ID: MCI_removable_lift

Ms. Michelle Filippi
Motor Coach Industries
1700 E. Golf Rd. Suite 300
Schaumburg, IL 60173




Dear Ms. Filippi:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, with respect to vehicles designed to accept a platform lift by means of "quick connects". In your letter you stated that your company, Motor Coach Industries (MCI), manufactures over-the-road coach buses, including wheelchair accessible coaches. You explained that some of your customers have requested that MCI offer a vehicle/wheelchair lift system that would allow a lift to be removed from one coach and installed on an acceptable coach through the use of quick disconnects.

You expressed concern with the implications of FMVSS No. 404 to such a system, in that the lifts "can be taken out and re-installed by various MCI or customer technicians". You asked that we advise you about the agencys position on this issue.

I will reply to your letter by discussing how FMVSS No. 404 applies in the situation you described.

By way of background, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. Platform lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 403. Vehicles manufactured with platform lifts on and after July 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 404.

Applicability of FMVSS No. 404 to a "Quick Connect" System

The central factor in determining the applicability of FMVSS No. 404 to a "quick connect" vehicle/lift system is whether the vehicle is originally equipped with the lift. 49 U.S.C. 30112 prohibits, in part, the manufacture for sale and the offer for first retail sale of a vehicle that is not certified as complying with all FMVSSs applicable at the vehicles date of manufacture. Each vehicle manufactured with a lift on or after July 1, 2005, must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift and must comply with FMVSS No. 404. If a lift is installed after a vehicle is certified by the vehicle manufacturer, but prior to first retail sale, the vehicle as altered must comply with all standards affected by the alteration; i.e. , the vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404 and all other applicable standards. Conversely, if a vehicle is manufactured to accept a "quick disconnect" platform lift, but is not equipped with a platform lift up to the point of first retail sale, then FMVSS No. 404 would not apply.

"Make Inoperative" Provision

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first retail sale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" provision).

If a vehicle not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 (e.g. , a "quick connect" bus that was not equipped with a lift as manufactured or sold at first retail sale) has a "quick disconnect" lift added by one of the above named businesses after the first retail sale, the vehicle would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if a "quick disconnect" lift were added by any of the above named businesses, the addition of the lift must not cause any applicable FMVSS to be made inoperative.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses would be prohibited from removing a vehicle certified to FMVSS No. 404 from compliance with that standard. While a vehicle certified to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift, we would not consider removal of the lift a violation of the "make inoperative" provision. In that instance compliance was premised on the presence of a platform lift. However, if a lift were then reinstalled on such a vehicle, the vehicle would be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 based on that lift model.

Applicability of FMVSS No. 403

As noted above, a "quick disconnect" platform lift manufactured on or after April 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 403. The equipment standard requires in part that the lift be accompanied by instructions that identify the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed (S16.13.1), and that the instructions specify procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational and compliant (S16.13.2).

However, the agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, with a system for which a vehicle was designed to accept a lift, we would not expect such alterations to be necessary.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.2/11/05

ID: nht87-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Deborah Rutan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Deborah Rutan Director of Marketing/Research The Rutabaga Co., Inc. P.O. Box 413 605 Robson Street Winona Lake, IN 46590

Dear Ms. Rutan:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213; copy enclosed). Specifically, you sought our "comments and recommendations" on a child harness/vest that yo ur company has developed. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

As you noted in your letter, your product is a "child restraint system" within the meaning of section S4 of Standard No. 213. This means that is subject to all applicable requirements of the standard. From the pictures and descriptions of your harness/ve st included with your letter, it appears that the harness/vest would have to be modified to comply with four particular requirements in Standard No. 213.

The first requirement with which your harness/vest does not appear to comply is set forth in section S5.4.3.4(b) of Standard No. 213. That section provides that each child harness shall "provide lower torso restraint by means of lap and crotch belt." Th e pictures of your harness/vest show that it does not include a crotch belt to restrain the child's lower torso. You will have to modify the design of the harness/vest to include a crotch belt in order for your harness/vest to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213.

The second requirement with which your harness/vest may not comply is the flammability resistance requirement incorporated in section S5.7 of Standard No. 213. That section provides, "Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the re quirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302." I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information. As you will see, that standard requires that subject materials be resistant to flammability. You stated in your letter that the "vest fabric is a strong, yet lightweight, polyester jersey knit." It is not clear from this description if you knew your company has to certify that this vest fabric complies with the flammability resistance requirements specified in Standard No. 213.

The third and fourth requirements with which your harness/vest does not appear to comply are the labeling requirements in S5.5 of Standard No. 213 and the installation instructions in S5.6 of Standard No. 213. Both these requirements specify that certain information must be provided with each child restraint system. In the case of the labeling information, you are required to permanently label your harness/vest with the information specified in S5.5.2(a) through (1). Further, S5.5.3 requires that the in formation specified in S5.5.2(g) through (k) shall be located on the child restraint system so that it is visible when the system is properly installed in a vehicle. In the case of the installation instructions, S5.6.6 requires that the harness/vest have a location on it for storing your installation instructions. This could be satisfied by adding a pouch to the vest for storing these instructions.

In addition to these requirements, you would have to determine that the harness/vest complies with all the performance requirements set forth in S5 of Standard No. 213. Once you have made such a determination, you are required to certify that each harnes s/vest you manufacture satisfies all applicable requirements of Standard No. 213. This agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the child restraint, or any tests at all. Pursuant to the Nation al Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), we only require that a manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint system complies with Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling a new child restraint system test the system in accordance with the test procedures specified in Standard No. 213 before certifying that the new system complies with Standard No. 213. Once you determine that your harness/vest complies with all requirements of Standard No. 213, you would certify that compliance by placing a certification label on the harness/vest, as specified in section S5.5 of the standard.

You should also be aware of the fact that you will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture your harness/vest for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products that either do not comply with an applicable safety standard or have defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your harness/vest did not comply with a requirement of Standard No. 213 or that it had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and either:

1. repair the harness/vest so that the noncompliance or defect was removed; or

2. replace the harness/vest with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the noncompliance or defect.

Whichever of these options were chosen, your company as the manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. This means you could not charge the owners of the harness/vests anything for the remedy if those harness/vests we re purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

If you decide to manufacture these harness/vests for sale, you should also be aware of 49 CFR Part 566, manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). This regulation requires a manufacturer of child restraint systems to submit its name, address, and a bri ef description of the child restraints it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured.

Finally, I would like to make clear that this discussion of our requirements is not an agency "recommendation". NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. When we are presented with questions from potential manufacturers of new vehicles or items of equipment, such as your harness/vests, we only explain how our statute and regulations would apply to the new product. It is up to the individual manufacturer to assess the value and prac ticality of its product.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Office of Chief Council 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 April 22, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones,

We have recently developed a new type of Child Safety Restraint System. We were referred to this Administration by Mr. Tim Kennedy of the N.S.C., and received your name through the office of Occupant Protection. It was their suggestion, as well as our Pa tent Attorneys', Lundy and Walker, to write and explain the product in detail. Enclosed you will find photos of a 3 yr. old child wearing the Safety Restraint System.

According to the Fed. Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: as stated in the definition for Child Restraint Systems (Law 49 CFR 571.213), "a child restraint system is any device except type I or II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 lbs. or less."

Construction

Our Safety Restraint System is a type of harness/vest which is held secure by means of an existing type I seat belt. The harness/vest is designed with the following safety features:

-240 P.S.I. Dupont strapping extending from the front waist, up over the shoulders, crossing mid-back, and forming a casing at the lower back edge- in which to secure the seat belt (belt must be tightened down to seat level).

-Two adjustable straps encasing the vest; mid-chest, and t bottom. -Fastex SRI Cam Buckles; U.L. approved with 300 P.S.I., are attached to the above two straps, and fasten at vest font. -Front closure (beneath cam buckles) is made from a 2x10" strip of industrial strength 8-hock Velcro, with 50# pull strength, enduring up to 20,000 pulls. -Vest fabric is a strong, yet light-weight, polyester jersey knit.

Concept

It should be understood that this Safety Restraint System is designed for children ages 3-6; not to exceed 50#. It has been our observation and experience, that children of this age group have out-grown the Ca Seat, and should be fastened into seat belts . However, many times children resist seat belt usage because of discomforts, such as: seat belts that tighten on the tummy as the child moves, children can't see out the window, or can't lay down when sleepy. As a result, many small children are left un belted and unprotected, even though this is against the law in many states.

Our concept of an ideal Safety Restraint system for ages 3-6, is one that protects from forward motion in case of impact, yet offers more comfort and flexibility. In our opinion, the harness/vest would hold the child in place; not squeezing the stomach, and gives a bit more freedom of movement -- such as laying down, and sitting on the knees. Comfortable, happy, children will be safer children; staying in their seat belts via the harness/vest device, which we have developed.

In closing, the proto-type as shown in the photos, was sewn on a domestic sewing machine. If put into production, the product will be sewn on commercial machines, capable of heavy-duty stitching.

We look forward to your comments and recommendations, especially concerning any product-safety tests, which may be necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration of this new Child restraint System.

Sincerely,

Deborah Rutan

SEE HARD COPY FOR PICTURE ILLUSTRATIONS

Door. or Marketing/Research

ID: 12118SHD.adj

C. Scott Talbot, Esq.
Howrey & Simon
1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 2004-2402

Dear Mr. Talbot:

This responds to your letter asking about S5.1.1(b)(1) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

S5.1.1(b)(1) states, in pertinent part:

If adjustable to different positions, [a child restraint must] remain in the same adjustment position during [dynamic] testing that it was in immediately before the testing, . . . .

You state that your client is developing a belt-positioning seat that has an adjustable device that will allow a parent "to orient the vehicle shoulder belt to the child's shoulder." You explain that the device allows "a 'fine tuning' ability to position the belt exactly on the child's shoulder" and permits the belt to be readjusted as the child grows. You state, however, that the device may move in the standard's dynamic test, and ask whether this movement is permitted under S5.1.1(b)(1).

Our answer is that the movement is permitted. In the final rule adopting the requirement (44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicated that its intent is to prevent a child's fingers or limbs from being caught between the "shifting parts" of the restraint, and prevent a child's submarining during a crash (where the child's body slides too far forward and downward, legs first). 44 FR at 72132. The agency also stated in the rule that the requirement would prevent injuries to children's hands or fingers "caught between the structural elements of the restraint as it changes position." 44 FR at 72133, emphasis added. In view of these statements, we conclude that S5.1.1(b)(1) is intended to prevent injuries caused by the repositioning of the seating surface of the restraint (i.e., the reclining feature), and thus does not prohibit movement of the vehicle belt adjuster on the child restraint.

Please contact us at (202) 366-2992 if you have other questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213

d:9/4/96

ID: 3115yy

Mr. Jack Garbo
President/General Counsel
AVM Products, Inc.
2333 Delante St.
Fort Worth, TX 76117

Dear Mr. Garbo:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1991, requesting clarification of Standard No. 208. Specifically, you asked "whether the three-point seatbelt is required in all middle and rear outboard seating positions in the multipurpose vehicles after September 1, 1991." Specifically, you requested verification of your interpretation that these requirements apply only to forward-facing seating, and not rearward-facing seating. Your interpretation regarding rearward-facing seats is correct.

Beginning September 1, 1991, multipurpose passenger vehicles must have lap/shoulder belts at every forward-facing rear outboard designated seating positions. The term "rear outboard designated seating position" is defined in S4.2.4.1(b) as an "outboard designated seating position" located rearward of the front seat(s). If by the phrase "middle and rear outboard seating positions" you are referring to outboard seating positions in different rows of seats located behind the front seat(s), each such position that is forward-facing must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts after September 1, 1991. If instead the term "middle" is referring to center seating position(s) on bench seats, such positions may be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts. Rearward-facing seats may also be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:208 D. 8/14/91

ID: 3118yy

Mr. Jack Garbo
President/General Counsel
AVM Products, Inc.
2333 Delante St.
Fort Worth, TX 76117

Dear Mr. Garbo:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1991, requesting clarification of Standard No. 208. Specifically, you asked "whether the three-point seatbelt is required in all middle and rear outboard seating positions in the multipurpose vehicles after September 1, 1991." Specifically, you requested verification of your interpretation that these requirements apply only to forward-facing seating, and not rearward-facing seating. Your interpretation regarding rearward-facing seats is correct.

Beginning September 1, 1991, multipurpose passenger vehicles must have lap/shoulder belts at every forward-facing rear outboard designated seating positions. The term "rear outboard designated seating position" is defined in S4.2.4.1(b) as an "outboard designated seating position" located rearward of the front seat(s). If by the phrase "middle and rear outboard seating positions" you are referring to outboard seating positions in different rows of seats located behind the front seat(s), each such position that is forward-facing must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts after September 1, 1991. If instead the term "middle" is referring to center seating position(s) on bench seats, such positions may be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts. Rearward-facing seats may also be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:208 d:8/l4/9l

ID: nht91-5.25

DATE: August 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack Garbo -- President/General Counsel, AVM Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-11-91 from Jack Garbo to Mary Versailles (OCC 6224)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1991, requesting clarification of Standard No. 208. Specifically, you asked "whether the three-point seatbelt is required in all middle and rear outboard seating positions in the multipurpose vehicles after September 1, 1991." Specifically, you requested verification of your interpretation that these requirements apply only to forward-facing seating, and not rearward-facing seating. Your interpretation regarding rearward-facing seats is correct.

Beginning September 1, 1991, multipurpose passenger vehicles must have lap/shoulder belts at every forward-facing rear outboard designated seating positions. The term "rear outboard designated seating position" is defined in S4.2.4.1(b) as an "outboard designated seating position" located rearward of the front seat(s). If by the phrase "middle and rear outboard seating positions" you are referring to outboard seating positions in different rows of seats located behind the front seat(s), each such position that is forward-facing must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts after September 1, 1991. If instead the term "middle" is referring to center seating position(s) on bench seats, such positions may be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts. Rearward-facing seats may also be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas K. O'Connor -- Chief of Maintenance and Operations, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/3/95 LETTER FROM THOMAS K. O'CONNOR TO NHTSA (OCC 11189)

TEXT: Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter asking about seat belt requirements for a step van with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. You asked whether lap belts versus lap/shoulder belts are needed for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As discussed below, either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts may be used for this type of vehicle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I note that this standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within th e vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208. That section provides vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, dealing with automatic crash protection, is not relevant to your inquiry. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to install Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) belts at every seating position. Thus, either lap or lap/shoulder belts may be used to me et S4.3.2.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 11189

Mr. Thomas K. O'Connor
Chief of Maintenance and Operations
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter asking about seat belt requirements for a step van with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. You asked whether lap belts versus lap/shoulder belts are needed for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As discussed below, either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts may be used for this type of vehicle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I note that this standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208. That section provides vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, dealing with automatic crash protection, is not relevant to your inquiry. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to install Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) belts at every seating position. Thus, either lap or lap/shoulder belts may be used to meet S4.3.2.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:10/11/95

ID: nht94-4.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York School Bus Distributors Association (Penn Yan, NY)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 7/19/94 from Richard Kreutziger to John Womack (OCC 10194)

TEXT:

This responds to your facsimile transmittal letter to me of July 19, 1994.

Your letter referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), and asked whether emergency exits on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less that 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and a passenger capacity of 2 to 16 seated and/or wheelchair positions, are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape as specified in paragraph S5.5.3(c) of the standard.

In 49 CFR 571.3, this agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a school bus as

(A) bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportati on.

Whether or not a vehicle is a school bus, therefore, depends on its use (transporting the specified students) and seating capacity (more than 10), and not GVWR. Accordingly, if the seating capacity of a vehicle is 10 or less, it is not a bus and likewis e not a school bus, regardless of use or GVWR. Such a vehicle would not be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 217.

Vehicles meeting the definition of school bus would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Section S5.5 of the standard, Emergency Exit Identification, specifies the marking requirements for emergency exits on all buses. Sections S5.5.1 and S 5.5.2 apply to non-school buses, while section S5.5.3 applies to all school buses, without regard to GVWR.

Paragraph S5.5.3(c) provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 o f 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

We would like to emphasize two points with regard to your letter. The first is that only those emergency exits that are required by the standard are subject to this provision. Extra emergency exits added as options are encouraged, but not required, to be outlined with the tape. The other point is one that I made

in May 18, 1994 letter to you. A technical amendment is pending publication which will amend the size requirement for the width of the retroreflective tape, from a minimum of 3 centimeters (cm.) to a minimum of 2.5 cm. That amendment is necessary becau se retroreflective tape is not commercially available in 3 cm. widths. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape width size against a manufacturer who uses one inch wide (minimum 2.5 cm.) retroreflective tap e.

In closing, bear in mind that all school buses are required to have a specified number of emergency exits, the number and location of which depend on the seating capacity of the vehicle, regardless of the GVWR, and all REQUIRED emergency exits must be ou tlined with the retroreflective tape.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10194

August 26,
1994

Mr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York School Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan, NY 14527

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your facsimile transmittal letter to me of July 19, 1994.

Your letter referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), and asked whether emergency exits on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and a passenger capacity of 2 to 16 seated and/or wheelchair positions, are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape as specified in paragraph S5.5.3(c) of the standard.

In 49 CFR 571.3, this agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a school bus as

[A] bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Whether or not a vehicle is a school bus, therefore, depends on its use (transporting the specified students) and seating capacity (more than 10), and not GVWR. Accordingly, if the seating capacity of a vehicle is 10 or less, it is not a bus and likewise not a school bus, regardless of use or GVWR. Such a vehicle would not be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 217.

Vehicles meeting the definition of school bus would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Section S5.5 of the standard, Emergency Exit Identification, specifies the marking

requirements for emergency exits on all buses. Sections S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 apply to non-school buses, while section S5.5.3 applies to all school buses, without regard to GVWR.

Paragraph S5.5.3(c) provides:

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

We would like to emphasize two points with regard to your letter. The first is that only those emergency exits that are required by the standard are subject to this provision. Extra emergency exits added as options are encouraged, but not required, to be outlined with the tape. The other point is one that I made in a May 18, 1994 letter to you. A technical amendment is pending publication which will amend the size requirement for the width of the retroreflective tape, from a minimum of 3 centimeters (cm.) to a minimum of 2.5 cm. That amendment is necessary because retroreflective tape is not commercially available in 3 cm. widths. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape width size against a manufacturer who uses one inch wide (minimum 2.5 cm.) retroreflective tape.

In closing, bear in mind that all school buses are required to have a specified number of emergency exits, the number and location of which depend on the seating capacity of the vehicle, regardless of the GVWR, and all required emergency exits must be outlined with the retroreflective tape.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:217 d:8/26/94