ID: nht88-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Durham & Associates, P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert R. Keatinge, Esq. Durham & Associates, P.C. Suite 1750 950 17th Street Denver, CO 80202

Dear Mr. Keatinge:

This is a response to your letter of December 1, 1987, making this agency to clarify your understanding of 49 CFR S571.7(e). That section reads in part as follows:

Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured ...unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

You referred to my August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Parmer, and expressed concern that my having discussed only one aspect of S571.7(e) in that letter has led to some confusion. My letter to Mr. Parmer states that 'a modified school bus or truck is n ot considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.' You stated that while my statement is 'correct,' my response did not address the first clause of this provision: 'When a new cab is used In the assembly of a truck...' you asserted that, a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis.' Your assertion is correct with respect to S5 71.7(e), but there is another regulation that specifies a vehicle is 'new' if an old body is combined with a new chassis.

By its own terms, S571.7(e) applies only in situations where a new body is combined with either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used components from different vehicles. You were correct, then, in asserting that 5571.7(e) applied only to situations involving a new body. For the purposes of the Parmer letter, it Has understood between Mr. Parmer and a member of my staff that the bus bodies in question were new, so that letter did not purport to address the question of combining an old bu s body with new and or/used chassis Components.

Many of our prior interpretations have stated that a person who adds a new or used body to a new chassis to produce a school bus is considered the manufacturer of a new school bus, and must certify that the new bus conforms with all applicable safety sta ndards, just as every other school bus manufacturer must. In this case, the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle. 'Incomplete vehicle' is defined in 19 CFR 5568.3 as:

an assemblies consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing o perations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis is used to produce a vehicle, the person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, within the meaning of 49 CFR 5568.3. Final-Stage manufacturers are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The date of manufacture for these buses cannot be earlier than the date on which the chassis manufacturer completed its work on the chassis and cannot be la ter than the date the final-stage manufacturer completed its manufacturing operations. See 49 CFR S567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Note that neither S571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to certify that a school bus complies with all applicable safety standards, if that person merely rebuilds or replaces an engine, drive axle, or transmission in a bus, or if that person plac es a used bus body on a used chassis.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel December 4, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation 700 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20890

Re: Your letter of August 11, 1987 to Ernest Farmer

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter is to confirm my understanding of 49 CFR S571.7(e) as interpreted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA'). In your letter of August 11, 1987 to Mr. Ernest Farmer, the Director of Pupil Transportation for the Tennessee Department of Education, you twice (at the top of page 2 and in the first paragraph of section 3 on page 3) make reference to the portion of 5571.7(e) which says that a bus will not be considered 'new' if the engine, transmission and drive train are not new and at least two of these components are from the same vehicle.

While this statement is a correct statement of part of the test under 5571.7(e) it does not address the part of the regulation which states that a truck (or, here, a bus) will be considered new only if the cab (or, here, a body? is replaced. The descrip tion of the regulation contained in your letter may have been in response to an Inquiry which assumed the replacement of the bus body (as did FR Docket No. 85-22646).

On Friday, December 4, 1987 I discussed this point with Joan Tilghman of your office. She confirmed what appears to be the clear reading of S571.7(e) to the effect that the replacement of the engine, transmission and/or rear axle only becomes an issue 'W hen a new cab (here, body) is used in the assembly of a truck (here, bus)...". In other words, a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis.

Unfortunately, there has been some confusion as a result of the letter indicates that the NHTSA is changing the regulation to provide in effect that whenever a new or rebuilt engine, transmission or rear axle is put in a bus the bus must be brought into conformity with current standards regardless of whether the body has been replaced. As discussed above, and as confirmed by Ms. Tilghman, I don't think that was your intention.

If the foregoing accurately describes the NHTSA's position, I would appreciate your confirming this to me so that we can correct the misunderstanding. Until this ambiguity is resolved, my client is in a difficult position inasmuch as the governmental age ncies are unsure how to proceed. Your prompt response would therefore be greatly appreciated.

If there are any questions in this regard or If I am incorrect in my understanding, I would appreciate your contacting me as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration in this regard.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Keatinge

ID: nht87-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Philip T. Kelly

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Philip T. Kelly Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Rock Hill School District Number Three P.O. Drawer 10072 522 East Main Street Rock Hill, S.C. 29731 Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking two questions about the applicability of our school bus safety standards to vans. I apologize for the delay in our response.

Before I begin to answer your specific questions, it might be helpful to provide some background information on our school bus regulation. Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act applies to the manufacturer and sale of new motor vehicles and includes the motor vehicles safety standards for school buses we believe that those motor vehicle safety standards for new school buses. We the "school bu s regulations" to which you refer in your letter.

In general, the parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. The act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses and also those specifically a pplicable to "school buses". Further, under the vehicles safety act, each person selling a new bus to a school must ensure that the bus complies with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses or be potentially subject to fines under federal law . Because the Vehicle Safety Act applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and not to vehicle use, there is no federal prohibition directed against a school or school district that uses noncomplying buses to carry school children.

NHTSA issued the second set of -regulations- for school buses under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. Those regulations, or highway Safety program standards, are recommendations from this agency to the states for developing their highway safety pr ograms. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), includes recommendation; for the operational aspects of state pupil transportation programs, such as school bus identification maintenance and driver training. I ndividual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. A state that has adopted this standard might have specifications applying to small "vans" used as school vehicles. Because the issue is one concerning state law, South Carolina officials would be able to provide you with more information on state requirements for the operation of smaller school vehicles.

With this background, I will now address your specific questions. Your first question asked whether a vehicle carrying 11 or fewer persons (driver included) must conform to federal school bus requirements. Our regulation; issued under the Vehicle Safety Act specify that a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered a "bus," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. If a new vehicle is designed for carrying 10 or fewer person s, it is considered under our regulations to be either a "passenger car" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV). We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require them to comply with Federal school bus safety standard;. Instead, they must meet safety standards applicable to MPV's.

Your second question was "Can a van designed for 14 passengers be redesigned for 10 passengers and not be required to meet Federal school bus requirements?" Before I explain the consequences under Federal law of removing seats from a 14-passenger bus, I would like to reiterate that our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of school buses or to restrict the seating in your 14-passenger vans to take them out of our "school bus" category. By so reducing the passenger capacity, the vehicle's classification would be changed from a bus to a, MPV. Accordingly, the alterer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the federal safety standards applicable to MPV's. Among other things, this would require the a lterer to install safety belts at all seating positions. If the modifications were made after the vehicle's first purchase, our regulations on vehicle alteration would no longer apply.

However, modifications to used vehicles are subject to a statutory restriction. Specifically, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering ino perative equipment or designs that are incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that a commercial modifier in any of the above categories may remove seats in your vehicle, but must ensure that t he vehicle continues to comply with all applicable federal safety standards after the seats have been removed. The Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for any person who violates section 108(a)(2)(A).

Neither the prohibition against rendering inoperative in @10B (a)( 2) (A) of the Safety Act nor our regulations issued under the Safety Act applies to an owner modifying his or her own vehicle. Therefore, if your school district chooses to reduce the pas senger capacity of your vehicles, you may perform the work on your own vehicles without regard to any Federal regulations administered by this agency. Again, however, you should ensure that the modification is done in conformance with any applicable Sout h Carolina laws.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 1, 1986 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs;

We would like to request some interpretation of the standards for school bus safety as they relate to vans.

1. If a vehicle carries no more than 10, passengers, must it conform to the Federal school bus requirements?

2. Can a van designed for 14 passengers be re-designed for 10 passengers and not be required to meet Federal school bus requirements?

Your attention to this request is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Philip T. Kelly Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services

ID: nht87-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/7/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Tom George

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Tom George P.O. BOX 475 Howard, KS 67349

Dear Mr. George:

Secretary Dole has asked me to respond to your letter to her, in which you asked why we believe it is necessary to have laws mandating the use of safety belts. You stated that you believe a public education campaign about safety belt use would have been sufficient. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our position to you.

During thy past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year, an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic deaths and injuries have resulted in an annual cost to society of approximat ely 57 billion dollars resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenue.

Numerous analysis have shown that safety belts reduce fatalities by 40-50 percent and reduce serious injuries by 45-55 percent. I have enclosed copies of a safety belt face sheet and several pamphlets we have published explaining how and why safety belts are so effective. Because of the extensive body of evidence about the effectiveness of safety belts, the United States Supreme Court has said, "We start with the accepted ground that, if used, seatbelts unquestionably would have many thousands of lives and would prevent tens of thousands of crippling injuries."

This Department and other groups tried many public education efforts to make these facts known to the public, with the anticipation that more people would use safety belts when they knew the facts. Despite these efforts, the rate of usage for safety belt s did not change substantially from what it had been in 1967. As recently as 1983, the overall safety belt usage rate for front seat occupants Has only slightly above 12 percent.

This trend suggested that public education campaign alone would not substantially reduce unnecessary deaths and injuries on our highways. In an effort to protect their citizens by substantially reducing vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and to reduce the financial burden on their taxpayers, 29 Stated and the District of Columbia have enacted safety belt use laws. I want to emphasize that each of these state legislatures made their own decisions with respect to safety belt use laws. This Department ne ither has nor seeks any authority to withhold. Federal funds if states do not adopt or repeal safety belt use laws. We do, however, believe that safety belt use laws are more than justified by the possibility of achieving substantial reductions in vehicl e-related deaths and injuries, and reducing the financial burden on thy taxpayers. The available data show that among front seat occupants, safety belts saved about 2,200 lives in 1986, and 1,750 of those lives were saved in States that have safety belt use laws.

We agree with you, however, that safety belt use laws alone may not ensure long-term increased usage of safety belts. Simply requiring persons to wear their safety belts does not get to the heart of the problem of non-usage: lack of knowledge and negativ e attitudes regarding occupant restraints. experience has shown that a combination of usage requirements and information and education campaigns are the most effective way to get more people to wear their safety belts. Therefore, we have continued our pu blic information and education campaigns about safety belts, as has the State of Kansas. As a result of these combined efforts, our most recent data show that the overall safety belt usage rate for front seat occupants is now slightly above 40 percent.

We in the Department of Transportation are committed reducing as much as possible the deaths and injuries on our nation's roads. This mission can only succeed with the cooperation and input of concerned citizens like yourself. Thank you for taking the ti me to express your concerns, and please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns about our programs.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 4, 1987

The Honorable Elizabeth R. Dole Secretary of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mrs. Dole:

My name is Tom George and I am a senior at West Elk High School in Howard, Kansas. I have a few questions to ask you.

Why do you feel it is necessary to make the use of seat belts a law? I understand the effectiveness of seat belts in saving lives, but is it necessary to make it mandatory by law? I personally feel public service announcements educating the general public about seat belt use would have been sufficient.

Sincerely yours,

Tom George

Tom George P.O. Box 475 Howard, KS 67345

ID: aiam1651

Dear Mr. Bartlett: We have reviewed your draft defect notification letter forwarded to u on October 22, 1974, regarding the Space Saver Spare Tire. We find that this letter fails to conform to 49 CFR Part 577, 'Defect Notification' in that it fails to provide a clear description of the defect (S 577.4(c)). In our letter to Goodrich of September 24, 1974, we advised you, based on your earlier draft notification letter, that we did not agree with your characterization of the malfunction as relating to only those tire explosions which you believe will cause injury. We objected to your position that broken beads and excessive air pressure must appear in combination for an explosion to occur. We also informed you that you must make it clear that bolting the tire to the vehicle has no effect whatever on whether the tire will explode, but that bolting will serve only to reduce the chance of injury if an explosion occurs.; Your letter of October 22 is not sufficiently responsive to ou September 24, 1974, letter. The third sentence of your second paragraph reads, 'When the wheel is not bolted to the axle during inflation, the combination of improper mounting and/or excessive air pressure can cause the tire to explode-- serious personal injury or death can result.' This sentence again refers to the necessity of the particular factors appearing in combination for an explosion to occur (the 'and/or' is ambiguous in this context) and more importantly, implies that bolting the tire to the vehicle has some relationship to the possibility of an explosion. We have decided to suggest language for you to use in your notification in order to avoid further problems. We believe your second paragraph, beginning with its second sentence, should be changed to read as follows:; >>>'The defect is caused by improper mounting or subsequent remountin of the tire on the rim causing the tire bead to seat improperly on the rim, or by excessive air pressure from a high pressure air supply being forced into the tire. Improper mounting or excessive air pressure can cause the tire to explode during inflation. If the precautions specified on page 2 of this letter are not followed, serious personal injury or death can result.'<<<; Your fourth paragraph similarly enforces the implication that boltin the tire to the vehicle will affect the possibility of an explosion. We do not consider this paragraph to be necessary as it merely repeats your second paragraph (if rewritten as indicated above). However, if you insist that it be included, we believe it should be written as follows:; >>>'An explosion of the Space Saver Spare tire assembly has occurre when either of the two following conditions were present:; 1. Improper mounting or remounting of the tire on the rim created broken tire bead, or; 2. Excessive air pressure from a high pressure air supply was force into the tire.; However, if the tire is bolted to the axle during inflation, and th other precautionary procedures described below are followed, the danger of serious injury or fatal accidents is greatly reduced.'<<<; We view the words 'virtually eliminated' which are in your draft a excessively optimistic under the circumstances. It is difficult for us to believe that an exploding tire has virtually no chance of causing injury to one who is inflating it and who must, under the circumstances, be situated very close to it.; We repeat that our review of your letter represents in no way a agreement with your analysis of the defect or its causes, and that we will continue to look into this matter as appropriate. Consumer notification of this serious safety hazard has been too long delayed. We trust that the statutory defect notification will issue forthwith.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 17739.nhf

Mr. John Stricklin
c/o Midwest Medical Supply
2805 Bauer Street
Eau Claire, WI 54701

Dear Mr. Stricklin:

This responds to your letter requesting permission to remove the air bag sensor and disable the air bag system in your 1998 Chevy Express Van. You explain that you have Multiple Sclerosis and need to have a six way power seat base installed at the driver's seating position to allow you to transfer to and from your wheelchair. In your letter, you state that the vehicle's air bag sensor, which is located underneath the driver's seat, interferes with the installation of the six way power seat base and needs to be removed.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot provide the specific relief you seek, because we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that removes the air bag sensor to install a six way power seat base on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you describe.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, in certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the air bag sensor would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. However, as noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that removes the air bag sensor to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the driver and passenger air bags. The vehicle manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing warning labels stating that the air bags have been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visors above the deactivated air bags. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Labels
ref:VSA
d.6/1/98

ID: 571-201 -- security partitions -- Crowell -- 12-005534

ID: nht94-1.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence P. White -- Acting Director, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Dept. of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/13/93 from Lawrence P. White to Mary Versie (OCC-9479)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 13, 1993, asking several 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 follows.

1. The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between?

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 manufa ctured 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 date s." (49 CFR Part S568.6).

2. Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front service door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door?

The November 2 final rule requires additional emergency exit area (AEEA) for some buses. The amount, if any, of AEEA which must be provided is determined by subtracting the area of the front service door and either the area of the rear emergency door or the area of the side emergency door and the rear push-out window, depending on the configuration of the bus (S5.2.3.1). These are the minimum exits required on all buses. If AEEA is required, the first additional exit which must be installed is a left side emergency door (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or a right side emergency door (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push- out window). The number of exits may vary for buses which carry the same number of passengers, because the amount of area credited for each exit is the area of daylight opening, and because different variations of types of exits are possible. However, in the regulatory evaluation for the final rule, the agency estimated that a bus would not be required to have a roof exit (the second type of additional exit required) unless the capacity was greater than 62 (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or 77 (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window).

3. The "clear aisle space" required for exit to the proposed side

emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip-up type seat or a clear opening of 12", as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be co nsidered a "flip seat"?

The November 2 final rule allowed a flip-up seat to be adjacent to a side emergency exit door "if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within" the requi red 12 inch aisle to the exit (S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii)). The agency did not otherwise define a flip-up seat, nor did it include any performance requirements for these seats.

4. Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the "flip seat" by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidently, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch me chanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring?

Standard No. 217 includes requirements for the type of motion and force required to release an emergency exit (S5.3.3). One of these requirements is that the notion to release a door must be upward from inside the bus (upward or pull-type for school bus es with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms or less). This is intended to lessen the chance of a door accidently being opened, without unnecessarily making the exit more complicated to open in an emergency. In addition, warning alarms are required for door and window exits to notify the driver that the exit has been opened.

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: nht94-7.32

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence P. White -- Acting Director, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Dept. of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/13/93 from Lawrence P. White to Mary Versie (OCC-9479)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 13, 1993, asking several 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 follows.

1. The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between?

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).

2. Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front service door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door?

The November 2 final rule requires additional emergency exit area (AEEA) for some buses. The amount, if any, of AEEA which must be provided is determined by subtracting the area of the front service door and either the area of the rear emergency door or the area of the side emergency door and the rear push-out window, depending on the configuration of the bus (S5.2.3.1). These are the minimum exits required on all buses. If AEEA is required, the first additional exit which must be installed is a left side emergency door (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or a right side emergency door (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push- out window). The number of exits may vary for buses which carry the same number of passengers, because the amount of area credited for each exit is the area of daylight opening, and because different variations of types of exits are possible. However, in the regulatory evaluation for the final rule, the agency estimated that a bus would not be required to have a roof exit (the second type of additional exit required) unless the capacity was greater than 62 (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or 77 (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window).

3. The "clear aisle space" required for exit to the proposed side

emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip-up type seat or a clear opening of 12", as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be considered a "flip seat"?

The November 2 final rule allowed a flip-up seat to be adjacent to a side emergency exit door "if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within" the required 12 inch aisle to the exit (S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii)). The agency did not otherwise define a flip-up seat, nor did it include any performance requirements for these seats.

4. Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the "flip seat" by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidently, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch mechanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring?

Standard No. 217 includes requirements for the type of motion and force required to release an emergency exit (S5.3.3). One of these requirements is that the notion to release a door must be upward from inside the bus (upward or pull-type for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms or less). This is intended to lessen the chance of a door accidently being opened, without unnecessarily making the exit more complicated to open in an emergency. In addition, warning alarms are required for door and window exits to notify the driver that the exit has been opened.

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: nht94-2.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 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 1/6/94 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC 9549); Also attached to letter dated 3/9/77 from Frank A. Berndt to W.G. Milby (Std. 217)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 6, 1994, asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Our response to each of your questions fol lows.

1. Your first question requested confirmation that a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) would meet the location requirements of S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) if it is located in the center one-half of the passenger compartment.

Your question concerns the first required additional emergency exit installed on a bus with a rear emergency exit door. Section S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires this exit to be a side emergency exit door "located on the left side of the bus and as near as practi cable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." Locating the door or the 12-inch required aisle opening for the door in the center one-half of the passenger compartment would not ensure compliance with this requirement. This is because it may be p ossible to locate a door in the center one-half without locating the exit "as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." In determining the permissible location for this exit, you should determine where the exit would be located if it was located at the midpoint of the passenger compartment. If it is not practicable to locate the exit there, you should move the door only as far as necessary for a practicable location.

2. Your second question requested confirmation that there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors other than the requirements for a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2) (i).

You are correct. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, the only location requirements for side emergency exit doors concern the side of the bus on which the exit must be located. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

3. Your third question requested confirmation that all side emergency exit doors, including any voluntarily installed, are required to comply with the requirements of the new final rule, including the seat placement requirements in S5.4.2.1( b).

You are correct. Your letter referred to a March 9, 1977 interpretation that voluntarily installed side emergency exit doors were not required to meet the school bus requirements, but were required to meet the non-school bus requirements. Previously, t he school bus emergency exit door requirements in Standard No. 217 referred to "the emergency door." At that time school buses were required to have either one rear emergency exit door or one side emergency exit door and one rear push-out window. Thus, any school bus was required to have only one emergency exit door. The reference to "the emergency door" was to the required door.

In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements for emergency exits apply to "each" emergency exit. See, for example, S5.4.2.1(b). This change in the language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus. Other requirements apply to "required" emergency exits. See, for example, S5.5.3(c). These requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits.

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.

APPENDIX Emergency Exit Location Requirements In the March 15, 1991, notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, NHTSA proposed very specific location requirements for emergency exits in school buses (56 FR 11153). The agency receiv ed comments that many of these locations were not possible or practicable. In response to these comments, the agency concluded that the final rule should include only general requirements for the required exits (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Therefor e, the only location requirements for additional emergency exits (1) included in the final rule were:

o For a bus with a rear emergency exit door, the first additional emergency exit must be an emergency exit door on the left side of the bus and as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(a)(2)).

o For a bus with a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window, the first additional emergency exit must be an emergency exit door on the right side of the bus (S5.2.3.2(a)(3)).

o If additional emergency exit doors are installed, they must be alternated between the right and left sides of the bus (S5.2.3.2(a)(2) and (3)).

o No two emergency exit doors may be located in the same post and roof bow panel space (S5.2.3.2(a)(4)).

o If one emergency roof exit is installed, it must be located as near as practicable to the mid-point of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(b)(2)).

o If two emergency roof exits are installed, they must be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant from the midpoints of the passenger compartment and either the front or rear of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(b)(3)).

o If three or more emergency roof exits are installed, the space between each exit shall, to the extent possible, be the same or equal to the space between the front (or rear) limit of the passenger compartment and the front (or rear) ro of exit (S5.2.3.2(b)(4)).

o Emergency roof exits must be installed so that their longitudinal centerline coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the bus, except that a roof exit may be offset a distance equal to the distance another roof exit is offset in the opposite direction (S5.2.3.2(b)(5) and (6)).

o Emergency window exits must be evenly divided between the right and left sides of the bus (S5.2.3.2(c)).

(1) The November 2 final rule requires all school buses to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. The rule also requires "additional" emergency exits on buses of specified passenger capacities. " Additional" emergency exits, as the term is used in this appendix, refers to emergency exits other than the rear emergency exit door and side emergency exit door/rear push-out window which Standard No. 217 requires of all school buses.

ID: nht94-6.29

DATE: April 14, 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 1/6/94 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC 9549); Also attached to letter dated 3/9/77 from Frank A. Berndt to W.G. Milby (Std. 217)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 6, 1994, asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Our response to each of your questions follows.

1. Your first question requested confirmation that a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) would meet the location requirements of S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) if it is located in the center one-half of the passenger compartment.

Your question concerns the first required additional emergency exit installed on a bus with a rear emergency exit door. Section S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires this exit to be a side emergency exit door "located on the left side of the bus and as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." Locating the door or the 12-inch required aisle opening for the door in the center one-half of the passenger compartment would not ensure compliance with this requirement. This is because it may be possible to locate a door in the center one-half without locating the exit "as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." In determining the permissible location for this exit, you should determine where the exit would be located if it was located at the midpoint of the passenger compartment. If it is not practicable to locate the exit there, you should move the door only as far as necessary for a practicable location.

2. Your second question requested confirmation that there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors other than the requirements for a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2) (i).

You are correct. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, the only location requirements for side emergency exit doors concern the side of the bus on which the exit must be located. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

3. Your third question requested confirmation that all side emergency exit doors, including any voluntarily installed, are required to comply with the requirements of the new final rule, including the seat placement requirements in S5.4.2.1(b).

You are correct. Your letter referred to a March 9, 1977 interpretation that voluntarily installed side emergency exit doors were not required to meet the school bus requirements, but were required to meet the non-school bus requirements. Previously, the school bus emergency exit door requirements in Standard No. 217 referred to "the emergency door." At that time school buses were required to have either one rear emergency exit door or one side emergency exit door and one rear push-out window. Thus, any school bus was required to have only one emergency exit door. The reference to "the emergency door" was to the required door.

In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements for emergency exits apply to "each" emergency exit. See, for example, S5.4.2.1(b). This change in the language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus. Other requirements apply to "required" emergency exits. See, for example, S5.5.3(c). These requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits.

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.

APPENDIX

Emergency Exit Location Requirements

In the March 15, 1991, notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, NHTSA proposed very specific location requirements for emergency exits in school buses (56 FR 11153). The agency received comments that many of these locations were not possible or practicable. In response to these comments, the agency concluded that the final rule should include only general requirements for the required exits (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Therefore, the only location requirements for additional emergency exits (1) included in the final rule were:

o For a bus with a rear emergency exit door, the first additional emergency exit must be an emergency exit door on the left side of the bus and as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(a)(2)).

o For a bus with a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window, the first additional emergency exit must be an emergency exit door on the right side of the bus (S5.2.3.2(a)(3)).

o If additional emergency exit doors are installed, they must be alternated between the right and left sides of the bus (S5.2.3.2(a)(2) and (3)).

o No two emergency exit doors may be located in the same post and roof bow panel space (S5.2.3.2(a)(4)).

o If one emergency roof exit is installed, it must be located as near as practicable to the mid-point of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(b)(2)).

o If two emergency roof exits are installed, they must be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant from the midpoints of the passenger compartment and either the front or rear of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(b)(3)).

o If three or more emergency roof exits are installed, the space between each exit shall, to the extent possible, be the same or equal to the space between the front (or rear) limit of the passenger compartment and the front (or rear) roof exit (S5.2.3.2(b)(4)).

o Emergency roof exits must be installed so that their longitudinal centerline coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the bus, except that a roof exit may be offset a distance equal to the distance another roof exit is offset in the opposite direction (S5.2.3.2(b)(5) and (6)).

o Emergency window exits must be evenly divided between the right and left sides of the bus (S5.2.3.2(c)).

(1) The November 2 final rule requires all school buses to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. The rule also requires "additional" emergency exits on buses of specified passenger capacities. "Additional" emergency exits, as the term is used in this appendix, refers to emergency exits other than the rear emergency exit door and side emergency exit door/rear push-out window which Standard No. 217 requires of all school buses.