ID: nht68-2.44

DATE: 12/17/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Perley A. Thomas Car Works, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1968, to Mr. E. Leysath of this Bureau, concerning a clarification of the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you indicated, paragraph S3.4.3 of initial Standard No. 108, which was published in the Federal Register on February 3, 1967, required that tail lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated. The effective date of the initial standard was January 1, 1968. However, on December 16, 1967, an amendment to the initial standard was published in the Federal Register. This amendment delayed the effective date of paragraph S3.4.3 until May 1, 1968, and in addition revised that paragraph to require, as a minimum, that the fail lamps be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated. Therefore, the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 were not applicable to vehicles manufactured during the period of January 1, 1963 through April 30, 1968. During that period, selection of the lamp switching arrangement was at the option of the vehicle manufacturer.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht68-3.49

DATE: 08/05/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 1, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning a clarification of paragraph S 3.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S 3.4.3 specifies that, as a minimum, the taillamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated, except when the headlamps are being flashed. The phrase "except when the headlamps are being flashed", permits the vehicle manufacturer to use a separate switch or flasher for illuminating the headlamps only when it would not be appropriate or in the interest of safety to simultaneously illuminate the taillamps and headlamps. In addition to the examples cited in your letter, such devices could also be used for flashing the headlamps on public transit vehicles to indicate an emergency situation.

Since the subject matter of S 3.4.3 is taillamps and since Federal Standard No. 108 is otherwise silent as to headlamp flashing, this matter appears to be within the purview of the California vehicle code.

Thank you for your continued interest in the motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht94-2.97

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributors Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 5/4/94 from Richard Kreutziger to John Womack (OCC-9945)

TEXT:

This responds to your fax of May 4, 1994, requesting information on a May 4, 1994, final rule (59 FR 22997) delaying the effective date of one section of the November 2, 1992, final rule amending Standard No. 217, BUS EMERGENCY EXITS AND WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE (57 FR 49413). Your letter enclosed a bulletin from Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. concerning "options" which can be deleted because of the delay of effective date. Your fax notes that New York state regulations exceed the minimum requirement s of Standard No. 217 and requested any information we can provide on how the delay of effective date affects buses in the State of New York.

The November 2, 1992, amendment to Standard No. 217 set requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5 .3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The May 4, 1994, delay of effective date affects only the amendments to S5.2.

PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS (S5.2)

The November 2, 1992, final rule revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses. As amended, S5.2.3 states, in part:

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

The section also specifies the type of emergency exits, which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. The November 1992 rule amended S5.2.3.1 by specifying additional exits to meet the new minimum area requirement of S5.2.3. If, after deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), additional exits are needed to meet the minimum area requirement of S5.2.3, any remaining exit area

must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) an emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows.

The May 4, 1994 final rule delayed the effective date of the amendment of S5.2.3.1 only. The effect of the delay is that, until September 1, 1994, manufacturers may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217 by installing either a rear emergency ex it door, or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window.

Your letter notes that New York regulations exceed Standard No. 217 in that they require additional exits. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment a ny safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103 (d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that are different from the applicable standard except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law requiring exits in addition to those required by Standard No. 217 would be preempted under S103(d) to the extent that the law requires ALL school buses man ufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. Any exits required by New York regulations on public school buses which exceed the requirements of Standard No. 21 7 would be considered voluntarily installed for purposes of federal law.

EMERGENCY EXIT RELEASE (S5.3)

The November 2, 1992, final rule added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if N ew York requires either emergency exit windows or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the release mechanisms comply with the requirements of S5.3. The effective date for the amendments to S5.3 was NOT extended by the May 4, 1994, fin al rule.

EMERGENCY EXIT EXTENSION (S5.4) The November 2, 1992, final rule revised the extension requirements for side emergency exit doors on school buses and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either side emergency exit doors or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with the new extension requirements. The effective date for the amendments to S5.4 was NOT exten ded by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

I note that the bulletin enclosed with your letter implies that, due to the delay of the effective date of the November 2, 1992, final rule, flip-up seats are not needed to meet the new requirements of S5.4. This information appears to be incorrect, sinc e the May 4, 1994, final rule did not delay the effective date of S5.4. Compliance with the new requirements of S5.4 might entail the installation of flip-up seats. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisl e if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch. Thus, if New York requires side emergency exit doors, flip-up seats adjacent to those exits m ight have to be used to enable the bus to meet these requirements. For example, a flip-up seat might be needed to meet the requirement that the aisle for a side exit must be at least 30 centimeters wide.

EMERGENCY EXIT IDENTIFICATION (S5.5)

Finally, the November 2, 1992, final rule revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effective date for the amendments to S5.5 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit." For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location r equirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. The identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3).

Please note that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the November 2, 1992, final rule. In a July 7, 1993, letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company NHTSA stated tha t it would issue a correction notice that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

I have enclosed a copy of the May 4, 1994, final rule for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9945

Mr. Richard Kreutziger
Executive Director
New York State Bus Distributors Association
102 Grace Street
Penn Yan, NY 14527

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your fax of May 4, 1994, requesting information on a May 4, 1994, final rule (59 FR 22997) delaying the effective date of one section of the November 2, 1992, final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413). Your letter enclosed a bulletin from Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. concerning "options" which can be deleted because of the delay of effective date. Your fax notes that New York state regulations exceed the minimum requirements of Standard No. 217 and requested any information we can provide on how the delay of effective date affects buses in the State of New York.

The November 2, 1992, amendment to Standard No. 217 set requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The May 4, 1994, delay of effective date affects only the amendments to S5.2.

Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2)

The November 2, 1992, final rule revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses. As amended, S5.2.3 states, in part:

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

The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses are

required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. The November 1992 rule amended S5.2.3.1 by specifying additional exits to meet the new minimum area requirement of S5.2.3. If, after deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), additional exits are needed to meet the minimum area requirement of S5.2.3, any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) an emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows.

The May 4, 1994 final rule delayed the effective date of the amendment of S5.2.3.1 only. The effect of the delay is that, until September 1, 1994, manufacturers may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217 by installing either a rear emergency exit door, or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window.

Your letter notes that New York regulations exceed Standard No. 217 in that they require additional exits. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that are different from the applicable standard except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law requiring exits in addition to those required by Standard No. 217 would be preempted under '103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. Any exits required by New York regulations on public school buses which exceed the requirements of Standard No. 217 would be considered voluntarily installed for purposes of federal law.

Emergency Exit Release (S5.3)

The November 2, 1992, final rule added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either emergency exit windows or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the release mechanisms comply with the requirements of S5.3. The effective date for the amendments to S5.3 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4)

The November 2, 1992, final rule revised the extension requirements for side emergency exit doors on school buses and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either side emergency exit doors or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with the new extension requirements. The effective date for the amendments to S5.4 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

I note that the bulletin enclosed with your letter implies that, due to the delay of the effective date of the November 2, 1992, final rule, flip-up seats are not needed to meet the new requirements of S5.4. This information appears to be incorrect, since the May 4, 1994, final rule did not delay the effective date of S5.4. Compliance with the new requirements of S5.4 might entail the installation of flip-up seats. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch. Thus, if New York requires side emergency exit doors, flip-up seats adjacent to those exits might have to be used to enable the bus to meet these requirements. For example, a flip-up seat might be needed to meet the requirement that the aisle for a side exit must be at least 30 centimeters wide.

Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5)

Finally, the November 2, 1992, final rule revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effective date for the amendments to S5.5 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit." For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. The identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3).

Please note that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the November 2, 1992, final rule. In a July 7, 1993, letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company NHTSA stated that it would issue a correction notice that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

I have enclosed a copy of the May 4, 1994, final rule for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. Mitchell, IN 47446 Enclosure

ref:217 d:5/18/95

ID: nht94-1.86

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Amendment to FMVSS 571.217 published in the Federal Register November 11, 1992 (Docket 88-21 notice No. 3)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Eric T. Stewart (A42; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner

TEXT:

The background to this amendment indicates that the "final rule requires a minimum of 1 inch wide retro-reflective tape ...." (page 49421). The actual amendment reads that the retro-reflective tape is to be "a minimum 3 centimeters wide". (page 49425) (CFR571.217 S 5.53(c)). These two dimensions are not the same since 1.00 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters.

I believe that the intent of this rule making was to make the retro-reflective tape 1.00 inch wide and an error has taken place in converting the dimension to metric units. I am requesting written clarification indicating how wide NHTSA wants the retro- reflective tape around the outside perimeter of a school bus emergency door.

If you have any questions, please call me at (419) 221-2525.

ID: nht93-6.16

DATE: August 17, 1993

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from John Womack to Erika Z. Jones (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I am writing to confirm our interpretation of FMVSS 213, S5.2.3.2, regarding the covering required on a surface that can be contactable by a child's head.

That provision requires that a contactable surface be covered by material with a specified compression deflection and a minimum thickness of 3/4 inch for materials having a 25 percent compression-deflection resistance of less than 1.8 psi.

As I understand this provision, the required covering material need not be provided in a single piece, as long as the material taken together would satisfy the compression deflection and minimum thickness requirements. Specifically, we understand that the requirement could be met by providing energy absorbing material in two pieces -- one piece bonded to the seat shell and one piece contained within the back of the permanently attached seat cushion, if the combined thickness of the two pieces is at least 3/4 of an inch.

We appreciate knowing whether you concur with this understanding of the requirements of FMVSS 213. Thank you for your attention to this request.

ID: prevost_applicability

Mr. Deny Bertrand
Prevost Car Inc.
Sainte-Claire, Quebec
G0R 2V0
Canada




Dear Mr. Betrand:

This replies to your inquiries regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)  Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles. You explained that your company manufactures over-the-road coaches and is thus required to comply with the requirements specified in the two standards. You focused your inquiries on two areas, the requirements for threshold warning signals and the application of the standards to vehicles and lifts that were manufactured prior to the effective date. I have addressed each of your questions below.

By way of background, in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that certain vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. On December 23, 2004, the agency published a final rule that extended the compliance date of FMVSS No. 403 until April 1, 2005, and compliance date of FMVSS No. 404 until July 1, 2004 (69 FR 76865) .

1.    Threshold warning signal

In a letter and e-mail correspondence, you asked about the threshold warning signal requirements of FMVSS No. 403 for public use lifts. Specifically, you asked whether:

(a)  a "flat light" could comply with the beacon requirement,
(b)  S6.1.4 requires that a passenger backing onto a platform lift be able to see the actual beacon,
(c)  the vehicle manufacturer or lift manufacturer is solely responsible for compliance with the threshold warning system requirements,
(d)  optical sensors could be used to detect an occupant in the threshold area, and
(e)  the threshold warnings could be activated based on whether an access door were open.

As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency established a threshold warning signal requirement for platform lifts to minimize the risk of a lift user backing off a vehicle before a lift is properly positioned. For public-use lifts, S6.1.3 requires that:

A visual and audible warning must activate if the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  below the platform threshold area and portions of a passenger's body or mobility aid is on the platform threshold area defined in S4 when tested in accordance with S7.4.

(a)  Visual warning beacon

Under S6.1.4, the visual warning required in S6.1.3 must:

[B]e a flashing red beacon as defined in SAE J578, June 95, must have a minimum intensity of 20 candela, a frequency from 1 to 2 Hz, and must be installed such that it does not require more than 15 degrees side-to-side head rotation as viewed by a passenger backing onto the platform from the interior of the vehicle.

While the standard specifies several criteria for the visual warning, it does not specify design criteria such as size or shape for the beacon. Therefore, a flat light may be relied upon to comply with S6.13, so long as when installed according to the lift manufacturers instructions, it complies with the color, intensity, frequency, and line-of-sight requirements in S6.1.4.

(b)  Line-of-sight requirement

In a telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you stated that your companys lift supplier intends to provide a beacon that mounts above the access door such that a passenger backing onto the platform from interior of the vehicle will not see the beacon directly. You further explained that this supplier stated that it intends to rely on light reflected from the beacon in order to comply with the requirement.

This would not be acceptable. Compliance with the line-of-sight requirement is based on the location of the beacon and not by light emitted from the beacon. S6.1.4 states that the beacon must be installed such that it does not require more than 15 degrees of side-to-side head rotation to be viewed by a passenger backing onto the platform from the interior of the vehicle.

A warning system that relied on reflected light, as opposed to the physical location of the beacon, would be more susceptible to environmental light conditions, thereby reducing its effectiveness.

(c)  Compliance responsibility

Your e-mail further asked if compliance with the threshold warning signal requirements is the responsibility of the lift or vehicle manufacturer.

The threshold warning signal requirements are part of FMVSS No. 403, which as previously explained, applies to platform lifts. Lift manufacturers are required to certify that their lifts comply with all applicable requirements under the standard. S6.13 of FMVSS No. 403 requires that lift manufacturers provide installation instructions with each lift, including procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational and compliant with requirements such as the threshold warning signal requirements (see S6.13.2) . Therefore, it is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to provide a lift that, when installed according to manufacturer instructions, complies with all the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403.

Under S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 404, it is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to install an FMVSS No. 403-compliant platform lift according to the instructions provided by the platform lift manufacturer. Under S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404, the platform lift as installed must continue to comply with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403.

(d)  Optical sensors

In your letter, you asked whether a platform lift could comply with the threshold warning signal requirements through the use of optical sensors, as opposed to a sensitive floor pad.

S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires the appropriate threshold warning signal to be activated when any portion of a passengers body or mobility aid occupies the platform threshold area defined in S4 of that standard, and the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  below the vehicle floor reference plane. A platform lift must meet this requirement when tested in accordance with S7.4 of the standard. S7.4 specifies that the appropriate signals must be activated when one front wheel of the wheelchair test device, as described in S7.1.2, is placed in the platform threshold area and the platform is more than 25 mm (1inch)  below the vehicle floor reference plane.

The standard specifies the performance requirements for a threshold warning system, but not the design. Therefore, a lift manufacturer may use optical sensors to comply with the threshold warning requirement, as long as it satisfies the performance requirements of the standard.

(e)  Access Door Condition

In your letter you asked whether a lift that activates the threshold warnings whenever the lift is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  from the vehicle floor level and the access door is open would comply with the standard. You explained that in such a case, a lift would not be required to be equipped with detection equipment.

Again, the threshold warning signal minimizes the likelihood of an individual backing off of a vehicle when a platform lift is not in proper position. An appropriate signal must be activated when a platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  out of position and one front wheel of the wheelchair test device is in the platform threshold area. Under S7.4.2, removal of the test device from the platform threshold area must deactivate the alarm. The deactivation requirement ensures that a signal is only activated when an occupant is at risk of off-loading onto a lift before the lift is in position.

If an alarm were permitted to be activated whenever an access door were open and the lift were more than 25 mm (1 inch)  from the vehicle floor, the effectiveness of the alarm would be diminished. In that instance, the alarm would continue to signal even when a lift user were safely on the lift and being lowered to ground level. Additionally, the prolonged signaling may irritate the lift user and other vehicle occupants.

2. Applicability to the Installation of Lifts on Used Vehicles

Under FMVSS No. 403, as recently amended, all lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005, must comply with that standard. Under FMVSS No. 404, all vehicles with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005, and later that are manufactured with a platform lift must comply with the vehicle standard. Vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with a FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

Based on your phone conversation with Mr. Calamita, you asked about two situations: (a)  the installation of a lift on a used vehicle that was manufactured before the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date, and (b)  the installation of a lift on a used vehicle that was manufactured on or after the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date.

(a)  Installation of a lift on a used, pre-July 1, 2005 vehicle

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale) . See 49 CFR 30112. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

Vehicles manufactured prior to July 1, 2005, whether originally manufactured with or without a lift, are not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. Therefore, a non-FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift may be installed on such a vehicle, so long as the installation does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the standards to which it was originally certified. For example, if a vehicle were manufactured with a platform lift on September 1, 2004, a vehicle modifier would be permitted to replace the original lift with either a non-FMVSS No. 403-complaint lift or a FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

Further, the agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system or interlock system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

(b)  Installation of a lift on a used vehicle manufactured on or after July 1, 2005

After first retail sale, the "make inoperative" provision only applies to standards to which a vehicle is certified as complying. If a vehicle with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005 or later is manufactured with a lift, that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if after first retail sale a platform lift is added to a vehicle that was not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404, a modifier need not bring that vehicle into compliance with a FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

In your letter, you asked about a specific situation in which vehicles are manufactured to accept a removable lift, but as manufactured and certified, are not equipped with a lift. A removable lift would then be installed by the vehicles owner.

First, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by a vehicle owner to his/her own vehicle. Additionally, even if a removable lift were added by a repair shop or dealer after first retail sale, these vehicles would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. Again, these vehicles were not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. If a removable lift were added by a modifier, the addition of the lift must not cause any applicable FMVSS to be made inoperative.

However, modifications made to a vehicle that was certified as complying with FMVSS No. 404 must not remove that vehicle from compliance with that standard. If an automotive repair business were to replace a lift on a vehicle that complied with FMVSS No. 404, the lift must be replaced with a FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift and in a manner that would maintain the vehicles compliance with FMVSS No. 404.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202)  366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.1/21/05

ID: 1983-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATON

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for a reconsideration of our December 8, 19B2, letter in which we stated that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. You have pointed out that this appears to reverse a previous interpretation issued by this office on March 15, 1978, in which we concluded that such covers were not precluded.

As is well known, SAE Standard J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly precludes the use of covers in front of headlamps in use. Because Standard No. 108 allows installation on motorcycles of half of a passenger car sealed beam headlighting system (principally because SAE J584 allows use of headlamps meeting SAE J579 Sealed Beam Headlamp Units), the 1982 interpretation applied the prohibition against covers to all sealed beam headlamps, even those used on motorcycles. With respect to unsealed lamps, the agency cited paragraph S4.1.3, the prohibition against installation of additional equipment impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, and concluded that the possibility of deterioration of light output through cracked or discolored covers precluded covers over nonsealed lamps. On the other hand, the 1978 interpretation concluded that, since the cross referenced J579 did not itself reference J580, the prohibition did not apply.

We have reviewed this matter and have concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard No. 108. As the 1978 interpretation implies, and as you make explicit, the only standard Table III directly incorporates for motorcycle headlamps is J584, whereas J580 is one of several standards directly incorporated for headlamps on four-wheeled vehicles. Nevertheless, we still conclude that these covers are prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

If, for example, the angle of the cover is so extreme that headlamp "effectiveness" is "impaired" because of deterioration of the beam, then the manufacturer may wish to remove the shield or redesign it. If, as another example, a plastic cover is intended and a manufacturer has knowledge that it is susceptible to accelerated hazing or cracking, the manufacturer should not use a cover manufactured of this plastic.

In summary, this letter modifies both our 1978 and 1982 opinions by concluding that headlamp covers for motorcycles are permissible if they will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

The agency is reviewing this subject to determine if rulemaking is advisable to prohibit covers of any sort over motorcycle headlamps, similar to the prohibition against such covers on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 4, 1983

Mr. Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

RE: Motorcycle Headlamp Cover

Dear Mr. Vinson:

On February 1, 1983, members of the motorcycle industry met with you and NHTSA rulemaking (lighting) and enforcement personnel to discuss NHTSA's new interpretation regarding the installation of transparent covers in front of motorcycle headlamps. This interpretation, contained in a December 8, 1982 letter from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, stated that NHTSA now views that FMVSS 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. This reverses a previous interpretation contained in a March 15, 1978 letter from Joseph J. Levin, Jr., then NHTSA Chief Counsel, which stated that NHTSA did not read the prohibition against covers as applying to motorcycles equipped with either sealed or unsealed headlamps because the referenced motorcycle headlamp standard in Table III of FMVSS 108, SAE J584, does not prohibit the installation of such covers.

We disagree with the reversal of the earlier interpretation.

Table III of FMVSS 108 requires motorcycles to comply with SAE Standard J584, April 1964. SAE J584 sets forth photometric requirements for motorcycle headlamps and does not prohibit glass covers. It also provides for alternative compliance by fitting headlamps conforming to SAE 579 (which, incidentally, also does not prohibit such covers). S4.1.1.34 provides that a motorcycle may be equipped with various combinations of headlamps from the passenger car headlamp systems, and contains no prohibition of headlamp covers. The only prohibition against the use of headlamp covers in FMVSS 108 is contained in SAE Standard J580a/b, referenced in Table III and applies only to sealed beam headlamps installed in passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. SAE J580a and J580b are concerned with the aim of a headlamp's beam, and proscribe glass covers so the aim can be readily inspected using a mechanical aimer that registers on the headlamp's three aiming pads. J584 motorcycle headlamps do not have these aiming pads, so there is no such need to preclude the use of glass covers.

NHTSA to support its position that Standard 108 precludes the use of covers over motorcycle headlamps relies on two arguments. We disagree with both:

1. That the prohibition contained in SAE Standard J580 applies to motorcycles, since SAE J580 is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108.

SAE J580 does not apply to motorcycles. It is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 only for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The primary referenced requirement for motorcycles in FMVSS 108 is SAE J584, which contains no such prohibition. SAE J584, in turn, permits alternative compliance with SAE J579, which neither contains such a prohibition nor references J580. In addition, S4.1.1.34 contains additional means of compliance for motorcycles, but no such prohibition.

2. That the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of S4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 precludes the use of such covers because the covers "impair the effectiveness" of headlamps.

This is an improper interpretation of S4.1.3. The impaired effectiveness requirement was intended to preclude the use of devices that render the required devices (although themselves meeting the standard) ineffective. For example, the fitting of a red lamp to a vehicle immediately adjacent to the required amber front side marker lamp and likewise an amber lamp fitted adjacent to the required rear red side marker lamp would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps, as ambiguity would result. Such an impairment would also result from the placement of an extremely bright lamp adjacent to a signal lamp, thus obliterating the light output of the signal lamp. Impairment of effectiveness does not relate to durability requirements as NHTSA would suggest.

In those instances where durability of lamps, lens materials, and other equipment is deemed to be important, FMVSS 108 contains specific durability requirments applicable to such equipment. As long as the headlamp cover does not preclude the headlamp from conforming to the performance requirements specified in FMVSS 108 at the time of sale of the motorcycle, the cover does not "impair the effectiveness" of the required equipment.

The interpretation of December 8 refers to the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of FMVSS 108, S4.1.3, as if impairing were an absolute, regardless of whether an impaired lamp were still within specifications. Compliance with specifications, however, is implicit to S4.1.3 because only lamps complying with specifications are required by this standard. S4.3.1.1. clearly relates compliance of any lamp to meeting or not meeting photometric output.

In addition, the preamble to the January 17, 1983 notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS 108 (Docket 81-11: Notice 2) discusses the very subject of permissible impairment and concludes that compliance with required photometrics is the only test that can be applied. In rejecting petitioner's argument that conformance of a lamp should be based on relative degradation from the original output, NHTSA states (48 FR 1994), "....a lamp that far exceeded the minimum could "fail" if diminution exceeded 10 percent, even though the safety based J579c minima were still met. Such a result would appear to be excessive as a minimum safety standard. ...NHTSA believes it simpler and preferable that photometric measurements be taken at the end of each of the relevant tests in the sequential test series, and that the lamp at each such point comply with the photometrics of J579c". Thus, this preamble recognizes that photometric standards are composed of minimums and maximums, and that there would be no difference between a lamp designed to lower output and one that deteriorated to that same level, as long as both lamps at the reduced level of output comply with specifications.

That compliance is the sole criterion is further underscored in the letter of interpretation from Frank Berndt, then NHTSA Acting Chief Counsel, to Roderick A. Willcox, July 23, 1976, in which it is stated, in reference to a bug screen placed in front of headlamps, "Since the screen is positioned in front of the headlamps it would be an "other feature" of the type intended to be prohibited by the standard if, as appears likely, it affects compliance with headlamp photometrics (SAE Standard J579 or headlamp aim (SAE Standard J580)."

One of the issues raised at the meeting was whether the BMW headlamp/cover complied with the photometric requirments of FMVSS 108. We indicated to you that we would have such a unit tested at an independent laboratory and submit the results to NHTSA. Electrical Testing Laboratories (ETL) has just completed the environmental and photometric tests prescribed by FMVSS 108 on one of our headlamps, and we attach a copy of their report. The report shows that the headlamp with glass cover passed the photometric tests of SAE J584, April 1964, both before and after the required environmental tests.

BMW uses the J584 motorcycle headlamp because, as recognized by NHTSA in 44 FR 20536, its photometrics are superior for motorcycles. The glass cover is designed as an integral part of the lamp and provides improved aerodynamics, which result in self-cleansing action; the cover also protects the headlamp from impacts and prevents the leadlamp's exposure to rain and dirt. Heat from the headlamp, which is on all the time, is sufficient to prevent buildup of moisture on the cover, while the cover, because of its distance in front of the lamp, minimizes the baking on of dirt and bugs. Generally, we find that most motorcycle owners maintain their vehicles better than do passenger car owners, and tend not to ride them as much in inclement weather.

Also enclosed is a copy of an ETL report showing that the glass cover complies with the light stability, luminous transmittance, impact, fracture and abrasion resistance tests of Z26.1. In the past, both AAMVA and California Highway Patrol have issued certificates of approval on the cover glass, as well as the whole lamp (including the cover glass).

We are not aware of any field experience indicating any problems with discoloration or cracks in the cover glass, or deterioration of the reflector.

Also, as we agreed in our meeting, we are attaching the names and addresses of owners in the Washington, D.C. area of older BMW motorcycles fitted with such covers whom you may wish to contact. This information is being provided to enable you to examine the headlamp/cover assemblies of these older motorcycles to determine what, if any, deterioration in headlamp performance can be attributed to age. This would aid you in the formulation of future proposed rulemaking should you later decide some durability require-ment may be appropriate for such lamp/cover assemblies.

Aside from a perceived (but not demonstrated) durability concern on NHTSA's part with respect to headlamp covers generally, the primary reason repeatedly given by NHTSA in opposition to such covers is their effect on mechanical aimers. Obviously, with a motorcycle there is no such concern since motorcycle headlamps can not be mechanically aimed because mechanical aiming requires the use of two headlamps, while motorcycles are permitted to have only one headlamp. This is the reason a motorcycle headlamp is not required to have the three aiming pads mounted on the lens.

In conclusion, we believe the interpretation contained in the December 8, 1982 Berndt letter is in error, particularly as it would apply to motorcycles equipped with headlamps conforming to SAE J584, as specified by Table III in FMVSS 108. Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

DE/fw 0510 - 83 Attachments

Owners of older BMW motorcycles having cover glass in front of headlamp who are willing to have their headlamps examined:

David Gray 1977 BMW RS 305 Tapawingo Road Vienna, VA 22180 Telephone: 703 938-0060

Robert Henig 1977 BMW RS 11800 Dewey Road 35,000 miles Wheaton, MD 20906 Telephone: 301 942-5198

George R. Sams 1979 BMW RT 1104 Tyler Avenue 21,000 miles Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: 301 267-3487 Bus.

301 263-9473 Home

ID: 1985-02.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Frederick B. Locker, Esq. -- Locker, Greenberg and Brainin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Frederick B. Locker, Esq. Locker Greenberg & Brainin, Esq. One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10001

This responds to your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a belt which is attached to and is not easily removed from a movable shield is an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c), and may therefore be attached when the restraint is tested in test configuration II of Standard No. 213. Such a belt is an integral prt of the movable shield and may attached during test configuration II.

Your client, Collier-Keyworth, has designed a child restraint that integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and the movable shield in a continuous connection, with the bottom of the crotch strap webbing intended to be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is positioned in the restraint. As described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed therewith, the crotch strap portion of the webbing is considered an integral part of the movable shield, because it is formed as a unit with that shield. Hence, section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213 allows you to attach the crotch strap portion of the webbing to the base of the seat during configuration II testing.

I suggest, however, that Collier-Keyworth incorporate into the restraint some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled into the base of the seat. This suggestion is based on past experience with child restraints which have both a movable shield and a crotch strap which must be buckled to adequately protect the child.

In the late 1970's there were several child restraint designs which had a crotch strap permanently attached to the base of the seat and a movable shield which lowered in front of the child. The designers of these restraints intended that the crotch strap be attached to the shield to properly restain the child. However, such restraints were often misused by consumers who did not attach the crotch strap to the shield. NHTSA was concerned that in the event of a crash, a child occupant would submarine partly or completely out of restraints whose crotch straps were not fastened to the shield.

When amended Standard No. 215 was being promulgated, the agency decided to include some procedure for testing those child restraints whose design could lead a parent to believe that a child was adequately protected when the restraint was, in fact, being misused. In the case of restraints with movable shields, the agency believed that some parents would conclude that a child was protected by the restraint simply by lowering the movable shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. Test configuration II in Standard No. 213 was intended to address this situation, by attempting to ensure that child restraint designs which would likely be misused would afford some minimal level of protection when they were misused. To achieve this end, test configuration II requires that child restraints with a movable shield in front of the child be tested in a 20 mile per hour crash with the shield in front of the test dummy, but without attaching any belts which are not an integral part of the shield.

Many previous interpretations of this standard explained that section S6.1.2.3.1(c) allows belts which are an integral part of the movable shield to be attached during configuration II testing because the agency believed that the need to buckle such belts would be more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. That is, a parent would be less likely to conclude that the child was adequately protected if the integral belt was not buckled.

During 1980, the manufacturers of the restraints with movable shields to which crotch straps were to be attached asked NHTSA if the crotch straps could be attached to the shield during configuration II testing if the movable shield were spring-loaded so that it would not stay in front of the child unless the crotch strap were attached. The agency concluded that the rationale for not allowing the nonintegral crotch strap to be fastened during configuration II testing would not apply if the crotch strap were to be fastened to spring-loaded movable shields. Unless these crotch straps were attached, there would be nothing in front of the child to restrain him or her in the event of a crash. Therefore, NHTSA decided it was unlikely that a parent would conclude that a child would be adequately protected without attaching these crotch straps, and permitted spring-loaded movable shields to attach nonintegral crotch straps during configuration II testing under Standard No. 213.

The shield on the Collier-Keyworth child restraint is not spring-loaded and thus would remain in front of an occupant regardless of whether the crotch strap is fastened. Our examination of the photographs and materials enclosed with your letter suggests that it is possible a parent might conclude that a child was adequately protected simply by lowering the shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. For instance, Figure 5 of Exhibit B shows the shield lowered and staying in place without buckling the crotch strap. I am sure that Collier-Keyworth wants to minimize the chances of this sort of misuse occurring, and will want to incorporate some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled. Such a means could be spring-loading the movable shield, as would be required if the crotch strap were not an integral part of the shield, or could be a "warning" label on the front of the shield explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure Via Express Mail

April 12, 1985

Steve Kratzke, Esq. U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administation Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 7th Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Collier-Keyworth Safe & Sound II Car Seat

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

We represent Collier-Keyworth Company with regard to the above referenced product.

As per our previous telephone conversations, we are writing in order to obtain clarification from your office regarding the interpretation of Section S 6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213) and its applicability to the above referenced product.

49 CFR 571.213 S6.1.2.3.1(c) specifically provides in appropriate part as follows:

"For a child's restraint's system with fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2 which is being tested under the conditions of test configuration II do not attach any of the child restraint belts unless there are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface." (Emphasis supplied).

We understand that standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problems and misuse of child restraints which primarily involves failure to attach buckles and latches, and that to insure that children placed in child restraints are afforded adequate protection, notwithstanding such use, the aforementioned sections of the standard provide that the belts are to be attached to restraining shield during testing only if they are "integral" parts of the shield.

The common English definition of "integral" is "formed as a unit with another part".

We believe that a belt which is attached and not easily removed from the shield is an integral part of the shield since the belt is intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and is not subject to the types of misuse which the standard intended to minimize.

Our client continually strives to design, manufacture and produce child restraint systems which provide the utmost protection for a child placed in them and eliminate foreseeable misuse of the product. To this end the Safe & Sound II has been developed. The Safe & Sound II consists of a tubular steel frame, a padded molded plastic shell, one piece molded plastic base capable of adjustment for reclined positioning and a harness/shield restraint. The character of the product can be seen from the enclosed instructions and photographs.

The product can be used as a rear facing system for infants and as an upright forward facing system for children 20-40 lbs. Thus, a single purchase enables a consumer to effectively provide protection for his child from birth through 40 lbs. in weight.

The Safe & Sound II Restraint System integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and impact shield in a continuous connection. The strapping together with a molded plastic unit form a continuous loop when the crotch strap is buckled. This arrangement provides a variety of advantages as follows:

1. The system provides a secure 5 point harness system and guarantees that the occupant will be properly positioned within the system in the event of an accident.

2. A large padded surface on the impact shield located at the lower torso area provides for maximum distribution of impact forces over a large an area as possible. This shield is also designed to eliminate the need for separate lap belt assembly and avoid the roping, twisting and cutting into the pelvic areas associated with lap belts. Additionally the shields in connection with the straps form a continuous secure loop.

3. The belt of the upper torso restraint are routed from the back support surface of the system and through the impact shield so that at all points there is assurance that the belts will "lie flat".

4. This child restraint system minimizes the potential for misuse and provides for a simple one-step placement of the child into a secure restraint system. A user need only lift the shield, with its integrated straps, place in the child in the system close the shield and snap the safety buckle to the base of the shield.

For your better understanding and reference, I have enclosed a set of instructions for the Safe & Sound II (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Additionally, photographs labeled Figure 1 through 9 have been attached to this letter as Exhibit B. The instructions will provide you with a full understanding of the capability of the product and the photographs indicate that the straps, movable shield, and seat are fully integrated with one another.

The photographs indicate the following:

Figure 1 shows the restraint system from a forward view with a buckle attached.

Figure 2 shows the buckle unattached and the shield moved upwards as would be the case prior to the placement of a child within the system.

Figure 3 shows the manner in which the strap forms an unbroken loop around the buckle and the manner in which the buckle snaps to the recessed based clip.

Figure 4 indicates the manner in which the straps flow continuously through the rear seat support and the movable shield assuring that they "lie flat". Figure 5 shows the buckle portion of the strap as positioned when unattached.

Figure 6 provides a close-up view of the manner in which the buckle secures into the seat base. The belt buckles much like an ordinary seat belt.

Figure 7 indicates that the straps are securely attached to the movable shield. See also Figure 4.

Figure 8 shows a view of the bottom portion of the shield showing that even when the straps are pulled upward they are incapable of separating from the shield since a continuous loop and buckle prevent their detachment.

Figure 9 shows the rear view of the restraint system and indicates the manner in which the straps follow through the rear plastic molded back support and are secured around the tubular steel frame. You should note the very end of the strap has a metal clamped piece placed around it to inhibit removal of the strap through the buckle.

We believe that this product incorporates child restraint belts which are "an integral part" of the fixed seat and the movable shield portion of the unit.

Therefore, it is our opinion that the buckle should be attached under the conditions of test configuration II of the Standard.

We would appreciate your opinion regarding this product.

If you have any questions, or wish to discuss any item in greater detail, please do not hesitate to call. As previously discussed, I am prepared to visit you in Washington with a sample of the Safe & Sound II if you deem it necessary. We look forward to your prompt response.

Very truly yours, LOCKER GREENBERG & BRAININ, P.C. BY Frederick B. Locker FBL:dd cc: Mr. James R. Fuller

ID: 24477a.drn

Rod Nash, V.P. Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your May 30, 2002, letter asking about an April 19, 2002, final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release (67 FR 19343). The rule restricted where wheelchair securement anchorages may be installed, to ensure that they do not block access to emergency exit doors. You ask whether the rules restrictions limit or supercede requirements in S5.4.2 of the standard, which requires unobstructed passage of a parallelpiped through the emergency exit door. The answer is no.

Your first question concerned the meaning of S5.4.3.1, which states:

S5.4.3.1 Except as provided in paragraph S5.4.3.2 [for tracks and track-type devices running on the school bus floor] of this section, no portion of a wheelchair securement anchorage shall be located in a school bus such that:

(a) In the case of side emergency exit doors, any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by the interior side wall and emergency exit door opening, transverse vertical planes 305 mm (12 inches) forward and rearward of the center of any side emergency exit door restricted area, and a longitudinal vertical plane through the longitudinal centerline of the school bus, as shown in Figure 6A and Figure 6B.

(b) In the case of rear emergency exit doors in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the left and right sides of the door opening, a transverse vertical plane 305 mm (12 inches) forward of the bottom edge of the door opening, and a horizontal plane 1,145 mm (45 inches) above the floor of the bus, as shown in Figure 6C and Figure 6D.

(c) In the case of rear emergency exit doors in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the left and right sides of the door opening, a transverse vertical plane 150 mm (6 inches) forward of the bottom edge of the door opening, and a horizontal plane 1,145 mm (45 inches) above the floor of the bus, as shown in Figure 6C and Figure 6D.

You ask whether S5.4.3.1 means that "the exit space in front of the rear emergency exit door of a school bus is now determined by the width of that door." The answer is no. The requirements of S5.4.3.1 are separate from the requirements in S5.4.2 for minimum exit aisle space to the rear emergency exit door. The latter requirement was established in a 1976 final rule (41 FR 3871, January 27, 1976). Today, the requirement is specified at S5.4.2.1, for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. S5.4.2.1 requires that an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 1145 mm x 610 mm x 305 mm (45 inches x 24 inches x 12 inches) to the rear emergency exit door be provided, keeping the parallelepiped upright and the lower surface in contact with the floor of the bus at all times. S5.4.2.2 specifies the same requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, except that the parallelepiped is 1145 mm x 550 mm x 150 mm (45 inches x 22 inches x 6 inches). S5.4.2 remains in effect today, and still requires exits on large and small school buses to be, basically, 24 and 22 inches wide, respectively, and to provide adequate emergency aisle space.^[1]

The new requirements in S5.4.3.1 set forth dimensions in which wheelchair securement anchorages may not be installed. This prohibition is intended to minimize the chances that a wheelchair would be installed in a school bus in service at a position where the emergency exit would be blocked or obstructed by the wheelchair. This complements the minimum dimensional requirements for exits.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:217

d./8/2/02

^[1] Parallelepipeds were also proposed for S5.4.3 but were not included in the final rule. The final rule stated: "NHTSA has determined that defining the space by using planes better meets NHTSAs intention in restricting spaces where the wheel chair securement may not be placed [than specifying a parallelepiped], as the space defined by planes would explicitly include the floor near the school bus rear emergency exit door." (See 67 FR at 19346.)