ID: nht95-5.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: John Renock -- Director of Operations, Central New York Regional Transport Authority

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM M. JUDSON BROWN TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10992)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Renock:

Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for your Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Transit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years.

The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With regard to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you.

NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment.

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

ID: 9123

Mr. Jack McIntyre
Vice President
Tie Tech Inc.
Post Office Box 5226
Lynnwood, WA 98046-5226

Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This responds to your letter in which you withdrew your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead.

You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair.

Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . ." That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards.

I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further 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:209#222#571 d:11/23/93

ID: milazzo.ztv

100 Page Road
Bow, NH 03304

Dear Mr. Milazzo:

You have asked for interpretations of two provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30141.

Your first request concerned the meaning of the phrase "substantially similar" in Section 30141(a)(1)(A). In context, the statutory phrase reads "(A) the vehicle is (i) substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for import into and sale in the United States; (ii) certified under section 30115 of this title; (iii) the same model year . . . as the model of the motor vehicle it is being compared to;"

The phrase has been defined through usage. NHTSAs first criterion is whether a vehicle of the same make, model, and model year has been sold in the United States as the vehicle covered by the petition. Even if the manufacturer used a different model designation but both vehicles have "a commonality in construction such as body [and] chassis," NHTSA would regard them as being of the same "model" in a family of vehicles. See definition of "model" in 49 CFR 579.4(c) and its application to a family of vehicles in the enclosed Federal Register notice (67 FR 61378 at 61379).

Your second request concerned the meaning of the phrase "capable of being altered" in Section 30141(a)(1)(B). This section relates to vehicles for which there are no substantially similar counterparts that have been certified for sale in the United States. If a vehicle has no substantially similar counterpart, a petitioner seeking a decision that it is eligible for importation must demonstrate that "the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with" the FMVSS. The absence of the word "readily" in paragraph (B) of this section reflects a Congressional awareness that vehicles without U.S.-certified counterparts may require more extensive modifications to bring them into compliance with some of the applicable FMVSS than vehicles that have substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts. We judge "capability" on a factual case-by-case basis; i.e., we consider the FMVSS at issue and the arguments made by the petitioner and any comments on the petition.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:591
d.4/4/03

ID: 12548a.mls

Mr. William Shapiro
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter asking whether "belt positioning seats" as defined in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems may be either the booster seat cushion (base) by itself or the base with a fixed or removable back. After asking a number of questions about belt positioning seats, you ask what requirements would be applicable to a removable slip cover for a belt positioning seat. The responses set forth below are based on our understanding of the facts set forth in your letter and related attachments.

You state that Volvo currently markets a two piece, cushion (base) and backrest belt positioning booster seat for children over 50 pounds. You further state that this restraint positions a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of the vehicle's Type 2 belt system. The restraint lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, to restrain the forward movement of the child's torso in a forward impact. According to your letter, Volvo is contemplating marketing this device in the United States as a belt positioning booster for children 33 pounds and higher. You further state that Volvo markets a backrest which, without tools, may be easily attached and removed from the booster cushion. You state that as a child grows, first the backrest and then the base will no longer be needed.

You ask nine questions about Standard No. 213. You also request that we confirm what you refer to as three "interpretations" of the Standard. Your questions and "interpretations" are restated below, followed by our answers.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO BELT POSITIONING SEATS

You initially ask whether your device meets the definition of a belt positioning booster seat, if it is sold for use by children 33 pounds and higher.

Yes. "Belt positioning seat" is defined in a July 21, 1994 final rule as

A child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II belt system on the child and that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, designed to restrain forward movement of the child's torso in a forward impact. (59 FR 37167)

The system you describe is consistent with the definition of "belt positioning seat." Moreover, the agency adopted labeling requirements that state that "booster seats shall not be recommended for children of masses of less than 13.6 kg" (30 pounds). Accordingly, it would be permissible for you to market your belt positioning booster seat for use by children weighing 33 pounds or more.

Question 1. Must a belt positioning booster seat that lacks any component to restrain forward movement have a backrest?

No. A belt positioning seat may be either the base by itself or the base with a backrest. In either case, the belt positioning seat must comply with all the performance requirements when tested.

Question 2. If a belt positioning booster must have a backrest may the back be detachable from the base cushion?

As stated in our answer to question 1, a belt positioning booster seat is not required to have a backrest.

Question 3. If the belt positioning booster has a detachable backrest, can it be sold separately from the base cushion?

Nothing in NHTSA's regulations would prohibit a manufacturer from selling a detachable backrest separately from the base cushion.

Question 4. If the belt positioning booster has a fixed or detachable backrest, does it need to meet any requirements such as surface area or side support?

Yes. A belt positioning booster seat with a fixed or detachable backrest is required to meet all requirements that would be applicable to a belt positioning seat with a back, including the surface area and side support requirements set forth in S5.2.2.

Question 5. Is the backrest considered a child restraint under the definition in this regulation?

A detachable backrest, by itself, would not be considered a child restraint under the definitions in Standard No. 213. Nevertheless, a detachable backrest used in combination with a base cushion would be a child restraint system. A "child restraint system" is defined as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." As stated above, a "belt-positioning seat" is defined as "a child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat..."

Question 6: Must the detachable backrest be labeled in the same way as the cushion base?

No. A detachable backrest would not be required to be labeled in the same way as the cushion base, provided that the cushion base is labeled with all the information required by Standard No. 213.

Question 7: If a belt positioning booster seat with a detachable backrest is tested by NHTSA for compliance to FMVSS 213, will NHTSA test with or without the backrest attached?

If the seat is recommended for use both with and without the backrest, then NHTSA would test the belt positioning seat in both use modes: as a cushion alone and with the backrest attached. The agency believes that it is necessary to test the seat both ways in order to replicate fully the actual anticipated use of the child restraint system.

You conclude this section by stating that:

It is our interpretation that the booster seat cushion (base), by itself, constitutes a belt positioning booster seat that may be labeled as being suitable for children weighing not less than 30 pounds. Further, we believe that a belt positioning booster seat that lacks any component, such as a belt or a structural element like a shield, may have a back that is either fixed or removable.

We agree with both of your statements: A seat cushion (base) by itself may be a belt positioning booster seat, and a belt positioning booster seat may have a back that is either fixed or removable.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO SLIP COVERS

You state that Volvo is considering marketing a removable slip cover for the belt positioning booster seat that would either be one piece that covers both the base and the attached back or two pieces that would separately cover each piece. You anticipate selling the slip cover either with the booster seat or as an accessory separately. You state that the slip cover may cover labels on the booster seat required by Standard No. 213.

8. Volvo would like to know if a slip cover as described above would be permitted to be sold with the booster or separately as an accessory?

A slip cover would be permitted to be sold either with the booster or separately as an accessory.

The applicable requirements differ depending on whether a slip cover is sold with the booster seat or as an accessory. A slip cover sold with the booster seat would be considered part of the child restraint system, and therefore would be subject to all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213, including the labeling requirements in S5.5 and the flammability resistance requirements in S5.7. A slip cover sold separately as an accessory would not be subject to these requirements. While it is unlikely that the slip cover would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. No commercial business listed in 30122 can install a slip cover if the product undermines the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard, including FMVSS 213's labeling requirements.

The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment on their own child restraint systems. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages owners not to degrade the safety of their child restraint systems.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 United States Code 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

9. Must the required warning labels or other information, such as the date and location of manufacture on the booster seat, be visible with the slip cover installed?

Under S5.5.3, information specified in S5.5.2(g) through (k) must be visible with the slip cover installed. The agency notes that it is important for this information to remain visible, given that child restraint systems may be used by people other than the initial purchaser such as grandparents and child care providers who would not know about a warning label that was covered by a slip cover. Nevertheless, information specified in S5.5.2(a) through (f) (such as the date and location of manufacture) need not be visible when a system is installed, and thus may be obscured by a slip cover.

With respect to a slip cover sold as an accessory, the agency cannot require labeling information to be visible when the slip cover is installed. Nevertheless, NHTSA strongly urges you to either label the slip cover with this important safety information or not obstruct this information already labeled on the child restraint system.

You conclude your letter by asking us to confirm the following statement:

It is our interpretation that FMVSS 213 does not apply to either the backrest or the slip cover. As we understand, the standard applies to new child restraint systems that are designed to restrain, seat or position children. Both the backrest and the slip cover, by themselves, were not designed to restrain, seat, or position the child and thus would not be subject to the standard. Since the backrest would not be considered a child restraint system, it would not have to be labeled nor would it have to meet the surface area or side support requirements of the standard. Also, since the slip cover is installed over the child restraint by the consumer after the initial sale we believe that labeling the child restraint appropriately is sufficient to meet the requirements of the standard and that it is not required to label the slip cover in any way.

As explained above, we cannot fully agree with your interpretation. If it is sold with a child restraint system, a slip cover would have to comply with the flammability resistance requirements. In addition, the slip cover must either be labeled or not obstruct the safety information on the child restraint system.

While a backrest sold alone would not be a child restraint system, a backrest in connection with a bottom cushion would be a child restraint system and therefore would be subject to all applicable requirements in Standard No. 213.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213

d.12/5/96

ID: nht76-2.10

DATE: 09/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's July 20, 1976, question whether the NHTSA's redefinition of "school bus" (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975) includes buses designed for intercity transportation utilized in charter operation to transport school children to and from school or related events, and what constitutes "interstate commerce" as that term is used in the redefinition. A second July 20, 1976, letter from Blue Bird Body requests reconsideration of two NHTSA interpretations of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, that were issued in an April 26, 1976, letter.

The redefinition of school bus (effective April 1, 1977) states:

"School bus" means 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.

The definition is not intended to include intercity type buses on regular common-carrier routes, although they may be used in some circumstances to transport school students to and from school or related events. This bus type has never been considered a school bus under existing motor vehicle safety standards or Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17 (43 CFR 1204). In light of the major standard-setting activity undertaken by Congress for school buses under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (the Act) (15 UVS.C. @ 1392(i), it is unlikely that such a board change of regulatory direction would be contemplated by Congress without explicit discussion in the legislative history. The boundaries of coverage of the redefinition are explicitly left by the statute to agency determination, and the agency did not include the intercity buses you describe in the redefinition.

The meaning "interstate commerce" in the redefinition is the same as for that term in @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, which states that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import" non-complying vehicles. While the legislative history of the Act does not directly address the meaning of the term, the House of Representatives Committee Report stated:

. . . The purpose of this section is to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or importation into this country of vehicles . . . that fail to meet the Federal safety standards . . . (H.R. Rep. No. 1776, 89th Cong., 2d Sess 22 (1966))

The agency adopts the existing construction of the term set forth in Katzenback v. McClurg, 379 U.S. 294 (1974). To answer your specific question, however, it should be clarified that only the classification of the bus as a school bus is determined by the ambit of "interstate commerce" in those infrequent cases where a sale does not occur. Blue Bird Body's responsibilities to conform to the standards arise directly from its manufacturing activities under @ 108(a)(1)(A). For example, a bus built in Georgia must conform to the school bus standards if it is sold to a Georgia school for use in transportation of school students, even if it never leaves the State.

Your second July 20 letter requests reconsideration of the NHTSA's April 26, 1976, decision that the area of contact between headlining panels and the "header" over the windows qualifies as a body joint subject to the requirements of the standard. You assert that the area of contact is not such a joint because it is covered by a molding and therefore does not "enclose occupant space" and cannot be considered a "surface component".

"Body panel joint" is defined in the standard to mean, with several exceptions, the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component. Whether or not the joint itself is covered is not relevant to its status. The separate definition of "body panel" does refer to the surface of the exterior or interior of the bus and to use of the panel in enclosing the bus occupant space. Thus, it is the body panel and not the joint which must form part of the exterior or interior surface of the bus. In the case you describe, the head-lining panel does enclose the bus occupant space and constitutes a part of the interior surface of the bus. Thus it does form a "body panel joint" at the point of contact with the header (a separate body component).

You also suggest that the requirements do not apply to a joint where the edges of the body panel join a body component at a point other than at the edge of the body component. Your interpretation is incorrect. In the case you describe, the floor panel's edges form a right angle that is attached to a central portion of the tag panel at some distance from its edges. The definition of "body panel joint" refers to contact between the edges of the body panel and another body component, without regard to the proximity of the edges of the body component.

You also request confirmation that a statement on rubrails in our April 26 letter is fulfilled by ensuring that, in testing a complex joint to which rubrails are fastened, the rubrails are modified so that they are not held by the gripping fixture of the tensile strength test machine. Your interpretation is correct.

In a related matter, the NHTSA would like to advise you of failure in our April 26, 1976, letter to respond fully to Blue Bird Body Company's February 13, 1976, letter. You asked if the cove molding that is attached at the border of the bus body floor against the sidewall of the bus body would qualify as a surface component whose edges form a joint subject to the standard's requirements. From your description of the cove molding and its use at the edge of the floor, the agency considers that it does not have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. A copy of your illustration of this component is attached for the benefit of interested persons.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your July 28, 1976, letter to the Administrator, asking that the new definition of "school bus" become effective on April 1, 1977, instead of October 27, 1976. Your request has been granted by a recent notice of rulemaking.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

July 28, 1976

John Snow, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-492, precipitated a number of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as well as an amended definition of a school bus (Section 201). We have noted that Public Law 94-346 has changed the effective dates of the new standards from October 26, 1976 to April 1, 1977, but apparently the school bus definition remains effective October 26, 1976. We believe that this must be an oversight and probably wouldn't achieve the uniformity of a consistent change that you would desire. We do feel that this difference in dates will cause confusion and hardship. Therefore, we request that the new school bus definition also be changed to be effective April 1, 1977.

Thanks for your consideration in this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

C: BYRON CROMPTON; TBEA

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

July 20, 1976

Thomas W. Herlihy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The purpose of this letter is to clarify certain questions pertaining to definition of a school bus which becomes effective October 27, 1976.

First, we would like to know exactly what constitutes "Interstate Commerce" as it is used in the school bus definition. The question has been raised: do the new school bus standards only apply to buses which cross state lines while transporting students?

Another question relates to the scope of the exception clause which states that a school bus . . . "does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." Are we correct in assuming that this exception does not extend to Greyhound or Trailways type buses which are chartered for the purpose of ". . . .carrying students to and from school . . . related events. . . ."?

Thank you for your early reply to these important questions.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY July 20, 1976

Thomas W. Herlihy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

REFERENCE: 1. Letter W. G. Milby to R. B. Dyson, dated 2-13-76

2. Letter Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby, dated 4-26-76; N40-30

The purpose of this letter is to question several of the interpretations NHTSA has given us in reference 2 regarding FMVSS 221.

Item 4, page 2 of reference 1 pertains to the area where the header and headlining come in contact. As explained in reference 1, this area of contact is completely covered and, therefore, isolated from the bus occupant space by the wire molding. In reference 2 NHTSA said "the terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together they establish the following test. If the edge of the surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with another body component the requirements of S5 apply. . .".

In our opinion the area of contact between the header and headlining does not meet this criteria for two reasons:

1. Because it is completely enclosed by the wire molding, it cannot be construed to be "a surface component".

2. Also because it is covered by the wire molding it does not "enclose the bus occupant space".

Therefore, we would ask NHTSA to reconsider its interpretation given to us in reference 2 and rule that the area of contact between the header and headlining is not a joint which must meet the requirements of S5.

Item 15, page 5 of reference 1 pertains to the area of contact between the tag panel and the floor. In our opinion this does not meet the criteria required for a joint because the area of contact between the tag panel and the floor is several inches from the edge of the tag panel. This fact was overlooked in the preparation of reference 1. Hence in reference 2 NHTSA ruled that this would be a joint subject to the requirements of S5. Since the area of contact is several inches from the tag panel, we are proceeding on this not being a joint. I am including it in this letter merely to document the reason for our not considering it to be a joint after having received the interpretation given in reference 2 which was based on incomplete information.

In reference 2 NHTSA ruled that rubrails ". . . are not themselves considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered body components for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which they are fastened, they should be modified as necessary to prevent them from affecting testing of the underlying joint." In the many hundreds of joint tests we have run in preparation for compliance with FMVSS 221 we have come to the conclusion that it's virtually impossible to modify the rubrail in such a way that it does not have any effect on the underlying joint. We also feel that it is unrealistic to attempt to modify the rubrail so that it has no effect on the underlying joint. This is because that in order for the underlying joint to fail on a vehicle the rubrail must also fail. Therefore, in our testing of joints which include a rubrail we have modified them in such a way that the gripping fixture of the tensile testing machine only grips the panel portion of this specimen and in no way contacts the rubrail. In this way the tensile load is imparted wholly to the panel specimen. However, we cannot guarantee that the rubrail section has no effect on the underlying joint. We are confident that our testing method is more severe than any kind of loading that could even be imparted in an accident. Further we are confident that our testing method meets the full spirit of FMVSS 221. I include this discussion again simply to document our testing methodology and to indicate that we do not feel it is possible or reasonable to construct and test a sample joint in which the rubrail has no effect on the underlying joint.

Thank you for your consideration of the header to headlining and we look forward to your early reply.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

TOLERANCE ON ALL DIMENSIONS IS, PLUS (Illegible Word) OR MINUS (Illegible Word) UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED

INACTIVATES NOS.

REPLACED BY NOS.

RELEASED

BLUE BIRD BODY CO. FORT VALLEY, GEORGIA, U.S.A.

(Illegible Word)

COVE MOLDING TO FLOOR

(Illegible Words)

SIZE:

ID: nht88-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Texas State Purchasing & General Service Commission Austin, Texas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications/Inspections Chief Texas State Purchasing & General Service Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Bldg. P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is a response to your letter of last year where you stated your concern respecting the installation of "latches" on the rear doors of a school bus of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR (small school bus), and asked a number of questions on release mechanisms f or required rear emergency doors on these small school buses. I regret the delay in this response.

You said that the State of Texas has a school bus specification that requires "the first-closed (left-hand) door)" to have a latching mechanism at the top and bottom. Your supplier tells you that this specification conflicts with provisions of Federal sa fety standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (Standard 217). You go on to express your concern that a single mechanism would hold both doors closed, and that this feature increases the risk of injury from accidental or intentional opening. You bel ieve that where a small school bus has two rear doors, if each door is secured independently, then there is a decreased risk of a student' s falling through a door opened inadvertently.

Let me begin my answer with some general information on the requirement for a rear emergency door in a small school bus. As your supplier suggests, there can be instances where independently securing the rear doors on a small school bus would violate Sta ndard 217. Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires a manufacturer of these buses to install either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) one emergency door on the vehicle' s left side and one push-out rear window. Where a manufacturer chooses to meet this requirement by installing one rear emergency door, the door may be hinged on either side of the vehicle.

When a manufacturer installs more than one rear door exit, the question of whether both exits are "emergency doors" under paragraph S5.2.3.1 of Standard 217 depends upon whether one or both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of a specified par allelepiped under paragraph S5.4.2.2. The purpose of the school bus emergency exit requirements is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency. (44 FR 7961, 7962, February 8, 1979.)

Question 1: Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217?

If a manufacturer installs more than one rear door on a small school bus, and intends one door to be a rear emergency door under S5.2.3.1 and one to be a regular door for loading and unloading passengers, then the designated rear emergency door is a suff icient sear emergency exit so long as it will permit unobstructed passage of the device specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2 of the Standard. In a case such as this one, the manufacturer must label the emergency door appropriately, and otherwise ensure that t he designated rear emergency door meets the performance, accessibility, and release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus .

On the other hand, if the manufacturer installs two rear doors on a small school bus, and if both of those doors must be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, then both doors constitute a rear emergency exit under S5.2.3.1. In this case, the two doors together must meet the applicable provisions of Standard 217.

There is yet another possibility that a manufacturer may install a second rear exit and designate it as an emergency exit. Assuming that at least one exit meets Standard 217's requirements for a rear emergency door exit, NHTSA would not prohibit installi ng this additional emergency exit. However, as the agency long has held, that "extra" emergency exit must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Question 2: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require separate, independent operation: that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

Again, the answer to this question depends upon whether one door can meet the unobstructed test measurement for a required sear emergency door. Let me begin this answer by explaining the release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bu s.

Under paragraph S5.3.3, a required small school bus rear emergency door generally must have a release mechanism that allows (1) a single person (2) to operate the door manually (3) from in or outside the vehicle's passenger compartment without the use of remote controls or tools (4) irrespective of whether the vehicle's power system fails. (Paragraph S5.3.3 also sets the maximum permissible magnitude of force and the permissible direction in which a force must be applied to operate the release mechanism .)

In an interpretation of March 17, 1982, this agency stated that the release mechanism is the mechanism that keeps the door from opening. In other words, the release mechanism is that you refer to in your letter as the door "latch." If the test device des cribed in my answer to your first question passes through unobstructed only when both doors are open, then the door release mechanism must be operable for both doors from inside the vehicle passenger compartment irrespective of whether a person outside t he vehicle operates the outside release mechanism. Further, this same release mechanism must be operable from outside the vehicle. In this circumstance, a separate release mechanism for each door would not comply with the Standard.

If only one door needs to be open, and the manufacturer has designated the second door as an emergency exit, then this additional emergency door still must be operable from inside the passenger compartment. In this case, independent release mechanisms ma y be appropriate, but a release mechanism on an additional emergency exit need not be operable from outside the vehicle. (S5.3.2.)

If only one door needs to be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, and the manufacturer neither intends the second door to be an emergency door, nor designates it as an emergency exit, then the second door is a regular door for loading and unloading pa ssengers. Standard 217 would be inapplicable to this second door.

Question 3: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened t o insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelepiped?

If both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of the specified parallelepiped, then there must be a single emergency release mechanism (or latch) for both doors. In a case such as this, there must be an audible alarm under S5.3.3 whenever the rel ease mechanism is not closed and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." That alarm should sound if either door is unsecured.

Question 4: Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelepiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand doo r closed?

In your question, the manufacturer may designate either door as the required S5.2.3.1 emergency exit if the door accommodates the test device. The warning system then must sound when the release mechanism on the designated rear emergency door is open and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." For example, if in your question, the manufacturer designated the right-hand door as the required rear door emergency exit, then the warning system must sound whenever the release mechanism for that door is open and the vehicle ignition position is "on." As I stated in Question 1, the second rear door could be an "additional" emergency exit, or a regular means for loading and unloading passengers; then the additional door would have to meet such other requirements a s may apply to these exits.

Question 5: Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelepiped even though the left-hand door is close by the latches of the right-hand door?

In this circumstance, Standard 217 would prohibit installing a separate release mechanism on each door. Recall that S5.2.3.1 requires on a small school bus, "one rear emergency door," or one side door and one push-out window. If the manufacturer chooses to install the rear emergency door, then under S5.4.2. 2, the specified parallelepiped must pass through that rear emergency door without obstruction. If both doors must be open to accommodate the test device, then both doors constitute the single, rear emergency door which the Standard requires. Under paragraph S5.3.3, the required rear emergency door must have its own release mechanism.

I Hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We have a question concerning the installation of latches on small van conversion buses that have two rear doors that act or may act as emergency doors. We have in our Texas school bus specifications a requirement that the first-closed (left-hand) door be equipped with latching mechanisms top and bottom. Collins Industries, one of our suppliers of this type of bus, claims that they cannot meet our requirement because it is in conflict with the provisions of FMVSS No. 217.

We are concerned about this door not having any latching mechanisms at all, since, if Collins is correct, this door would be held close only by the right-hand door. One could envision situations in which several children could be seated or standing in th e immediate vicinity of these doors (even behind the last row of seats or in the isle immediately ahead of the emergency doors) at the time the right-hand door was accidentally or intentionally opened. Of course, the driver would be immediately notified by the ringing of the buzzer (if it were operational) that the emergency door was opened, but by the time the driver could take any action, both doors could be open and a student could fall from the back of the bus. We maintain that in this situation, if the first-closed (the left-hand) door is latched independently or the last-closed (right-hand) door, there would be less chance of a student fa lling out of the bus should the right-hand door be opened while the bus is underway.

I would appreciate your addressing the following questions:

1. Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1. of FMVSS No. 217?

2. Does Paragraph S5.3.3. require separate, independent operation; that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

3. Does Paragraph S5.3.3. require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened to insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelopiped?

4. Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelopiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand door closed?

5. Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelopiped even though the left-hand door is held close by the latches of the right-hand door?

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Troy C. Martin

Specifications/Inspections Chief

ID: nht76-4.38

DATE: 02/25/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: State of Connecticut

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of June 24, 1975, and May 30, 1975, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217 and 205. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions.

In your letter of June 24, 1975, you asked whether Standard No. 217 applies to school buses, and if so, whether Connecticut's regulations concerning emergency exits for school buses are in conflict with the Federal standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, 49 CFR 571.217, was amended to specify requirements for emergency doors for school buses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 202 of the Motor Vehicle and Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392).

Since Standard No. 217, as amended, applies to school buses, effective October 26, 1976, any State regulations which differ are voided by @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The Connecticut regulations are, therefore, preempted by Standard No. 217, since @ 103(d) requires the State regulations to be "identical" to the Federal standard.

It should be noted, however, that while the State of Connecticut may not issue a regulation which differs from similarly applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements, Connecticut (or any of its political subdivisions) may in its own contracts for school bus purchases require more stringent specifications, as long as the Federal minimum requirements are met.

In your letter of May 30, 1975, you asked whether Lucite AR and other similar rigid plastics are allowed for use as side windows of buses under Standard No. 205, even though S5.1.2.1 does not list the use for "Item 12" rigid plastics.

"Item 12" is a classification created by the NHTSA for rigid plastics which comply with all the tests required of "Item 5" rigid plastics as defined in ANS Z26, with the exception of the test for resistance to undiluted denatured alcohol. Paragraph S5.1.2.1, Item 12 - Rigid plastics, provides that "Item 5" safety plastic materials may be used in motor vehicles only in the locations specified, at levels not requisite for driving visibility. These locations include "Standee windows in buses" and "readily removable windows". However, there is no provision in S5.1.2.1 which allows the use of "Item 12" plastic materials for fixed, side windows in buses.

Standard No. 205 defines readily removable windows in buses having a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds to include pushout windows and windows mounted in emergency exits that can be manually pushed out of their location in the vehicle without the use of tools, whether or not one side remains hinged to the vehicle. Rigid plastics can only be used for side windows in buses if the side window is a readily removable window as defined by S5.1.1.4 or a standee window.

I hope this letter clarifies your questions concerning Standard Nos. 217 and 205. Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

June 24, 1975

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

This is in regard to your recent reply to Mr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer from the Blue Bird Body Company in Fort Valley, Georgia concerning Connecticut regulations for emergency exits on school buses.

I have no question with the response that State regulations must be identical to Federal standard or are considered void. I can understand the reasoning behind this decision and agree with it completely. The interpretation I would have is; Does Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217 apply to school buses, and if it does; are Connecticut regulations concerning emergency doors and emergency windows in conflict with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217?

I am attaching for your information copies of those sections of Connecticut regulations concerning emergency exits from the "MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I SCHOOL BUS CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT and all correspondence pertaining to this subject.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this regard.

John L. O'Connell Pupil Transportation Administrator

ATTACHMENTS

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

May 19, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

The State of Connecticut recently adopted new school bus specifications which will become effective on school buses manufactured after January 1, 1976. In two areas these specifications are more restrictive than FMVSS 217 Bus Window Retention and Release.

In section 14-275B-16 (d) and 14-275B-17 (a), (see attached copies), the Connecticut specifications call for emergency exit release forces of between 5 and 15 pounds and 5 and 20 pounds respectively. Since these forces are different than those required by FMVSS 217, this imposes an additional constraint on school bus manufacturers for that state. Also, we are concerned that latch forces as low as 5 pounds could result in inadvertent opening of emergency exits.

We are in receipt of a copy of a letter which you sent to Mr. Donald L. Gibson, dated November 29, 1974, with file reference N40-30 (KK). In that letter you state:

"The federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to parking brake performance and emergency braking capability in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a federal regulatory scheme. If states were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a federal safety standard, manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the basis of the recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle lamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps."

It appears to us that this current conflict between the new Connecticut regulations and FMVSS 217 is similar to the matter which you addressed in your letter quoted above.

In the light of such conflicting specifications, what is our responsibility as a school bus manufacturer.

W. G. Milby Staff Manager

cc: JOHN O'CONNELL; DAVE PHELPS

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I SCHOOL BUS CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT PAGES 9 AND 10 the release mechanism should be turned to open the emergency door shall be painted on the outside of the emergency door in black on the national school bus yellow background. The emergency door shall have a horizontal opening of at least 30 inches and a vertical opening of at least 48 inches measured from the floor level. No steps shall lead to the emergency door. The emergency door or exit shall be devised so as to be opened from the inside and the outside.

(b) The passage to the emergency door shall be kept clear of obstructions. For rear doors the horizontal clearance of 30 inches shall be maintained for a distance of at least twelve inches inside the bus. When the emergency door is in the left side, a minimum horizontal clearance of 30 inches and a vertical clearance of 48 inches shall be maintained between it and the center aisle.

(c) The upper and lower portion of the central rear emergency door shall be equipped with approved safety glass, the exposed area of which shall be not less than four hundred (400) square inches in the upper portion and not less than three hundred (300) square inches in the lower portion. The left side emergency door shall be equipped with safety glass in the upper portion and the lower portion shall be of at least the same gauge metal as the body outer panels. The emergency door shall be hinged on the right side if it is in the rear end of the bus and on the front side if it is in the left side and shall open only outward. Control from the driver's seat shall not be permitted.

(d) The emergency door shall be equipped with a slide-bar, cam-operated latch which shall be a minimum stroke of one inch. The latch shall be equipped with a suitable electric plunger-type switch connected with a distinctive audible signal automatically operated and located in the driver's compartment which shall clearly indicate the unlatching of this door and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the circuit. The switch shall be enclosed in a metal case, and wires leading from the switch shall be concealed in the body. The switch shall be so installed that the plunger contacts the farthest edge of the slide bar in such a manner that any movement of the slide bar will immediately close the circuit and activate the signal. The door latch shall be equipped with an interial handle which shall be capable of quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 15 pounds but shall be protected against accidental release. It shall lift up to release the latch. The outside handle shall be installed in a vertical position when latched so as to minimize hitching and shall be a non-detachable device.

(e) An audio alarm shall indicate to the driver when any door is in the locked position while the ignition switch is in the "on" position.

Sec. 14-275b-17. Emergency Windows. (a) A rear emergency window at least 16 inches height and as wide as practicable shall be provided in any where the emergency door is not in the rear. The rear window shall be designed so as to be opened from either the inside the outside. It shall be hinged at the top and be equipped a linkage or mechanism that will automatically hold the (Illegible Word) window against the force of gravity at a hinge opening angle 60 + 5 degrees measured from the closed window position. Such linkage or mechanism shall not prevent the window from (Illegible Word) a full 90 degrees due to gravitational forces should the bus be inverted. A positive latch on the inside shall provide (Illegible Word) quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 20 pounds but offer protection against accidental release. The outside handle shall be non-detachable and designed to minimize hitching.

(b) Labeling shall indicate in 1/2 inch letters on the inside the window operates and in letters at least two inches in height the words "Emergency Exit" above on the inside and directly below on the outside. clearly indicate to the driver the unlatching of the rear emergency window or the opening of any push-out emergency windows and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the (Illegible Word)

(d) If there is a space between the top of the rear divan seat the inside lower edge of the rear emergency window, such space shall be covered by a material of sufficient strength to sustain 600 pounds weight.

Sec. 14-275b-18. Exhaust System and Muffler. The exhaust system shall include the exhaust manifold and gaskets, piping leading from the flange of the exhaust manifold to and including the muffler(s). The system shall not extend into the body and shall be attached to the chassis. The tail pipe(s) shall be non-flexible sixteen gauge steel or equivalent and shall extend beyond the rear end of the chassis frame but not beyond the rear limit of the bumper. The complete exhaust system shall be tight and free from leaks and shall be properly insulated from the electrical wiring or any combustible part of the bus. It shall not pass within twelve inches of the fuel tank or its connections except that the exhaust system may come within four inches of the tank or its connections if a suitable heat baffle is installed between the exhaust system and such tank or connections. The size of the in the exhaust system shall not be reduced below that at the engine manifold.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

June 10, 1975

John O'Connell Pupil Transportation Adm. Department of Motor Vehicles

On May 19, 1975, I wrote Mr. Richard Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel for NHTSA with regard to the emergency exit requirements in the new Connecticut School Bus Specifications VS Federal Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release per our earlier telephone conversation.

Attached please find a copy of the reply to that letter from Mr. James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel for NHTSA. I think it would be good for us to discuss this reply and so after you have had a few days to review this letter I will plan to call you.

Look forward to talking to you shortly.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

c: DAVE PHELPS

ID: 1983-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1982, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new option for school buses permitted by Wisconsin. This option would allow two additional red lamps, front and rear, as a supplement to the red warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4(a) of the standard.

As a general rule, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No. 108 as long as it does not "impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment" required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). In our opinion, the separate lamps that would be permitted by Wisconsin on the front of the school bus, between the bottom of the windshield and the top of the highest headlamp, would not impair the effectiveness of the front lighting equipment. The lamps on the rear, however, according to Wisconsin, could be incorporatedn "in an existing lamp" provided that such incorporation "shall not interfere with or override the existing unit's function." We believe that the language both of Standard No. 108 and the Wisconsin specification would effectively prohibit incorporation of the warning lamp into the stop lamp of the school bus. However, we believe that this language would allow its combination with the tail lamp, or its addition as a separate lamp.

We trust that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

December 7, 1982

Taylor Vinson Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Taylor:

I am writing for an interpretation of FMVSS 108 based on the attached copy of the new Wisconsin School Transportation Specifications. You will note that Wisconsin is asking for an additional warning light on each side, front and back, tied into the existing warning light flasher system in order to make school buses more visible to vehicular traffic.

It is the opinion of Blue Bird that this does not affect the requirements of FMVSS 108 providing the basic requirements of this standard are not altered by the addition of the additional two (2) lights front and rear.

I am looking forward to your prompt response.

Thank you.

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

C: DEWEY BRUNNER; JIM MOORMAN

Wisconsin School Transportation Specifications

(a) The bus shall be equipped with alternating red flashing lamps.

1. The bus shall be equipped with 2 red warning lamps at the rear of the vehicle and 2 red warning lamps at the front of the vehicle, which shall be controlled by a manually actuated switch and shall flash alternately at rate of 60 to 120 cycles per minute. A brake or door operated switch shall not be permitted. The "on" period shall be long enough to permit bulb filament to come up to full brightness.

a. An option is permitted, whereby, 2 additional alternating flashing red lights may be mounted on both the front and rear of the bus. The additional front facing lights shall be located between the bottom of the windshield and the top of the highest headlamp. They may be mounted on the fender or the cowl.

b. The additional rear facing lights may be separate lamps mounted within 12 inches above or below the directional turn signals or may be incorporated in an existing lamp. Any incorporation with an existing unit shall not interfere with or override the existing unit's function.

c. The optional system shall have units with a red lens of at least the same diameter as the required alternating lights. The alternating "on," "off" positions shall be opposite from those of the required alternating lights. The effect will produce the required top mounted flashing light and an optional mid-height mounted light to flash on opposite sides simultaneously. The result can be described as a "wig-wag" or "cross-arm" effect.

2. The red warning lamps shall be of seal beam construction or other improved type such as strobe, not less than 5 inches in diameter and visible from a distance of at least 500 feet along the axis of the vehicle in bright sunlight.

3. There shall be a visible or audible means of giving clear and unmistakable indication to driver when the signaling system is turned on.

4. Each red warning signal lamp shall be mounted with its axis substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of vehicle.

5. The front and rear red warning signal lamps shall be spaced as far apart laterally as practicable, and in no case shall the spacing between lamp centers be less than 3 feet.

6. The front red warning signal lamps shall be located so that they can be clearly distinguished when headlamps are lighted on lower beam.

7. The warning signal lamps shall be mounted at the front above the windshield and at the rear so that the lower edge of the lens is not lower than the top line of the side window openings.

8. The front and the rear signal lamps shall be unobstructed by any part of the vehicle from 5 degrees above to 10 degrees below horizontal and from 30 degrees to the right and 30 degrees to the left of the centerline of the vehicle.

9. The area around the lens of each alternately flashing red signal lamp and extending outward approximately 3 inches shall be painted black on all school buses. This subdivision shall not apply to vehicles not specifically manufactured as school buses and which have red warning signal lamps mounted above the roof top. Red warning signal lamps on such vehicles shall be equipped with black hoods at least 3 inches long.

10. Except as provided in sub. (9) above, red warning signal lamps may be equipped with hoods to shield from rays of sun for improved visibility.

ID: 1984-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie -- Manager, Support Section, Motor Vehicle Division Department of Transportation (Oregon)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 27, 1984, to Mr. Frank Turpin, which was forwarded to my office for reply, asking several questions concerning our regulations on certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The following discussions answer your questions.

You have asked first if there are any provisions in Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, for or against the use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are steady burning rather than rotating. You have been unable to answer this question by referrals either to Standard No. 108 or SAE materials. Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act allows States and municipalities to impose higher standards than the Federal ones for vehicles procured for their own use (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), the agency has generally deferred to the judgment of governmental bodies in their equipment specifications.

You have not stated whether the blue warning lamps would be supplemental to the vehicle's existing lighting, or replacing some item of the vehicle's original equipment. If the lighting is supplemental (e.g., roof-mounted as are the warning lamps on police vehicles in this area), Standard No. 108 permits it if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Thus, a roof-mounted lamp, whether steady-burning or rotating, would appear permissible. If, however, the warning lamp was adjacent to a stop lamp or headlamp, or replaced a lamp such as a taillamp, a question of impairment could arise, and the burden would be on a State to demonstrate it had adopted a higher standard of performance.

Your second question asked whether there is a specific statement in our regulations or elsewhere which prohibits the attaching of materials to vehicle windshields and windows. The following discussion explains the effect of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and section 108(a)(2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) on tinting films and other materials placed on windshields and other windows.

Pursuant to the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

Tinting and other films are not glazing materials themselves and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard.

A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment to have darkly tinted films installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

You mentioned that you have recently received an inquiry from the U.S. Air Force concerning the placement of identification decals on a vehicle. We have received a similar inquiry and I am enclosing a copy of our response.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ENC.

Department of Transportation MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION

July 27, 1984

NHTSA

Attention: Francis J. Turpin

Dear Frank:

We would appreciate your help on some questions we have concerning federal regulations/requirements on certain vehicle equipment items.

1. Are there any provisions for or against use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are "steady burning" -- non flashing or rotating? We were unable to find any information regarding this in FMVSS 108 or in the SAE Standards covering vehicle lighting.

2. Is there a specific "statement" in the federal regulations or elsewhere that prohibits attaching material to vehicle windshields/windows? Presently it is not allowed by our state laws, if "the material prohibits of impairs the ability to see into or out of the vehicle." The availability of various window tinting materials and screening causes constant inquiries from law enforcement, manufacturing companies, repair shops, and individuals regarding this law. Also, we have recently received inquiries from the U. S. Air Force on placing their Identification Decals on windshields of Air Force personnels' private vehicles.

We respond to the window glazing inquiries with information from FMVSS 205 and ANSI Z26. (Ie, the 70% light transmittance requirements.) Also, we mention Section 108 (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, concerning rendering inoperative of vehicle equipment. But, we would like to also be able to provide a definite federal prohibition, with possible penalties, etc.

Thank you for any assistance you can give us.

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section

ID: 1985-01.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Kazutoshi Kasagi -- Chief Inspector, International Trade and Industry Inspection Institute Ministry of International Trade and Industry (Japan)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Kazutoshi Kasagi Chief Inspector Internationally Agreed Safety Division International Trade & Industry Inspection Institute Ministry of International Trade & Industry Japanese Government 15-1, 6 Chome Ginza Chuo-ku Tokyo, Japan

This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1984, with respect to interpretations of the motorcycle headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and SAE J584.

You have asked "whether other lighting systems than referred in S4.1.1.34, such as non-sealed beam head lamp with two bulbs, are acceptable or not." The answer is yes. Non-sealed lamps meeting the requirements of SAE J584 are acceptable, including those with two bulbs, as the "At-Focus Tests" paragraph of J584 is directed to "light source or sources."

Your next question is whether photometric compliance is judged when one light is on or two, including the maximum permissible output of 75,000 cd. The answer to this question depends on the design of the lamp; if it is designed so that both bulbs operate simultaneously, then photometrics including maximum output are determined with both bulbs operating. If the design is such that one bulb produces lower beam and the other the upper beam, then compliance is judged by that method of operation. Should one bulb produce both lower and upper beams and the other bulb perform an unregulated lighting function, then the photometric compliance would be judged with only the bulb used for the regulated function. In this case, however, the unregulated bulb must not interfere with the effectiveness of the headlamp. This also answers your final question about conduct of the out-of-focus test. It is to be conducted according to the design intent of the operation of the headlamp, i.e. the design function of each bulb or bulbs.

You have also asked about the geometrical center of a design when one of two bulbs (both with an upper beam and a lower beam filament apparently) is on. Operation of only one bulb alone would result in an assymetrical lighting display off the vehicle's centerline. This is permitted by S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 for the sealed beam lighting systems specified therein. Therefore, we could not logically disapprove of it for unsealed headlighting systems. However, if only one bulb performed both the lower beam function and the upper beam, and the other bulb performed an unregulated lighting function, then the bulb providing the lower/upper the lower beam function and the upper beam, and the other bulb performed an unregulated lighting function, then the bulb providing the lower/upper beams must be located on the vehicle's vertical centerline.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 13, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Frank Berndt:

This is to ask you about interpretation and applicability of FMVSS 108 and SAE J584(Motorcycle Headlamp). Before asking questions, I'm pleased to introduce our organization. International Trade and Industry Inspection Institute (ITIII) is an affiliated inspection organization of Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Japanese Government and has three main functions. ITIII itself conducts test and inspections of industrial products under the control of MITI and ITIII administrates private inspection organizations, consumer bodies and manufacturers in terms of inspection and test. ITIII also is involved in the drafting process of inspection standards and inspection method of industrial products. ITIII has been an approved laboratory of lighting equipments by American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and we have regular visits of Mr. Bardel and Mr. Cardarelli from AAMVA. We keep close relations with AAMVA for many years.

Inquiry

FMVSS 108 S4. 1. 1.34 specifies acceptable lighting system of motor cycles. This arises the question of whether other lighting systems than referred in S4.1.1.34, such as non-sealed beam head lamp with two bulbs, are acceptable or not. If it is acceptable, we have three questions to ask you further with regard to SAE J584.

Question 1

Which case should non-sealed beam lamp comply with specified photometric value of SAE J584 either when one bulb is lighted on or two bulbs are on? How should we interpret the requirement of Maximum 75000 cd in each case?

Question 2

Which should be the case of geometrical center when one bulb is on as illustrated below?

"INSERT GRAPHIC"

Question 3

How should we conduct out of focus test of the applicable case asked in question 1?

I hope this contact will be the first step to create good relation with your organization and I appreciate your quick response to our question.

Best regards,

Kazutoshi Kasagi

Chief Inspector, Internationally Agreed Safety Division