ID: nht94-7.18

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/21/94 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC 9719)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1994, requesting further clarification of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Section S5.5.3(c) states that "(e)ach opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape." *1 Your letter referenced our July 7, 1993 letter to you in which we stated that S5.5.3(c) permits interruptions in the tape necessary to accommodate curved surfaces and functional components. You requested confirmation "that retro-reflective tape around the perimeter of the rear of a school bus can be used to satisfy the requirements of S5.5.3(c)."

I cannot interpret the requirements of S5.5.3(c) as you request, since for many, if not most, designs the nearest possible location will be closer than the perimeter of the bus. While we appreciate your concerns about durability if numerous cuts or notches are made to accommodate rivets, our July 7 letter stated that manufacturers have the option of placing the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets. As an example, from the illustrations you enclosed, it appears that it may be possible to apply retroreflective tape outside the rivets adjacent to the lower portions of the door. Thus, that would be the nearest possible location, rather than the perimeter of the bus itself. I note, however, that the illustrations do not provide sufficient detail of all obstructions for us to determine the nearest possible location for each design.

I also note that your letter stated in support of your request that all school buses are required to have a rear emergency exit. While this is true, the type of emergency exit will vary and retroreflective tape at the perimeter of the exit would allow rescuers to immediately know the precise location of the exit. Moreover, retroreflective tape at the perimeter would enable rescuers to immediately know which type of exit is in this location. This information could be vitally important. Because push-out windows are not required to have a means of releasing the exit from outside the bus (S5.3.3.2), this information would allow rescuers to quickly determine that they should move to the sides of the bus to locate an exit they can open.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if we did not interpret the standard as you requested. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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

*1 The July 7, 1993 letter also stated that the agency planned to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. This notice has not yet been published. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

ID: nht94-7.19

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- U.S. DOT, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Ray Paradis (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Per my discussion with Taylor Vinson, I have enclosed an overall side view of Dakota Manufacturing Companies 24 ton ramp trailer.

The question is whether a center side marker light is required. The overall length is 30'8" including the ramp in transport position.

In reviewing competition, I cannot find any center lights being used.

ATTACHMENT

Drawing of Trail-Eze, model D20R24. (Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht94-7.2

DATE: April 6, 1994

FROM: Ivan L. Bost -- Director Of Engineering, Comm-Trans, The Sully Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: Federal Ruling On 3 Point Shoulder Harnesses In Rear Outboard Seating Positions In The Vans We Convert For Commercial Use.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack to Ivan L. Bost (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles,

We at Comm-Trans manufacture/convert and sell a line of commercially developed vans for use in the commercial shuttle industry. Our customers represent such markets as hotels, churches, limousine co's, airport ground transportation services, rent-a-car co's and non emergency medical transport co's.

My primary question pertains to whether or not 3 point shoulder harnesses are required in the vehicles that we convert that seat from 10 - 15 people including the driver. Please see the specifications and floor plans I have enclosed. The GVWR of the vehicles in question is in excess of 8500 pounds and less than 10,000 pounds. We as a company have been installing these shoulder harnesses since 1992. The reason for my question is it has recently been brought to our attention at a few of my competitors are not installing shoulder harnesses and are using standard lap belts in the same size and type vans.

I have also talked with Charlie Case in your office and he reinforced what we are doing with the definition of a bus under 571.3 and regulation 208 in section S.4.4.3.2. Please take the time to review this issue and get back with me in writing with a legal interpretation of the standards.

Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-7.20

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributor Association, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to faxes dated 2/14/94 and 1/12/94 from Richard Kreutziger to Walter Myers (OCC 9559); Also attached to letter dated 2/20/87 from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

This responds to your Fax of January 12, 1994, requesting an information on the extent to which a state can adopt requirements for school buses which exceed the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This also responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the location requirements for a side emergency door exit in Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

Your January 12, 1994 FAX requested clarification of when a state could impose requirements on school buses which exceeded the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Specifically, you asked whether the state could impose such requirements on (1) a public school and (2) a contractor providing transportation for a public school. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103 (d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable FMVSS that are different from the applicable FMVSS, except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law imposing higher requirements would be preempted under S103(d) to the extent that the law requires ALL school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. In addition, the agency has previously interpreted the phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" to include public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school. See, for example, February 20, 1987 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin (copy enclosed).

Your February 14, 1994 FAX asked whether the November 2 final rule permits a right side emergency exit door to be to the rear of the passenger compartment.

The answer is yes. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

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

(Appendix omitted.)

ID: nht94-7.21

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 15, 1993, in which you requested an interpretation of the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993, 58 FR 4586, which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection to include requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems.

You referred to the second sentence in S5.4.3.2 of the standard which provides in pertinent part: "When more than one wheelchair occupant restraint shares a common anchorage, the anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons multiplied by the number of occupant restraints sharing that anchorage." You stated that you believe that this language is intended to address the situation where restraints from two different wheelchair occupant restraint systems share a common anchorage, and is not intended to address the situation "where the lower end of an upper torso restraint joins the pelvic restraint and goes to one of the rear floor anchorages of a single occupant's restraint system." You stated that if the latter, the floor anchorage would be required to withstand a force of 13,344 Newtons each for the upper torso restraint and the pelvic restraint; and if the wheelchair was also secured to that floor anchorage, the anchorage would be required to withstand 3 x 13,344 Newtons.

Your letter included two figures illustrating typical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system designs. In Figure 1, the upper torso restraint is attached to the lap belt at the buckle, and the lap belt is attached to the vehicle at the same anchorage as the rear anchorage for the wheelchair securement device. In Figure 2, the upper torso restraint is also attached to the lap belt; however, the lap belt is attached to the rear wheelchair securement device instead of the wheelchair securement anchorage. You asked for verification that the required load for the rear anchorages for both designs is 2 x 13,344 Newtons rather than 3 x 13,344 Newtons.

You are correct that the load for the rear anchorages for both these designs would be 26,688 Newtons (2 x 13,344 Newtons). The relevant section to determine this load is S5.4.3.2(e) which states:

When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1.3 (13,344 Newtons) and S5.4.3.2 (13,344 Newtons) shall be applied simultaneously...

The term "wheelchair occupant restraint" includes both the pelvic and upper torso restraints (see S5.4.4). In your designs, each rear floor anchorage would be required by S5.4.3.2(e) to withstand a combined force of 26,688 Newtons, which includes the load specified for the wheelchair occupant restraint and the load specified for the wheelchair securement device.

The second sentence of S5.4.3.2, which you quoted in your letter, addresses the situation where the wheelchair occupant restraints for more than one wheelchair, e.g. two wheelchairs, are secured to the same floor anchorage. This requirement parallels a requirement in S5.4.1.3 which addresses the situation where the wheelchair securement devices for more than one wheelchair are secured to the same floor anchorage. Thus, for example, if either of your designs were installed in a bus such that the right rear anchorage was shared with another identical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system (functioning as the left rear anchorage for the second system), that floor anchorage must be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons for each occupant restraint system and 13,344 Newtons for each wheelchair securement system, for a total force of 4 x 13,344 Newtons, such force to be applied simultaneously as required by S5.4.3.2(e).

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

ID: nht94-7.22

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: Roger W. Bruett -- Chief; Signed by Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Carol I. Morton (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

It has come to our attention, new headlamps are being installed on BMWs, 750 models. These lamps are called XENON and are "Hella SSB 352 (lower beam) and Hella SSB 328 (upper beam) with replaceable bulb headlamp with glass lens and plastic reflector.

This office received a complaint from a BMW Dealership indicating an owner of one of these vehicles is being continually stopped by law enforcement because of these headlamps. The reason for concern from the officers, is the intensity of the light beam from these lamps is much whiter and appears to be stronger.

We would like to know if these headlamps are legal for use on motor vehicles. A report was sent to us stating they meet all the requirements of the FMVSS 108. This report was generated by ETL Testing Laboratory in New York.

I would appreciate your response on this subject as soon as possible.

ID: nht94-7.23

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GMBH

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108, S4.Definitions, Integral Beam Headlamp Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/94 from John Womack to Tilman Spingler (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In this paragraph an integral beam headlamp is defined to be an indivisible optical assembly of lightsource, reflector and lens. In the case of High Intensity Discharge Headlamps where the lightsource is comprised of a bulb and associated electronic modules, it may in some cases not be feasible to integrate the ignition module and the control module in the headlamp housing because of space limitations. In the letter to TOYOTA of March 1991 these modules were permitted to be separately located, but permanently attached by cable at the time of assembly. When the ignition module is installed inside and the control module outside the headlamp housing they will be connected by a 4-core cable in one design. Are there requirements for this cable concerning indivisibility and integration, for example, may it be of the following? - soft cable, resistant to abrasion? - hard cable, resistant to cutting and abrasion? - armored cable? Maximum voltage on 2 cores will be 130 V AC in the on-mode of the headlamp, on the 2 other cores 400 V AC for 700 msec during ignition of the light source. These voltages are much lower than voltages on ignition cables for motor vehicle engines.

ID: nht94-7.24

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: James Ackley -- Region 4 Director; Carol Baumhauer -- Counselor; Krista D. Subler -- Counselor -- Small Business Development Center, Upper Valley JVS Business Development Center

TO: John E. Boehner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/94 Est from John Womack to John A. Boehner (A42; Std. 108; VSA S102(a)(2)(A) and letter dated 4/7/94 from John A. Boehner to Jackie Lowey

TEXT:

We are writing in reference to clients of the Upper Valley Small Business Development Center in Piqua. Mr. John Cail and Mr. James Lipps are inventors with a patent on a product called Life Lites.

Because this system has the potential to save lives, we request your assistance in guiding Mr. Cail and Mr. Lipps through the color code designation process and any other resource possibilities available.

We appreciate your consideration in this matter.

ID: nht94-7.25

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary D. March -- Director, Illinois Dept. of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety (Springfield, IL)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/94 from Gary D. March to John Womack (OCC 9667)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the compliance date for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages of a recent final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates." (49 CFR Part S568.6). The choice of a date is the manufacturers.

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

ID: nht94-7.26

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles (Marysville, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/8/94 from Bob Carver to John Womack (OCC 9544)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 8, 1994, asking two questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follow.

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 specification 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.

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 question specifically concerns how the "maximum unobstructed opening" of a side door is measured when the opening is partially obstructed by a seat. In the case of the illustrated door exit, occupants would use the exit by movement along the floor. This would be considered in determining the extent of an obstruction. None of the four examples you enclosed with your letter correctly illustrates the area that would be credited for the illustrated exit. The following regions would not be credited for this exit: (1) the area visually obstructed by the seat; (2) your region A 2, 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; (3) your region A 5, an area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; and (4) your region A 8, an area bounded by the seat leg, the floor, the lower edge of the seat bottom, and the edge of the door forward of the seat. Because the seat would make the last three regions unusable as exit space for a person traveling along the floor of the bus towards the exit, they would not be credited for that exit.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

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)?

The answer to your question is yes. The agency addressed this issue in an October 2, 1978, letter to Mr. E.M. Ryan of Ward Industries, Inc. I am enclosing a copy of this letter.

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