ID: nht94-8.46

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry Karas -- T. K. Auto Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Terry Karas to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 5, 1993.

You have asked whether a Canadian car that was accompanied by a Canadian manufacturer's letter stating that the vehicle complies with U.S. safety standards can be imported as a conforming vehicle under Box 2.

Box 2 on the HS-7 importation form is the importer's declaration under 49 CFR 591.5(b) that the motor vehicle to be imported complies with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears a certification label or tag to that effect, affixed by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. Because some Canadian vehicles may be virtually identical to those manufactured in the United States, and hence may comply with U.S. safety standards even if not bearing a specific certification to U.S. safety standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has accepted, in lieu of specific certification to U.S. safety standards, a letter from the Canadian manufacturer stating that the vehicle to be imported was manufactured to comply with the U.S. safety standards.

If a manufacturer's compliance letter accompanies a vehicle manufactured for sale in Canada at the time such vehicle is offered for importation into the United States, the vehicle may be entered under Box 2 as a conforming vehicle, without the intervention of a registered importer or the issuance of a bond. However, the manufacturer's compliance letter must contain the VIN of the specific vehicle that is to be imported, and an unqualified statement that the vehicle, as manufactured, complied with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Customs will then forward the HS-7 form and manufacturer's letter to this agency. However, if customs wishes us to review the manufacturer's letter, it is the prerogative of Customs to defer entry of the vehicle until it has received our views as to whether entry under Box 2 is appropriate.

You have also asked whether it makes "a difference if it is being imported for commercial or private purposes." Any Canadian vehicle that is accompanied by an acceptable manufacturer's letter of compliance is eligible for entry as a conforming vehicle under Box 2, regardless of whether the intent of importation is the commercial sale of the vehicle, or the retention of the vehicle for private use. However, if the letter is not an acceptable statement of compliance and the importation is for commercial purposes, the vehicle may only be imported under bond by a registered importer who must satisfy NHTSA that the vehicle complies, or has been brought into compliance, with the U.S. safety standards. Even though the registered importer's compliance work may be minimal, it is important to remember that the registered importer is also the person

responsible by statute for implementing notification and remedy campaigns in the event that noncompliances of the original manufacturer or safety related defects are discovered in the Canadian vehicle.

ID: nht94-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: William R. Willen -- Managing Counsel, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Honda Electric Vehicles in Accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c)

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 7/25/94: Letter from John Womack to William Willen (Part 555 & 591)

TEXT: This petition is being sought by American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 1919 Torrance Blvd, Torrance, CA, 90501, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Honda." Honda plans to field test no more than twenty (20) electric vehicles ("HONDA-EV") over a three (3) year period, in order to gather field information. These HONDA-EV's will not be sold, however; they will be driven by various drivers, including, but not limited to: electric utilities, media Honda employees, commercial fleet drivers and, po ssibly, consumers. The field test is necessary to obtain "real world" usage patterns as well as overall field experience with electric vehicles. The technical and qualitative feedback from these field tests will enable Honda to develop and market a bet ter electric vehicle.

In accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c), the basis for this petition includes: "the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle." The HONDA-EV for which Honda seeks an exemption meets all applicable regulations except the following FMVSS standards:

FMVSS Description Impact 103 As described in Attachment 1, a Operator instructions will make limited area on each side of clear the need to wait until the the windshield is only 87.5% clear, front glass is adequately compared to a standard of 95% defrosted prior to vehicle operation. The vehicles will clear, within the specified 40 be minute start period. This is operated mainly in California primarily due to the electrical where the milder weather should consumption requirements. minimize this concern. Additionally, vehicle parking is primarily indoors due to recharging requirements, where defrosting is even less of a concern. While these eight components do 302 PP plastic was used for several not prototype parts in order to meet the standard, all other minimize the tooling costs needed vehicle components do meet the to produce these few vehicles. PP standard, and the overall risk does not meet the fire-retardant of fire is not significantly increased. Additionally, the standard set forth in 302. risk of fuel-fed fire is greatly These components are described reduced in Attachment 2, and include: since there is no on-board gasoline or diesel fuel with Cover, Right Front Door; Cover, which Left Front Door; Console, Front; to contend. Lining, Rear Panel; Lining, Right Side, Lining, Left Side; Lining, Right Cowl Side; Lining, Left Cowl Side

These minor "non-compliances" will have no significant adverse affect on vehicle safety.

By providing this temporary exemption, field testing and evaluation will proceed rapidly. In addition, the full production version of this vehicle, currently scheduled for the 1998 model year, is planned to fully meet all FMVSS requirements, including t he above standards.

Enclosed: Attachment 1 (1 page) Attachment 2 (6 pages)

ID: nht93-8.14

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/93 from Ray Paradis to Pat Boyd (OCC-9151)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993, to Pat Boyd of this agency with respect to the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed literature and photos of several of your trailers, and ask for our comments in several areas.

Your first remark is "Deck heights are from 22" to 39 1/2"." We understand this to ask whether these are acceptable heights for mounting conspicuity treatments. Standard No. 108 was amended on October 6, 1993, to specify a mounting range as close to 375 to 1525 mm as practicable, i.e. approximately 15 to 60 inches. Your "deck heights" are within this range.

Your second remark is "(t)he rear design does not allow for continuous tape all models." Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. Paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps, breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps.

Your third remark is (t)he side extension model has fold-up sides #2." We understand this to ask whether striping must be applied so as to be visible only when the extension is folded, or whether striping must also be visible when the extension is in use, i.e., whether striping must be applied to both surfaces of the extension so that it is visible regardless of the position of the extension. Although Standard No. 108 does not directly address this question, we believe that motor vehicle safety requires visibility of conspicuity treatment at all times. The standard does require that striping not be obscured by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo, reflecting the agency's intent that striping be visible when the trailer is performing its intended work-related functions. This means that side extension model trailers should be equipped with conspicuity treatment that is visible both when the extensions are folded and unfolded.

Your final remark is "((d)oes the front require any stripe." Under the assumption that you refer to the front side of a trailer and not the front that is hidden behind the towing vehicle, the answer is yes. Standard No. 108, in pertinent part, requires conspicuity treatment to be applied as close to the front of a trailer as practicable. Goosenecks and tongues are part of the trailer front and are portions of a trailer requiring conspicuity treatment if practicable.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht75-5.10

DATE: 05/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bock & Jones

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1975, inquiring about the existence of regulations governing the manufacture, design, and on-the-road operation of trailers used to transport fertilizer while hitched to a pickup truck.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the responsibility of promulgating safety standards that set minimum performance requirements for vehicles manufactured and/or sold in the United States. There are five motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trailers. These standards relate to trailer lighting, tires, and braking systems (Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (49 CFR Part 571.106), Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (49 CFR Part 571.108), Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR Part 571.116), Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR Part 571.119), Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR Part 571.121)).

There is no safety standard that applies to the towing of a trailer. The use of a safety chain to guard against release of the trailer may, however, be mandated by State law.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BOCK & JONES -- ATTORNEYS AT LAW

May 2, 1975

CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED #466442

Legal Department -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

I am involved in a lawsuit in which a large fertilizer manufacturer-distributor furnished a four wheel pull-type fertilizer applicator, constructed very similar to a normal trailer, and was used for transporting bulk fertilizer from the distribution point, on the public highways, pulled by a pickup truck, to farms, for fertilizer application.

The trailer hitch was of a standard type which coupled to a hole in the rear bumper of the pickup truck.

For some unknown reason, the clevis pin probably broke, the trailer became uncoupled from the pickup truck, and crossed the centerline of the public highway, killing the driver of the approaching vehicle.

The trailer did not have the standard type of commonly used safety chains, which are also usually attached to the pulling vehicle to avoid accidents if the trailer hitch becomes uncoupled.

Since becoming involved in this litigation, we have determined that this is not uncommon in the area, as apparently these clevis pins through use, jolts, etc., do fracture or break, but fortunately the other accidents in the area were not fatal to other people.

My purpose in writing to your department is to determine:

(1) Whether or not you issue any type of regulations covering the manufacture or design of such trailers?

(2) Whether or not you have any type of regulations that set minimum standards for such trailers or applicators to be pulled or used on public highways?

If your agency should not be involved in such, perhaps you could advise us of another regulatory agency that might have such regulations.

Thanking you for this information, we are

Sincerely yours,

By: Harold D. Jones

ID: nht78-2.26

DATE: 04/05/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: C. S. Ullman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 28, 1978, to Mr. A. P. Uccello, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints (copy enclosed).

In this Standard, under section 4(b)(1), the minimum height of the head restraint shall not be less than 27.5 inches above the seating reference point which is determined with a three-dimensional H Point Machine per SAE Standard J826B placed on the seat. Thus, we have specified a minimum dimension that the car builder must comply with, but we have no limit on the maximum dimension of the head restraint. This latter dimension is set by the builder to suit his requirements.

Certainly your height is a problem in this case and for future rulemaking actions along this line we are placing your letter and the Buick reply in the appropriate docket.

SINCERELY,

February 28, 1978

A.P. Uccello Transportation Dept.

Dear Sir:

You are impossible to get on the phone so I will resort to writing.

I have nothing but plaudits for my '77 Buick but I have written to them about the height of the head restraint (head rests). I am 6' 7" tall and the head rest probably would not prevent whip lash in my case. Previously the head rest was made so it could lock in at least three positions-the highest position was correct for me. Now the head rest only tranerses about 1 inch and does not lock so people getting in the back seat could depress the head rest.

Enclosed please find copy of my reply from Buick. I call your attention to the second paragraph. I would like to know what safety standard effects the head rest? If there is such a standard, then it should be corrected.

I welcome your comment and advice.

THANK YOU.

Charles S. Ullmann

BUICK MOTOR DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION January 31, 1978

S. C. Ullmann Associates, Inc. 94 Highland Road Scarsdale, NY 10583

Att: Mr. Charles S. Ullmann

Dear Mr. Ullmann:

Thank you for your recent note of January 23, 1978 addressed to our Zone Manager, Mr. R. G. Royer, and we appreciate the interest you have shown in bringing to our attention the characteristics of the front seat head rest supports in your 1977 Buick Electra Limited.

As you probably realize, your car was manufactured in compliance with many vehicle safety standards, and one of these considerations is the head rest suitability throughout the range and size of the car occupants.

However, since we welcome comments from all of our owners, it is with this thought that we are forwarding your letter to the attention of those parties responsible for these design caracteristics.

Thank you again for writing, and please be assured of our interest.

K. J. Mariano Manager, Zone Service Operations

ID: nht80-3.15

DATE: 07/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1980, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the spacing required between headlamps and turn signal lamps on motorcycles.

You cited Table IV of Standard No. 108 which requires that the "minimum edge to edge separation distance between [turn signal] lamp and [headlamp] is 4 inches." You also cited paragraph 4.2 of the referenced SAE standard on turn signal lamps, J588e, which mandates that "the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." Finally, you have cited an agency interpretation of November 5, 1979, to Bajaj Auto Limited as support that the provisions of 4.2 prevail, and you asked for confirmation of this opinion.

The Bajaj letter does not provide the support you seek. The interpretation it provides is that the separation distance must be not less than the minimum under all motorcycle operating conditions.

We view Table IV as controlling in this instance as it contains a specific locational requirement for motorcycles. Since that specific requirement is lacking in Table IV for other motor vehicle, paragraph 4.2 of J588e would then apply with respect to separation distance for lamps on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

SINCERELY,

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

June 9, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

Dear Sir

We request interpretation of the interlamp spacing requirements specified for motorcycles in Table IV of FMVSS 108.

A four-inch spacing is required between turn signal lamps and the edge of the headlamp in front, and between turn signal lamps in the rear. However, while subject table uses the words, "edge to edge", SAE J588e, referenced in Table III, specifies measuring turn signal distance from the filament center.

Acceptance of the filament center of a turn signal lamp as the measuring point is underscored by your letter of November 5, 1979 to Mr. Keshav of Bajaj Auto Limited.

A closely related question concerns the method of measurement, i.e., whether the required four-inch separation dimension is a physical measurement between lamps or a distance between lamp projections. This is questioned because the measurement method is not specified in Table IV, and because S4.3.1.1 of the standard, and section 4.3 of SAE J588e otherwise require unobstructed photometric compliance.

In view of the above, we interpret the standard to mean that the four-inch dimension is a physical measurement to a turn signal's filament.

We would appreciate receiving your interpretation as soon as convenient.

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

ID: 9920

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994, requesting an interpretation of how the term "daylight opening," as used in a recent amendment of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, would apply to various exits (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020; December 2, 1992).

Your letter references a March 24, 1994 interpretation letter to Mr. Bob Carver of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles. That letter discussed the term "daylight opening" as follows:

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.

Your letter states that this interpretation

represents a drastic change in what we understood from the wording of the final rule ... and what we were told by Rulemaking. We believed and were told that the definition of daylight opening applied to the exit opening itself and did not involve access to the opening. Access to and obstruction of openings are addressed later in the standard in section S5.4.2 School Bus Emergency Exit Extension.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to respond to these statements. You are correct that S5.4.2 includes requirements related to access to, and obstruction of, exits in that it specifies the minimum opening and the minimum amount of access required for various exits. However, the issue of minimum opening is separate from the issue, addressed in S5.2.3, of the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. Section S5.2.3 specifies the number and type of exits required on school buses. This section states:

The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening.

Thus, S5.2.3 specifies the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. An interpretation of the term "daylight opening" that allowed credit for the exit opening, regardless of obstructions, would be contrary to the plain language of the definition of that term. Giving credit for obstructed areas would also be contrary to the intent of the final rule, which is to increase the area on larger buses which is available for exit in an emergency.

With respect to your report of receiving an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent the public has any questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authoritative and which therefore can be relied upon by members of the public, such as manufacturers, are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might misinterpreted by manufacturers as official agency guidance on which they may safely rely.

Your letter states that the March 24 interpretation "raises other questions regarding the various school bus emergency exits." Your questions and the response to each follows.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Rear Emergency Exit Door

a. Section S5.4.2.1(a)(1) ... requires unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 30 centimeters deep. It is our rationale and interpretation that a seat back or other interior component that lies forward of this 30 centimeter deep parallelepiped is not an obstruction to the rear emergency door and would not result in a reduction of the area credited to the rear emergency door. (See figure 1a) Is this interpretation correct?

In the case of a rear emergency exit door, the depth requirement in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) reflects a determination that an interior component outside that limit does not render the exit unusable. Therefore, an interior component outside the area bounded by the transverse vertical plane of the exit opening, the two longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the sides of the exit opening, and the transverse vertical plane parallel to and 30 centimeters away from the plane of the exit opening would not be considered an obstruction for determining the area of "daylight opening."

b. School buses are typically equipped with 39-inch (99 cm) wide seats. At the rear emergency door, one of the rear seats is typically shifted forward to provide the clearance required by S5.4.2.1(a)(1). The other rear seat is typically allowed to be near or against the rear wall of the bus to fully utilize the available seating floor space and to provide maximum knee clearance. When viewed from the rear, this seat protrudes into the door opening; and according to the (March 24) interpretation ..., the area of the obstruction would not be credited to the exit. Following the logic of the interpretation, the area of the seat itself and the area above the seat could not be credited. We disagree with the logic of the interpretation that door exits are only used by movement along the floor. If the bus is on its side or top, the exit must be used from different approaches. It is therefore our logic and interpretation that only the actual area obstructed (i.e. the area of the seat and the area below the seat) cannot be credited to the exit. For the case in question, the area above the seat can be used in many accident scenarios and therefore can be credited as "daylight opening." (See figure 1b) Is this interpretation correct?

You are correct that emergency doors will be used by people moving along an interior surface other than the floor if the vehicle is on its side or roof following an accident. As stated in the March 24 interpretation, in determining the amount of daylight opening, you should not credit any area which "cannot be used for exit purposes." In the case of the seat illustrated in incoming letter from Wayne, the area over the seat is 6.12 inches by 12.5 inches. However, in reviewing that letter in light of your question, we now agree that the area over the seat may be usable in some accident scenarios.

For your exit, neither your letter nor figure 1b provide dimensions of the area over the seat. If the area is large enough to be usable in an accident scenario, that area can be credited towards the daylight opening.

c. The rear emergency door on Blue Bird school buses is hinged on the outside, and the top portion of the door is angled forward when the door is closed. When the door is opened and held in the open position by the device required by S5.4.2.1(a)(3)(i), the door protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. It is our understanding, based on the interpretation of reference 3, that the protrusion of the door now constitutes an obstruction and the area of the obstruction cannot be credited to the exit area. (See figure 1c) Is this understanding correct?

This is correct.

Emergency Window Exits

The seat backs of school bus seats can protrude into the lower region of side window exit openings. Side window exits when the bus is upright may be used by climbing over the seats. If the bus is on its side or top, the side window exits may be used from different approaches. Since areas of sufficient size above, in front of, and behind a protruding seat back could be used for different parts of the body, (i.e. head, knees, legs) when crawling out a side window exit in different vehicle orientations, it is our logic and interpretation that only the actual area of the seat back in the side window exit opening and the smallest area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edges of the exit opening constitute obstructions and cannot be credited to the exit. (See figure 2) Is this interpretation correct?

In your illustrations, the area obstructed by the seat back protruding into the window opening clearly cannot be credited to the daylight opening. Whether area above or forward or rearward of the seat back can be credited depends on whether the size of the area is sufficient to be used in exiting the vehicle. Any of these areas which permits passage of the ellipsoid proposed in a December 1, 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking indicates that these areas clearly should be credited (58 FR 63321, see proposed S5.4.2.1(c)). NHTSA proposed this because it believed it reflected the minimum size window which could be used as an exit.

If not cut off by obstructions from other unobstructed areas of the daylight opening of the window, as viewed in a plan view, it may be possible that smaller areas should also be credited. In all of the illustrations in figure 2, the seat back extends less than halfway up in the opening. Therefore, it appears that the area above the seat would be credited. We also agree that if the seat protrudes near the front or rear edge of the window opening, it is unlikely that the area between the seat back and the nearest edge of the opening would be usable. However, one of your illustrations shows the seat back protruding near the center of the window opening. In such an instance, it may be possible that the area on each side of the seat back is large enough to be usable. For example, a person might use the window by climbing over the seat, with either their legs straddling the seat, or their head and torso over one side of the seat and their legs over the other.

Side Emergency Exit Doors

Following the logic presented above regarding the use of emergency exits in different vehicle orientations, we disagree with the interpretation that area A2 (an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat) ... is not usable. In fact even when using the side emergency door when the vehicle is upright, a person would likely lean over the seat back and hold on to the seat, thus using area A2. Figure 3 enclosed is drawn more to scale than the illustration used in (the March 24 interpretation). We suggest the Agency review this illustration, conduct field research by using the exits in real buses, and then reconsider the interpretation ... regarding side emergency doors. We recommend that area A2 be credited as "daylight opening" for a side emergency door.

As explained in our response to question b on rear emergency exit doors, the area above some seats may be large enough to be credited toward the daylight opening.

Front Service Door

a. The lower portion of the grab handle on many school bus front service doors protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. (See figure 4) Based on the (March 24) interpretation ..., we understand that this protrusion now constitutes an obstruction. Is this understanding correct?

This is correct.

b. The front service door of most school buses leads to a stepwell and steps used to enter the bus. On front engine transit style school buses, the steps are typically angled to the rear and the riser to the first step is just a few inches inboard of the door opening. It is our logic and interpretation that steps in a stepwell do not constitute an obstruction and their presence does not reduce the area credited to the entrance door opening. (See figure 4) Is this interpretation correct?

The steps provide the means of using the door, allowing a person to move between the ground and the floor level of the bus. They do not "block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access" of occupants descending to the front service door. Therefore, although they are visible in the doorway when the doorway is viewed in a plan view, the steps are not obstructions within the meaning of the definition of daylight opening.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref: 217 d:8/24/94

ID: 16614-1.pja

Mr. Shane K. Lack
Mechanical Engineer
Human Factors Division
National Transportation Safety Board
490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW
Washington, DC 20594

Dear Mr. Lack:

This responds to your request that we review your draft summaries and interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 205 (49 CFR 571.205, Glazing materials) and 217 (49 CFR 571.217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release). We apologize for the delay in responding.

Because your documents are lengthy (36 pages) and contain so many statements, questions, and interpretations, we are unable to address each individual point in this letter. Instead, we will confirm that, in general, your summaries and interpretations of our standards are correct. We offer the following answers to your questions and corrections to a few of your interpretations, with reference to the page number and line number of your summary. For brevity, we have paraphrased the relevant portions of your letter in italics.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials

Questions on page 1, lines 1 through 9, and lines 22 through 27: Will any material that meets the tests for a specific item of glazing be considered to be that kind of glazing, or do materials specifications (e.g., rigid plastic) restrict the choice of material?

The answer to the first part of your question is yes. The material of which the glazing is constructed is not specified. Both Standard 205 and the American National Standard, Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways -- ANSI Z26.1-1977 (hereafter referred to as ANSI Z26.1, which is incorporated by reference in the CFR) may refer to specific kinds of glazing in headings. Examples of this are in paragraph S5.1.2.3 of the standard, which refers to "flexible plastics," and the column headings of Table 1 in ANSI Z26.1, which lists materials such as "laminated glass." These headings are for illustrative purposes only, to indicate the material and construction that typically is used to meet the enumerated tests. See note 1 to Table 1 in ANSI Z26.1, which specifically states that future materials that meet the enumerated tests may be used. Therefore, any material that meets all the tests for a particular item of glazing complies with the standard, regardless of composition or construction.

Question on line 28 through 33: What about paragraph S5.1.2.2, which in the text of the standard itself seems to restrict item 12 glazing to safety plastics?

Again, the mention of safety plastics is illustrative. The words "safety plastics" should not have been included in the standard. However, the performance-based method (i.e., whatever meets the tests) of determining compliance is maintained even for item 12 glazing.

Question on page 1, lines 34 and 35, and page 2, lines 1 and 2: Are the glazing materials approved for the side windows of buses the same regardless of the gross vehicle weight rating and whether the bus is a school bus or a non-school bus?

The answer to both questions is yes.

Question on page 2, line 8: Is the list on lines 9 through 22 showing approved glazing types for side windows of buses correct?

The list of approved glazing types on page 2 is correct.

Question on page 2, line 25: Does each piece of glazing material have to be stamped with "AS" followed by the item no. of the glazing?

Yes.

Question on page 2, line 26: Does Standard No. 205 allow glazing materials that shatter to be placed in the side windows of buses, as long as those materials shatter into small pieces.

Yes.

Question on page 2, line 28: Does Standard No. 205 require a measurement of the dynamic force deflection curve of glazing materials?

No, it does not.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release

Interpretation at page 1, line 27: To be counted as an emergency exit, an exit must be in compliance with all emergency exit requirements for that type of exit.

We assume when you say "to be counted" you mean whether a particular exit would count for determining if the bus has the correct number of exits specified in Standard No. 217. When conducting a compliance inspection of a new vehicle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would normally have the manufacturer's certification data showing which exits are designated as emergency exits. If an exit did not comply in some way, this agency would not "uncount" that exit for meeting exit number and exit area requirements. Instead, the vehicle would be considered to have failed only the requirements that were not fulfilled. For example, if an otherwise compliant exit were not labeled, the bus would fail only the S5.1.1 labeling requirement. The area for that exit would still be counted for meeting the emergency exit number and area requirements.

Interpretation on page 1, line 31: The minimum size of an emergency exit window in a non-school bus is the area of an ellipsoid having a major axis parallel to the ground of 50 cm and a minor axis of 33 cm. This minimum total area of an emergency exit on a non-school bus is 510.5 square centimeters.

The first sentence of your interpretation is correct. Your computation in the second sentence is incorrect. The minimum emergency exit opening computes to 1296 sq. cm for a 33cm X 50cm ellipsoid. The area of an ellipse = 3.14 times the product of the major and minor semi-axes.

Interpretation on page 2, line 24: For non-school buses with a GVWR > 10,000 lb, there is no prohibition against placing side emergency exits vertically above one another.

While it is true that there is no prohibition explicitly stated in the standard, NHTSA interprets its regulations consistently with their purposes. The purpose behind the emergency exit requirements, which is clearly reflected paragraph S2 and in its preambles on the subject, is to provide readily accessible emergency egress. It is highly unlikely that a manufacturer would actually place emergency exits in such an unusual configuration. If it did, NHTSA would not regard the emergency exit placed on top of another as being accessible, and would not count it toward meeting the requirements.

Interpretation on page 2, lines 29 through 30: There are no guidelines on lateral or longitudinal placement of roof emergency hatches.

Paragraph S5.2.1 allows manufacturers of non-school buses to meet the specifications for non-school buses in S5.2.2 or the specifications for school buses in S5.2.3. If S5.2.2 is followed and a roof exit is needed because a rear exit cannot be provided, then paragraph S5.2.2.2 specifies that the roof exit is to be located in the rear half of the bus. If S5.2.3 is followed, then S5.3.2.2(b) specifies both the longitudinal and lateral position of all roof exits.

Interpretation on page 4, line 1: An emergency release mechanism is defined in previous NHTSA interpretations as a mechanism that prevents an exit from opening.

We do not know to which interpretation you are referring. A computerized search of all our previous interpretation letters did not reveal an interpretation with those words. It is true, however, that the provisions specifying that the release mechanisms can only be actuated by applications of a certain magnitude of force in certain directions are designed to prevent inadvertent opening of an exit.

I hope this is helpful. Again, my sincere apologies for the delay in our reply.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205# 217
d.2/17/99

ID: 06-006237drn

ID: 18805.drn

Ms. Barbara Goodman
Associate Director, Pupil Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Education
P.O. Box 2120
Richmond, VA 23218-2120

Dear Ms. Goodman:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of school bus seat back height requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. I regret the delay in this response.

I understand that you explained to Mr. Charles Hott of our agency that the C. E. White Company manufactures school bus seats that are integrated with child restraints, and which have 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat backs. While you are interested in having some of these seats installed in school buses along with standard school bus seats with 508 millimeters (20 inch) high seat backs, you ask about Standard 222's requirements that apply to a 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat back. You pose five questions, which we answer below.

1. "If a C. E. White or similar type seat, with a 39 inch seat cushion width and a 28 inch seat back height is installed in a school bus, what is the federal requirement for the seat back/barrier immediately in front of the [tall] C. E. White seat?"

We believe you are asking whether the height of the seat back or barrier in front of the tall seat has to be at least 508 millimeters (20 inches) or at least 711 millimeters (28 inches). As explained below, assuming the width of the seat bench in front of the C.E. White type seat is 990 millimeters (39 inches), the seat back or restraining barrier in front of the C.E. White type seat has to be at least 508 millimeters (20 inches), not 711 millimeters (28 inches).

Seat back height. The minimum height required of seat backs is specified in S5.1.2 of Standard 222. S5.1.2 states: "Each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has a front surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 508 mm [20 inches] above the seating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in millimeters multiplied by 508." Simply stated, this section requires seat back heights of at least 508 millimeters (20 inches) above the seating reference point.⁽¹⁾ Standard 222 does not require the seat back to be taller if it is in front of a school bus seat that has a 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat back.

Restraining barrier height. Paragraph S5.2 of Standard 222 requires each vehicle to be equipped with a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 610 mm (24 inches) of its seating reference point.

The minimum height for restraining barriers is specified in S5.2.2 of Standard 222. That section states: "The position and rear surface area of the restraining barrier shall be such that, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required."

In an interpretation letter of April 8, 1977, to Wayne Corporation (copy provided), this agency interpreted the restraining barrier requirement to mean that a restraining barrier must only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. Thus, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter would have to coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of a seat back with a height of 508 millimeters (20 inches) (assuming the width of the bench seat for which the seat back is required is 990 millimeters (39 inches)).

2. "If a C. E. White or similar seat, with a 28 inch seat back height, is installed as the rear seat of a sixty four passenger school bus, will each of the seat backs in front of each seat require a 'New York-type' seat back (28 inch height)."

As answered above, the seat backs in front of the tall C.E. White type seat do not have to be 711 millimeters (28 inches) in height simply because they are positioned in front of a seat that has a 711 millimeter (28 inch) seat back. The size of a seat back depends on the width of the seat for which it provides a back.

3. "Can a school bus body be configured with different heights of seat backs installed in a single unit."

By "in a single unit," I will assume you mean "in one school bus." Alternatively, you might mean "in one row of seats." Our answer is that nothing in Standard 222 specifies that in a school bus or row of seats, each seat back must be of the same height. However, each passenger seating position must have a seat back that meets S5.1.2 and have in front of it a seat back that meets S5.1.2, or a restraining barrier that meets S5.2.2.

4. "Can seat back heights exceed the federal requirement, and if so, how does this impact other seats within the same unit?"

As previously stated, the area and height of any seat back depends on the width of the seat bench for which it provides a back, not on the height of other seat backs. Each passenger seating position must have a seat back that meets S5.1.2, and must be faced with a seat back or a restraining barrier.⁽²⁾

5. "If the first seat has a short (30 inch width) seat cushion, what is the federal requirement for both the barrier height and width and the seat back height and width."

You explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that this question asks about the situation where the first row of seats has a 762 millimeter (30 inch) width and the second row directly behind the first row has a 990 millimeter (39 inch) width. There is a restraining barrier in front of the first row. You are concerned about how a child sitting in the second row in the 228 millimeter (9 inch) section not faced by a seat back is to be protected.

The child sitting in the 228 millimeter (9 inch) section in the second row must be protected in part by a restraining barrier. Referring again to the letter of April 8, 1977 to Wayne Corporation, the combination of the restraining barrier and the seat back of the first row seat must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the second row's required seat back surface.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:222
d.4/26/99

1. For a 990 millimeter (39 inch) bench seat, the seat back must have a front surface area at least .9(990) multiplied by 508, or 452,628 square millimeters (702 square inches).

2. An issue that may be implicit in your question is whether States may require a seat back height greater than 508 millimeters (20 inches). Our position is that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 508 millimeters (20 inches), is preempted under 49 USC 30103(b) of our statute. However, our statute does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, for public school buses, a State may specify a seat back higher than 508 millimeters (20 inches). See March 23, 1976 to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, copy enclosed.