ID: nht91-5.2

DATE: July 19, 1991

FROM: John D. Hayes -- Port Brokers Inc.

TO: Chief Council Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-31-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John D. Hayes (A38; Part 591)

TEXT:

We are anticipating handling in September an imported shipment on a Carnet basis of one DAF tractor and one trailer with a self contained jumbo video screen (27 square yards in area when completely set up) that will be used in a concert tour throughout the United States over a 30 days period of time. At the end of the 30 days period this will be completed exported.

In order to be sure that we are not overlooking any important factors, we would appreciate your legal interpretation in what is necessary for this vehicle and trailer to travel throughout the United States. We understand that your form HS7 would be used and box 7 would be completed.

The DAF cab is 6,900 kilos and the trailer with jumbo video screen is 26 tons.

This screen costs $20,000 per day and it is extremely important that we avoid any delays which may occur regarding problems with Department of Transportation.

We must respond next week to our customer in the Netherlands so that they can start working on this project. Please advise as soon as possible any particulars we need to know.

We would appreciated receiving your response by fax if possible.

If any other details are necessary for your interpretation please let me know.

ID: nht91-5.20

DATE: August 9, 1991

FROM: David L. Kulp -- Manager, Fuel Economy Planning & Compliance, Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company

TO: Orron E. Kee -- NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Deletion of Off-Highway Data from the Pre-Model and Mid-Model Reports

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David L. Kulp (A38; Part 523; Part 537)

TEXT:

Ford requests your concurrence to discontinue the reporting of off-highway data as listed in S537.7(c)(5) for light-duty trucks that otherwise comply to the light-duty truck definition in S523.5(a). Per a telephone conversation between you and Ms. Peg Gutmann of my staff on July 19, 1991, the off-highway data is only required for automobiles that a manufacturer wishes to classify as a light-duty truck per the provisions of S523.5(b).

Please contact Ms. Gutmann at (313) 337-5367 if you have any questions or concerns.

ID: nht91-5.21

DATE: August 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David R. Stepp -- Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara, P.C.

TITLE: Re: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. Reimportation of Volkswagens

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-1-91 from David R. Stepp to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6180)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 1, 1991, on behalf of your client, Escargot Motorcars of Canada, with respect to its plan to export Volkswagen Beetles to Mexico for refurbishment, with subsequent reentry into the United States. You have asked for an interpretation that such vehicles may be allowed reentry without further certification.

As you have explained it, Escargot Motorcars plans to purchase Beetles that were initially imported into the United States by Volkswagen of America, and certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts "and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture." Some of the old Beetles will retain their manufacturer's original certification of compliance located on the door post, while others, if the bodies are worn or damaged, "the entire bodies may be replaced and/or painted and this manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed." If the bodies are extensively damaged, Escargot may ship only the chassis to Mexico.

You state that "(w)here the manufacturer's certification on the doorpost is preserved after restoration in Mexico, the vehicles clearly should be allowed to enter the United States without further certification." You also state that further certification is also unnecessary for vehicles no longer bearing the certification label, or whose door post condition is such that it must be removed during restoration, because that vehicle's VIN will indicate that it was originally imported into the United States as a certified and complying car. Similarly, those vehicles which are stripped of their bodies prior to shipment should be allowed entry without further certification "since the chassis will be preserved and registered."

The appropriate statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), which provides the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571), and the vehicle importation regulation (49 CFR Part 591). You suggest that the refurbished Beetles may be admitted without further certification since they were originally manufactured to conform to the Federal safety standards. Thus, it appears that Escargot would seek entry under section 591.5(b), the declaration that the vehicle conforms to all applicable

Federal motor vehicle safety standards "and bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently attached by the original manufacturer of the vehicle."

The first issue raised by the factual situation described in your letter is whether the "refurbished" vehicles would be considered to be new or "used" vehicles. If the refurbishing involves sufficient manufacturing operations for the vehicles to be considered to be new, the vehicles would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of the new manufacturing operations (refurbishing), including the requirements for automatic restraints. However, if the refurbishing involves more minor operations, the vehicles would be considered to be used. As discussed below ONLY if the vehicles would be considered to be used could they be reimported the United States based on the original manufacturer's certification label.

The range of potential manufacturing operations described by your letter is so broad as to include ones where a vehicle would be considered to be used and ones where a vehicle would be considered to be new. As indicated above, you state the following:

After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be RESTORED OR REPLACED with replacement parts "and will be exactly as those to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture." (Emphasis added.)

If the operations ONLY involved replacement of the engine and minor restoration/repair parts, the vehicle would be considered to be used. If, however, in addition to replacing the engine, the other operations involved replacement or "re-manufacturing" of the other parts mentioned in your letter, it would be considered a new passenger car and subject to all current safety standards, notwithstanding the fact that the old frame was retained. A new certification would also be required.

I note that information that this agency has on Escargot's operations in Canada suggests that the latter category of operations may be more what that company has in mind. We have seen an advertising circular issued by The Beetles of Toronto, "a registered tradename of Escargot Motorcars, Inc.", that boasts "Every single piece of your Beetle is factory brand new, except one, and that's the frame." The circular states that The Beetles places around the pan, "ALL NEW COMPONENTS: engine, suspension, braking, steering, etc. The entire body is also new, as are the bucket seats, dashboard, gauges, dials, everything. Even down to the last nut and bolt." We regard this as the manufacture of a new motor vehicle to which contemporary safety standards apply, and which must be certified by Escargot as conforming to those standards.

To the extent that Escargot performed operations that are sufficiently minor that a vehicle would be considered used, it could be reimported into the United States under section 591.5(b), based on the original manufacturer's certification label. Under that section, an importer

declares that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards and "bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle."

In the case of a used vehicle which is being reimported, we interpret the phrase "conforms to all applicable safety standards" to refer to the vehicle at the time of its original manufacture prior to its first sale. We recognize that, because of age and use, a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, and did not intend that phrase to prevent reimportation of used vehicles that originally complied with all safety standards.

While a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, the original certification label ordinarily lasts for the life of the vehicle. The certification label is the primary evidence that the vehicle was originally manufactured to meet applicable safety standards, and, in order for a used vehicle to reimported under section 591.5(b), we would ordinarily expect the certification label to present at the time of the reimportation. We recognize, however, that a certification label may be defaced or destroyed and would not, in such instance, consider absence of the certification label to an absolute bar to reimporting a vehicle under section 591.5(b). However, we would need to very carefully evaluate each factual situation on a case-by-case basis.

If you have any further questions of a legal nature, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263), and if they are of a technical nature, to Clive Van Orden of the Office of Enforcement (202-366-2830).

ID: nht91-5.22

DATE: August 12, 1991

FROM: John E. Calow -- Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Chassis Division

TO: Taylor Vincon -- Legal Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-18-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John E. Calow (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Quite a while ago I spoke with you about optically combined Brake Lights and Hazard Warning Lights. Per our conversation I understood that the Brake Lights would over-ride the Hazard Warning Lights if both were activated. Recently it was brought to my attention that my interpretation was in error. Thus, I am requesting that you review following questions and submit a written verification.

1) If the Brake Lights and Hazard Warning Lights are optically combined and both are activated (per federal regulations) which of the following will occur? A) The brake lights will over-ride causing a steady light emission. B) The hazard lights will over-ride causing a flashing light emission.

2) If the vehicle has a Center High Mounted Stop Lamp "CHMSL" is it acceptable to have the Hazard Warning Lights over-ride the Brake Lights if the CHMSL has a steady light emitance upon brake application?

Please send the written verification to my attention. Our address is on my enclosed business card.

Thank you for your time and consideration, if you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht91-5.23

DATE: August 12, 1991

FROM: Frank Kenney -- Sporting Tailors Manufacturing Co.

TO: Office of the Chief Councel (Counsel) -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-21-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Frank Kenney (A38; Std. 302); Also attached to copy of 49 CFR 571.302, pages 517-519: Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials; Also attached to letter dated 6-29-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ed McCarron of Western Star Trucks Inc. (Std. 302)

TEXT:

We are planning to manufacture roll bar or "Bikini Tops" for off road Vehicles such as Jeep Wranglers. We are presently clothing manufacturers and this would be a new product line we would becoming involved with. We, therefore, have, some questions for you.

Since this is an "after market product", it is our understanding that the roll bar tops must conform to automotive code #302 which has to do with passing flammability requirements. We have resolved this problem by imparting a flame retardent element between the vinyl roll bar top and the brushed nylon black backing fabric ass per the enclosed sample. (The vinyl top fabric is bonded to the brushed nylon tricot black fabric and the flame retardent is sandwiched between the two fabrics.)

Our question is the following: (Please refer to diagram of the roll bar top and the fabric sample enclosed)

Would the binding fabric strips sewn all around the edges of the roll bar top to lend stability and finished appearance also be required to have a flame retardent element added to the back of the strips as well?

Since the bonded roll bar vinyl top fabric bonded to the brushed nylon tricot fabric with the flame retardent sandwiched between IS ACTUALLY LYING BETWEEN THE STICHED BINDING STRIP, would it be required to make the strip flame retardent as well? Would we not be duplicating our efforts?

We would greatly appreciate your response to this at your very earliest convenience.

We understand that we must conform to 49 CFR Part 566 manufacturer identification and if there would be anything else that would apply to this after market product, please advise us.

The last question we pose to you is the following: If we supply a tote bag to the consumer in order that the roll bar top may be kept clean while not in use, would this tote bag also be required to conform to Automotive code #302:

We thank you in advance for your comments and information.

ID: nht91-5.24

DATE: August 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mickey Hale -- General Sales Manager, Jackie Cooper Olds-GMC

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-91 from Mickey Hale to Steve Kratzke (OCC 6173)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, our Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, asking what type of safety belt must be installed at rear seating positions in conversion vans. You indicated that these conversions would be made to used 1990 Chevrolet full-sized vans. You intend to install lap/shoulder belts at the front two seating positions and lap-only belts at each of the middle and rear seating positions, and asked if this planned installation would conflict with the safety belt installation requirements set forth in NHTSA's safety standards. The answer is that this planned installation would not conflict with Federal requirements, as explained below.

To begin, NHTSA does not classify vehicles as "vans." Instead, cargo vans are generally classified as "trucks," and passenger vans are generally classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles." S4.2.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard and rear forward-facing outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Any of these vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1991 are required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Thus, if your van conversions were new vehicles, your planned safety belt installations would be permissible for van conversions manufactured before September 1, 1991, but impermissible for conversions manufactured after that date.

You stated, however, that the van conversions in question would not be new vehicles, but would instead be used 1990 model year vehicles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, the Safety Act includes a provision that prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This prohibition applies to both new and used vehicles and means that the named commercial entities may not remove safety equipment required by the safety standards, such as seat belts, unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle will not be used during the time its compliance with the safety standards has been

"rendered inoperative." In the case of safety belts, this means that your dealership could remove belts to make repairs or modifications, but must reinstall or replace the belts before returning the vehicle to a customer.

NHTSA does not consider it to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition when a dealer modifies a used vehicle in such a way that the vehicle is equipped with safety belts at every designated seating position and those safety belts are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted to be installed at that seating position in the vehicle when it was new. In this case, your letter states that you would equip the used 1990 conversion vans with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and lap-only belts at all other seating positions. This belt installation was permitted by Standard No. 208 for new 1990 multipurpose passenger vehicles. Therefore, your planned installation would not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act with respect to the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-5.25

DATE: August 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack Garbo -- President/General Counsel, AVM Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-11-91 from Jack Garbo to Mary Versailles (OCC 6224)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1991, requesting clarification of Standard No. 208. Specifically, you asked "whether the three-point seatbelt is required in all middle and rear outboard seating positions in the multipurpose vehicles after September 1, 1991." Specifically, you requested verification of your interpretation that these requirements apply only to forward-facing seating, and not rearward-facing seating. Your interpretation regarding rearward-facing seats is correct.

Beginning September 1, 1991, multipurpose passenger vehicles must have lap/shoulder belts at every forward-facing rear outboard designated seating positions. The term "rear outboard designated seating position" is defined in S4.2.4.1(b) as an "outboard designated seating position" located rearward of the front seat(s). If by the phrase "middle and rear outboard seating positions" you are referring to outboard seating positions in different rows of seats located behind the front seat(s), each such position that is forward-facing must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts after September 1, 1991. If instead the term "middle" is referring to center seating position(s) on bench seats, such positions may be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts. Rearward-facing seats may also be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-5.26

DATE: August 14, 1991

FROM: Elizabeth D. Smith -- Department Head, Community and Special Services, Division of Program Monitoring, State of South Carolina, State Health and Human Services Finance Commission

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-15-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Elizabeth D. Smith (A38; VSA S108(a)(2)(A); Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I spoke with you last week regarding the addition of safety belts to a 1986 Ford Club Wagon which is currently used to transport children between three and five years of age. The vehicle is classified as a bus according to the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards. It and others like it, which are owned by our agency and assigned to child development contractors, are used primarily to transport pre-school age children to and from the child development center and on field trips. The vehicle has seat belts for 15 passengers including the driver. The question has been posed regarding the legality and safety of adding additional seat belts in order for providers to transport up to four additional children. As equipped now, the providers are physically able to belt more than one child per seat belt. However, their compliance with state laws in doing such is questionable.

I have checked with the Legal Division of the South Carolina Highway Department and have been advised by Bill Todd that there is currently no state law that would forbid someone from adding seat belts to a vehicle and transporting more than 14 children on these vans. Mr. Todd advised me to check with you regarding any Federal regulations that would prohibit this. Contact was also made with Robert Green, who represents the Coalition for Safer, Cleaner Vehicles. He saw no problem with doing this. He suggested that the anchor points may be a problem, but since the vehicles are being used to transport children, he didn't see any reason why they would be a problem.

The particular provider who has raised this question would use the local Ford dealership to install the additional belts. She has spoken with the service manager at the dealership and he feels that this can easily be accomplished without adversely affecting the safety of the vehicle. He felt that the additional weight of the extra passengers would not overload the vehicle, but planned to discuss it with his district or regional manager this week. The service manager also spoke to a Highway Patrol Sergeant who stated that the vehicle doesn't specify the seating capacity or the number of persons per seat; therefore, he saw no problem with the installation of additional seat belts. There is nothing in any of the materials regarding this vehicle that states it is a 15 passenger van. The only thing that currently defines that is the number of seat belts. Our main question for your office is whether the addition of seat belts violates the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Act.

Additional information taken from the inside door of the van is:

Date 4/86 GVWR 8000 lbs./391 KG Front GAWR: 3400 lbs. Rear GAWR: 6,084 lbs.

1,542 KG WITH 2,759 KG WITH Type Bus (not school bus) 9M

Any information that you can provide us in the very near future regarding these questions is greatly appreciated. We are certain that other child care provider would be interested in your response as many of them routinely transport more than 14 children on these vans by double belting them. If there are extenuating circumstances that impact your responses, please outline them for us. For example, the person manning your hotline number stated that, if the dealer made the installations and would re-certify the safety compliance, then it may be O.K. for the additional belts to be installed.

We don't want our providers to place their clients and their drivers at risk when riding in a vehicle that has been altered, but we also recognize their dilemmas in meeting clients' needs for transportation and the funding limitations that prevent them from purchasing another vehicle and hiring and training staff to drive it. I understand that the liability question would rest with the state if there was an accident.

Thank you for your assistance in promptly addressing this situation. If you need additional information, please feel free to call me at (803) 253-6154.

ID: nht91-5.27

DATE: August 19, 1991

FROM: Phil Lanam -- Engineer, Ukiah Fire Department

TO: Taylor Vinson -- DOT/OCC

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Phil Lanam (A38; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 3-4-80 from Frank Berndt to Joe Cain

TEXT:

I have been referred to you by Engineer Blane Laubis of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

My question to him was in regards to a piece of equipment we just purchased. This piece of equipment is a 1978 F700 Ford truck, 24500 GVW, VIN N75FVB89042. The problem we are having with it is the Eaton anti-skid brake system. Part of the anti-skid system has been removed. In my research, I have found this system was plagued with problems.

We would like to install standard S cam air brakes on this vehicle. I have talked with several agencies and they have made this change. My question to you concerns the legality of this change. I have been told there is a clause in the anti-skid law that allows this on some problem plagued systems.

I would greatly appreciate any information you could give me to help resolve this problem.

ID: nht91-5.28

DATE: August 19, 1991

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert Hellmuth -- OVSC

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation: 1. 49 CFR Part 571.217 Sections S5.3 and S5.4 2. Report No. 217-MSE-90-10-TR0009-10 Bus Window Retention and Release Compliance Test-FMVSS 217 1990 Blue Bird (33 Passenger) 3. NEF-31KNu/NCI 3189 4. NEF-31KNu/NCI-3189.2

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas D. Turner (A38; Std. 217)

TEXT:

A 1990 Blue Bird bus was compliance tested to the requirements of FMVSS 217 as reported in Reference 2. As a result of the test, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) issued NCI letters, including references 3 and 4. Blue Bird Body company responded as requested to reference 3 and requested and attended a technical meeting on July 2, 1991 in Washington, D.C. in response to reference 4. As a result of this activity, there is one issue that needs to be formally resolved before NCI 3189 can be closed. The following paragraphs discuss the issue, provide the OVSC position, provide the Blue Bird Body Company position and request an interpretation of which position is correct according to Standard No. 217.

49 CFR Part 571.217-Sections S5.3.2 and S5.4.1

Discussion:

Section S5.3.2 provides two force application options for options for emergency exit release mechanisms. Option (a) LOW FORCE APPLICATION specifies type of motion as "Rotary or straight", and magnitude as "Not more than 20 pounds." Option (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION specifies type of notion as "Straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.", and magnitude as "Not more than 60 pounds." Section S5.4.1 establishes emergency exit extension reach distances and force levels based on Section S5.3.2.

OVSC Position:

As stated in Reference 4, the OVSC position is: "In this case the release handle is pin jointed at the top much like a piano hinge. The only possible movement the handle can experience is to rotate around the pin joint. The release mechanism neither slides nor translates, IT VERY CLEARLY ROTATES. The video that Blue Bird supplied this office shows that the handle rotates during the release of the window. An occupant of the bus would then have to apply a force in a rotary notion to operate the release mechanism. The maximum release should therefore be 20 lbs."

Blue Bird Body Company Position:

Blue Bird Body Company agrees with the OVSC that the release mechanism of the pushout window design used by Blue Bird is rotary; however, it is our understanding that Standard 217 regulates the "type of motion" of the FORCE APPLICATION used to manually operate the release mechanism and does not regulate the "type of motion" of the RELEASE MECHANISM itself. Blue Bird Body Company disagrees with the OVSC that an occupant would have to use a rotary motion to operate the mechanism. The introduction of the book The Way Things Work by David Macaulay supports Blue Bird's position by stating:

MOVEMENT AND FORCE Many mechanical machines exist to convert one form of movement into another. This movement may be in a straight line (in which case it is often backward-and-forward, as in the shuttling of a piston-rod) or it may be in a circle. Many machines convert linear movement into circular or rotary movement and vice versa, often because the power source driving the machine moves in one way and the machine in another.

But whether direction is altered or not, the mechanical parts move to change the force applied into one-either larger or smaller-that is appropriate for the task to be tackled. (1)

---------- (1) David Macaulay, Houghton Mifflin Company, The Way Things Work, Copyright 1988, ISBN 0-395-42857-2

The essence of our argument and position is the principal that a straight linear force can be used to operate a rotary mechanism. A weight put on a lever arm and used to lift an object against the force of gravity is an example of this principle. The straight linear force of gravity acting on the weight is the only application force acting on the lever arm. The lever arm's reaction to this force will be rotary motion and will involve other motions and forces; however, the application force of gravity, since it acts only in a direction toward the center of the earth, remains straight and linear. As another example, a latch string, extending through the latch string hole of a door, can be pulled straight out and perpendicular to the surface of door to activate the latch bar and allow opening of the door. Note that in this example, the latch bar pivots or rotates in a different plane and direction from the application force.

Since the pushout window release mechanism of the Blue Bird pushout windows is in the high force application region and is releasable by a single occupant, operating one mechanism, using one force application that is straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface, we must be allowed the use of option (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION and, therefore, are allowed a magnitude of 60 pounds.

The report, reference 2, determined the type of motion of release mechanism of the Blue Bird pushout window to be rotary and, therefore, determined the required force application to 20 pounds maximum. It determined the type of motion for extension of the pushout window to be

straight and perpendicular and, therefore, allowed a 60 pound application force. The pushout windows are hinged at the top and must swing out (rotate) to open. In a nearly identical way, the release mechanism is hinged at the top and must swing in (rotate) to unlatch. The only difference, from a principle of mechanics viewpoint, is the length of the lever arm from the hinge to the point of force application. For the latch mechanism, the lever arm is short and the motion appears rotary. For the pushout window, the lever arm is long, and the motion appears linear in reality, both motions are rotary but both can be actuated by straight linear force applications. The discrepancy and inconsistency in applying different requirements to mechanisms that operate in the same manner must be resolved and the resolution must be based on established principles of mechanics.

Request for Interpretation:

Blue Bird Body Company requests confirmation that the requirements of reference 1, with regard to motion, apply to the application forces and not to the release mechanisms being activated by the forces. Further, we request confirmation of our understanding of the principles of mechanics, as applicable to FMVSS 217 requirements, that straight linear forces can cause rotary notion to occur and can be used to manually operate a rotary mechanism. Blue Bird's desire that our pushout rectangular transit window design be allowed the use of Section S5.3.2 (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION of 60 pounds is consistent with both the letter of FMVSS 217 and the intent of the standard. We believe the requirements as written, acknowledge the limitations in typical human physical capabilities. When rotary motion (involving gripping and forearm rotation) is required to operate a release mechanism (such as rotating a common door knob) the allowable force levels are restricted to 20 pounds. Similarly, if reach distances for straight motion are such that body and arm extension are required to reach the mechanism, the allowable force levels are restricted to 20 pounds. Hence in these cases, the "Access Region for Low Forces" and LOW FORCE APPLICATION are required. When a push or pull force is required and the reach distances are small, as is the case with the Blue Bird pushout transit window latch, a human being can easily exert higher forces and the "Access Region for High Forces" and HIGH FORCE APPLICATION are allowed. If NHTSA believes that it is more appropriate for pushout windows to operate within the Low force application requirements, such a change should be implemented through Rulemaking Action and not by interpretations made in Compliance Test Procedures.

Blue Bird Body Company requests that thoughtful and timely responses to the above requests for interpretation be provided so that NCI 3189 can be satisfactorily resolved and closed in the best interests of motor vehicle safety.

If additional information or further discussion will assist in timely resolution of the issues involved, we will be glad to visit NHTSA to provide whatever information or assistance possible.