Interpretation 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