ID: nht94-9.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Opening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht93-6.20

DATE: August 18, 1993

FROM: Jack McIntyre -- V.Pres., Tie Tech Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to Jack McIntyre (A41; Std. 209; Std. 222) and letter dated 9/15/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack (OCC-9123)

TEXT:

In January 1993, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued requirements for wheelchair securement systems that are used on school buses. These requirements are included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222. As stated in the comments that were provided to the Proposed Rule, these standards are needed.

In reviewing the final requirements, however, it appears that a particular requirement for the wheelchair securement system was adopted that is inconsistent with the securement systems being manufactured by most wheelchair securement manufacturers. Also, this requirement does not appear to be directly relevant to the crash performance of a wheelchair securement belt. The specific requirement I am referring to appears in S5.4.2, which references the requirements of Type 1 safety belts of FMVSS 209, and requires that the belt webbing be not less than 1.8 inches wide.

There is no apparent need to specify a minimum belt width for wheelchair securement belts as there is for occupant restraint belts. I understand that the belt width requirements for occupant restraint systems is to spread the crash forces over a larger area of the body. There is no such need for securement belts. Currently the industry standard for securement belts is a 1 inch wide belt made from polyester that easily meets the 6,000 pound force requirements of FMVSS 209 and 222. Additionally, the 1 inch wide belts made from polyester have less stretch than the 1.8 inch nylon belts.

Finally, it is noted that 1 inch wide securement belts and related hardware are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair, particularly in the tight circumstances that exist on school buses in many instances, than are the 1.8 inch wide belts and their larger pieces of hardware.

Based on the above, I petition to change the requirement that the wheelchair securement belt must be at least 1.8 inches wide. The cost to the wheelchair securement industry to retool for the wider belts would be significant, without any added benefits in terms of safety to occupants of wheelchairs in school buses.

Thank you for your consideration.

ID: nht94-1.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Openi ng" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside a nd outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use thi s sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht93-4.32

DATE: June 13, 1993

FROM: Charlie McBay -- Chief Engineer, Barrett Trailers, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Conspicuity

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-14-93 from John Womack to Charlie McBay (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter asks that the Office of Chief Counsel review the enclosed drawings (Model 80MP6-DD & GNXS-207) for compliance of the upcoming conspicuity treatment.

As you can see, both models have "outside post" design and air gaps that run through the sides and rear of the trailer. Air gap quantity and locations vary with different designs.

2" red and white alternating pattern used on sides and rear. 2" white on upper rear corners.

Note: Location of side material as close to 4ft. off the ground as possible. In the center the location stays on the bottom rail (due to air gaps) and ranges from 14" to 20" off the ground.

Reflector material to be a 14" strip placed in center of each opening between side post. This length meets the 50% coverage requirements.

Note that post spacing throughout the length of the trailer is not the same. Evenly distributed material will be in most areas, but breaks between material vary. Will this suffice for evenly distributed? Also, if we have an area where a minimum 12" strip will not fit, can we install smaller material or must this area stay blank?

Note that white strips in upper rear corners do not meet. Must white be touching or can there be a gap between the strips? Our design makes it near impossible to make a nice continuous square corner. Installation of the white corners is also closer than 3" from red top rail lights. Is there any tolerance on the 3" dimensions? One full width red and white strip on rear of trailer on both models as close to 4ft. off the ground as possible.

Enclosed are drawings of proposed installation as close as we can get to meeting the requirements outlined. (The yellow hi-lited areas represent reflective Material)

I would welcome any comments and ask that our installation have your approval.

Attachments omitted:

Drawing of Model 80MP6-DD and drawing of GNXS-207.

ID: nht93-4.51

DATE: June 28, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Eddie Bernice Johnson -- U.S. House of Representatives

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-2-93 from Eddie Bernice Johnson to Art Neill (OCC 8736).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 2, 1993, to Art Neill of this agency on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Bill Way of Dallas. Dr. Way is concerned about the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) to destroy M151 jeeps at the end of their useful military life because "for some reason the Department of Transportation has deemed (them) unsafe to be used on public roads." He finds this unusual "because if they are found to be unsafe on our roads, how can we consider these vehicles safe for use by military personnel?" Pointing out that used M151s could be sold for civilian use, he submits that "this is another waste of materials by the government."

As you know, it is the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to improve safety upon the public roads of the United States. Over 20 years ago, NHTSA became aware of allegations regarding the tendency of the M151 jeep to roll over during turning maneuvers. DOD was aware of these allegations and provided special handling instructions to M151 operators intended to minimize the possibility of roll overs. At that time, it sought NHTSA's advice as to the proper disposition of these vehicles at the end of their useful military life.

Because the suspension systems of the M151s could not be modified and because civilian operators would not have access to the same training in handling that was provided military drivers, NHTSA advised that surplus M151s should be rendered inoperable rather than sold to the public. DOD concurred, and formulated the policy that these vehicles should be destroyed at the end of their military life. This decision involved a balancing of the competing public interests of recovery of governmental funds and safety on the nation's highways, and the latter has been found to be the predominant public interest. In the years since DOD adopted this policy, it has been reviewed by both agencies from time to time and no compelling reason has been found to change it.

ID: nht76-5.12

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Anshelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 8, 1976, question whether the windows of "recreational vehicles" qualify as "secondary means of egress" and what Federal requirements would apply to them if they do so qualify.

The only Federal requirement for the provision of emergency exists apply to buses (Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, 49 CFR 571.217 (copy enclosed)). "Bus" is defined by our regulations to mean "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons" (49 CFR 571.3). Thus, Standard No. 217 would apply to the vehicle you describe if it is designed to carry more than 10 persons (including the driver) while the vehicle is in motion.

The standard does not use the term "secondary means of egress" but specifies a minimum area of unobstructed opening that may be provided by several means (e.g., emergency door, "push-out window").

SINCERELY,

ANSCHELEWITZ BARR ANSEL & BONELLO

SEPTEMBER 8, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Program

Att: Conrad Cooke

Re: Feimster v. Concord Motor Homes Our file #14247

Pursuant to Mr. Williams' telephone conversation with this office on 7 September 1976, he informed me that you have conducted an investigation relative to recreational vehicles having secondary means of egress.

Concord Motor Homes, the defendant in the above-captioned matter, alleges that the windows of their recreational vehicle quali as secondary means of egress in that one can break the tempered glass and climb out. The windows involved in this accident were not the "pop-out" type.

I do not agree with Concord Motor Homes' assumption that these windows qualify as a secondary means of egress.

I would appreciate it if you would forward to me any information you may have with regard to whether or not windows of recreational vehicles qualify as secondary means of egress, and, if so, the standards said windows must comply with as a secondary means of egress. If there is a charge for this information, please advise and I will forward you a check at once.

Thank you very much.

Richard B. Ansell

ID: nht95-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 2, 1995

FROM: Jim Cawse -- Principal Scientist; George Diehl -- Standards Engineer, General Electric

TO: Philip Recht -- Chief Counsel - NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/6/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Jim Cawse and Fred (George) Diehl (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

As GE Plastics continues to develop and introduce new products for the Automotive Lighting marketplace, it is extremely important that we continue to adhere to the SAE testing protocol as delineated in SAE J576C, to ensure that our products meet the pass /fail three year natural weathering criteria in South Florida and Arizona. The Design of Experiment (DOE) approach we discussed with you in August and September, 1994, will enable us to generate a much wider spread of data utilizing dependent and indepe ndent variables including haze. Yellowness Index (YI), color shift, thicknesses, formulations, colors, color concentrations, and coatings. This will supply very meaningful results for us and our customers in that we will be able to extract more results from less testing.

As a result of our discussions with NHTSA, AAMVA (now AMECA), and the major automotive and automotive lighting players, we have modified our initial approach to incorporate the important concerns of all parties. These include:

* The thicknesses used in the study will be at least the three minimum as called out by SAE J576C (0.062, 0.125, and 0.250 inches). We have added the 0.040" thickness as well.

* The formulations (base material recipes) used in the study will be commercial formulations and the results of the study will be usable for only those formulations (i.e., no blends of two formulations).

* Each coating will be tested at least once on each formulation.

* Each color candidate will be tested in a low and high color concentration so that interpolations can be made from the test results for color concentrations that fall in between.

* The final list of coatings is being firmed up as of this writing, and actually is being expanded beyond the list presented in previous meetings.

We would appreciate your written affirmation of our approach so that we have a mutual understanding of our new testing directions, and so that our customers are assured of your concurrence.

Sincerely.

ID: nht94-6.13

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Simons -- Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/93 from Kenneth P. Simons to Department of Transportation, Trucking Division (OCC-8877)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about brake requirements for trailers used in tractor trailer combinations. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether all such trailers are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles. You state that a "maxi" brake is found on all road tractors and "sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level." Please note that the term "maxi" brakes ordinarily refers to spring brakes used in parking and emergency brake applications. I further note that most, but not all, trailers are equipped with spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. S1392), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards.

Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.121, copy enclosed), specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicle under normal and emergency conditions.

While Standard No. 121 does not require manufacturers to use spring brakes or any other particular type of brake system, many manufacturers use spring brakes to comply with the standard's requirements concerning parking brake performance (truck, buses and trailers; see S5.6), emergency brake performance (trucks and buses only; see S5.7), and trailer pneumatic system failure performance (see S5.8). I note that while the requirements of S5.65 and S5.8 apply to most air-braked trailers, S3 of Standard No. 121 excludes some trailers from all of the standard's requirements. In addition, S5.6 and S5.8 specify alternative requirements for some trailers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-6.45

DATE: November, 1991 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; (Signature by Steve Wood)

TO: Robert W. Smith -- President, Auto Safety Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-14-91 from Robert W. Smith to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, based upon a meeting with Mr. Vinson on August 15, 1990.

You are developing a license plate frame that incorporates a "flashing/steady burning stop lamp", for use on passenger cars and motorcycles, and "an auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp" for use on vans, minivans, and pickup trucks. You cite a letter of this agency to Bettie Lou Simcox, dated October 24, 1986, as authority for your understanding that Standard No. 108 allows the use of a flashing, steady burning stop lamp.

Standard No. 108 covers original motor vehicle lighting equipment, and lighting equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment. It does not cover supplementary or novelty lighting equipment offered in the aftermarket. Mrs. Simcox asked us about the acceptability of an aftermarket stop lamp which, when the brake is applied, pulses before going into a steady burning mode. We informed Mrs. Simcox that her lamp was unacceptable as replacement equipment because Standard No. 108 requires original equipment stop lamps, and lamps designed to replace that equipment, to be steady burning in use, but that it would be permissible under Standard No. 108 as a supplementary stop lamp. For the same reason, your invention would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 if it is offered in the aftermarket as a supplementary stop lamp, which we understand is your intent.

You should be aware that Standard No. 108 specifically requires motor vehicles to be equipped with one or more license plate lamps. We are uncertain of the effect, if any, that the installation of your combination license plate frame/supplementary stop lamp would have upon conformance of a vehicle's license plate lamp(s) with the requirements of Standard No. 108. We therefore remind you of the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that - a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device such as the license plate lamp that has been installed in accordance with a safety standard such as Standard No. 108.

ID: nht95-6.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM MILFORD BENNETT (SIGNED BY F. LAUX) TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and the raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 percent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. 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.