ID: 9882

Mr. Norman Duncan
President
Study-Tech, Inc.
603 South River Road
des Plaines, IL 60016

Dear Mr. Duncan:

The Federal Highway Administration has forwarded your letter of March 10, 1994, for reply. You request "an interpretation of the existing vehicle code as it may apply to a safety- warning system that our corporation has devised."

Our agency issues the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act'). Our Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is the regulation that governs the performance of lighting equipment that is required on new motor vehicles and determines whether optional lighting equipment is acceptable. As you have described it, the "Early-Warning Slow Down Safety Light" will automatically be activated when a vehicle decelerates. The system will operate through the stop lamps, but, alternatively, it could employ separate lamps mounted on the rear deck.

Your system is similar to others which have been suggested over the years, and we therefore do not feel that a demonstration is necessary as you have offered. With respect to operation of your system through the stop lamps, as you will see from our letter of October 22, 1993, to Dr. Cehelnik, a copy of which I have enclosed, automatic activation of the stop lamps is not permitted by Standard No. 108 which allows the stop lamps to operate only when the brake pedal is applied.

As for operation of your system through a separate lamp system, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Were your separate warning system to utilize red lenses, we believe that it could impair the effectiveness of the required stop lamps by sending at times a false signal; not every deceleration is followed by braking, and the operation of your system when not followed by brake application activating the stop lamps could be confusing to a following driver. On the other hands, if your system utilized amber lenses, we believe that impairment would be unlikely to exist because the public associates this color with the need for caution.

The Act itself governs acceptability of your system in the aftermarket (i.e., installed on vehicles in use). Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 and all other safety standards. We interpret this where possible as equating inoperability with impairment. Thus, we would view installation of your system by the persons named above as violative of the Act if it operated through the stop lamp system or if it were a separate lamp system with red lenses.

Even where a supplementary lighting system may be permitted under Federal laws and regulations, it remains subject to the laws of the individual states where the system will be operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108#VSA d:5/16/94

ID: 9883

Mr. Hamilton K. Pyles
Cairncross & Associates, Inc.
2990 Mission Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92109

Dear Mr. Pyles:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1994, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. You would like to import into the United States "a kit for a compact custom truck bed". You ask what Federal laws and regulations govern the importation, sale, and installation of wooden pickup bed kits. You also ask what you must do, initially, to import a trial sample bed into the United States.

You have described the kit as consisting of plans and instructions in English, wooden and plywood parts of the bed, unspecified "metal parts," fastenings, wiring and "lights."

As a general rule, all motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must conform (and be certified by their manufacturer to conform) to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency in order to be imported into the United States and sold here. The only motor vehicle equipment in your kit that is covered by a Federal standard is "lights." They are subject to our Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), and, thus, must conform and be certified as conforming in order to be imported into the United States. Certification is indicated either by a DOT symbol on the equipment, or by a statement of compliance attached to the equipment or on the container in which it is shipped.

If the lighting equipment does not conform, or if you are unsure whether it does, you are permitted by 49 CFR 591.5(j) to import one or more sample beds or kits for "research, investigations, studies, [or] demonstrations" for a period of up to three years after first obtaining written approval from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. If the lighting equipment does conform, there is no limitation upon the number of items you may import.

You have also written that the truck bed will be offered to the general public as a replacement for existing truck beds, and to "manufacturers who place specialized beds (campershells, utility company boxes, etc.) on pick-up frames that they buy new without factory installed beds."

Although you have no responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for compliance of a vehicle with the Federal safety standards when the conversion work is completed, we should like to apprise you of the obligations of a converter, since the converter will look to you to provide it with complying lighting equipment. With respect to the general public, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), the removal of the old truck bed and lights and installation of the new truck bed kit by a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" must not "knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with" a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For example, one of the named parties would violate the Act if it removed the old bed with complying lamps and installed a new bed with noncompliant lamps if that person knew that the lamps did not comply. Similarly, if the bed in some manner obscured the center highmounted lamp which is now required for pickups manufactured after September 1, 1993, that could be a violation of the Act.

If a manufacturer is installing the truck bed on a new chassis, it becomes responsible for ensuring that the completed vehicle fully meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for certifying its compliance.

Finally, as the importer of the kit, you become its "manufacturer" under our laws and may have some responsibility for notification and remedy of safety related defects or noncompliances that are discovered in the kit either before or after its installation on motor vehicles.

I enclose an information sheet for your information, and hope that this letter has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:591#VSA d:5/12/94

ID: 9886

AIR MAIL

Mr. S. Greiff PARS Passive Rhckhaltesysteme GmbH Borsigstrabe 2 63/55 Alzenau Germany

Dear Mr. Greiff:

This responds to your letter of April 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the 500 foot minimum runway length in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Federal motor vehicle safety standards Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301.

Laboratory Test Procedures are provided to contracted laboratories as guidelines for conducting compliance tests. The Laboratory Test Procedures do not limit the requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. None of the standards referenced in your letter include any requirement for minimum runway length. Instead, the standards specify that the collision into the fixed barrier will occur at any speed up to and including 30 mph.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:6/8/94

ID: 9889

Herr Tilman Spingler
Robert Bosch GmbH
Automotive Equipment Div. 2
Postfach 13 42
D-72703 Reutlingen
Germany

Dear Mr. Spingler:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1994, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to integral beam headlighting systems.

You reference a letter of this office to Toyota in which we permit location of the light source control module outside the headlamp housing but permanently attached to it by a cable. You have asked whether there are "requirements for this cable concerning indivisibility and integration . . . ."

There are no such requirements for the cable in Standard No. 108, and the headlamp manufacturer may adopt the construction that it has determined is most suitable for its design.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/5/94

ID: 9891-2

Mr. Fred Benford
100+ Motoring Accessories
2220 East Orangewood Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806-61100

Dear Mr. Benford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without "protruding objects." You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since "wheel discs" encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections ...

In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any "protruding objects." Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with "winged projections," if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate "winged projections," the wheel covers would satisfy Standard No. 211. "Winged projection" is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contact with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle.

You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are "motor vehicle equipment," your company must ensure that the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:211 NCC20:DNakama:mar:62992:apr/22/94;OCC#9891 cc: NCC-20 Subj/chron, DN NEF-01, NRM-01 [U:\NCC20\INTERP\211\9891.DRN] Interps: Std. No. 211, Redbook (2)

ID: 9912

Mr. Fred Carr, Engineer
Utilimaster
65266 State Road 19
P. O. Box 585
Wakarusa, IN 46573-0585

Dear Mr. Carr:

This responds to your question asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to "motor vehicle equipment relating to light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty trucks or truck manufacturers." As explained below, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment.

S2. Application of Standard No. 211 states the following:

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR '571.3 as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less, which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Since Standard No. 211 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and their equipment, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. "Truck" is defined at 49 CFR '571.3 as a motor vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. Accordingly, manufacturers of trucks or truck equipment are not required to certify their trucks and truck equipment to the requirements of Standard No. 211.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:211 d:5/16/94

ID: 9913

Mr. Robin Liu
President
Introbusy
1320 Girard Street
San Francisco, CA 94134

Dear Mr. Liu:

This responds to your letter of April 18, 1994, with respect to a supplementary stop lamp that you intend to import into the United States. You have asked whether you "need to get any official approval or to apply any license to ensure that installing this product in motor vehicle will not violate the regulation of Transportation Department."

There are no requirements of the Department of Transportation (DOT) that a supplementary stop lamp must meet. You do not have to receive DOT approval, or apply for a license.

The authority of this agency over installation of supplementary lighting equipment differs, according to whether the equipment is "original" (installed by the vehicle dealer or manufacturer before the vehicle's first sale) or "aftermarket" (installed after the vehicle's first sale).

We believe that you intend your lamp for sale in the aftermarket. If your lamp is installed by the owner of the vehicle itself, there are no Federal laws that must be considered. However, it is subject to the laws of the States in which the lamp is operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws and suggest that you write for an interpretation to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, if your lamp is installed by someone other than a vehicle owner, specifically by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, under Federal law (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) the question must be asked whether your lamp will "render inoperative in whole or in part" the center stop lamp or other stop lamps which have been installed in accordance with a Federal regulation (49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Literally, these lamps will continue to operate; however, if their signal is not clearly perceived as

stop signals, then, in our view, they have been rendered partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition.

The supplementary stop lamp depicted in the photos you enclosed is mounted atop a vehicle's center highmounted stop lamp. It connects "+/- wire to manufacturer's braking light system." The one shown is in the shape of a snowman, but others are available as Santa Claus, pumpkins, sports figures, etc. The photo of your snowman stop lamp in operation indicates that an interior bulb shines through the exterior and, in this case, gives a distinctly white light in contrast to the red of the center lamp on top of which it is mounted. Thus, we believe that when the snowman lamp operates simultaneously with the other stop lamps there could be momentary confusion on the part of a following driver, in other words, that the stop lamps will be rendered partially inoperative.

If your lamp is installed before the first sale of a vehicle (for example, by the vehicle dealer), under Standard No. 108 (S5.1.3) the question must be asked whether your lamp would impair the effectiveness of the center and other stop lamps. Because of the possibility of momentary confusion discussed above, we believe that your lamp could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps which are required under Standard No. 108.

There is also the possibility that installation of the lamp could affect compliance of the vehicle with the interior field of view requirements (S5.1.1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors.

In summary, while there is no restriction upon your importation and sale of this device, we believe that its installation would raise problems of compliance with Federal laws.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:6/6/94

ID: 9915

Herr P. Binder
ITT Automotive Europe GmbH
Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

FAX 07142/73-2895

Dear Herr Binder:

This responds to your FAX of April 28, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your letter shows a rear motor vehicle lighting array of four lamps, two on the body ("Rearlamp 1") and the other on the tailgate ("Rearlamp 2"). The four lamps appear to be equal in size. You cite the requirement of Standard No. 108 and "SAE J588e Sept. 77" that the lamp must "provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of 12.5 cm2 measured at 45 deg." and state that this "will not be performed by Rearlamp 1 because of the tailgate; however, the requirement is met by Rearlamp 2 and will be met by Rearlamp 1 if the tailgate is open. You have asked whether such a system is allowed.

First, a correction. There has never been a standard known as "SAE J588e Sep. 77." We believe that your are referring to SAE Standard J588e September 1970, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, but now applies only to certain replacement turn signal lamps (See S5.8.4(b)). The standard that applies to new passenger car designs such as you have depicted is SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less than 2032 mm in Overall Width. The visibility requirements, however, remain as you have stated. They are set forth in paragraph 5.4.1 of SAE J588 NOV84. As you have noted, the turn signal lamps must be visible through horizontal angles of 45 degrees to the right or left, depending on whether they are mounted on the right or left. To be considered visible, "the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface . . . of at least 12.5 cm2 measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

We believe that the design depicted is in accordance with Standard No. 108. It is, in operation, a turn signal lamp system of two lamps on each side of the vehicle. Contrary to your assertion, we believe that the outer lamp on each side, Rearlamp 1, will meet the visibility requirements when the tailgate is in place because visibility must be met only at 45 degrees outboard (the agency judges compliance with the vehicle in its normal operating condition, that is to say, with the tailgate closed). Thus, under Standard No. 108, Rearlamp 2 is regarded as a permissible supplementary turn signal lamp.

I hope that this is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:6/21/94

ID: 9920

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

Dear Mr. Turner:

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

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

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

Your letter states that this interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rear Emergency Exit Door

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is correct.

Emergency Window Exits

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

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

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

Side Emergency Exit Doors

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

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

Front Service Door

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

This is correct.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

ID: 9923

Paul L. Anderson, President
Van-Con, Inc.
P.O. Box 237
123 William Street
Middlesex, NJ 08846-0237

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994, requesting information on which of the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020; December 2, 1992), would apply to Type A-1 school buses. Your letter notes that Type A-1 school buses have a capacity of 16-20 passengers and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds.

The recent amendments to Standard No. 217 set new requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effect of each of these amendments on Type A-1 school buses is discussed separately below.

Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2)

The recent amendments listed above revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. This section states:

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

The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses, including Type A-1 school buses, are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by Standard

No. 217 before the recent amendments. After deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) a emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows.

Please note that, while these new requirements apply to all school buses, it is unlikely that a 20 passenger school bus will require additional exits. Under the new requirements, a school bus with 21 designated seating positions (20 passengers plus the driver) is required to provide 9,072 square centimeters of exit area. A school bus with a front service door and either of the mandatory options (rear emergency exit door or side emergency exit door and rear push-out window) should easily exceed this amount. To illustrate, in the past, the agency has estimated that the average front service door has a daylight opening of 12,916 square centimeters. For school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, a rear emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,270 square centimeters. A side emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,954 square centimeters. A rear push-out window that is the minimum size required has a daylight opening of 5,002 square centimeters.

Emergency Exit Release (S5.3)

The recent amendments added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. As explained above, the recent amendments should not require either of these types of exits to be installed on Type A-1 school buses. However, if either of these types of exits are voluntarily installed on Type A-1 school buses, the release mechanisms must comply with these requirements. In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements, including the release requirements in S5.3, apply to "each" emergency exit. This language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus, including voluntarily installed ones. Other requirements apply to "required" emergency exits. (See, for example, S5.5.3(c) discussed below.) Those requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits.

Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4)

The amendments of the extension requirements also apply to Type A-1 school buses. The recent amendments revised the extension requirements for side doors on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). These amendments also affect school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, as the requirements specify that these vehicles are to comply with the same requirements as school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds (except for the minimum size for rear emergency exit doors).

If a Type A-1 school bus has a side emergency exit door, that exit is required to comply with the amended requirements concerning access to the exit. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch.

In addition, if an emergency roof exit is installed in a Type A-1 school bus, it is required to provide an opening at least 41 centimeters high and 41 centimeters wide under the new requirements.

Finally, all emergency exit doors, including emergency exit doors on Type A-1 school buses, are required to have a "positive door opening device" that, among other things, prevents the door from closing if it has been opened beyond a certain point (see, S5.4.2.1(a)(3)).

Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5)

Finally, the recent amendments revised the identification requirements (S5.5) for exits on all school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit," as appropriate. For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed by these amendments. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. Please note however, that the identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3).

You should be aware that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. I have enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

To summarize and answer your specific questions, Type A-1 school buses typically would not be affected by the recent amendment requiring either emergency roof exits or emergency window exits. However, required emergency exits (including a rear emergency exit door) are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape. In addition, all exits (required and voluntary) must comply with the new performance requirements for release and extension.

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

Please note that recent delay of the effective date of the recent amendments applies only to provision of emergency exits (S5.2) (59 FR 22997; May 4, 1994). The other amendments were effective on May 2, 1994. I also note that the May 4 notice does not state "that it only applys (sic) to School Buses with capacity of 24 to 90 passengers." The notice does refer to tables in a previous NPRM which listed the types of exits required under the proposal for buses with a capacity in that range.

I have also enclosed a copy of the recent final rules for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:217 d:5/18/94