ID: 77-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/10/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills and Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1977, to Mr. Francis Armstrong of our Office of Standards Enforcement, in which you asked whether our regulations require seat belts in fifth wheel vehicles.

Our seat belt requirements are specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), which applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. I am assuming that by fifth wheel vehicle you mean a towed vehicle attached to the towing vehicle by means of a fifth wheel. If I am correct in this assumption, these vehicles would be classified as trailers, which are not subject to Standard No. 208. There would therefore be no Federal requirement for seat belts in these vehicles.

SINCERELY,

October 4, 1977

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcements Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

To further promote the R.V. industry, the Pennsylvania Recreational Vehicle and Camping Association (PRVCA) supported fifth-wheel riding, provided certain safety features were incorported.

Now, fifth wheel riding has been made part of the Pennsylvania Vehicle code, becoming legal July 1, 1977. This brings to 25 the number of states that have made it legal to ride in fifth wheels. The law requires seat belts in all designated seating. Would you please advise me as to how the code speaks to the use of seat belts in fifth wheel vehicles.

Thank you for your assistance.

Robert W. Locke Manager RV Sales -- INDIANA MILLS AND MANUFACTURING, INC.

ID: nht75-3.47

DATE: 06/13/75

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

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for a determination whether a mobile water tower trailer equipped with air brakes would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

The answer to your question is yes. From the description supplied to you by Klein Products, the trailer does not appear to qualify for exclusion from the standard.

I would like to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently proposed exclusion of this vehicle type from Standard No. 121, and we invite the submission of comments from the Truck Body and Equipment Association or Klein Products on our proposal.

Yours truly,

April 9, 1975

Stan Haransky -- Truck Body and Equipment Association

Dear Stan:

Enclosed is a brochure with a brief description of our Klein Porto Tower which I discussed with you by telephone today.

I would appreciate your help in obtaining a clarification of the Federal Safety Standard #121 in regard to the application of the anti-skid system on this unit or whether this type of equipment is exempt.

This tank is set up on a construction site and uses the highway system only for a movement from job site to job site. It is not capable of carrying a load when being transported.

Thank you very much for your help in this matter.

Very truly yours,

KLEIN PRODUCTS, INC. -- Ray Foote, Sales Manager

Enc.

SPECIFICATIONS

(Graphics omitted) Model Gallon Capacity Approx. Empty Weight Approx. Length KPT-80 8,000 10,000 lbs. 25 ft. KPT-120 12,000 18,000 lbs. 29 ft. KPT-160 16,000 21,000 lbs. 40 ft.

TIRES - 12 ply

SIZE 8.25 x 15

4 1/2 HP air-cooled engine to drive hydraulic system

All prices include a rust-resistant plastic coating on the interior of tank and the exterior painted one color of the customer's choice.

All prices and specifications subject to change without notice

KLEIN PORTO-TOWER -- COMPLETELY MOBILE

* Can be towed anywhere in down position as a conventional trailer. KPT-80 with tow hitch-eye KPT-120 and KPT-160 demi with king pin

* Legal dimensions and weight for highway transportation without a permit (in MOST States).

* Hydraulically erected and lowered by self-contained gasoline engine driven pump.

* One man can elevate and insert pins in 5 to 8 minutes -- completely stable in up position with 13' ground clearance from down-spout.

12 1/4 x 5 1/2 air brakes.

QUICK LOADING AND DISCHARGE

* 4" inlet float controlled valve (Model K-7140) is standard equipment on KPT-120 and KPT-160 3" control valve on KPT-80. 6" -- 12" inlet valves are available on request.

* 14" down spout and control valve for quick discharge -- up to 7500 gallons per minute. Standard equipment on KPT-120 and KPT-160: 10" down spout -- up to 3000 GPM on KPT-80 -- optional up to 20".

* 24" man hole with safety grate.

Specifications subject to change without notice

Economical On or Off-the-road Water Supply

KLEIN PRODUCTS, INC.

SOLD AND SERVICED BY:

Klein Porto - Towers

8,000 to 16,000 Gallon Capacity

A KLEIN EXCLUSIVE!

-- developed and engineered by Klein to fill an acute need for the construction industry.

-- patented by Klein (Patent No. 3,160,171).

Model KPT-120

The Porto-Tower is another example of the advanced developments in low cost water transportation and supply by Klein Products, Inc. This mobile water tower can be moved, elevated and lowered by one man -- no crane required. It is erected and lowered by a self-contained engine driven hydraulic pump. This unique equipment has a fast discharge, with rates up to 7,500 gallons per minute. The tank loads quickly with automatic float control assembly. No permit is required for transporting on the highway.

(See complete specifications on the back)

ID: nht71-2.34

DATE: 04/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Busby, Rivkin, Sherman and Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1971, in which you enclosed a request for clarification, on behalf of Rolls-Royce, Ltd., of the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Essentially, the question was whether a "European type combined lap and diagonal strap seat belt assembly with retractor" could be furnished instead of the "Type 1 seatbelt assembly" specified in the second protection option on passenger cars manufactured from August 15, 1973, to August 14, 1975.

Standard No. 208 does not permit this substitution. The key feature of the second option in the August 1973- August 1975 period is that the manufacturer must design his vehicles so that the front seat occupants are protected from injury when restrained with lap belts only, and provide lap belts for all occupants that may, at least, be separately usable as such. A detachable upper torso belt may be provided at the manufacturer's option. The basis for this requirement is the well-documented finding that a much larger percentage of the American public will fasten lap belts than will use upper torso belts, whether the latter are of the detachable or the combination type.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht71-5.15

DATE: 12/07/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Holmes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1971, to Mr. George Shifflett of my staff, in which you ask questions relating to clearance lamp locations on your wrecker bodies.

I am concerned with your statement that "there is no record of your department's approval on the clearance lamp corner mounting on the 750 and 850 bodies." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not "approve" vehicles or equipment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Conformance, and certification of that fact, are the manufacturer's responsibility under section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. We are glad, however, to provide informal interpretations of the standards when requested to do so by manufacturers such as yourself.

Your first question is, "Does the (low) location of the rear clearance lamp meet the position requirements?". Paragraph S4.3.1.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (effective January 1, 1972), permits a deviation in mounting height: "When the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." Thus, if the identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, Standard No. 108 permits a location of clearance lamps at any height less than the extreme height of the vehicle. This does not change the requirement currently in effect (Table II).

Your second question is, "Does the front clearance lamp location (on the body corner radius) on our 750 and 850 model bodies meet position requirements?". Standard No. 108 currently requires front clearance lamps to be located "as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle." The requirement

effective January 1, 1972, is that these lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . as near the top thereof as practicable." It appears from the photographs you enclosed that the front clearance lamps should be mounted higher on the body front, unless you have a good reason for determining that it is not "practicable" to do so.

I trust this will answer your questions.

ID: nht89-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/89

FROM: DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: BRAKING DISTANCE TEST & LABORATORIES USED BY D.O.T.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/18/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS; A35; STANDARD 105

TEXT: We have been in contact with Dr. Carl Clark, Inventor Contact Code NRD-12 and George Parker, Compliance Testing, regarding our product i.e. Gyroscopic Wheel Cover and in doing so, Dr. Carl Clark suggested we request a letter from your department specific ally outlining the requirements of the braking test used and a list of the various testing facilities used by the D.O.T., when testing a product for this purpose.

In lieu of the D.O.T. actually testing our product, we are requesting a letter from your office stating the FMVSS (571.105) Stopping Distance Test guidelines and a list of laboratories acceptable by the D.O.T., that could be used to test our product.

Is this a Proper Example? - SAE J299 Stopping Distance Test

Our intention is to use these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document our product's tests results in compliance with the D.O.T. testing standards.

Please return a copy of the specific guidelines used for this kind of test and a list of the acceptable laboratories as soon as possible.

Thank you so much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Douglas Mayes, President CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

Encl: Brochure, introduction, VHS

CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

"THE GYROSCOPIC WHEEL COVERS"

Introduction

This unique product was invented by Mr. Kim Rush, of Anaheim, California. An extensive amount of research has been completed with various governmental and independent testing laboratories in order to substantiate several claims as to the positive effect s this product has on several performances of a vehicle. There are locking devices attached to keep the product from coming off or being stolen off the vehicle. There are several different designs or looks that can be manufactured into the facial appear ances of the wheel cover.

There has been extensive market studies completed on the number of new automobiles being manufactured, estimates on the number of vehicles already in service and operating in the U.S. and foreign countries, as well as some future market projections. Thi s number includes vehicles in fleet service, municipalities, cab companies, etc. In addition, a study or overview of competitive products marketed as a "gas saving device", and "devices that improve automobile highway safety", has been made.

Market Viability

It is important to note that any sales figures would just educated projections only and the potential results of any extensive marketing program is dependent upon a variety of external factors, such as:

* Consumer perceptions of the product

* Retail price

* The distribution structure

* Advertising strategies

* Competition

* Ability of the product to perform as promised

This kind of quality product by providing the safety features and handling enhancements that it does, should be important to everyone, including the government. As an added bonus, this product gives the consumer an actual investment payback on his or he r purchase within a very reasonable period of time in gas savings, extended tire wear, longer shocks and brake life and most importantly the safety benefits to family members and passengers when this unique product is installed on the family and/or busin ess car.

There are huge economic benefits to large fleet owners as well. When this product is used by a whole population of people, this product could have a substantial effect on helping us get through a gasoline shortage.

Product Description & Function

The Gyroscopic Wheel Cover model #1 is very similar in appearance to the conventional fancy spoke wheel covers currently being offered on a variety of expensive new domestic and imported automobiles in the after market. There are 13", 14" and 15" config urations and this unique product is designed to fit almost 95% of all wheels manufactured today. The steel spokes model is made from heavy 12 gauge metal and the spokes are cushion mounted at a 6 degree pitch. As the wheel rotates to a speed of 10-15 m iles per hour, the centrifugal force causes the spokes to flex in and expand, forming a disc.

The magnitude of the rotational force creates a gyroscopic effect which increases wheel stability, creates some 80 foot pounds of inertia or downward pressure at the kiss point of each tire, maximizing road contact, giving better transaction in rain and snow and greater road stability at all times.

The wheel cover can be manufactured in a variety of various type configurations and levels of ornamentation. A specific public demand for design and style can easily be met.

Situational Analysis

The U.S. consumer is at present time able to purchase gasoline at a reasonable price, but will this condition stay that way. Not according to some reports. The public is looking for more ways to save money and conserve energy. Starting in 1980, as you know, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued standards for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for U.S. automobile manufacturers, setting a minimum average fuel economy requirement based upon the manufacturer's total vehicle production. The aver age standard for 1990 is 26 mpg for car manufacturers. The net result forces the auto makers into building smaller cars, smaller engines in the efforts to develop fuel saving methods and whether we like it or not, exposing the buying public to some new dangers, by having less automobile or metal between you and all the other driving public. The next change is plastic engines.

European markets

The foreign car market is an exciting opportunity, especially when gasoline is priced around $ 2.30 per gallon in Europe, and when these users can add 16-20% annually to their fuel economy, that can amount to a lot of dollar savings, as well as energy sa vings. This product could be our part of the overall effort to conserve their energy resources.

Added Safety when using Product.

This product can improve your chances against having an accident in your car while these wheel covers are on your automobile. These wheel covers provide for quicker stops, better handling, less swaying in turns, better stability, lessens greatly the cha nce of hydroplaning in water and snow. We are presently in the process of contacting the insurance industry to try and obtain a auto insurance premium reduction when these wheel covers have been installed. Creative Products expects additional tests wil l have to be performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to substantiate our claims and be able to offer a possible discount. Braking tests prove that this product reduces the stopping distance for automobiles by as much as 10% or more at 55 mph. A set of wheel covers in providing better traction, better stopping and handling capabilities will give the consumer more control, thus less wrecks in all kinds of weather.

Market Opportunities

There are almost two hundred million automobiles in the U.S., or over 40% of the world's totals. Owners with new and used automobiles that need this product and would desire a set of these wheel covers for their car. The U.S. market alone for this prod uct today may exceed $ 10,000,000,000.00, the European market may be just as good with a higher percentage of users. Fleet owners, new car manufacturers would be very interested in this product for their cars, vans and trucks.

Product Costs and Savings At todays' prices, a set of nice wheel covers may cost $ 350.00 or more and they obviously do nothing more for your car than looks. Certainly nothing for saving gas, tire wear or safety. This product will be offered for sale to distributors around the world and the retail price will probably be in the range of $ 350-$ 400 for a set of four. Sizes come in 13", 14", or 15", this price range would not be out of line with the standard priced wheel covers for the more expensive automobiles.

The actual money saved by a consumer when using this product for instances could be if presently they are using; (1) 110 U.S. gallons/mo., (2) getting 18 mpg of gas on the average, (3) the price of gas is at $ 1.20 cost per gallon, (4) when driving 24,00 0 miles of annually, using this product will provide the owner with an annual savings of $ 200.00 or 16% of his total gas bill. Saving this amount of money annually is very attractive to the average consumer and when taking into the consideration the ad ditional benefit of an extended tire life, the consumer gets all of his or her money back in the first year.

CONCLUSION

Creative Products believes this wheel cover will provide several new safety advantages to anyone buying this product. You have to drive your car with a set of these wheel covers on to believe the difference it makes. With this product installed on any car, you will experience a whole new dimension of safety driving in all kinds of adverse weather.

gyroscopic wheel covers[trademark]

energy efficient . . . money saver . . . greater road safety

increase mileage

increase tire life

increase brake life

increase traction in snow

filmed tests indicate vehicle braking reduced by fifteen feet at 55 m.p.h

ID: nht74-3.16

DATE: 08/19/74

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

TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 1, and July 30, 1974, request for approval of hydraulic and vacuum brake hose labeling. We have evaluated your examples based on the labeling requirements of the standard as amended by Notice 11 of Docket No. 1-5.

The hydraulic brake hose marking on "Face A" appears to conform to the requirements of S5.2.2, assuming that letter "size" refers to letter height. The interval between markings, represented by "--", also conforms. "Face B" is not regulated by our standard.

With regard to the markings for brake hose end fittings, the date (indicated by "XY") is not required. If you choose to add the date to your markings, it should not interfere with the legibility of the required markings. I would like to point out that under Notice 11, the marking requirements do not apply to end fittings "attached by deformation of the fitting about a hose by crimping or swaging." This means that hydraulic hose fittings for use in passenger cars need not be labeled.

The brake hose assembly markings you submit appear to conform to the requirements of the standard.

With regard to vacuum brake hose, your "Face A" appears to conform to S5.2.2 if letter "size" refers to letter height. S5.2.1 is not applicable and therefore the stripe is not required. "Face B" is not regulated by our standard.

We have placed "MRCC" on file as the manufacturer designation for your company.

Yours truly,

MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

July 30, 1974

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety ADMIN.

Subject: Submission of Comments on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Docket No.1-5: Notice 10

By our letter (Our Ref. No. T-76) March 25, 1974, we asked for your approval of our hydraulic brake hose and Vacuum brake hose labeling.

However, [Docket No.1-5: Notice 10] has been issued, so we would like to ask for your approval of the attached application as corrected.

This was planned according to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards [Docket No. 1-5: Notice 8] Federal Register, Vol.38, No. 218-Tuesday November 13, 1973 and [Docket No. 1-5: Notice 9] Federal Register. Vol. 39, No. 20 Tuesday January 29, 1974.

The places to be corrected are indicated by the symbol(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE). The reason for each correction is indicated by the symbol (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE).

H. Tsukano, Sub-manager

Technical Division

August 1, 1974

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Councel -- NHTSA

We thank you very much for your sending Notice 11.

We apply again on July 30.

This Ref T-129 is the same contents as Ref T-85 which we sent on may 29, '74.

I remain for today

H. Tsukano Sub-manager

Technical Division

LABERING

1. HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSE

1. Hydraulic brake hose (ID 1/8")

1-1. Printed parts

1-2. Face A (printed mark)

<--(symbol illegible) (every 4 inches-->

-- DOT MRCC 1o/74 1/8 HR -- DOT MRCC

Notes: The color of printed letters is white.

The size of a letter is 1/8".

The width of line is 1/16".

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

1-3. Face B (printed mark)

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) MEIJI RUBBER JAPAN 1/8 NO57-1 1974 SAE J1401 (which is indication of the approval for the export to a northern state (pennsylvania).)

Notes: The white letters are printed continuously

The size of a letter is 1/8".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE): The trade mark of Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

1/8: The inside diameter of hoses

1974: year of production

NO57-1: The approval number of RMA (Rubber Manufacturers Association) (444 Nadison Avenue, New York 10022, U.S.A.)

Line number 57

Yarn color code yellow-yellow-black

RMA assignment Meiji Rubber Company, Ltd. attained on March 1st, 1967

SAE JI401 Society of Automotive Hydraulic Brake Hose

2. Hydraulic brake hose and fitting

Dot MRCC (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) 1/8XY

Notes: Letters stamped

The size of a letter 1/16"

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber and Chemical Co.

1/8: The inside diameter of hose

X is the figure of production that comes after 197

Y means the month of production

3. Hydraulic brake hose assembly

DOT MRCC 10/74

Notes: Letters stamped

The size of a letter 1/8"

Rubber band width 6mm

red colored

hypalon rubber MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

II. Vacuum Brake Hose (ID 11/32)

1. Printed parts

(A) Face A (printed mark)

(every 5 inches)

--- DOT MRCC 10/74 11/32 VL --- DOT MRCC

Notes: The white letters printed

The size of a letter 4mm

The width of line 2mm

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co. 11/32 means the inside diameter of hose.

(B) Face B (printed mark)

(every 5 inches)

-- (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Japan 11/32 LD GD2 SAE JI403 (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) ---

Notes: The white letters printed

The size of a letter 4mm

The width of line 2mm

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) is the trade mark of Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

11/32 is inside diameter of hose.

LD is Light-Duty Type.

GD2 is the month and year of production code according to SAE specifications.

As our hose will be imported into the United States only as equipment used in Hond Civic or Mitsubishi Dodge Colt and other vehicles or as parts for the maintenance of these, you can get any further necessary details from the office of these corporation.

FOR INFORMATION

1. Hydraulic Brake Hose

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) 1-2. "Every 6 inches" should be corrected to "every 4 inches".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: According to Notice 10 the interval 6" should be under 6". this hose is used in 4" lengths and can be printed in only one place.

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Hydraulic brake hose assembly Rubber band width 8mm should be corrected to 6 mm.

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: To harmonize the letter size of 1/8" and to make it easier in printing.

II. Vacuum Brake Hose

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Inside diameter 3/8 inch should be corrected to 11/32 inch.

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: The actual measurment is nearer 11/32" than 3/8".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Every 6 inches" should be correct to "every 5 inches".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The size of a letter should be corrected from "5 mm" to "4 mm".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE)The width of line should be corrected from "3 mm" to "2 mm".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: To harmonize letter and hose size and to print more clearly. (every 6 inches)

--- M --- MRCC JAPAN ---

The above mentioned mark should be corrected as follows according to SAE specifications by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (every 5 inches)

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) JAPAN 11/32 LD, GD2 SAE JI403

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The size of a letter should be corrected from "5 mm" to "4 mm". 11/32 is inside diameter of hose.

LD is Light-Duty Type.

GD2 is the month and year of production code according to SAE specification.

As our hose will be imported into the United States only as equipment used in Honda Civic or Mitsubishi Dodge Colt and other Vehicles or as parts for the maintenance of these, you can get any further necessary details from the office of these corporation.

ID: nht91-6.40

DATE: October 25, 1991

FROM: Russell J. Eisert

TO: Steve Kratze -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/18/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Russell J. Eisert (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am writing this with reference to the new laws that were passed pertaining to the conversion of vans. I am a quadriplegic and have been trying to purchase a new van and have run into all kinds of problems. Because I drive from my wheelchair I do not want a seat put in on the drivers side. Also because I sit in the wheelchair a little bit higher than a normal seat I would like to have the roof cut out over the front to give me a couple of inches more headroom. The other problem is because I need space to maneuver inside the van I would like to have the rear seats and folding bed moved to the rear of the side door. I have been driving my other vans with this arrangement since 1978 without any problems.

The Chevy dealers and the Conversion people all tell me that this can not be done in 1992. American International Conversions said I would have to write to you and obtain a letter of waiver from you to cover these items so they can convert a van for me.

I therefore respectfully request a letter of waiver from you to allow them to modify these three items for me.

Your early response to this matter would be very much appreciated. If it would be possible, could you please fax a copy of the letter to American International Conversions, Fax# 813/586-6627. This would save a few days of mail time.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this very disturbing problem.

ID: NCC-231206-001 - Steptoe VanHool FMVSS 217 Emergency Exit Requirements 11-25-2024 signed

November 25, 2024 

David H. Coburn Steptoe LLP 

1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20036-1795 

Dear Mr. Coburn: 

This responds to your letter dated December 5, 2023, on behalf of Belgium-based bus manufacturer Van Hool NV regarding the emergency exit identification requirements under 49 C.F.R. § 571.217 S5.5.1 for buses other than school buses. You asked whether the requirements under S5.5.1 to designate emergency exits and provide concise operating instructions for these exits may be satisfied by pictograms, without the use of text. This letter responds to that request. 

In responding, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Section 5.5.1 requires in pertinent part: 

For buses other than school buses…each emergency exit door shall have the designation “Emergency Door” or “Emergency Exit,” and every other emergency exit shall have the designation “Emergency Exit” followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 16cm of the release mechanism. 

S5.5.1 provides explicit designation requirements. The use of quotations in the standard indicates that the exact words “Emergency Door” or “Emergency Exit” are necessary for compliance and that a pictogram by itself will not suffice. Thus, a pictogram may not be provided in lieu of text. This position aligns with NHTSA’s earlier interpretation in Letter to Vincent P. Schulze (June 22, 1998).1 

With regard to the “concise operating instructions” required by the standard, S5.5.1 does not set forth explicit language that must be used, nor does it otherwise expressly prohibit the use of pictograms, symbols, icons or similar. The standard requires only that the instructions “describ[e] each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit.” It further provides examples of operating instructions as follows: “(1) Lift to Unlatch, Push to Open; and (2) Lift Handle and Push out to Open.”

1 Available at www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/17175drn (declining the use of a symbol in lieu of words for emergency egress windows). 

While the text examples provided in the standard are not exhaustive given the breadth of variation in vehicle emergency exit design, NHTSA emphasizes the need to ensure that passengers can quickly access both the emergency exit and the instructions for the exit’s release mechanism. The agency has noted that “[i]n an emergency, persons are used to finding an emergency exit where they see a label with the designation ‘Emergency Exit.’”2 Moreover, the standard “nowhere draws any distinction between markings designating an exit as an emergency exit and markings setting forth operating instructions for the emergency exit.”3 This interpretation suggests that both the emergency exit designation and the operating instructions were intended to be text-based. 

Diluting the emergency egress marking requirements would be consequential to motor vehicle safety.4 At present, the agency has no data to support that a particular set of pictograms5 will be easily and universally understood by bus passengers in the United States. That U.N. Regulation No. 1076 allows for safety sign pictograms and has been accepted in the European Union7 does not inform or guarantee that an American audience will understand and accept the same pictograms. 

As you acknowledged, NHTSA intends its policies to both promote international harmonization and avoid unnecessary design restrictions. If a manufacturer wishes to produce vehicles with pictorial emergency egress markings not currently permitted under Standard 217, it may elect to file a petition for rulemaking on the issue. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Evita St. Andre of my staff at this address or (617) 494-2767. 

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 11/25/24
Ref: Standard No. 217 

2 Letter to John G. Sims (Jan. 26, 1990), available at www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht90-124.
3 Id.
4 See Denial of a Petition for Forest River Inc., 86 FR 56351 (Oct. 8, 2021) (misplacement of the emergency egress labels by 9cm).
5 Van Hool submitted that NHTSA may require that pictograms used to comply with S5.5.1 adhere to either the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 3864-1:2011, paragraph 6.5, or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z535.
6 U.N. Regulation 107, “Concerning the Adoption of Harmonized Technical United Nations Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these United Nations,” Revision 8 (Feb. 14, 2023), available at unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/R107r8e.pdf
7 Framework Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council (May 30, 2018), available at
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02018R0858-20230730&qid=1699805899877

ID: 1983-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Champion Home Builders Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 12, 1983

Office of Chief Council National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Attention: Mr. Kratzke

Reference: FMVSS 217

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Champion Home Builders Co. is a manufacturer of medium duty buses. Our 22 passenger bus, including driver, with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 lbs. is equipped with a driver's door on the front road side, a passenger entrance door on the front off-road side, an emergency exit window on each side at the rear of the bus, and a roof exit in the rear half of the bus. Each of the emergency exit windows and the passenger door have more than 536 square inches of unobstructed opening available. The driver's door provides a sufficient unobstructed opening to pass a 13 by 20 inch ellipsoid through and has a sufficient area that, when added to the 536 square inches provided by the rear side window, provides for the 40% of the total unobstructed opening requirement on the road side. All exits including the roof exit meet all the requirements for exits as specified in FMVSS 217.

We have been advised of an opinion by a state regulatory agency that unobstructed openings provided by exit doors on buses over 10,000 lbs. GVWR may not be used in computing the total area requirements of S5.2 of the standard. More specifically, it is their opinion that the side exits required by S5.2.1 must be provided by windows. We are in disagreement with that opinion.

We are requesting an opinion from NHTSA concerning whether the exit facilities on our buses as outlined above meet the requirements of the standard. If more information is needed, please contact me.

Thank you in advance for your early consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

John G. Sims Federal Compliance Engineer JGS/dko

cc: Mr. S. Messina, Supervisor Motor Carrier Inspection 1035 Parkway Avenue Trenton, NJ 08625

Mr. Jerry Loftus Mr. Wayne Williams

John G. Sims Federal Compliance Engineer Champion Home Builders Co. Dryden, MI 48428

Dear Mr. Sims:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, concerning the emergency exit requirements of Safety Standard No. 217, Bus window retention and release, that apply to a 22 passenger bus with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. You indicated that your company counts the area provided by side doors in determining the total emergency exit openings for these buses. However, a state regulatory agency has advised you that side doors may not be used in computing the total emergency exit area required by S5.2 of Standard No. 217. Your letter stated that the state regulatory agency believes that the emergency exit opening for side exits must be provided by windows. The state regulatory agency is incorrectly interpreting the requirements of Standard No. 217 if they hold the position you have stated.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 217 specifies requirements for the provision of emergency exits for buses, and S5.2.1 sets forth more specific requirements for buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. As long as side doors meet all requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, they can be considered emergency exits for purposes of compliance with that standard. The agency has stated this position in several past interpretations, and has never indicated that only window emergency exits could be considered as side exits for purposes of compliance with section S5.2.1.

Should you have any further questions or need further information in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address, or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-5.34

DATE: 12/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 3, 1971, concerning the preemption of State vehicle safety standards under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1592(d). We apologize for the oversight that resulted in not answering the letter until this date.

You asked whether State laws requiring that vehicles having two red tail lamps, mounted on the same level and as widely spaced laterally as practicable, are preempted by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In our opinion the answer is no. Standard 108 has many detailed requirements that go beyond those described. Among them, however, are requirements that are substantively identical to your example, though not stated in precisely the same words. We do not interpret section 103(d), which prohibits a State standard "which is not identical to the Federal standard," as requiring the State requirement to be a verbatin copy of its Federal counterparts substantive identity of requirements is sufficient. Also, we do not interpret the statute as requiring the State to adopt all the Federal requirements on a given aspect of performance. It is sufficient that there be a Federal requirement that is substantively identical to the State requirement in question.

You also asked about two other requirements, as to which the answer may depend on a more detailed examination of their purposes and the circumstances under which they are enacted. One was the requirement that the light from the tail lamps be visible from a distance of 1,000 feet to the rear; the other was that a vehicle have "at least one tail lamp."

The guiding principle that we would apply to this situation is that State requirements that regulate the design of motor vehicles must be identical to the Federal standards, with the qualifications stated above. It was clearly the intent of Congress to provide for uniformity of regulation of the manufacturers in areas where the Federal agency has acted, and they did so by the identity requirement of section 103(d). By contrast, State requirements concerning the condition or adjustment of vehicles generally do not affect the requirements placed on manufacturers, and therefore do not fall within the section 103(d) identity provisions.

Applying this principle to your question, if the visibility requirement is construed by the State, and reasonably appears, to be basically a quantitatively stated requirement that the tail lamps be in good working order and not nearly degraded by conditions encountered in use, we would consider the requirement not to be preempted by section 103(d). Similarly, if the one tail lamp requirement is essentially a statement of required minimum working condition (as it appears to be on its face), it would not be preempted.

The issue you mentioned concerning the preemption of State laws applicable to vehicles in use was dealt with in detail in(Illegible Word). Tens' letter to you of December 21, 1970. As stated in that letter, our position is that the preemption question does not turn on whether the State law applies to pre-sale or on-the-road vehicles, and we feel that this position was upheld by the clear and compelling implication of the Super Lite cases. In light of the interpretations set forth in this letter, however, we do not believe that the problems of State law and enforcement that you felt may arise will be realized.