ID: nht78-1.24

DATE: 03/22/78

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

TO: Dorsey Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone request of February 9, 1978, to Roger Tilton of my staff asking whether Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, requires that you mount on your vehicles (Illegible Word) retreaded tires containing the DOT symbol.

The standard in paragraph S5.1.3 requires that after January 1, 1978, all used tires mounted on vehicles covered by the standard be manufactured in accordance with Standard No. 119 as evidenced by the symbol DOT on the sidewall. Therefore, you would not be permitted to mount used tires on your vehicles that do not contain the DOT symbol.

Retreaded tires are not used tires. Retreaded tires must comply with all applicable Federal requirements pertaining to them. In the case of retreaded nonpassenger car tires, there are no applicable Federal standards. The DOT symbol is only marked on these tires to which a Federal standard applies. Therefore, retreaded nonpassenger car tires do not need to be marked with the DOT symbol and, in fact, should not be marked with that symbol. Retreaded nonpassenger car tires without DOT symbols can be mounted on your vehicles in full compliance with Standard No. 120. If the tires in your possession have the DOT symbol on them, they can still be mounted on your vehicles. The tire retreader would be responsible for the misapplication of the DOT symbol to these tires.

ID: nht78-1.25

DATE: 06/20/78

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

TO: Norris Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 7, 1978, letter asking whether a final-stage wheel manufacturer is permitted to mark a rim in accordance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The standard currently specifies that rim marking shall be done by a rim manufacturer, not a final-stage wheel manufacturer.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has previously determined that a rim manufacturer is the responsible party for rim marking. The language of the standard is specific in this requirement. The agency, however, is reviewing the standard with a view to its possible modification along the lines suggested in your letter. Should the agency decide to amend the standard, a notice proposing such change would first be published in the Federal Register. A final rule would only be issued following analysis of comments submitted by interested parties.

SINCERELY,

Action: Norris Industries Petition, FMVSS No. 120

Acting Director Vehicle Safety Standards

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Reference: Subject petition dated January 7, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 120 that will require the final assembler of a wheel to apply the specified rim markings.

Norris Industries is a major supplier of rims to the custom wheel industry. The rims are assembled with various designs of center member by the custom wheel manufacturer chiefly for the replacement and after-market trade. Multiple use of these wheels for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles requires that labeling be in accordance with Standard No. 120. The final product which is a "single piece" or "unitized" wheel is permitted optionally to be labeled on the disc rather than the rim. This is readily done when the rim manufacturer is also the final wheel manufacturer.

The present interpretation of the standard requires rim markings to be applied by the rim manufacturer. The location of the markings on the rim is dependent upon the specific disc design used, and varies considerably among final wheel manufacturers. This presents a hardship in maintaining adequate supplies of the correct rims for each manufacturer as stated by Norris.

The Norris petition (or request) to place the requirement for rim marking on the final assembly manufacturer and to release the rim manufacturer from the requirement constitutes a major change in the standard and would require a rulemaking procedure. The scheme would not work for demountable rims which never become part of a manufactured wheel assembly. From this standpoint the Norris petition must be denied.

However, as an optional alternative, it would seem reasonable to expect that the final wheel manufacturer, purchasing rims from another manufacturer, with markings per S5.2(d) and (e) would be able and qualified to provide the certification and labeling required of the rim in S5.2(d) (b) and (c), on the strength of his purchase specifications and contract.

This option would relieve the difficulties now encountered by Norris and probably others in similar situations. The standard would have to make it clear that the rim manufacturer is responsible for the required rim identification markings unless the final wheel manufacturer assumes the option.

Unless there are legal objections to this concept, we would be pleased to work with you in developing a "statement of interpretation" or an "adjustment of language" as appropriate for the situation. Please advise us if amendment of the standard is found necessary. We believe that certification and labeling of the wheel assembly by the final manufacturer is reasonable and appropriate, and should be permitted by the standard.

A. Malliaris

Reference petition dated 3/7/78

CC: F. KOCH

NORRIS INDUSTRIES

(Illegible Word) WHEEL DIVISION

2-20-78

Administrator NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Norris Industries, on January 7, 1978, requested a change in the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #120 to require the assemblers of the auto wheels to stamp the required information on the rim portion of the wheels.

Please advise us if this request is still to be considered and may we be informed of the decision as promptly as possible.

Please accept our thanks in advance of this information.

Don H. Pendergrass

CC: J. CROWLEY; C. MOORE; P. RYAN (S.E.M.A.)

NORRIS INDUSTRIES

(Illegible Word) WHEEL DIVISION PETITION

January 7, 1978

Administrator NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Norris Industries has supplied Automobile Wheel Component Parts to Members of the Custom Wheel Industry since 1961. These parts are then used as component parts for Custom Wheels. The majority of these customers are Members of the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #120 requires that at least three pieces of information be stamped on the weather side of the rim by the rim manufacturer. Because our customers are the wheel assemblers, a common location of the stamp on the weather area of the rim is not acceptable to all. The size of our finished goods inventory, necessary to serve this industry, is such that it would be nearly impossible to have the various sizes of rims stamped in the locations that would be acceptable to all of our customers on hand at all times.

This is a request that the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #120 be changed to require the assemblers of the wheels to stamp the required information on the rim portion of the wheels.

We trust this request is reasonable and may be acted upon without undue delay.

Donald H. Pendegrass Plant Manager

CC: J. CROWLEY; C. MOORE; P. RYAN (S.E.M.A.)

ID: nht78-1.26

DATE: 03/02/78

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

TO: H. A. Bullock

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 29, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, applies to a cruise control device that you manufacture.

In Docket 69-20; Notice 3, to which you refer in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated that Standard No. 124 contains no requirements for cruise controls. Therefore, the standard does not apply to them. There are no other safety standards applicable to these devices.

SINCERELY,

Dec. 29, 1977

Administration Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

Gentlemen:

I have developed a mechanical automobile cruise control which I am considering marketing as an add-on product. The attached Installation and Operating Instructions and the color photos, give you a description of the cruise control and its operation.

I have been in contact with the NHTSA office in Ft. Worth, Texas and have received a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124,Accelerator Control Systems (Docket No. 69-20, Notice 3). After a review of this standard and a discussion with Mr. Robert Weltzer of that office, I was not able to obtain a determination as to whether or not this standard is applicable to my add-on cruise control. Mr. Weltzer instead suggested that I forward all the information to your office for a ruling.

I have test driven the cruise control system on my own car (Honda Accord) on several cross country trips, one of 1100 miles from Texas to Florida, and have found it works exceedingly well and presented no safety complications or compromises. As a matter of fact, my experience is that I can probably disengage my cruise control somewhat quicker than I can the electronic factory installed cruise control on my Monte Carlo because of the proximity of the cruise control knob to the driver's right hand. An added feature is that any malfunction in the operation of my mechanical cruise control device causes it not to be engaged rather than the contrary.

After reviewing the information I have provided, please advise me as to whether Standard No.124 or any other standard is applicable to my device.

Harold A. Bullock [Attachment Omitted]

ID: nht78-1.27

DATE: 06/15/78

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

TO: Minnesota Claims Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry concerning the steering wheel system on a 1972 Plymouth Cricket. You ask whether Federal safety standards permitted non-collapsible steering columns on that vehicle model, whether the steering columns met all safety standards, and whether the vehicle manufacturer was exempted from Federal safety standards on the 1972 Plymouth Cricket because of hardship.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR 571.203), became effective for all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Therefore, a 1972 Plymouth Cricket had to meet the performance requirements specified in that standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 203 for your information, and you should note that the standard does not specifically require "collapsible" loads that can be imparted by the steering column during a dynamic impact test.

Under Federal motor vehicle safety regulations, manufacturers are required to determine for themselves that their vehicles are in compliance and to certify the vehicles as being in compliance. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration only conducts compliance tests on a "spot-check" basis for purposes of enforcement. Therefore, I cannot tell you whether the particular Plymouth with which you are interested was in fact in compliance with all safety standards. I can tell you that the agency has not made any determinations that the 1972 Plymouth Crickets failed to comply with Safety Standard No. 203.

Regarding your final question, no exemption from Standard No. 203 was granted for the 1972 Plymouth Cricket.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

April 4, 1978

Wayne C. Parsil Minnesota Claims Services

Dear Mr. Parsil:

This is in response to your March 29 letter regarding your investigation of an automobile accident involving a 1972 Plymouth Cricket, Serial Number 4C1L2R213949.

Your letter has been forwarded to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., for direct reply to your specific questions.

Ardella J. Pitts Highway Safety Management Specialist

MINNESOTA CLAIMS SERVICES

March 29, 1978

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTENTION: Safety Standards Department

RE: Vehicle Involved: 1972 Plymouth Cricket

Vehicle Serial No.: 4C41L2R213949

Gentlemen:

Presently we are investigating an accident in which the driver of the subject vehicle sustained fatal injuries when she collided with the steering wheel as a result of an accident.

Kindly supply us with the following information:

1) Do vehicle standards on this model permit non-collapsible steering column?

2) Did the steering column in these vehicles pass all of your safety requirements at the time?

3) Was the manufacturer permitted to relax steering column safety standards on these vehicles because of hardship?

We will appreciate your assistance in answering these questions and in supplying us with any additional information which may be pertinent on this vehicle.

Wayne C. Parsil

ID: nht78-1.28

DATE: 01/26/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Howard J. Dugoff; NHTSA

TO: Howard Sturtz, M.D.

COPYEE: RALPH NADER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Ralph Nader forwarded to me your letter dated November 23, 1977, concerning your difficulty in determining whether your 1977 Ford Econoline van is equipped with an energy absorbing steering column.

Ford Econoline vans are equipped with conventional steering columns that are not energy absorbing. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 203, Steering Control Impact protection, and No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, are currently only applicable to passenger cars, so manufacturers are not required to have energy absorbing steering columns on van vehicles. Ford has not voluntarily equipped its vans with such steering systems.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shares your concern in this subject. As a matter of fact, the agency has initiated high priority rulemaking proceedings to extend the applicability of several passenger car standards, including Standards 203 and 204, to both vans and light trucks.

Please let me know if you would like further information on automotive safety matters.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 23, 1977

Ralph Nader -- Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Nader:

I am an orthopedic surgeon and am most interested in automobile safety. I belong to various organizations regarding automotive safety. Recently, I bought a Ford Van after prolonged investigation, believing that it was safer because of a supposed impact absorbing front end. However, the brochure did not indicate whether the steering column was energy absorbing. I have checked with the dealer, a local assembly plant, as well as "Ford Listens Better." A copy of this latter letter is enclosed. I have not to date received a reply. I have also checked with various organizations, none of which will provide me with an answer. I was hoping that perhaps you could "stimulate" the Ford Motor Company to provide me with some concrete information. I suspect that vans, being considered trucks, do not have the safety features such as an energy absorbing steering wheel that automobile drivers enjoy. Apparently, the automotive industry believes that truck drivers are expendable.

Any help that you can give me in this matter would be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Howard Sturtz, M.D.

Enclosure

October 11, 1977

Ford Listens Better P.O. Box 1973 Dearborn, Michigan

Gentlemen:

I own a 1977 Ford Econoline Van in the 250 series. I have been most unsuccessful in determining whether the van has an energy absorbing steering wheel. I have been unable to get an answer from Ford other than the usual brochure on the van which does not include this information. I have also inquired from the National Safety Council and other agencies without success. I would appreciate it if you can inform me as to the type of steering column in the van and what the results might be in a front-end collision.

Sincerely,

Howard Sturtz, M.D.

ID: nht78-1.29

DATE: 12/18/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 18 1978

NOA-30

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Friberg:

This is in response to your letter of November 1, 1978, asking whether the Volvo "Child Cushion" must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems. You state that the "Child Cushion" is "designed to be used by children in the approximate age range of 6 to 12 years" for the purpose of raising the child "so that the seat belt system properly distributes deceleration forces over the child's torso in the event of impact, and to greatly reduce the probability of 'submarining'."

Section 3 of Standard No. 213 currently defines a "child seating system" as "an item of motor vehicle equipment for seating a child being transported in a motor vehicle." In adopting that definition, the agency intended to cover all devices designed to seat children in motor vehicles, regardless whether a device provides restraint (38 FR 7562,1973). Although you state that the Volvo "Child Cushion" is "in itself not a restraint system" it would be covered by Standard No. 213 if it is designed to seat a child.

As you point out, Standard No. 213 does not currently specify the size or age range of children to which the standard is applicable, while proposed Standard No. 213-80, Child Restraint Systems, does specify a size range (43 FR 21470, 1978). Section 4 of the proposed new standard defines a "child restraint system" as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds."

Although current Standard No. 213 does not specify the size and age range of the children intended to be protected, an upper limit of 50 pounds is indicated by a number of the standard's requirements. Section 5 of Standard No. 213 provides that the torso block to be used in conducting the static tests specified in the standard is the same torso block as used in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to test Type 3 belt assemblies. Standard No. 209 defines a Type 3 assembly as "a combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds or 23 kilograms and capable of sitting upright by themselves, that is children in the approximate age range of 8 months to 6 years." In addition, the static load requirements of Section 4.11 of Standard No. 213 were designed to reflect the loads that would be imposed on a 40-50 pound child in a 30 mph crash (35 FR 5120, 35 FR 14778, 1970). Therefore, Standard No. 213, like proposed Standard No. 213-80, is intended to apply only to child restraints for children weighing 50 pounds or under.

If the Volvo "Child Cushion" is designed only for children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, the "Child Cushion" would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. However, the agency is interested in learning of any test data that Volvo has comparing the protection provided by use of the "Child Cushion" and a three-point belt with the protection provided by use of only a three-point belt. A representative of the agency's rulemaking office will contact you concerning this request. Likewise, in order to ensure the safe use of the Volvo "Child Cushion, it is recommended that the device be clearly and permanently labelled to show that it is to be used with a three-point belt only by a specific size and age range of children.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 1, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS No. 213

Dear Mr. Levin:

Volvo has developed a device which extends the protection of a vehicle's seat belt system to children too large to benefit from child seating systems currently on the market. This item is called the Volvo Child Cushion, and is designed to be used by children in the approximate age range of 6 to 12 years.

The Child Cushion is in itself not a restraint system; its purpose is to raise the child so that the seat belt system properly distributes decelleration forces over the child's torso in the event of impact, and to greatly reduce the probability of "submarining".

We feel that this device fills a need for adequate protection for children six years of age and older; in other words, too big for a child seat, but too small to derive full benefit from seat belts alone. The Child Cushion may be used in most vehicles with a 3-point seat belt system.

In the current FMVSS No. 213, there is no definition of the size or age range for which the standard is applicable. In the proposed FMVSS No. 213-80, however, it is clear that the standard is designed to protect children weighing 50 pounds or less, or younger than 5 years old. This is below the range for which the Child Cushion is intended. Naturally, the cushion would have to be clearly labelled to reflect the age and/or weight limitations of its use.

In our opinion, the child cushion is designed for use by children larger than those covered by FMVSS No. 213. The standard is therefore not applicable to the Volvo Child Cushion. Please advise as to whether you agree with this interpretation.

The enclosed literature illustrates the design and use of the Volvo Child Cushion.

Please let me know if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning & Development

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer, Regulatory Affairs

NF/dpl ENCLOSURE

ID: nht78-1.3

DATE: 12/05/78

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

TO: U. S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation P.O. Box 2107 Santa Fe Springs, California 90670

Dear Mr. Petler:

This is in response to your letter of August 11, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers.

Standard 127 does not specify that the number "0" appear on the face of the speedometer. It is permissible for you to reletter the "0" mph position to read "5" mph, as the lowest measured speed indicated. This would solve the problem you indicate regarding the relationship of the graduation distance between the 0 and 10 mph to that between 10 and 20, 20 and 30, etc.

The NHTSA has received petitions for reconsideration requesting that the 10 percent deviation requirement be eliminated. A determination will be made at a later date whether to grant the petitions.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 11, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for interpretation, FMVSS #127, Speedometers and Odometers

Dear Mr. Levin,

We have been requested by our parent Company, Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd. to request from your agency an interpretation concerning a speedometer faceplate they wish to use. To assist you in understanding our comments we have attached a drawing. I apologize that it is not to the scale of the faceplate. Further, this past July 11, we left a sample faceplate with Mr. Carson of your Crash Avoidance Division, which you might want to examine. Our opinion requests are as follows:

Opinion Request No. 1 --

The area we are concerned with is directed to the speed zone indication area of from 0-10 mph. As you will notice, there are two graduations between 0-20 mph. They represent 10 and 15 mph, no 5 mph graduation is shown. Suzuki has determined that movement of the speedometer indicator needle does not begin to travel from the "0" point until the vehicle has reached approximately "5" mph. As you can see, there is relatively little travel area between the 0-10 mph graduations. We recognize that the graduation distance between 0-10 is not the same as the equal graduations from 10 to 80 mph. We were advised that to relocate the 0 position by removing the needle "0" stop pin could result in possible damage to the unit over an extended period of time, therefore we would pre- fer to be able to retain the faceplate as it is, if it is acceptable to your agency. We believe that the 0-10 mph range is not as critical to the safe operation of the vehicle as those speeds above 10 mph are, and for this reason we request relief in the area of 0-10 mph speed graduation requirements. If, however, this faceplate, in its current form, is unacceptable to your agency, we would then request your opinion on another possible solution that we believe we might be able to utilize.

Opinion Request No. 2

In reviewing Docket No. 76-06, Notice 5 (F.R.Vol.43, N0.145, 7/27/78, page 32422) we noted your agencies comments regarding "Suppressed zero needle". Our question is, since our needle does not move until the vehicle achieves a speed of 5mph, and by applying the suppressed zero needle approach, would Suzuki be permitted to reletter the "0" mph position to "5" mph, as the lowest measured speed indicated on the face of the speedometer. We again feel that the 5 mph starting position would not be critical to the safe operation of the vehicle.

We would appreciate your review of this faceplate design and interpretation as to whether this faceplate would be acceptable in its current state, Opinion Request No. 1 or Opinion Request No. 2, to meet the requirements effective September 1, 1979. If you are in need of any additional information please feel free to contact us.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Deparpment

FMP/ph

ID: nht78-1.30

DATE: 12/01/78

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

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dec 1, 1978 NOA-30

Mr. Robert B. Kurre Wayne Corporation P. 0. Box 1447 Industries Road Richmond, Indiana 47374

Dear Mr. Kurre:

This responds to your September 6, 1978, letter asking for a clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In particular you ask whether paragraph S5.3.3 which requires that, "a continuous warning sound shall be audible at the driver's seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency exit door having the unclosed mechanism" means that there must be a separate warning alarm at each emergency door and a warning alarm in the driver's seating area.

In your letter you recite the early history of this standard which addresses the alarm system requirement. At the time of the final rule's adoption, commenters questioned the requirement in the same manner that you have questioned in your letter. The agency stated in the preamble to the final rule (41 FR 3871) that the requirement mandated the use of audible alarms at each door and in the driver's seating location. The rationale for that requirement was outlined in the preamble and referenced in your letter. Since this interpretation of paragraph S5.3.3 was part of the initial rulemaking with respect to this standard, it is not necessary for the agency to undertake further rulemaking at this time to make this requirement binding upon manufacturers. The multiple alarm system requirement has been the agency's interpretation of paragraph S5.3.3 since its issuance, and manufacturers are required to comply with the safety standards as they are interpreted by the agency.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 6, 1978

Administrator NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

It has come to our attention, by way of an operator of Wayne school buses, that personnel from the San Francisco regional office of NHTSA claims that a condition of noncompliance exists on Wayne's school buses. This compliant concerns the requirements of FMVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, S5.3.3, namely, there is no alarm device located in the vicinity of the emergency door. A phone call from Mr. Shannon of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance in Washington confirmed the allegation. Mr. Shannon said the allegation is based on NHTSA's interpretation contained in the preamble of the Notification of Amendment 41 FR 3871, Docket No. 75-3, Notice 2. We quote the fifth paragraph of the preamble which is the one in question.

"Six comments supported the proposal to require an audible alarm when the ignition is on and the release mechanism of any emergency door is not closed. Five of these, however, objected that an alarm at each door in addition to one in the driver's cormpartment should be unnecessary and unduly costly. The NHTSA does not agree. The purpose of audible alarms at each door is to indicate which release mechanism is not closed. This is especially critical while the vehicle is in motion, as it will serve to warn the passengers in the area of the possibility that an emergency door could open. In addition, it will serve as a deterrent to tampering by children with the emergency door release mechanisms. Therefore, the requirement that an audible alarm be positioned at each ermergency door and at the driver's position has been retained.

We do not agree that this preamble statement constitutes an interpretation, it is clearly a different version of the standard -a different requirement. The requirement for an audible alarm to be positioned at each emergency door and at the driver's position could not have been retained as stated in the preamble because this requirement has never existed in the standard. As originally proposed in the notice to amend, published in the Federal Register of February 28, 1975, Docket No. 75-3, Notice 1, the requirement was stated thusly:

"When the release mechanism is unlatched and the vehicle ingitlon is in the wonw position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible in the driver's compartment and in the vicinity of the emergency door having the unlatched mechanism."

Docket 75-3, Notice 3, the version of the standard which went into effect on April 1, 1977, states this requirement in this way:

"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."

A couple of editorial changes were made in the final version, however, in both versions "a continuous warning sound shall be audible at," remains identical. The standard does not require that the sound come from a device located at the driver's seating position and another device located in the vicinity of the emergency door. In addition, the standard is written in the single tense, "a continuous sound." One sound, not two sounds, is required. The performance criteria is whether or not the sound is audible at both the driver's seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency door.

As we understand this complaint, the only thing at issue is the existence of an alarm device located at the emergency door. The alarm device located in the driver's compartment produces a continuous sound which is audible at the driver's seating position as well as in the vicinity of the emergency door.

After explaining our position to Mr. Shannon, he upheld the San Francisco office's interpretation and suggested we write to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards for resolution of the problem, therefore, we request that NHTSA either inform their regional offices that in order to comply with FMVSS 217, an alarm device does not have to be located at the emergency door, or institute rule making action soliciting comments to amend FMVSS 217 in accordance with the requirements stated in paragraph 5 of the preamble to 41 FR 3871, Dockets No. 75-3, Notice if these are, in fact, the NHTSA's intended requirements.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

RBK:m

ID: nht78-1.31

DATE: 10/19/78

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

TO: Colorado Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 22, 1978, letter asking whether the Federal government has any school bus safety standards that would prevent the State of Colorado from regulating in two areas.

A State is not permitted to have any regulation concerning an area of safety regulated by the Federal government unless the State regulation is identical to the Federal standard or imposes a higher standard of care than the Federal regulation and applies only to vehicles purchased for use by the State. With respect to the body diagonal strength test proposed in your letter, the agency does not regulate that aspect of performance. Therefore, the State of Colorado is permitted to regulate this aspect as long as its regulation does not conflict with any Federal standard.

Your second proposal would define "activity bus" in a manner that would except it from State requirements for lighting and color but would continue to require it to be constructed in accordance with the Federal school bus safety standards. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly granted activity buses the option of meeting all of the color and marking requirements for school buses or none of those requirements. That standard has been changed with respect to this option. All activity buses manufactured after April 1, 1978, must comply with all of the requirements applicable to school buses including the color and lighting requirements. Therefore, it is the opinion of the agency that your proposed definition of activity bus would conflict with Standard No. 17.

SINCERELY,

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

September 22, 1978

Roger Tilton National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The State Board of Education in Colorado is considering revision of current standards governing school bus construction.

Two matters have been raised which are connected with current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. They are:

1. Colorado prescribes a diagonal strength test for school bus bodies (sometimes referred to as a "racking load test"). Are there any federal standards which would preclude such a test being required in Colorado?

2. Current Colorado standards define an "Activity Bus" as a vehicle meeting Type II construction standards except for color, alternating flashing signals and stop-arm. Is such a definition acceptable under current federal standards?

The Board will begin reconsideration of these matters at the November 9 meeting. The information needs to be distributed to them as of October 20. I realize that this time frame is constricted; if you could forward some preliminary information by the October 20 date, it would be most helpful.

Thank you for your consideration.

Neal McCormick Consultant School Transportation

ID: nht78-1.32

DATE: 02/14/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 5, 1978, letter asking whether the joint connecting the front roof cap to the windshield header is considered a joint subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Standard No. 221 applies only to joints connecting body components to body panels in a bus body. Bus body is defined as "the portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space, exclusive of the bumpers, the chassis frame, and any structure forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting." Any joint falling outside the area prescribed for the definition of bus body is not considered a joint subject to the standard.

If the joint to which you refer is forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting, it is not subject to the requirements of the standard. The location of this joint, however, is not clear from your letter. The second paragraph of your letter indicates that the lower portion of the windshield glass extends forward of the referenced joint. If the lower portion of the windshield mounting as well as the glass is forward of the joint in question then that joint lies within the area defined as the "bus body" and is subject to the requirements of the standard.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

January 5, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

SUBJECT: 571.221 Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength

Section S4 defines a bus body as follows: "Bus body" means the portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space, exclusive of the bumpers, the chassis frame and any structure forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting.

Blue Bird school buses have a joint between the front roof cap and windshield header which is forward of the upper portion of the windshield glass, rubber and metal flange mounting. This joint "A" is illustrated in the enclosed photograph. The lower portion of the windshield glass protrudes forward of the subject joint. Based on paragraph S4, it is our understanding that joint "A" between the front roof cap and windshield header is exempt from the requirements of S5 because it is forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting.

Would you please give us a ruling on this at your earliest convenience.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

Windshield Glass

Windshield Mounting Rubber

(Graphics omitted)