ID: 11737JUM.JC2

Mr. J.H. Brown
President
Jumpin= Jac=s F.N.
P.O. Box 526146
Miami, FL 33152-6146

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your March 11, 1996 letter to William Boehly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA=s) Associate Administrator for Research and Development. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You ask for this agency=s Aappraisal and we hope NHTSA approval@ of a product that you are seeking to develop, which you call the APT-103 Child Protector Safety Harness.@ You enclosed a brochure on the PT-103 harness in your letter. I note that you marked the word AConfidential@ on the brochure. In an April 16, 1996 telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you stated that you had no objections to our placing a copy of your letter and brochure in the agency=s public docket, which is a routine part of the interpretation process.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

According to the brochure, the PT-103 consists of a vest that would cover the child=s chest, a foam vest- like garment for the child=s neck (which looks like a Alife preserver@ used on

water), and a series of padded straps that would form a type of headgear for the child=s head. The brochure implies in several places that children are better protected using the PT-103 harness and a vehicle=s lap and shoulder belt than with the lap and shoulder belt alone.

In the telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you clarified an important point about your product. You explained that the PT-103 is not attached in any manner to the vehicle=s belt system, and is not intended to replace the vehicle belt system as the means of restraining the child. Instead, the PT-103 is simply a garment consisting of a padded vest, neckware and headgear, intended for a child restrained in the vehicle=s seat belts or in a child seat. The idea is for the child to be wearing a protective garment in the event of a crash.

NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Our statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as ('30102(a)(7)):

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; [or] (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

Your vest harness is plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor is it a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether the vest harness would be an "accessory" within the meaning of the statute. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. First is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. Second is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

With regard to the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your product emphasizes that the vest harness is meant to be used in motor vehicles. While you indicated that the PT-103 can also be used in boats and for contact sports, you informed Ms. Fujita that its major use will be in automobiles. Given this information, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the vest harness would be related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, so the vest harness is considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that your product is subject to NHTSA=s authority.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the PT-103. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a padded garment that can be used with a child safety seat or with the vehicle=s belt system.

While no standard applies to the PT-103, under our statute all items of motor vehicle equipment must not contain any safety-related defects. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I would like to note a few concerns about the brochure you enclosed on the PT-103. It describes the PT-103 as being available in a size that is suitable for use with children weighing 15 to 25 pounds (lb). This description implies that the harness is suitable for use by infants and small children, and that these children can be restrained using a vehicle=s lap and shoulder belt system. That practice may not be best for the child.

NHTSA believes, based on studies, that children should be restrained in rear-facing child seats until they are at least 12 months old (22 lb), and should not be placed in a restraint system that faces the child forward. A rear-facing child seat is needed so that, in a crash, the forces are spread evenly across the infant's back and shoulders, the strongest part of the child's body. Similarly, we believe small children should use a child restraint system until they outgrow their child seat. To avoid possibly misleading consumers into moving their children into a vehicle belt system before the child is developed enough for it, the PT-103 should be recommended only for older children.

Another concern relates to the fact that the harnesses in a child seat works best when used snugly with minimal padding or heavy clothing between the child and the safety seat. Similarly, a safety belt system works best with minimum slack. Excessive padding can compress in crash, introducing too much slack in the belt system that can cause the child occupant to be fully or partially ejected in a crash. A vest system that consisted of too much padding may have that negative effect.

Another concern relates to the possibility that some consumers may think your device is supposed to replace a child seat or vehicle seat belt system as the means of restraining a child in a crash. We suggest you prominently label the device as not being intended for use as a child restraint system, and clearly instruct consumers of this in advertising and other literature included with the PT-103. Further, you refer to the device as a Asafety harness.@ The term Aharness@ has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a type of child restraint system. We are concerned that calling your device a Asafety harness@ could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability as a child restraint system, which may result in some consumers attaching the PT-103 to the vehicle with the vehicle=s belts, as they would with other harnesses (which are Achild restraints@). With that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "safety harness@ in naming the PT-103.

Finally, we also note the photograph on page five of the brochure, showing children restrained in vehicle lap and shoulder belts A(Without PT-103),@ apparently is intended to show Abefore@ and Aafter@ shots of what happens in a crash without your device, to illustrate a need for the PT-103. The Aafter@ shot shows the childrens= heads between their knees, apparently to depict that in a crash situation a child would have no upper torso restraint whatsoever. We wish to point out that this is probably misleading, because the shoulder portion of a lap and shoulder belt would provide restraint in the type of emergency situation presumably depicted in the photograph. Thus, the situation shown in the Aafter@ shot is not realistic.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:5/10/96

ID: 17799-2.pja

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA)
1350 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005-4797

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This responds to your letter requesting a meeting on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek on my staff, you stated that your intention was to get an interpretation of the underride standards, and that a meeting was not necessary. Specifically, you would like an explanation of the definition of the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the underride guard for purposes of determining whether a trailer meets the definition of an excluded special purpose vehicle. The issues you raise are addressed below.

A brief review of the rule and the salient points of your letter is appropriate to set the background for our reply. As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). You state that trailer manufacturers and end users, such as fleet managers, have interpreted our regulations as requiring underride guards on trailers and semitrailers equipped with equipment such as liftgates that is incompatible with the underride guards. End-users have reported to NTEA members a concern that underride guards could create work-related safety hazards in the form of "pinch points" between the guard and the equipment.

Concerns about certain incompatible equipment led NHTSA to exclude "special purpose vehicles" from the requirements of the standard. The main problem you cite with the exclusion of special purpose vehicles is confusion regarding the definition of these vehicles. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ You observe that "the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard," (the "guard zone") determines the area within which the work-performing equipment would have to be located to be considered a special purpose vehicle. The remainder of your letter attempts to derive the boundaries of the guard zone. You conclude that the guard zone may be as high as the bottom of the vehicle body, as low as the ground, as wide laterally as the vehicle, and as deep, longitudinally (your letter refers to this dimension as width), as 12 inches forward from the rear extremity, plus the longitudinal width of the guard itself. You further conclude that if any work-performing equipment is mounted in the guard zone, the vehicle is excluded regardless of when and how the equipment is used.

Your understanding is generally correct regarding the boundaries of the guard zone. S5.1.2 of Standard No. 224 requires that the bottom edge of the guard be "no more than" 255 mm from the ground. The preamble to the January 1996 final rule explicitly stated that NHTSA was not setting a minimum guard height: "guards may be mounted with less than the maximum allowable ground clearance" (61 FR 2018. See also 63 FR 3657-58, denying a petition for reconsideration to set a lower limit on guard height). Therefore, the bottom of the horizontal member could theoretically be as low as the ground, although as a practical matter, such a guard would strike the ground every time the trailer hit a bump. S5.1 of Standard No. 223 requires the horizontal member of the guard to have a vertical height of "at least" 100 mm, or 4 inches. The agency in the final rule also explicitly stated "that 100 mm (4 in) is only a minimum height" (61 FR 2012). Since there is no maximum height, the top of the horizontal member could extend upward to the trailer bed. S5.1.1 of Standard No. 224 specifies a maximum lateral extension of the horizontal member as the side extremities of the vehicle. So the side extremities, as they are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224, constitute the outermost boundaries of the guard zone.

As you suggested in your letter, we interpret the rearward boundary of the guard zone to be the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle, and the forward boundary of the guard zone to be the transverse vertical plane 305 mm (12 inches) forward of that plane. You are correct in saying that the horizontal member of the guard must have some longitudinal thickness in order to meet the strength requirements of the standard, and that this thickness might in some installed guard designs project forward of the plane 305 mm forward of the rear extremity if the rear face of the guard is positioned tangent to that plane. You conclude that the forwardmost edge of the guard zone is equal to the 12 inches forward of the rear extremity, plus some undefined guard thickness. However, NHTSA intended to have the forward boundary of the guard zone at the plane 305 mm forward from the rear extremity, "as defined by" the configuration requirements, rather than at some undefined point in front of that. Although the regulation could be clearer, that is the most reasonable interpretation. The guard zone, as explained in this letter, should result in most tuckunder liftgate designs being excluded. The flexibility to locate a guard up to a foot forward of the rear extremity can also be used to avoid creating the pinch zones that some trailer operators are concerned about.

Your understanding is incorrect regarding when the work-performing equipment has to be in the guard zone and how the equipment is used. When you quoted the definition of special purpose vehicle, you omitted the qualifying words "while in transit," and concluded that work-performing equipment in the guard zone makes a vehicle excluded "regardless of when and how that equipment is used." NHTSA has made it clear in a number of its past interpretations that the work-performing equipment has to reside in or pass through the guard zone (though not necessarily perform its function) while the vehicle is in transit. See, e.g., May 22, 1998 interpretation to Ms. Jeanne Isbill of Tarasport Trailers. Moreover, not all equipment is considered work-performing equipment. These same interpretations make clear that NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Liftgates of all kinds are considered work-performing equipment.

The agency wants to be flexible about guard positioning, consistent with safety. NHTSA specified limited parameters of the configuration of the guard, because every additional requirement ultimately restricts the design capabilities of manufacturers. This flexibility was provided in order to help manufacturers that are actually installing guards. We have seen manufacturers use this flexibility to engineer innovative guard designs to adjust for their special requirements. Some manufacturers have even gone beyond what is required. For example, some manufacturers of trailers that are excluded due to tuckunder liftgates have begun to voluntarily integrate structural members into their liftgates which they test and certify as underride guards.

NHTSA has received a petition for rulemaking from Thieman Tailgates, Inc., to amend the standard to address issues similar to those raised in your letter. The petition asks the agency to change the definition of special purpose vehicle to clarify the boundaries of the guard zone. It also asks NHTSA to exclude vehicles with rear mounted liftgates that reside in or pass through the guard zone, without regard to whether the vehicle is in transit. The issues you raised in your letter, as well as any subsequent comments you make on such a rulemaking, would be considered in any rulemaking that we might undertake in response to the petition.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.9/9/98
ref:223#224

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 1982-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Research and Certification Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 2, 1982

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy President, Automotive Research and Certification Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. McEnvoy:

This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1981, appealing our denial of your request to import five different German specification 1982 BMW passenger cars under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). This provision allows vehicles not meeting the Federal safety and bumper standards to be imported for test purposes for a limited time without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You have asked us to reconsider our original decision or alternatively to allow the importation of two of the five vehicles. You have also agreed to perform all safety compliance work within 30 days of receipt of the five test vehicles, allowing you to carry out your test programs for developing complying emissions and bumper systems.

Upon review of your petition, the agency is agreeable to allowing you to import a total of five vehicles under the provision of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), without insisting upon immediate compliance with the bumper requirements, provided that you will agree in writing that the vehicles will be brought into compliance with then existing bumper requirements if they are sold to third parties. This will allow you a maximum of 120 days to bring the vehicles into compliance with safety requirements.

The bumper standard is primarily a property damage standard, rather than a safety standard, and the Administrator has the authority to waive it completely for vehicles imported into the United States. Although this authority has not been exercised or implemented in regulations, the temporary waiver which may be provided you is consistent with the intent of Congress, and allows both you and the agency to accomplish their goals. As a practical matter, the bumper standard may be amended in the near future to prescribe a more cost-effective level of performance and in that event your task of conforming the vehicles might be less difficult; we would not insist on conformance with the bumper standard in effect when the BMW's were manufactured.

I hope that this proposed solution is satisfactory to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 18, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1981, denying our request for permission to import five different German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

Your conclusion that "the purpose of your testing is to encourage the eventual importation of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to meet Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements" is in error. The purpose of our research, development, and testing is to insure that the motor vehicles which are imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x) are brought into full compliance with Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements and will remain in compliance with these requirements. It is felt that this purpose is indeed consistent with the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as well as that of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It is unlikely that our research, development and testing program will have any effect on the number of motor vehicles imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x). Since our proposed emission control system will be somewhat more expensive than those systems currently being used to enable non-certified imported automobiles to pass Federal emissions tests, will not become any easier or less expensive to import a non-certified motor vehicle. Similarly, if It was deemed feasible to modify the European bumper systems to comply with Federal bumper requirements (49 CFR Part 581), these modifications would most likely be more expensive than simply exchanging the European bumpers for U.S. style bumpers.

Your suggestion that we complete the necessary safety modifications before conducting our test program would, in effect, prevent us from carrying out that part of the program having to do with the bumper modifications. This is due to the fact that we must test different types of bumper support structures and shock absorbing units with the European bumpers in place. With the U.S. style bumpers installed, this would be impossible. We would, however, be agreeable to performing all of the safety related modifications, except for the addition of the U.S. style safety bumpers, upon receipt of the test vehicles. We expect that this work could be completed within 30 days of receipt of the test vehicles. This would allow us to carry out our test program while at the same time complying with all Federal safety requirements except the bumper standard.

We would also be agreeable to importing only two of the German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii), at this time. This would allow us to get our testing program underway and to demonstrate to the NHTSA that we truly are engaged in a research, development, and testing program. Once this had been done, we would then apply for permission to import the three remaining test vehicles.

Although our testing program will require some operation of the test vehicles on public highways, this operation will be minimal. We anticipate that each test vehicle will be driven not more than 3,000 miles for the duration of the test. These vehicles will be operated for testing purposes only, and will not be used for general transportation. Such limited operation certainly will not represent a safety or health hazard.

As you can see, we are agreeable to almost any conditions which will allow us to get this testing program underway. We therefore request that you reconsider our original request of October 19, 1981, for permission to import five motor vehicles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). As an alternative, we request that permission be granted for the importation of at least two of the five test vehicles listed in our letter of October 19, 1981, under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). The test vehicles which we would want to import first are the BMW 323i and the BMW 635i.

Attached is a copy of the testing exemption granted by the EPA. Your prompt attention to our request would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Robert P. McEvoy President

RPM:smm

cc: Mr. Taylor Vinson

Enclosures

November 25, 1981

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy, President Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, Massachusetts 01923

Dear Mr. McEvoy:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1981, in which you requested a testing exemption to cover five (5) light-duty vehicles. The purpose of the test program is to develop a closed-loop emission system for use on BMW vehicles.

A testing exemption is hereby granted, subject to the terms and conditions of the enclosed Memorandum of Exemption. If Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. elects to accept the exemption, please notify this office by returning a signed copy of the Memorandum to this office within thirty days.

Very truly yours,

Timothy Fields, Jr., Chief Manufacturers Programs Branch Manufacturers Operations Division (EN-340)

Enclosure

ID: nht76-4.41

DATE: 03/26/76

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

TO: Thomas A. Kirwan III - Capco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1976, requesting information concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applicable to transit vehicles, specifically, Dodge vans that will be used in a rural transportation system.

The answers to your questions are as follows:

(1) "Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?"

If your Dodge vans are designed to carry 10 persons or less they would qualify as "multipurpose passenger vehicles", as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3. As multipurpose passenger vehicles, the Dodge vans would be subject to the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards listed below. The standards marked with an asterick (*) are equipment standards and do not apply to the vehicles themselves. Rather, these standards set forth requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment for use in multipurpose passenger vehicles.

No. 101 - Control Location, Identification, and Illumination.

No. 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect.

No. 103 - Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems.

No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.

*No. 106-74 - Brake Hoses.

No. 107 - Reflecting Surfaces.

No. 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors.

No. 112 - Headlamp Concealment Devices.

No. 113 - Hood Latch System.

*No. 116 - Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

No. 118 - Power Operated Window Systems.

*No. 119 - New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

No. 120 - Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

No. 124 - Accelerator Control Systems.

*No. 125 - Warning Devices.

*No. 205 - Glazing Materials.

No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

No. 207 - Seating Systems.

No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection.

*No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies.

No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub Caps.

No. 213 - Child Seating Systems.

No. 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion.

No. 301-75 - Fuel System Integrity.

No. 302 - Flammability of Interior Materials.

The manufacturer of the Dodge vans must affix a label to each vehicle certifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, as required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. This certification label should be affixed to the door or door post of each vehicle, and you should check to make certain that it is present.

Please note that if the Dodge vans are designed to carry more than 10 persons, they would be classified as "buses" under 49 CFR Part 567.3, and the list of applicable safety standards would differ.

(2) "Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit?"

No. The NHTSA has issued only the requirements found in the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

(3) "Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those filled with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)?"

No. Such vehicles must meet the same standards as other MPV's.

(4) "Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service?"

Yes. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, 49 CFR 571.205, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Rigid plastic materials that are to be used as covers for openings in the roof of a vehicle must conform to the requirements specified in paragraph S5.1.2.1 of Standard No. 205.

(5) "Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?"

Yes. Driver qualifications for transit vehicles are governed by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR Part 391, Qualifications of Drivers.

(6) "Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system?"

At the present time the NHTSA has not issued any general guidelines concerning the organization or operation of transit systems. You may, however, wish to contact the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of this Department for information on this subject.

I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. Please contact us if we can of any further assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CAPCO

February 25, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The Capital Area Planning Council is in the process of implementing a rural transportation system as part of the Federal Highway Administration's Rural Highway Public Transportation Demonstration Program (Section 147 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973). We are, therefore, interested in obtaining information concerning vehicle specifications and safety standards for transit vehicles.

Since our transit fleet will be entirely composed of Dodge vans rather than standard transit buses, we are uncertain as to which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply specifically to vans used in transit operations. Could you assist us by providing the answers to the following questions:

1) Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?

2) Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit?

3) Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those fitted with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)? 4) Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service?

5) Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?

6) Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system.

Enclosed is a draft of our vehicle specifications. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions prior to March 10 so the necessary revisions may be made before our public hearings begin.

Yours very truly,

Thomas A. Kirwan III -- Transportation Planning Intern

Enclosure

Vehicle Specifications (Minimum Requirements)

1 ton - 125" wheelbase 350 cu. in. 8 cyl. engine 7400 lbs. GVW Min. Front Axle 3300 lbs., Rear Axle 5050 lbs. Automatic Transmission Power Disc Brakes Power Steering Heavy Duty Front/Rear Shock Absorbers Heavy Duty Front/Rear Springs Heavy Duty Alternator Heavy Duty Battery Heater (High Capacity) Air Conditioning (High Capacity) - 22,000 B.T.U. Slant Line or Vented Tinted Glass Windows Gauges - Oil Pressure and Ammeter Lighting Package (Door Actuated) Exterior Lighting to meet F.M.V.S.S. Insulation Package Undercoating Dual Electric Horn and Horn Bar Large Lo-Mount Side Mirrors Seat Belts for all Passengers Two Speed Electric Wipers and Window Washer Exhaust Emission Controls to meet F.M.V.S.S. and State Code High Capacity Fuel Tank Tires 8.00 x 16.5 (10 Ply Truck Type or Steel Radial) Front Stabilizer Bar Oil Filter - 1 Quart Freight, Handling, and Dealer Preparation

Modifications

Raised, Collapse Resistant Steel Roof Cap Restructured, penetration resistant sidewalls, and rear end sections Gas Tank Shield Drive Shaft Guards Passenger Door Entrance Heavy Duty Driver Door Control (manual) Entrance Door and Front Section Padding Passenger Grab Rails Two Leaf Side Door (Extended Doorway) Electric Hydraulic Lift, Expanded Metal Ramp, Semi-Automatic/Manual Override (minimum lift capacity 500 lbs.) Wheelchair Tie Downs (2 prs. mounted at 45 degrees) Rubber Non-Skid Flooring First Aid Kit 2 3/4 lbs. - 10 BC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher Reflector Flare Kit

ID: nht87-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: L. M. Short -- Chief, Enforcement Services Division, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

L.M. Short, Chief Enforcement Services Division Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento, CA 95804

This responds to your letter to our office concerning our certification requirements for manufacturers of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

According to your letter, California's school bus regulations require vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law to be certified as "school buses" under Federal law. Vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law include multipurpose pa ssenger vehicles (MPV's) used to carry two or more handicapped pupils confined to wheelchairs. Consequently, under California's school bus regulations, an MPV cannot be used to carry handicapped students unless it is certified as meeting our school bus s afety standards. Because manufacturers have informed you that NHTSA prohibits them from certifying an MPV as a school bus, you request that we remove this restriction by permitting the school bus certification for MPV's.

Your understanding is correct that our regulations prohibit MPV's to be certified as "school buses." Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations, manufacturers classify their new motor vehicles in accordance with the def initions we issued for our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571.31 and certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Under the definitions of Part 571.3, the issue of seating capacity makes the s chool bus and MPV definitions mutually exclusive. The passenger seating capacity of an MPV must be 9 or less, while that of a school bus must be 10 or more. A manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a "school bus" in compliance with Federal school bus s afety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category. Adopting your suggestion that we permit some MPV's to be certified as School buses could not be accomplished without changing either our "School bus" definition, our regulations for certifying vehicles, or the application of our school bus safety standards. As explained below, we must decline your implicit request to make these changes because of a statutory restriction and because we believe their adoption is n ot warranted by a safety need.

We are precluded from adopting the suggestion that we expand our school bus definition to include some MPV' s because our" school bus" definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. In the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 , Congress added a "school bus" definition to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is based on the design and intended use of a "bus." Congress directed that upgraded school bus safety requirements be applied to buses that carry more t han 10 passengers and that are determined by NHTSA likely to be significantly used for the purpose of school transportation.

Your second implicit suggestion is that we change our certification regulations to permit manufacturers to certify a vehicle as both an "MPV" and a "school bus." Such a change would not be practical. A manufacturer's certification of a vehicle is a decla ration that the vehicle is manufactured to comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Since our performance requirements for MPV's are not identical to those for school buses, an MPV cannot be manufactured to m eet the standards applicable to both vehicle types.

The third suggestion implicit in your letter is that a dual certification can be effectuated by extending the application of our school bus safety standards to some MPV's. We are not aware of any data suggesting a safety reel for such a change. MPV's alr eady have their own safety standards to ensure adequate levels of safety performance for those vehicles. Because of those standards, we do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to transport school children. Further, we do not believe the change you suggest is n ecessary to address the issue raised in your letter. Federal law does not prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily manufacturing MPV's to meet school bus standards on aspects of performance that do not conflict with MPV standards, such as emergency exits and joint strength. California may thus specify performance standards now applicable to school buses for MPV's used to transport handicapped children, provided that the MPV's can continue to comply with MPV standards. Of course, the vehicles would still be certified only as MPV'S.

In your letter, you mentioned that you examined the definitions set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, for "Type I" and "Type II" school vehicles. As you know, Standard No. 17 was issued under the Highway Safety Act as a standard for State highway safety programs. Since the "standard" consists of our recommendations for the operation of school vehicles, the Type I and Type II School Vehicle definitions found in Standard No. 17 are relevant for determining the o perational recommendations applicable to different school vehicles. Those definitions do not, however, change the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of a school bus or the Act's requirements for a manufacturer to certify school buses to all applicable Feder al motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

The California Highway Patrol has been informed by a school bus manufacturer that a new vehicle originally designed to accommodate 12 seating positions but reduced to a seating capacity of ten or less must be certified as a multipurpose vehicle in accord ance with Federal standards. Mr. George Shifflet of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) verified this and added that NHTSA does not recognize a vehicle with seating for 10 or less persons as a school bus.

The school bus definition found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571, Section 3. does not specify a minimum number of students to be transported.

Highway Safety Program Manual No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. United States Department of Transportation, NHTSA was searched for relevant material. This document. which is a guide for all states to use in developing pupil transportation programs, st ates that a "Type II school vehicle -- is any motor vehicle used to carry 16 or less pupils to or from school. The minimum number of pupils is not specified and we note that the word "vehicle" is used rather than "bus".

The California school bus definition is identical to the NHTSA definition of a bus in that both specify a vehicle designed for "more than 10 persons" However. California Vehicle Code Section 545 (copy enclosed) also provides that a motor vehicle that tra nsports two or more handicapped pupils confined to a wheelchair is a school bus. Many of these special buses will transport some pupils "confined to wheelchairs and some ambulatory pupils for a total of less than 10. Even though this seating configuratio n does not meet the definition of a bus, we feel that the school pupils being transported should always be provided with all the safety features provided by Federal and State Law for school buses. Chief Counsel $5 September 16, 1986

There are school bus manufacturers that are willing to certify that a motor vehicle with a seating capacity for 10 or less meets school bus standards but they are prohibited from this certification due to the requirements of Title 49, CFR. Some school bu s operators have been unable to purchase small four-wheel-drive vehicles for use as school buses to operate in snow and rough terrain. They have been forced to purchase larger four-wheel-drive buses in order to obtain the school bus certification label. A smaller four-wheel-drive vehicle may be more appropriate in rural areas under certain driving conditions.

In view of the foregoing information, we respectfully request that the merits of this case be studied and that a decision be made to permit a bus manufacturer to certify a vehicle designed to seat 10 persons or less as a school bus. Perhaps a new vehicle definition or classification is needed, such as "special school bus". If this request is granted, we feel it would be a positive step to further ensure the safe transportation of school pupils. Very truly yours,

L. M. SHORT, Chief Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

ID: nht89-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/89

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA

TO: HOWARD WOLPE -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED 12/21/88 FROM HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS TO JAMES BURNLEY; LETTER DATED 12/12/88 FROM DENNIS D. FURR TO HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wolpe:

Thank you for your letter to former Secretary Burnley on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr of Lansing, Michigan. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for admi nistering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Mr. Furr is concerned about the potential safety problems that may result if school bus seats are being overloaded. In particular, Mr. Furr asks whether NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guideline (HSPG) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR @ 1204.4 ), is consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222), with regard to seating specifications. Mr. Furr is particularly interested in how manufacturers are calcul ating the number of seating positions on a bench seat.

I am pleased to address your constituent's concerns. Before I begin, I want to note that we have answered a number of similar inquiries from Mr. Furr in past years.

We have two sets of "regulations" for school buses. The first, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Compliance with these standards is mandatory fo r new vehicle manufacturers, and is enforced by this agency with civil penalties. FMVSS No. 222, with which your constituent is concerned, is one such safety standard. The second set of "regulations," or guidelines, for school buses was issued under th e Highway Safety Act. Guidelines issued under this Act are not mandatory for the states; rather, they are recommended practices. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, to which Mr. Furr frequently refers in his letter, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and pertains to Federal funding of State highway safety programs.

Both FMVSS No. 222 and Guideline No. 17 contain specifications for school bus seating. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 states: "The number of

seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number." The guideline for seating accommodations in HSPG 17 states:

Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufacturers to provide seating accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 4 9 CFR 571.3.

Mr. Furr appears to see a conflict between the formula used in calculating the forces to be applied to the seats of large school buses under FMVSS No. 222, on the one hand, and the use by States and manufacturers of 13-inch seating positions for rating t he capacity of a 39-inch seat, on the other hand. I believe that Mr. Furr's belief in the existence of a conflict rests on a misunderstanding.

We view Standard No. 222 and HSPG 17 as complementary, not inconsistent. HSPG 17 reflects NHTSA's belief that all school bus passengers should be seated in the interest of safety. To that end, the guideline provides that there should be a seating posit ion for each passenger and that the position should be at least large enough to accommodate a 5th percentile adult female. The hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches.

The figure "15" in FMVSS No. 222's compliance formula is not a minimum requirement for the width of a seating position. It is the number which is used to establish the number of designated seating positions and ensures that the forces applied to the sea t during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash. It is also the number which ensures that the width of the smallest seat is approximately equal to the hip width of the 5th percentile female. That is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female. Use of the figure "15" in the FMVSS No. 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (f or a 38-inch wide seat.) That is only slightly smaller than the 12.8 inch hip width of the 5th percentile female. For a 39-inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger than the hip width of a 5th percentile female.

It should be remembered, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the FMVSS No. 222 formula is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all size occupants. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of wide ly varying ages and sizes, reasonable accommodations may vary between those values. The decision on how many passengers may be

comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved.

NHTSA does not have the authority under either the Highway Safety Act or Vehicle Safety Act to regulate how States use school buses. Therefore, NHTSA could not preclude a State from carrying more passengers on a bench seat than there are designated seat ing positions. However, this agency argues with Mr. Furr that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalizati on. We believe that Mr. Furr's concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by his working with the local school board and state officials.

Mr. Furr is also concerned about a reference in our occupant crash protection standard (No. 208) to a 95th-percentile adult male occupant size. He asks why FMVSS No. 222 uses a 15-inch seat dimension, when FMVSS No. 208 references the 95th-percentile ad ult male occupant size in specifying occupant sizes which safety belts must adjust to fit.

Both FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 222 are directed at providing occupant crash protection. Both of these standards set forth comprehensive requirements that are directed at protecting occupants likely to be inside a vehicle in a crash. With regard to sch ool buses, the agency determined that the crash protection requirements should be developed taking into account the full size range of passengers typically riding on school buses. If we designed the force and deflection (energy-absorbing) characteristic s of the seats for the 95th percentile males, the seats may be too stiff for a small child.

Finally, Mr. Furr asks whether, when voluntarily installing safety belts on large school buses, States are violating Federal law by using S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 in determining how many positions (and belts) there are on a bench seat. The answer is no. FM VSS No. 222 requires safety belts only for the passenger positions of small (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) school buses. Under S5 of the standard, belts on a small school bus bench seat are installed at "W" seating positions, as determined under S4.1. If a State wishes to order belts on its new large school bus and to use the same method for determining the number of belts to be installed, the State may do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-8.34

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard L. Plath -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Richard L. Plath to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9327)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office on trailer conspicuity. You ask for confirmation of several points.

Initially, we would like to comment as follows on the 4-point procedure you have outlined:

"1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer."

This is correct. Because the chassis is designed for carrying property and for being towed by a motor vehicle, it is a "trailer" as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

"2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 percent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side.

This is correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108, retroreflective tape "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered...."

"3) In the case of a 48 foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules."

This is partially correct. Under S.7.1.4.2(a), a minimum of 24 feet of reflective material must be applied to the side of a 48-foot trailer. However, S5.7.1.3(a) requires the colors to be red and white, not red and silver. Further, under S5.7.1.3(b) , the permissible lengths of the sheeting are expressed as "each white or red segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm." We note that 450 mm is slightly less than 18 inches.

Standard No. 108 does not specify any maximum permissible "void... between modules." Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), the spaces are to be distributed "as evenly as practicable."

"4) *** when the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis.***"

This is incorrect. Compliance by an unloaded container chassis with the conspicuity requirements is determined as if the container load were in place. S7.5.1.4.2(a) states that "at the location chosen (for conspicuity treatment), the strip shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo." Because the container obscures the gooseneck, the conspicuity treatment mandated by Standard No. 108 cannot identify the extreme front portion of the chassis. Its front termination point will be behind the gooseneck, at a point where it is not obscured by the Container. You have correctly stated this with respect to a loaded chassis but it applies to the unloaded chassis as manufactured:

"... the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) (shall) be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further we understand that the 50 percent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck."

You conclude that a gooseneck chassis traveling without its container would be in violation of Standard No. 108 if its gooseneck were not marked "creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four feet is allowable." You also ask "(i)s there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis?"

As explained previously, Standard No. 108 does not require marking of the gooseneck of a container chassis, and there is ho requirement limiting the spacing between segments of retroreflective material. We believe that the desired conspicuity of the trailer will be maintained by requiring the additional 4 feet of sheeting on the chassis behind the gooseneck when the gooseneck itself will be obscured with the container in place. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a manufacturer from applying conspicuity treatment to the 8-foot gooseneck of a 48 foot trailer if it wishes to do so; however, the manufacturer is still required to apply not less than 24 feet of material in the 40-foot section behind the gooseneck.

We shall be pleased to answer the following four questions you have also raised:

"1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a 48 foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?"

You will have to apply 24 feet of stripping on the portion of a 48-foot chassis that lies behind the gooseneck, but you are not required to mark the gooseneck.

"2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?"

As explained previously, the 24 feet of material is to be applied behind the gooseneck. If you wish to apply evenly spaced conspicuity treatment that includes the gooseneck, you may do so, as long as at least 24 feet of it is behind the gooseneck.

"3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 percent coverage?"

Yes, a tire is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of S5.7.1.4.2(a) forbidding the obscuring of conspicuity treatment. No, you may not deduct the length of the area obscured by the tire from the 50 per cent coverage. You must include it in the 50 per cent computation. Thus, if a tire would obscure 3 feet of conspicuity material on the side of a 48 foot gooseneck trailer, the manufacturer must apply 24 feet of material in the 37 feet that is behind the gooseneck which is not obscured. We note in passing that the prints submitted for our review by J.Z. Peepas of Selecto-Flash depict conspicuity treatment that is above the top of the tire and apparently not obscured by it.

"4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?"

You are not required to place conspicuity treatment on the extendable portion of the chassis provided that not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered when the conspicuity treatment is placed elsewhere. In the event that conspicuity treatment is placed on the extendable portion and is damaged when the trailer is in use, the operator will not be subject to any penalties of this agency. Federal regulations governing the use of commercial vehicles in interstate commerce are issued by another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA requires that vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle (49 CFR 393.11). Therefore, maintenance of the conspicuity treatment on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, is required by the FHWA. If you wish to write FHWA on this topic, you may address James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590.

The individual states may have regulations in this area as well. We are unable to advise you on State requirements, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht94-1.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 21, 1994

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, m eets the criteria specified in Table 1."

In a May 17, 1993 letter, Blue Bird requested the following interpretations regarding the requirements of Section S5.5.3(c):

"Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, inter ruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening."

In support of this request, the letter stated --

"The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges, or curved surfaces and/or must have re lief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads."

Your response to our May 17, 1993 letter dated July 7, 1993 documented a telephone conversation between Mary Versailles of your staff and myself in which I provided the following additional information in support of our request:

"In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retro-reflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape." You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retro-reflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear pushout window or

rear door), for two reasons. First you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivet, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off."

Your response of July 7, 1993 provided the following interpretations:

"NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivet, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retro-reflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retro-reflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six-inches."

Blue Bird sincerely appreciated the above timely and conscientious response which recognized the real world manufacturing problems we were facing and which provided reasonable flexibility in meeting the requirements while maintaining strict adherence to the requisites of the November 2, 1992 final rule. The above response enabled Blue Bird to design and incorporate into production acceptable retro-reflective tape installations for side door, side window, and roof emergency exits.

However, the installation of retro-reflective tape on the rear of the school buses is still a major problem because of the limited amount of area on the rear of school buses and the many features required by federal and state standards. These features i nclude taillights, stop lights, turn signal lights, backup lights, license plate holder and light, reflectors, large windows, extended rubrails, exit door or windows, hinges, handles, labels, and a multitude of fasteners to meet FMVSS 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Attached are two pages taken from our May 17, 1993 request for interpretation that illustrate these problems that require cutting, notching, and punching of holes in the tape around the rear school bus exits. Our supplier of retro- reflective tape, 3M, has been unable to provide us a product that is cut, notched, and/or punched with sealed edges that would help ensure the longevity, durability, and effectiveness of the retro-reflective tape. In order to provide ongoing safety, the retro-reflective tap e must remain on the bus and retain its reflective properties. Without proper sealing of the holes and notches, the longevity of the tape is questionable.

Since January 1993, in order to enhance the conspicuity and thereby the safety of school buses, Blue Bird has been installing retro-reflective tape down the sides and around the perimeter of the rear of new school buses as part of

standard equipment. Attached are illustrations and an advertising flyer showing the standard equipment designs we have developed to minimize installation problems and maximize conspicuity of the vehicles. The materials and patterns used are compatible with the FMVSS 108 requirements NHTSA has established for large trailers. SINCE ALL SCHOOL BUSES ARE REQUIRED BY FMVSS 217 TO HAVE A REAR EMERGENCY EXIT, Blue Bird believes that outlining the rear perimeter of the buses rather than just the perimeter of the emergency exit opening is more practical, reasonable and in the best interest of safety. We, therefore, request an interpretation stating that RETRO-REFLECTIVE TAPE AROUND THAT PERIMETER OF THE REAR OF A SCHOOL BUS CAN BE USED TO SATISFY THE REQUIR EMENTS OF S5.5.3(C). Such an interpretation would meet the intent of the November 2, 1992 final rule by allowing the retro-reflective tape to continue to satisfy the requisite of identifying the location of the rear emergency exits to rescuers while sub stantially improving its ability to increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. We believe such an interpretation is also consistent with your July 7, 1993 interpretation which said "....the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit p erimeter." Based on the problems we are having on the rear of the school buses, we now consider the locations chosen for our standard equipment perimeter marking "AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE" to the exit perimeter.

Thank you for consideration of this request for interpretation. Our purpose in making this request is to enhance the effectiveness of the material we install to meet S5.5.3(c) and make school buses safer. The length, width, and total area of reflective tape we are proposing to install on the rear of school buses by requesting the above interpretation is significantly greater than what would be required to outline only the perimeter of the exit opening. The new FMVSS 217 requirements become effective May 2, 1994 and therefore an early and favorable response is urgently requested. We believe our request can be resolved with an interpretation because it is compatible with both the wording and the intent of the standard. If, however, it cannot be hand led as an interpretation, we request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking per 49 CFR Part 552. Thank you.

ATTACHMENTS

Illustrations omitted.

ID: nht74-1.12

DATE: 06/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Amerace Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1974, with questions as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to your operations, and its relationship to a contract provision requested by General Motors (GM) requiring that you certify compliance of the hoses you deliver to it.

Your primary responsibility under the Act is to manufacture brake hoses that conform to 49 CFR @ 571.106, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. On and after September 1, 1974, pursuant to S5.2, Labeling, of that standard, each hydraulic brake hose, end fitting, and assembly shall be marked with "The symbol DOT, constituting a certification" by the hose manufacturer, fitting manufacturer, and hose assembler that each item "conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." Since the symbol is a permanent mark on the product, certification will be furnished to anyone through whose hands it passes, whether or not it is required by @ 114 of the Act. In our view, the symbol DOT is also a "certificate" within the meaning of @ 108(b)(2) since it is the manufacturer's representation of compliance upon which other persons may rely. The contract language suggested by GM is therefore not something required by the Act.

I note however, that the amendment requested by GM is to take effect July 1, 1974, two months before you are legally required to use the DOT mark. With respect to your obligations in the interim: Under @ 114 and the certification notice published November 4, 1967, (32 F.R. 15444) an equipment manufacturer must certify conformity to "dealers" and "distributors" by a label or tag on the item itself or on the container in which it is shipped. Obviously this includes dealers and distributors to whom you sell directly.

We also consider that the manufacturer of a vehicle, such as GM, into which a hose is incorporated is a distributor of brake hoses to whom @ 114 certification must be provided. Any further requirements specified by GM in your contract would be, of course, purely a matter of contract law.

Because you are required to manufacture hoses to conform to Standard No. 106 you are legally responsible for any violation directly attributable to the manufacturing process, irrespective of any certification provided GM. The question whether that certificate relieves GM of liability cannot be answered in the abstract. As of January 1, 1975, Standard No. 106 will also apply to motor vehicles, and we do not interpret @ 108(b)(2) in this context as relieving a vehicle manufacturer of his obligation to exercise due care. Certainly, at a minimum, GM would be liable for violations attributable to installation.

You have also asked for guidance on the recall provisions of @ 111 and (Illegible Word) notification provisions of @ 113. The repurchase provisions of @ 111 come into effect upon a determination by either NHTSA or a manufacturer that there exists either a safety-related defect or a nonconformance. This section is not enforced directly by NHTSA, but affords redress to distributors and dealers in the event a manufacturer refuses to repurchase substandard vehicles or equipment items. Since a @ 108(b)(2) certificate covers only compliance and is not a guarantee of freedom from safety-related defects, it cannot have been intended "to pass the expense of recall from GM" to you when @ 111 is invoked. The @ 108(b)(2) certificate was intended only to provide protection to certificate holders from civil penalty liabilities. Liability for expenses under @ 111 or @ 113 is a contract matter between GM and you.

As for @ 113, your understanding of Mr. Vinson's remarks is essentially correct. There is a direct notification obligation under @ 113(a) only upon manufacturers of vehicles and tires. But a @ 113(e) proceeding can involve any motor vehicle equipment manufacturer as a party, who could be ordered to proceed with a @ 113(a) notification campaign upon a finding that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance exists. A brake hose manufacturer upon such a finding would be required to provide notification to aftermarket purchasers. If the component is used as original vehicle equipment the vehicle manufacturer would normally also be a party to a @ 113(e) proceeding and required to furnish notification to vehicle purchasers.

SINCERELY,

AMERACE CORPORATION,

May 17, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to a conversation with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office, I am requesting a written opinion relating to certain questions I have concerning the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to our operations.

Our Swan Hose Division manufactures brake hose for, among others, the Chevrolet Motor Division of GM. We have been asked by Chevrolet to certify that the act of making each shipment pursuant to our contract constitutes certification as referred to in Section 108(B)(2) the Act (copy of certification enclosed).

Specifically, I would like to know what is our general responsibility under the Act as a manufacturer of brake hose? Does this request for certification add anything to what we are already obligated to do by the Act? I note that Section 114 apparently requires us to certify to distributors and dealers but not to manufacturers, such as GM. Do we have to certify if we sell to dealers or distributors directly?

Section 109 of the Act provides for civil penalties in situations where there is a violation. Does our certification to Chevrolet, in effect, pass the responsibility for violation on to us directly and insulate Chevrolet? Is is likely that the Administration would proceed against us directly in the case of a defect whether or not we have given the Section 108(P)(2) certification?

There are provisions in Section 111 of the Act for the recall of vehicles prior to the sale by a distributor or dealer. Is the Section 108 certification intended to pass the expense of recall from GM to us? Mr. Vinson advise me that recall is otherwise never mandatory. Can I assume that since recall is not mandatory the liability and expense for recall is a matter of agreement between Chevrolet and us and is unaffected by the Section 108 certification?

Mr. Vinson indicated that in the case of a safety-related defect the (Illegible Word) pursuant to Section 113(A) would be on the vehicle manufacturer to notify with no notification obligation on the hose manufacturer. However, in the event Chevrolet refused to recognize the safety defect, then a Section 113(E), Administrative Proceeding, might be brought against Chevrolet in which we would then be a party to the proceeding. Is there ever a situation where we have to notify dealers of a defect? Does the Section 108 certification pass the expense of notification from GM to us?

I wish to thank you, Mr. Vinson, and the other members of your staff who have been extremely helpful in assisting us in interpreting the Act.

I await your office's reply on the above questions and comments.

J. C. Vecchio Assistant Counsel

Enclosure

cc: N. P. Beveridge

AMERIACE CORPORATION SHAN HOSE DIVISION (Illegible Word) W SQUARE LK RD POB 249 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH. 48013

CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.: 38550

Amendment Effective Date: 7/1/74

Date: 4/3/74

(Illegible Words) Date: 6/30/75

The (Illegible Word) contract is hereby amended as follows: FOB DUNS-017560988

Contract No. CO-23064

PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONTRACT:

"BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACT OR PURCHASE ORDER, IT IS AGREED THAT THE ACT OF MAKING EACH SHIPMENT PURSUANT THERETO CONSTITUTES CERTIFICATION, AS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 108 (B) (2) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966, THAT EACH ITEM IN SUCH SHIPMENT CONFORMS WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD." ALL SHIPPING CONTAINERS (INDIVIDUAL OR BULK), EXCEPT (Illegible Word) TIRES AND GLAZING MATERIALS (GLASS), PROVIDED THE ARTICLES INDIVIDUALLY HEAR THE CERTIFICATION SYMBOL SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDING: - CONFORMS TO APPLICABLE U. S. FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS -

THE PARTS IN THIS CONTRACT IDENTIFIED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) MUST BE PRODUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED."

BUYER 03

Reason for Change: ADDING CLAUSES TO CONTRACT

Accepted:

AMERCE CORPORATION SWAN HOSE DIVISION

CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION General Motors Corporation Central Office

ID: nht91-3.22

DATE: April 16, 1991

FROM: Keith Salsman -- Independent Inventor

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsul, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert York

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Keith Salsman (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am an independent inventor seeking a Letter of Interpretation concerning a type of brake light which I have spent several years working on and currently have patent pending status. During that time I have been in contact with Dr. Carl Clark, inventor contact for NHTSA, and more recently Mr. Dick Stromboten who replaced him due to his retirement. I have also talked briefly with Kevin Cavey.

The brake light device, which I call the Braking Intensity Array, is a high mount brake light designed to effectively alert a following car as to the braking status of the forward car. The light is an array of lights that light up first in the center, exactly as the current high mount brake lights, in response to any pressure on the brake pedal. However, if any actual braking occurs then the lights on either side of the center lights will respond appropriately with the adjacent lights lighting under mild braking force, the lights next to them under a stronger braking force, the next lights under an even stronger braking force, and the outer most lights lighting only under a very strong braking force such as emergency braking. Thus the light lights in both directions from the center. Research has indicated that this is very easily interpreted by someone completely unfamiliar with the device.

During the developmental process I have tried to insure absolute compliance with any rule, regulation, or past safety concern. The center lights of the array are wired directly to the current brake light switch and will comply with the regulations on high mount brake lights in the Code of Federal Regulations 571 section 108. The rest of the array is controlled by a separate device which is also connected to the brake switch and will not operate independently. There are fail safe measures to insure that the light will always operate the same regardless of vehicle incline or speed. In addition, as per Dr. Clark's suggestions, the light's response time to various braking forces will be very close to 3 milliseconds which is quick enough to give the light "Real Value" and not just "Perceived Value".

In the past year I have approached several companies with my idea. Most are interested but unwilling to pursue anything because of what they called "too much government involvement" to overcome. Recently NAPA Auto Parts has expressed a keen interest, as well as TRUCK-LITE. Mr. Robert York of TRUCK-LITE has sent me an honest non-disclosure agreement and has given a favorable response. He told me that he will send a Request for a Letter of Interpretation as well. However, since he has signed a non-disclosure it is difficult for him to be specific. Therefore, I have submitted this request in addition to his.

The General Estimates System of the Department of Transportation has on record in 1988 a total of 6,875,500 Police Reported Roadway Accidents. A total of 1,622,000 were reported as Rear End Collisions. Many more of these roadway accidents could be of a secondary nature to a Rear End Collision, for example, a vehicle swerved to avoid a rear end collision and struck another object. Approximately 500,000 of the Rear End Collisions involved minor or moderate injury and 1,962 involved fatalities. The most common injury involved spinal trauma or whiplash. This injury usually persists long after the accident. High-mount headrests are installed as a safety feature now to avoid this.

A great majority of these Rear End Collisions occurred in our cities during periods of heavy traffic causing traffic jams and lost working hours. As the traffic continues to increase in the cities and urban areas, we can expect the number of such rear end collisions to increase substantially.

The following articles of the Department of Transportation Code of Federal Regulations on lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment are concerned with high-mount brake lights. In S2, article 571.08, it states:

Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents, by providing adequate illumination of the roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility.

In S5.1.1.27 of the same article, it states:

Each passenger car manufacture on or after September 1,1985, shall be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp which: a) Shall have an effective projected luminous area not less than 4 1/2 square inches.

b) Shall have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

c) Shall have a the minimum photometric values in the amount and location listed in Figure 10.

d) Need not meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.1.6 Moisture, 3.1.7 Dust Test and 3.1.8 Corrosion Test of SAE Recommended Practice J186a if it is mounted inside the vehicle. e) Shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools.

In S5.3.1.8: Each high-mounted stop lamp shall be mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the

rear. The lamp may be mounted at any position on the centerline, including the glazing. If the lamp is mounted inside the vehicle, means shall be provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars.

In S5.4.1:

Two or more lamps, reflective devices or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met, except that no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamp and no high-mounted stop shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

In S5.5.4:

The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stop lamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes.

In S5.5.10:

b) High-mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but before September 1, 1986, may flash when the hazard warning system is activated.

These are all references to high-mounted brake lights in the Code of Federal Regulations.

I respectfully submit that my Braking Intensity Array can be manufactured according to the regulations on high-mounted brake lights, and if so manufactured would not violate any of those rules or regulations nor would it deviate from the spirit, intent, or purpose of the Federal Code of Regulations.

In conclusion the brake light described above should help to reduce rear end collisions by alerting the car behind as to the braking condition of the vehicle. Also in congested areas of traffic it will help to keep traffic flowing more smoothly. This is due to the overreaction of many drivers to the brake lights of the car ahead. In many cases a driver may rest his foot on the brake with no braking pressure, however the car following sees the brake light come on and applies some braking force. The next car applies even more force, and so on until traffic is forced to stop. As traffic continues to increase this problem will become greater. This has been recognized and there has been some work done to install computers in cars to alert the computer in the following car as to the braking condition. Why not give the driver the information first?