ID: nht74-1.33

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Spartan Design Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1974 asking for our comments on your defect notification letter.

In describing the defect (your third paragraph) as required by Section 577.4(c), you should state specifically that the placement of the lamps fails to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, and indicate, in general terms, what is the appropriate location. In addition, section 577.4(c) requires the inclusion of precautions the purchaser can take. We believe one precaution that should be included where a lighting problem is concerned is to recommend that night driving be limited as much as possible.

When we have received a corrected copy, we will close our files in this matter.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 21, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Ref: #N40-30, (ZTV) CIR618

Dear Mr. Schneider:

Enclosed is a copy of the rewritter letter as you requested. (Illegible Word) read the letter and see if it meets with your approval and let us know so that we may then mail it to all our Converta-Trailer owners.

We are sorry to have caused you any inconvenience and if there is any further information you need please let us know.

Sincerely, SPARTAN DESIGN INC.;

Robert W. Borgert -- Vice President

enclosure

Spartan Design Inc.

Dear Converta-Trailer Owner:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Spartan Design Inc. has determined that a defect which relates to Motor Vehicle Safety exists in Converta-Trailers manufactured between January 1, 1969 and December 8, 1971. According to our records, you are the owner of a 1971 Converta-Trailer bearing the vehicle serial number on the enclosed reply form which has this defect.

(Illegible Word) defect involves the combination rear lamps which are improperly located. Due to the poor visibility of these lamps, a rear end crash can occur.

To prevent the possibility of a rear end crash to your trailer, please contact Spartan Design Inc., who will remove the lights from back of fenders and reinstall them to the far rear of trailer frame, at no charge to you.

The actual time necessary to perform the labor required to install the rear lamps is approximately 2 hours. It is suggested that you make an appointment in advance so work can be scheduled in an orderly manner.

In the event you no longer own your trailer, or these modifications have been performed already, please complete and mail the enclosed form post-paid, in addressed reply envelope so that we may update our records.

We are sorry to cause you this inconvenience; however, we have taken this action in the interest of your safety and continued satisfaction with our product. Your prompt cooperation will be (Illegible Word).

Your truly, SPARTAN DESIGN INC.

ID: nht80-1.32

DATE: 03/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: David Williams

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 12, 1980, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Federal safety standards to an imported motor vehicle. In general, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires all imported motor vehicles to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of their importation.

In response to your first question, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires each seating position in a passenger car to be equipped with a seat belt assembly as of January 1, 1968. Therefore, the rear bench seat of a 1972 passenger car was required by Federal regulations to have seat belts. If the vehicle to which you refer was imported without seat belts, the importer would have violated the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

In your second question, you ask what standards apply to a vehicle that was used by its manufacturer as a company vehicle and then sold as a used vehicle to an individual. The vehicle would be required to comply with the standards in effect on the date of its manufacture or, in the case of an import, on the date on which it was imported. In a related question, you ask whether some of the safety systems installed in a vehicle can be disconnected. An individual is permitted to disconnect safety systems on his or her own vehicle. However, no repair business, manufacturer, dealer, or distributor may render inoperative any safety device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with the safety standards.

Finally, you ask whether a manufacturer may import into the country a vehicle that does not comply with the safety standards. The answer to this question is no. An imported vehicle must comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of its importation into this country.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

FEBRUARY 12, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA - DOT Washington D.C.

Dear Sir -

I would appreciate your answering the following questions relating to a vehicle whose certification plate states that it meets all federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect May 1972 and which was imported into this country in June 1972.

1. If the rear bench seats do not have seat belt assemblies, would this be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

2. If a vehicle is sold after being used as a company vehicle by the manufacturer, but it is the first sale for purposes other than resale, which federal motor vehicle safety standards is the vehicle required to conform to? Can some of the safety systems installed to meet safety standards be disconnected?

3. Can a manufacturer import into this country a vehicle which does not conform to the applicable safety standards without informing the government?

It is very important that I receive this information as soon as possible.

Thank you.

All Best

DAVID WILLIAMS BOX 4091 WILMINGTON, DE 19807

ID: nht80-1.33

DATE: 03/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

COPYEE: JEROME N. SONOSKY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter forwarded to us by Mr. Jerry Sonosky, requesting an interpretation of the term "overall width" as used in Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You ask questions: (1) whether overall width means the design width of a vehicle, or whether it means the maximum possible width allowed by design tolerances, and (2) whether overall width includes plastic, splash molding attached to the vehicle body with screws and nuts.

In answer to your first question, overall width means the maximum design width of the vehicle including tolerances.

Safety Standard No. 104 defines "overall width" as the maximum overall body width dimension "W116," as defined in section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aero-space-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. The "W116" standard specifies that overall width is measured across the body, excluding hardware and applied moldings, but including fenders when integral with the body. Therefore, the overall width of a vehicle would not include splash molding on the sides of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

HOGAN & HARTSON

February 14, 1980

Hugh Oates Office of the General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Hugh:

Enclosed is a request for interpretation of Standard 104 which our client, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. asked us to forward directly to you.

Best wishes.

Jerome N. Sonosky

ENC.

CC: PROF. DR. W. REIDELBACH; CRAIG JONES

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

November 16, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Office of Chief Counsel

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems; Request for Interpretation

Dear Madam or Sir:

Your interpretation is requested on the definition "Overall width" as used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. Section S 3. of that standard defines "Overall width" as being the maximum overall body width dimension "W116", as defined in section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. This second standard contains the statement that "Overall width" is measured across body, excluding hardware and applied moldings, but including fenders when integral with body.

Your interpretation of this definition is requested as follows:

1. Does overall width mean the design width of a vehicle, or does it mean the maximum (or minimum) possible width allowed by design tolerances?

2. Does overall width include plastic, splash molding attached to the vehicle body with screws and nuts. You will note in the attached drawing that this splash trim (cross-hatched) is the widest portion of the vehicle. However it is only an applied molding as shown both in the cross-section view as well as the vehicle photograph.

Should you require additional information on this request do not hesitate to contact Mr. G. M. Hespeler of our Safety Engineering Department - 201-573 2616.

HEINZ W. GERTH

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-2.14

DATE: 08/23/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nippondenso Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1978, to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting confirmation of interpretations of Paragraph S4.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This confirms your interpretations.

Paragraph S2, Application states the coverage of the standard: to specified vehicle types "and to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies" i.e. those vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. The equipment items listed in Tables I and III are required motor vehicle lighting equipment, and any item manufactured as a replacement for one of these items that has been original equipment on 1972 or later model vehicles, must meet Standard No. 108's requirements and be so certified.

Paragraph S4.7 allows certification by means of a DOT symbol placed on the item itself. No specific design or size is required. The manufacturer may certify by other means as well, specifically those set forth for all equipment items covered by a standard, in Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403): "a label or tag on [the] item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered". We would view an indelible stamp on the container as "a label" within the meaning of Section 114 if Nippondenso wished to certify by this means.

I have no other suggestions regarding use of the DOT symbol, except that it should be of a size and in a location sufficient to readily identify the item as meeting Federal requirements, thereby avoiding any possible misunderstanding.

Sincerely,

August 10, 1978

Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of August 8, 1978 in which I requested information pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Section 4.7.

Question: Is the DOT symbol required on replacement equipment?

Answer: The DOT symbol can be used on either of the following: 1. Stamped on the equipment.

2. Label or tag attached to the equipment stating that the equipment is certified by DOT.

3. Stamped on the container in which the equipment is packaged.

Question: Is there any specific design or size required when using the DOT symbol?

Answer: There is no specific design or size required by DOT.

Question: Please define replacement equipment?

Answer: Replacement equipment is defined as any item of equipment which replaces original equipment that is required to meet compliance specifications set by DOT.

The above information you supplied was transmitted to our head office in Japan. However, they would appreciate the above information in a letter form signed by you. They have also requested any additional information which will be helpful to them in understanding the requirements regarding the DOT symbol.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Anna Racanelli Assistant General Manager

ID: nht78-2.23

DATE: 06/30/78

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

TO: Pupil Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 9, 1978, asking whether a school bus manufacturer may install strobe lights on the top of vehicles as original equipment, without violating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. As you indicated in your letter of December 28, 1977, this would be permissible under local law.

I informed you on February 14, 1978, in requesting a clarification, that legality depended on whether the additional lighting impaired the effectiveness of the required equipment. If so, paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 would prohibit installation. The lamps in question are strobe lights, either white or amber in color, that would be used during inclement weather. We do not know whether these lights would be used while the bus is in motion, or when it is stopped and the required schoolbus warning lamps are activated. If the strobe lights are used while the vehicle is in motion, during inclement weather, we do not know whether they would impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps by distracting the attention of a driver following the bus. If the light of the strobe lamp is white, and the light operates while the vehicle is at rest and its red or red and amber warning signals are also activated, the signals might prove confusing to other motorists. However, on the basis of the data presented, it is not possible to determine whether the strobe lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment within the meaning of S4.1.3. Therefore, we are willing to defer to the judgment of the State of Washington on this question, until such time, if ever, as data may be presented supporting a conclusion of impairment.

SINCERELY,

Superintendent of Public Instruction DR. FRANK B. BROUILLET

March 9, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

In reply to your letter of February 14, 1978, it was our intent to request information about the use of strobe lights on school buses, as explained in the first sentence of my letter of December 28, 1977.

I am sorry that I did not notice the incorrect word used in the second paragraph, which made it sound like a stop light attached to the top of the buses.

In addition, your letter has asked for other information about "intended use of the strobe light". The intended color if used would be either amber or white, and it will not be located closely to any other clearance or other identification lamps. The strobe light nit itself has a lense size of approximately 3 to 4 inches. So far the information provided to this office does not rate strobe lights in terms of candle power output.

I trust that this is sufficient information for you to answer my earlier request about the legality of a manufacturer installing the strobe lights and delivering them to school districts upon the school districts' request.

DIVISION OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

Don M. Carnahan, Supervisor Pupil Transportation

ID: nht79-1.16

DATE: 10/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEV Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. J. T. Young Vice President - Technical Affairs SEV Corporation 33201 Harper Avenue St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You referred to the SAE standard on motorcycle headlamps, J584, which specifies that the "bulb or unit shall be operated at its rated voltage during the photometric test." You asked whether the "rated voltage" of J584 is the same rated voltage of ECE Regulation 37 when the bulb in question is a European bulb bearing an E mark signifying compliance with Regulation 37.

The term "rated voltage" is not defined by J584 or by the corresponding standard on sealed beam headlamps, J579c. It is our opinion, however, that "rated voltage" is the equivalent of "design voltage" on the basis of the SAE standard that covers bulbs used in sealed beam headlamps, J573d, Lamps Bulbs and Sealed Units. Table 2 of J573d lists voltages for such headlamps under the heading of "Design."

We realize that your question arises in the context of recent testing by NHTSA of Cibie headlamps, incorporating European H4 halogen bulbs, for compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 for motorcycle headlighting. NHTSA tested these headlamps at 12.8 volts and discovered that the maximum allowable 5000 candela at test point 4D-V was exceeded by many of the lamps tested. You raised the question whether NHTSA should not have tested at 12 volts, the "rated value" given by Regulation 37 for the H4 bulb, at which value all lamps tested by NHTSA would have complied at test point 4D-V.

We do not believe that NHTSA is required by J589 to test the H4 bulb at 12 volts. Regulation 37 specifies a "test voltage" of 13.2 for the H4 bulb, a point apparently recognized by EFPE Company's catalogue "Turned on Lighting" which gives wattage figures for the headlamps in question "at 13.2 design volts as specified by the bulb manufacturer." If anything, NHTSA was overly conservative in testing its lamps at 12.8 volts, for it is apparent that had it tested at 13.2 volts even more failures would have occurred.

As Roman Brooks explained to you, it has been the European practice as nearly as we can determine to test the H4 bulb at 12.8 volts, apparently in recognition that the higher voltage levels are closer to those generated by the electrical systems of the motor vehicles on which the headlamps are installed. Given this fact and Regulation 37's specification of 13.2 test volts, we do not believe that a lamp manufacturer could successfully argue in court that J584 was ambiguous and should be construed against NHTSA in any attempt by this agency to enforce motorcycle headlighting requirements on the basis of results of tests conducted at 12.8 volts.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rusty Mitchell -- A-Z Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Rusty Mitchell A-Z Bus Sales, Inc. P.O. Box 9389 5555 W. Mission Blvd. Ontario, CA 91762

This is a response to your letter of November 11, 1987, in which you asked for information on the "application of seat belts in school buses." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds) to afford passe or crash protectio n by means of "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include hi gh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance.

Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) experience greater force levels in a crash, Standard 222 requires the added protection of safety belts at each passenger position in a small school bus.

School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening cr ash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, our regulations do not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses.

I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject.

You also asked whether there is an order form listing available data for safety belts in school buses. This agency does not publish "order forms" for any data. For further information on this subject, you may wish to contact individual school bus manufac turers to ask for data about safety belts in their buses. I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 11, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Ms. Jones:

We need information regarding the application of seat belts in school buses.

Is there an order form with a listing or all data available if so, who do we contact, and can we order several copies of each?

Ms. Jones, any information you can send us would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

Rusty Mitchell Sales Representative

RM/df

ID: nht91-7.7

DATE: November 13, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-19-91 from Thomas D. Turner to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6385)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 19, 1991, requesting an interpretation of section S5.3.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. That section specifies two force application options for release mechanisms of emergency exits, low force application and high force application.

Your letter was sent in connection with an investigation by NHTSA's Office of Enforcement of a possible noncompliance of a 1990 Blue Bird bus with that standard, and you sent a sample bus window to assist in understanding your letter. You requested confirmation of your understanding that the requirements of section S5.3.2, "with regard to motion, apply to the application forces and not the release mechanisms being activated by the forces." You also requested confirmation of your "understanding of the principles of mechanics, as applicable to FMVSS 217 requirements, that straight linear forces can cause rotary motion to occur and can be used to manually operate a rotary mechanism." You asked these questions to support your contention that the release mechanism of the 1990 Blue Bird bus window can be operated by a force that is straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface, and that the high force application option is therefore available for that window. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Section S5.3.2 specifies that certain emergency exits "shall allow manual release of the exit by a single occupant using force applications each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer, either to (a) or (b)." Subparagraphs (a) and (b) set forth requirements for the two application force options, low force and high force. The specified requirements cover location, type of motion, and magnitude. The type of motion specified in (a) for low force application is "rotary or straight"; the type of motion specified in (b) for high force application is "straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface."

We agree that the requirements in (a) and (b) concerning type of motion refer to the force applications that would be made by a single occupant and not to the release mechanisms that are activated by such force applications. While we do not disagree with your contention that it is possible for straight linear forces to cause rotary motion to occur, we do not believe, based on our examination of your sample bus window, that the force application that must be made by a single occupant to release the window would be "straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface." We interpret the term "type of motion," as used in (a) and (b), to refer to the entire motion of a force application that would be made by a single occupant in releasing an exit. In order to operate the release mechanism on the Blue Bird bus, it appears that a single occupant must lift the release handle upward as well as pulling it outward. Given the upward part of the motion, it would not be "perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface." Therefore, the high force application option is not available for such a design, and it must meet the low force application requirements.

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

ID: nht93-8.5

DATE: November 10, 1993

FROM: J. Frank Haasbeek -- President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TO: Albert Gore, Jr. -- Office of the Vice President

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/23/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to J. Frank Haasbeek (A41; Std. 121)

TEXT:

In common with other entrepreneurs and business managers, I am delighted that you have made it your personal goal to reshape the way in which government goes about its business and thus lighten the bureaucratic load that inevitably each one of us has to carry.

My business has suffered enormously at the hands of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the gridlock in that division of the Department of Transportation is getting worse and not better.

Of necessity I will need to burden you with some background information that I will try to keep as brief and to the point as possible.

My company, a small business enterprise, manufactures air brake systems for trucks, buses, trailers etc. Our system is patented and its performance and built-in safety features are unequalled.

In April of 1992, the NHTSA issued an interpretation under a 1991 FMVSS 121 rule that instantly made our system incapable of compliance with that rule and hence illegal.

In a June 1992 meeting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel and over twenty of its department heads and staff, we proved conclusively that the NHTSA interpretation was in error and a rule making procedure was subsequently initiated by NHTSA to correct this anomaly.

The new draft rule was published in the Federal Register in March 1993, but as of this date the final rule has not been issued. I have been given to understand by the NHTSA that the agency's attorneys are too pre-occupied with congressionally mandated rule making to write the necessary legal language.

This company has been economically disadvantaged and damaged by the inordinate delay on the part of the NHTSA to correct its own bungling. We have had to reduce our staff and incurred substantial losses while a safer air brake system has been denied to many potential users.

The NHTSA is still without an administrator and the agency is foundering with no-one at the helm.

My employees, my investors and I would indeed be grateful if your office could assist in the issue of the final rule without any further delay.

- - - - - The following letter transmitted Mr. Haasbeek's correspondence to the NHTSA:

MEMORANDUM

DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1993 TO: Director, Office of Executive Secretariat U.S. DOT Room 10205 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Enclosed are letters from constituents asking for assistance with matters related to the U.S. Department of Transportation. This information was sent to the office of Vice President Gore.

On behalf of the Vice President, I am forwarding this material with the request that the issues be addressed in an appropriate and expeditious manner. An acknowledgement of receipt and notification of this referral has been sent to each of the constituents. Please respond directly to the correspondents. No reply to this office is necessary.

Sincerely,

Bill Mason Director of Correspondence

ID: nht93-3.47

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: REFERENCE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2,1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A41; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

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

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No.2 proposed the of "one inch wide" retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a "minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape." The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a "minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape." Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that "each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter...." The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening.

In addition, Blue Bird requests that appropriate NHTSA officials and staff review the enclosed photographs and advise if the retro-reflective tape installations shown would be in compliance with the subject requirement of Section S5.5.3(c).

Although the final rule does not become effective until May 2, 1994, several states have mandated conformance to the new standard in advance of the FMVSS effective date. Blue Bird must therefore complete the Engineering work and release final designs to Production in the very near future. We, therefore, request that prompt and favorable responses to our requests for interpretations be provided.

(Graphics omitted)