L.C.
822 Wisconsin Avenue
Racine, WI 53403

Dear Mr. Scott:

This responds to your letter of March 8, 1994, asking for information about this agency's regulations regarding importation and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

You intend to import "fiberglass kit cars." The cars may be imported "either disassembled or partially assembled." Your company "will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S. for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires, etc."

It appears from your letter that you intend to import items of equipment, either individually or as part of a larger assembly, which, after entry into the United States, will have the drive train and related components installed that are necessary to complete its manufacture as a motor vehicle. For purposes of this interpretation, it is unimportant whether the equipment is imported as individual items, or assembled into a vehicle lacking a power train.

Some items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). In order to be imported into the United States, they must comply with all applicable FMVSS. Passenger car equipment that must comply includes brake hoses, brake fluid, lamps and reflectors, tires, glazing material, and seat belt assemblies. It is mandatory that all these items (except lamps and reflectors) bear a DOT symbol in order to be imported; the symbol is the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the FMVSS. It is optional for lamps and reflectors to be marked with the DOT symbol. If they are not marked, permissible options include a certification statement attached to the equipment item or on the container in which the item is shipped.

When assembly of the vehicle is completed in the United States, its assembler must satisfy itself that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS and affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies.

I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It identifies relevant Federal statutes and this agency's standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. It also explains how to obtain this agency's safety standards and regulations. If you have further questions we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:591 d:4/25/94

ID: nht94-6.14

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David A. Scott -- President, RKS International L.L.C.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/8/94 from David A. Scott to John Womack (OCC-9783)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 8, 1994, asking for information about this agency's regulations regarding importation and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

You intend to import "fiberglass kit cars." The cars may be imported "either disassembled or partially assembled." Your company "will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S. for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires, etc."

It appears from your letter that you intend to import, items of equipment, either individually or as part of a larger assembly, which, after entry into the United States, will have the drive train and related components installed that are necessary to complete its manufacture as a motor vehicle. For purposes of this interpretation, it is unimportant whether the equipment is imported as individual items, or assembled into a vehicle lacking a power train.

Some items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). In order to be imported into the United States, they must comply with all applicable FMVSS. Passenger car equipment that must comply includes brake hoses, brake fluid, lamps and reflectors, tires, glazing material, and seat belt assemblies. It is mandatory that all these items (except lamps and reflectors) beat a DOT symbol in order to be imported; the symbol is the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the FMVSS. It is optional for lamps and reflectors to be marked with the DOT symbol. If they are not marked, permissible options include a certification statement attached to the equipment item or on the container in which the item is shipped.

When assembly of the vehicle is completed in the United States, its assembler must satisfy itself that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS and affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies.

I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It identifies relevant Federal statutes and this agency's standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. It also explains how to obtain this agency's safety standards and regulations. If you have further questions we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht87-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/01/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William A. Jones

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William A. Jones The National Windshield Repair Service 7214 W. Melrose Lame

Dear Mr. Jones:

This is in response to your letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch, formerly of my staff, concerning the agency's position on the use of windshield repair, as opposed to replacement, for motor vehicles. I apologize for the delay in this response. You indicate that you are very much interested in the credibility of windshield repair as a viable alternative to windshield replacement, and that you seek any information the agency can provide in the development of safety standards regarding the repair process. We have the following comments.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for issuing safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment, or commercial services. Rather, each manufacturer must certify that its product meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, we have never offered an opinion on the relative merits of repair ed vs. replaced windshields. That choice is left for the market to decide, subject to the limitations set forth below.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer must certify that its motor vehicle meets the requirements of all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards before the motor vehicl e is sold to the consumer for the first time. One of the standards with which a manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. If for some reason a windshield must be repaired before a new vehicle is sold to a consumer for the first time (for example, if the windshield is damaged in transit from the manufacturer to the dealer's place of business), the person making the repairs would be considered an alterer under our regulations (see 49 CFR Part 567). As an a lterer, the person must certify that the windshield on the vehicle continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205, regardless of whether the windshield was repaired or is a replacement windshield.

Once the vehicle has been sold to a first purchaser for purposes other other than resale, any repairs or replacement of the windshield are restricted only by the provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U .S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipme nt in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This agency has stated in a September 3, 1981 letter to the National Glass Dealers Association that NHTSA does not consider repairing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205, even if the repaired windshield does not meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or event which damaged the windshield in the first place, not the repair shop, to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No.205. However, the repair shop must exercise caution that it does not render another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applica ble Federal motor vehicle safety standard in the course of fixing a damaged windshield. If this here the case, the repair shop could be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

The Safety Act also places responsibilities on any manufacturer of a windshield repair kit. Such a manufacturer is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and is subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 14 11-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

These are the only requirements that we have with respect to windshield repair. I can offer a suggestion in response to your request for information to help develop standards for windshield repair. You stated in your letter that you are a member of both ANSI and ASTM. One way for you, as an advocate of windshield repair, to try to ensure the reliability or efficiency of windshield repair would be to work with ANSI and ASTM to adopt product design and repair practices that result in repaired windshields meeting the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.

If you have further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Susan Schruth of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 3662992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1986

Mr. Steve Oesch NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

I recently talked with Clark Harper, at the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, who informed me that National Windshield would have to write to you to request the information that we needed. We are interested in the Department of Transportation's standin g of the use of windshield repair, as opposed to replacement, on motor vehicles.

We are members of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). We, at National Windshield, are very much interested in the credibility of windshield repair as a viable alternative to windshiel d replacement. We feel that whatever information the Department of Transportation can supply us will be very helpful in the development of safety standards regarding the repair process.

If there is any other information that you need about us please feel free to write or call. Your help concerning this matter will be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

The National Windshield Repair Service, Inc.

William A. Jones President

ID: nht74-5.27

DATE: 03/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; RICHARD B. DYSON; NHTSA

TO: MARUKA MACHINERY CORP. OF AMAERICA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1974, requesting information concerning three-wheel and light duty four-wheel vehicles.

As of January 1, 1974, motor vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight, other than trailers and motorcycles, became subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Currently, motorcycles are motor vehicles with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. Any three-wheel vehicles that conform to this definition must meet all standards applicable to motorcycles. Those three-wheel vehicles that differ in some respect from the definition, must satisfy the requirements of either passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle standards, depending upon which are appropriate.

On November 27, 1973, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amended 49 CFR 571.3(b), Definitions, of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, by revising the definition of "motorcycle" (Notice enclosed). Petitions have been received in response to the final rule and are receiving careful consideration as the agency contemplates a possible further revision of the definition.

With regard to lightweight four-wheel vehicles, as of January 1, 1974, they must comply with all standards applicable to their vehicle type. There is no special category for lightweight four-wheel vehicles.

YOURS TRULY,

February 22, 1974

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In reference to your letter of Oct. 16, 1973 your reference number N40-30(ZTY) I wish a little more information if possible.

I am not clear on the reference to the (three wheel) vehicles at this time. Would it be possible to obtain a copy of (38 FR 12818) in reference to a redefinition of "motorcycles" and what is now required of vehicles of three wheels.

I was under the opinion that your department was to define the three wheel vehicles and light four wheel vehicles (1100 to 1200 curb weight) to a separate classification. Am I correct or not in this matter?

Any information in reference to three wheel and light duty four wheel vehicles you may have as to safety requirements required for 1974 will be appreciated very much. I am very interested in this field of vehicles.

Thank you for your efforts. Please send the information to my office in South Carolina.

Grayson Conway

ID: 3245yy

Mr. Alan E. Willis
Senior Transportation Engineer
Franchise Regulation Division
City of Los Angeles Department of
Transportation
Room 1200, City Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Mr. Willis:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of safety shields in 1982 model year and newer taxicabs. According to your letter, the City of Los Angeles plans to require the safety shields in order to deter or prevent crimes against taxicab drivers. The safety shields would be of a bullet resistant design (1/2" thick General Electric "LEXGUARD" or equivalent) complete with side panels, seat back protection and pass-through fare box. You asked whether any safety standards apply to such safety shields. I appreciate the opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

One Federal motor vehicle safety standard, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies directly to interior partitions such as taxicab safety shields, if the partition contains glazing material. The glazing used in taxicab safety shields, including ones that are installed on used vehicles, must meet the requirements of that standard.

In addition, the installation of a safety shield might affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of other safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of a safety shield prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation is required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle complies with all safety standards affected by the alteration.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 . . . .

In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installs a safety shield should ensure, by carefully comparing the safety shield and its planned installation with the requirements of relevant safety standards, that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:VSA#201#205 d:l2/l6/9l

ID: nht79-4.55

DATE: 07/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mini-Comtesse

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter asking whether the two vehicles that you manufacture, the Comtesse and the Super-Comtesse, would be considered as mopeds for the purpose of applying Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines motor-driven cycle (moped) as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less." A motorcycle is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." Further, the application of some standards to mopeds depends upon their having a maximum speed obtainable in 1 mile of 30 mph or less.

The Super-Comtesse that you manufacture, since it has 4 wheels, would not qualify as a motorcycle or as a moped. Since this vehicle has many of the aspects of a passenger car, it would be required to comply with the passenger car safety standards. The Comtesse, since it operates on three wheels, would be considered a motorcycle. If the Comtesse meets the other definitional requirements applicable to mopeds, it would be required to comply with the standards applicable to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles.

All Federal motor vehicle safety standards are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations in Part 571. Many of the standards are applicable to passenger cars. Only a few standards apply to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles. I am enclosing a package of information pertaining to the applicability of safety standards to mopeds.

The NHTSA has studied three-wheeled vehicles in the past and has had serious reservations about the safety of these vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of an agency notice issued on this subject. We hope that your vehicle does not have similar safety problems.

SINCERELY,

Frank BERNDT

Acting Chief Counsel

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Angers - May 21, 1979

Dear Sir,

Mr. J.M. LORNE of the French Embassy has advised us to contact you relating to the classification of our vehicles in the United States.

We have enclosed leaflets of the COMTESSE and SUPER-COMTESSE manufactured by our Company, and we shall be most obliged if you will please let us know:

- whether these two models may be classified as mopeds by your Administration (2 cycle engine, piston displacement 49 cc)?

- according to the category in which they will be classified, what would be the regulations and driving conditions to be observed?

Looking forward with much interest to your comments and thanking you in anticipation, we are

R. HIRIBARREN Director (Attachments omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 15, 1995

FROM: Charles Holmes

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO CHARLES HOLMES (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 206)

TEXT: Letter of Interpation:

On May 24, 1995 my minor son Justin Holmes, Fell out of a Ford 1 ton truck. This was an 1989 Ford 1 ton with a gross weight of 33,000 lbs. Upon entering the truck, Justin was placed in a seat belt, and I locked the door. Some where along the ride he unhooked the belt, I was in a curve when the door opened, I looked up and Justin was falling out the truck.

When Justin was asked what happen he stated, I had my hand over the door handle when daddy started going around, I was tring to hold on and the door came open.

Ryder trucks are Rental trucks, Which rents to Families. I had no warning the look was not a safety lock.

Ryder said they are not in any way responsible, and Ford has not answered. I would like to know what Regulations you have on a truck that carries the gross weight of 33,000 lbs, the safety regulations which governs door locks and handle? By this bei ng a Rental Vehicle would the regulations fall under passenger vehicles? What Federal Case Laws Reverse or OverRules your Regeulations? And a list of people ever injured in a simular accidents. That is there Names and Addresses.

ID: FordTHINKNeighbor.CRS

Mr. James P. Vondale

Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental & Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
Fairlane Plaza South
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126-2738

Dear Mr. Vondale:

This responds to your letter of August 17, 2001 to

Dr. Jeffrey W. Runge, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on the THINK Neighbor low speed vehicle.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. As stated in your letter and illustrated in accompanying photographs, the THINK Neighbor is not equipped with doors, and consequently lacks hinge pillars and door-latch posts. You further state that the instrument panel and the seat stanchion cover are plastic components that can be easily removed and would therefore not be permanently affixed to the vehicle. In light of these circumstances, you state that "Ford recommends attaching the label to the inside surface of the roof in the left rear corner." You contend that in this location, "[t]he label will be permanently affixed to an integral component of the structure and is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle." You further note that "other manufacturers have utilized a similar location" for the certification label.

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for the THINK Neighbor would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.10/5/01

ID: 2637o

Mr. E. W. Dahl
Vice President
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio 443l6-000l

Dear Mr. Dahl:

This responds to your letter concerning the tire marking requirements of Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether the standard would prohibit the following size designations from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 REPLACES l5R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES l6.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES l8R22.5

As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. ll9.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1."

As noted by your letter, NHTSA recently provided an interpretation letter to Michelin, dated July 9, l987, concerning one of the exact sizes included in your request. The agency stated the following:

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size.

The tire size marking at issue in the Michelin interpretation differs from your proposed marking in that it did not include the word "replaces." You stated the following:

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

As indicated in our letter to Michelin, the only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. Any practice of using dual-size markings has the potential for confusing consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle, since consumers may erroneously believe that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of more than one tire size designation. For example, a consumer seeing a tire marking that size A replaces size B might erroneously believe that it is appropriate to replace size A with size B.

You cited a l974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. l09 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR l0l62.

I would note several things about the background and subsequent history of that NPRM. The NPRM indicated that despite the clear language in Standard No. l09 that each tire must be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used," NHTSA had previously taken the position [in interpretation letters] that replacement markings constituted an exception to this requirement. (Emphasis added.) The interpretation letters had not offered any basis for concluding that this exception existed. (See June 8, l97l letter to Mercedes-Benz; January l9, l972 letter to Kelly-Springfield; March 2, l973 letter to Samperit.)

The NPRM sought to "clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. l09, to allow, subject to certain conditions, the labeling of replacement tire size designations." However, the NPRM was not adopted as a final rule. We also note that while the l97l-72 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, l980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. l09 prohibited replacement markings.

NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. ll9 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, l987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. ll9 prohibits a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if the word "replaces" is used.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l09#ll9 d:1/7/88

ID: 77-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1977, letter asking whether a New York state requirement mandating the installation of both side emergency doors and rear emergency doors in school buses would mean that both emergency doors would be required to comply with the school bus exit specifications in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

The NHTSA has determined previously that only those exits required by S5.2.3 must meet the requirements specified for school bus emergency exits in Standard No. 217. Paragraph S5.2.3 requires either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push out window. The side emergency door to which you refer is installed in addition to a rear emergency door. The presence of the rear emergency door, alone, satisfies the requirements of S5.2.3. Therefore, a side emergency door is not required by the standard and need not meet the specifications for school bus emergency exits. Emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 must comply with regulations applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses. These requirements are also detailed in Standard No. 217.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 8, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217

The latest New York state specifications require emergency doors as follow: Capacity Rear Emerg. LH Emerg. Door RH Emerg. Door Door Rear of Center Rear of Center 17-30 X 31-48 X X 49-66 X X 67 & up X X X

At a recent meeting of the New York State Bus Body Association we understand that it was stated: "The rear emergency door will be described in the future as a primary emergency exit and the side emergency door defined as a secondary exit. The only requirement for the secondary emergency door will be that the ellipsoid defined in Federal Specifications will pass through the side emergency door without obstruction."

Is this statement correct regarding a side emergency door when it is in addition to a rear emergency door (FMVSS 217 - S5.4.2.1(b))? This would allow the seat back in front of the side emergency door to extend into the door opening in this case.

Thanks for your help in this matter.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services