ID: 11413-2PJA

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your December 6, 1995, request for interpretation regarding the location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 for voluntarily installed emergency windows. I have enclosed a copy of an interpretation letter to Tom Turner of Blue Bird Body Company. I believe that the answer to his first question also provides an answer to your question. If you believe that it does not, or need clarification of this letter, please feel free to call me at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Atelsek Attorney

Enclosure

ref:217 d:3/20/96

ID: aiam5579

"Dear Senator Wellstone: Thank you for your letter enclosin correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Kris Solberg, concerning our requirements for school buses. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA administers the Federal regulations for school buses. Ms. Solberg, principal of Grace Christian School, asks that our 'school bus' definition be narrowed so that it only encompasses vehicles carrying more than 15 passengers. Ms. Solberg believes that, at NHTSA's urging, Minnesota recently amended its school bus definition to include vehicles carrying 15 passengers. She states that, as a result of this change, schools cannot use conventional 15-passenger vans to transport students to school events, even though the vans are 'safe enough.' I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. The short answer to Ms. Solberg's question is that NHTSA cannot narrow the 'school bus' definition as she requests because the definition was set by Congress. Further, for safety reasons, we do not agree that the definition should be changed. As Ms. Solberg's letter suggests, school bus regulations exist on the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level are NHTSA's school bus regulations. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that each new vehicle must meet when sold. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Congress also defined a 'school bus' as a passenger motor vehicle 'designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' (Emphasis added.) Since the school bus definition was set by Congress, NHTSA is unable to revise it to exclude 15-passenger vans. Further, we do not agree that the definition should be narrowed to exclude vehicles. School bus-type vans have more safety features providing occupant crash protection than do conventional full-size vans. Narrowing the definition could result in school children being transported in vehicles that are not as safe as the vehicles used today. NHTSA believes that, while school bus vans are slightly more expensive than conventional 15-passenger vans, the increased level of safety justifies the higher costs. Thus, we recommend against changing the Federal definition of a 'school bus.' While the Federal government regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the States regulate the use of vehicles. According to Ms. Solberg's letter, Minnesota has decided to adopt NHTSA's 'school bus' definition into its regulations. In doing so, under Minnesota law, if a school wishes to use a 15- passenger van to carry students, the van must meet school bus safety standards. NHTSA does not require States to adopt our 'school bus' definition. However, we strongly support any decision by a State to do so. This agency attaches the utmost importance to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht80-2.11

DATE: 04/22/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MPI, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your April 9, 1980, telephone conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked whether a styrofoam board that lies beneath a layer of polyurethane foam would be required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standards No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

As Mr. Tilton explained to you, the standard applies to seating components such as yours only to the extent that they fall within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment air space. This requirement is specified in paragraph S4.2 of the standard. You indicated that your styrofoam board would not fall within 1/2 inch of the compartment because the polyurethane cover will always be thicker than 1/2 inch. Assuming this is true, your styrofoam board would not be required to comply with the standard.

ID: 19040.ztv

Mr. Siegfried Hetz
Senior Optic Engineer
Robert Bosch Corporation
38000 Hills Tech Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3417

Dear Mr. Hetz:

This is in reply to your fax of November 4, 1998, asking for an interpretation of the vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed several engineering drawings for our review and asked whether "the design passes NHTSA's requirements to be permanently fixed (tamper-proofed)." Later, by letter of November 13, 1998, you provided Taylor Vinson of this Office with a sample of a mockup of the proposed VHAD.

The requirement that concerns you is S7.8.5.2(c) of Standard No. 108. This requires each headlamp with a VHAD to be manufactured with its calibration permanently fixed by the headlamp manufacturer. We have examined your drawings and the VHAD. The principal feature is a "wedge block [which] will lock into the V-HAD plate while also locking the V-HAD legs down in position." One of our engineers was able to remove the wedge block with a letter opener, after some minutes, and after consulting your drawing with its sectional view depicting the wedge block. However, we have decided that the calibration of the VHAD is "permanently fixed" as required by S7.8.5.2(c). It is our opinion that a person interested in removing the wedge block would have to remove the headlamp to do so, but, in the absence of access to your engineering drawing with its sectional view, would be unlikely to be able to proceed further and remove the wedge block.

Please let Mr. Vinson know if you wish the mockup returned (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.12/28/98

ID: aiam5519

"Dear Mr. Pinoski: This responds to your letter to me in which yo requested an interpretation of the term 'vehicle capacity weight,' as defined in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110). I apologize for the delay in our response. FMVSS No. 110 applies to passenger cars. Section S4.3 of the standard requires a placard to be placed on the door of the glove compartment or other accessible place on which shall be displayed, among other things, the 'vehicle capacity weight.' This term is defined in S3 as meaning 'the rated cargo and luggage load plus 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' You asked how to obtain the 'rated cargo and luggage load,' so that you can calculate vehicle capacity weight. The agency does not define the term 'rated cargo and luggage load' or otherwise regulate how that load is determined. The term simply refers to the vehicle manufacturer's determination of the cargo and luggage carrying capacity of the vehicle. The choice of methodology to be used in making that determination is left to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. From a safety standpoint, the important issue is the overall value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a vehicle. That value is also known as the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The GVWR informs a vehicle owner how heavily he or she can load a vehicle. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR 'shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' (Emphasis added.) 'Rated cargo load' and 'rated cargo and luggage load' are interchangeable terms. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 23544rack

Mr. Christopher P. Reilly
8657 Langholm Rd.
El Cajon, CA 92021





Dear Mr. Reilly:

This responds to your letter seeking information on regulations that govern the design, manufacture, installation and use of a cargo rack for SUVs. I regret the delay in responding.

You state that the cargo rack contains a 2 ft x 4 ft area elevated by posts at about the same height as the back of the rear seat. The cargo rack will attach to existing cargo tie downs located on the floor behind the rear seat. Items may be stored on the rack's main storage area or on shelves attached to the posts. Further, you indicate that storage of items in the rack's main area may block the view through the rear window and that you are concerned that items tied down in the rack may become loose in an accident and strike a passenger in the back of the head. Because you do not mention whether the cargo rack will be made available for installation as original equipment and/or marketed as an aftermarket product for installation on used vehicles, we will address both types of installations.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our laws and standards to your product based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Installation in New Vehicles

A manufacturer of a new vehicle must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to any safety standard is subject to civil penalties and recall action under our statute.

NHTSA has issued Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to establish performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Under this standard, your cargo rack may or may not be permitted, depending on the particular vehicle in which the cargo rack would be installed. "Inside" rearview mirrors are required for "multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating] of 4,536 kg or less," under one alternative of the standard (paragraph (a) of S6.1). If a vehicle manufacturer met Standard No. 111's requirements by way of an inside rearview mirror, a rack could not obstruct the view of the inside rearview mirror (i.e., the mirror must continue to provide the scope of view required by the standard). Inside rearview mirrors are not required for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg. The installation of your rack in those vehicles would not interfere with the operation of a required "inside" rearview mirror and thus would not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 111. However, the vehicles will continue to be subject to the other rearview mirror requirements of sections S6, S7 and S8 of Standard No. 111 and all other relevant requirements.

The vehicle manufacturer also needs to certify that the vehicle, with the installed cargo rack, conforms to other applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and No. 202, Head Restraints. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of these and other FMVSSs. You should review the standards to see how they would affect the installation of the cargo rack in a new vehicle.

As an Aftermarket Item of Equipment

We would classify the cargo rack as an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment" in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30102(a)(7)(B) in relevant part as any system, part, or component "soldas an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles

After reviewing your letter, we conclude that the cargo rack is an accessory. It was designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its use will be with motor vehicles. Further, your description of the cargo rack makes it clear that the cargo rack is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles to store cargo inside the rear cargo area of the vehicle.

While a cargo rack is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to this product if it were sold directly to consumers for installation on used vehicles. However, the manufacturer is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C.30118-30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

The installation of a cargo rack by a commercial entity is also subject to other restrictions. Our statute at 49 U.S.C.30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the cargo rack could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the capability of a vehicle to comply with the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 111, as well as the compliance of a vehicle with any other FMVSS. You should carefully review the FMVSSs to determine whether installation of your cargo rack would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards. ⁽¹⁾

Finally, we agree with your concern that items tied down in the rack may become loose in a crash and strike vehicle occupants. It might be advisable to include in your design means to prevent occupants from being struck by flying cargo in crash situations.

States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions and may have restrictions on cargo racks. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

I hope this information is helpful. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.2/26/02






---




¹ The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

ID: nht67-1.12

DATE: 05/23/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of May 12, 1967, regarding the classification of your Blue Bird Wanderlodge, I have enclosed a copy of the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. On page 2408 of this document, "Bus" is defined as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. With the assumption that your Wanderlodge does have seating capacity for more than 10 people, it would therefore be classified as a bus.

Thank you for your interest in the motor vehicle safety program of this Bureau.

ID: 1983-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. D. L. Boren, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 22, 1983 NOA-30

The Honorable David L. Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information on behalf of one of your constituents, Mr. John H. Kiser. Mr. Kiser is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing "privacy glass" or "one-way plastic films" on passenger car windows. He believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents law enforcement officers and other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Mr. Kiser thinks there should be Federal laws to prevent such installations in passenger cars.

A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances, precludes the practice referred to by Mr. Kiser. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 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.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such as the type referred to in Mr. Kiser's letter 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. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 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. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The preceding discussion regarding tinting films would be equally applicable to "one-way privacy glass," if such glass did not have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. This means that such glass could not be installed by a dealer on new passenger cars prior to their first sale, nor by the persons mentioned in section 108(a)(2)(A), on used vehicles, to replace complying glazing.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mr. Kiser may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 205 for Mr. Kiger's information. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures Constituent's Letter Standard No. 205

United States Senate

February 28, 1983

Respectfully referred to:

Congressional Liaison Dept. of Transportation Washington, DC

PLEASE RESPOND TO ATTENTION OF: SS

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquires and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, along with return of the enclosure, will be appreciated by

-------------------- U.S.S. David L. Boren

We think this subject is a matter for State legislation not federal. Would appreciate your views since he will not give up.

February 18, 1983

216 Bluebird Drive Midwest City, OK 73110

Senator David L. Boren Russell Senate Office Bldg Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

In October 1981 I wrote to you regarding control of privacy glass or one way plastic film in or on windshields, drivers window and passenger window.

Your November 4, 1981 reply advised that I should discuss the problem with local representative or senator.

I have said nothing to them and have delayed writing to your office again as I thought legislation might originate from another source. It seems to me that federal instead of state legislation is called for. If Oklahoma had a law prohibiting such privacy glass a traveler would be just as dead if killed as a result of a driver in another state having such privacy glass. A uniform stand is necessary so that:

a. Law enforcement officers can see who is inside or what weapons they might be pointing it at the officer.

b. Other drivers can see if driver approaching intersection is looking at all cars or changing the tuning of his radio.

c. Condition of driver can be determined by others.

Sincerely

John H. Kiser

ID: 86-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rudi Haenisch -- Manager Sales, Brisson Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rudi Haenisch Manager Sales Brisson Development, Inc. 13845 Nine Mile Road Warren, Michigan 48089

Thank you for writing on March 19, 1986, and telling me about your strobe lamp which plugs into cigarette lighter sockets and which is intended to serve as a supplementary warning device. I assume that you want to know our views as to its legality.

This type of aftermarket accessory is not covered by Standard No. 108. the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting, and there are no Federal restrictions on its sale or use. This means that its permissibility must be determined by the laws of each jurisdiction in which it is to be sold and/or used, and it is our impression that many States may restrict the use of strobe lamps to defined emergency vehicles engaged in emergency missions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 19, 1986

Mrs Erika Z. Jones - Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Jones;

On March 18, 1986, I talked by phone with Mr. Steve Oesch and he informed me to send this letter to you.

Brisson Development Inc. has designed two different 'Emergency Strobe Lights' for the auto aftermarket geared toward the owners of Light trucks and automobiles. They are designed to be magnetically mounted on the vehicle and just plug into the cigarette lighter receptacle. Thereby providing additional safety warning to traffic and in some cases the only warning (if the vehicles OEM flashers have failed) that the vehicle is a hazard to other traffic.

As I am sure you are aware of the many different types of vehicle emergency aid devices available on the market today. Ranging from reflectors, which for some reason people like to run over, to mechanical triggered standard light bulb devices, which have about the same reliability of a flashlight that has not been in use for six months and when you need it it does not work. I personally, and people I know, have bought and tried just about every emergency aid type device and have really not been happy with any of them. That is why at Brisson we are looking to make a quality emergency light that will be reliable after long periods of time that it has not been used or tested and then function properly in any kind of weather.

Why a strobe light instead of making just another me to item?

1. Reliability of the electronic circuit - the strobe light was designed from conception to provide high candle power flashing lights from short to Long time usage.

2. No mechanical parts to wear out, corrode, or malfunction.

3. High candle power output with low electric current draw as compared to regular bulbs and their flasher unit.

4. Low cost of unit per candle power.

5. Many emergency and road work vehicles have and are changing to strobe units.

6. The fast high intensity light flash of strobes triggers an attentive response from the human brain and points out a hazardous condition.

7. Strobes are new on the highway market, and have not created a mental block as some other emergency devices, just look at the average life of a road construction or work sign, we may look at designing a spaced strobe for this problem also.

Descriptions of the two emergency strobe units are as follows:

SL 70 K Emergency Strobe Light - Puts out 70,000 candlepower of light. Comes with a cigarette lighter plug and just over ten feet of twenty guage wire insulated cord.

A strong magnet has been put in the bottom of the unit so it can be mounted anywhere on the outside of the vehicle and not fall or get blown off. An amber high strength plastic lens has been provided since amber is a universal emergency color. A high strength plastic bottom has been chosen for its non-corrosive qualities. The top lens and bottomhousing screw together for ease of service should anything happen to the top lens for replacement. The top amber lens has a refractive design to diffuse the light evenly. Provides a full 360 degree field of vision, especially in situations where a vehicle has been parked at an angle to the road where its OEM flashers cannot be seen from the road. The bulb flashes at a rate of four times per second and is a clear xenon gas filled type. A polished reflective surface has been put on the inside just below the bulb to reflect all the Light through the amber Lens. Dimensions are 41/2 inches high by a 3 inch round diameter with a rounded dome top.

SL 140 K Emergency Strobe Light - Puts out 140,000 candlepower of light. Comes with a cigarette lighter plug and a twenty five guage, ten foot coilable, insulated cord. Three high strength magnets have been put on the bottom (saving weight) and providing stability so the unit can be mounted anywhere on the outside of the vehicle and will not fall or get blown off. An emergency yellow high strength plastic lens has been provided since it is a universally accepted emergency color. A high strength plastic bottom has been chosen for its non-corrosive qualities. The top lens and bottom are held together by three evenly spaced phillips heads screws coming up through the bottom casing and screwing into the out top lens and do not show, and thereby making the unit easily serviced. The top emergency yellow lens has a refractive design to difuse the light evenly. Provides a full 360 degree field of vision, especially in situations where a vehicle has been parked at an angle to the road where its OEM flashers cannot be seen from the road. The bulb flashes at a rate of two times per second and is a clear xenon gas type. Future units may have two bulbs instead of one. A polished reflective surface has been put on the inside just below the bulb to reflect all the light through the yellow Lens. Dimensions are Top Lena 2 3/8 inches tall by 3 5/8 inches round diameter with a flat top; Bottom Casing is 1 1/2 inches tall by 4 3/4 inches round diameter; Total height is 3 5/8 inches since the top lens and bottom casing slightly overlap.

The above two emergency lights were designed cosmetically to meet the different conditions they will be functioning in, but also to be pleasing to the buying public.

In the future, after more research has been done, I might be interested in discussing the possibility of manufacturing strobe Lights as OEM emergency flashers for automobiles and light trucks, and also new concepts for the heavy trucking industry.

Thank you for your valuable time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the above address, or by phone (1-800-824-5106).

Sincerely,

Rudi Haenisch Manager Sales

RH/DC

ID: aiam5192

"Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993 regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1. Your two questions and the answer to each follows. 1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21, Notice No. 2 proposed the use 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. Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3(c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available. You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801, July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to 'metric equivalents' in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term 'metric equivalents' was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. 2. 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 a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off. NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";