ID: nht94-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Larson, Victor -- P.E., Cryenco, Inc.

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Conspicuity Striping Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/14/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Victor Larson (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: Cryenco is a manufacturer of cryogenic tank trailers. Our trailers are cylindrical in shape and in most cases, have no side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road, except at the center of the tank (at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions ). This is at a height of approximately 90" above the ground. Additional structures would have to be added to the sides of the trailer to provide lower mounting surfaces that are at the 1.25m height. In our interpretation of the rule, which is based o n phone calls with NHTSA and 3M striping performance specifications, the side striping 1.) Can legally be placed at a height of 90" above the ground, if that is the only available vertical mounting area, and 2.) it is not necessary to add additional stru cture for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface for the side striping. Please advise if this interpretation is correct.

Additional limited side mounting areas are sometimes available. For instance, some cryogenic transports have a rear cabinet that is approximately 4' long. Some also have a midship undermounted cabinet. These locations provide limited lower areas for si de striping to amount to, approximately 4' to 6' length each, that could be used for striping location. However, if striping is mounted to these surfaces and to the remaining areas above, (on the tank at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions and 90" height), the result is a fragmented, non-aligned striping pattern that is not visually pleasing, and which Customers object to. Since transporters are highly interested in visual impact they sometimes find this pattern unacceptable. Would compliance be satisfied if the side striping was placed only at the higher (90" above the ground) location, where the predominant available vertical mounting surface is found?

Requests to mount the side striping lower on the tank, to better fit-in with their graphics, have been received. In one instance, if this were done, the side striping would be rolled down from the 3:00 and 9:00 positions to about the 4:30 and 7:30 posit ions. This would place the side striping on an area of the tank that angles downward approximately 30 degrees. The striping manufacturers do not certify to meet the reflectivity requirements at compound angles exceeding 15 degrees down, combined with t he horizontal angles indicated in the rule. The general feeling among transporters and striping suppliers is that the rule is not definitive about the angular orientation of the striping, i.e. that there is no need to have the striping mounted on a surf ace that is perpendicular to the road. Please verify what the requirement is relative to orientation of the striping for conspicuity.

ID: nht94-2.96

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Neil Rowe -- Rowe Manufacturing

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/1/94 (EST) from Rowe Manufacturing

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to your product, the Glad Grip. You stated that this product serves as a handle to help connect and disconnect truck tractor air brake hoses at the glad hand. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle e quipment, such as your product. However, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSS for your product.

Our standard for brake hoses (FMVSS 106) applies to air brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies installed as original equipment and to those sold in the aftermarket. Standard 106 defines "brake hose end fitting" as a coupler, other than a clamp, designe d for attachment to the end of a brake hose. You describe the Glad Grip as a device which attaches to the end fitting of an air brake assembly and the glad hand. Since the brake hose that attaches to the Glad Grip is equipped with its own end fittings, t he Glad Grip itself is not an end fitting. Therefore, Standard 106 is inapplicable.

While it does not appear that you will market your device as original equipment on new vehicles, bear in mind that FMVSS No. 121, AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS, applies to trucks and trailers. Any new truck or trailer that has your product as original equipment must meet the standard's requirements with your product installed.

I note also that, while NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the Glad Grip contains a safety related defect, you as the manufacturer of the product would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Further, the Glad Grip is also subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 393.45 and 393.46 (copy enclosed), which are regulations administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for commercial vehicles. If you are interested in these FHWA requ irements, you can write to that agency at the addressed provided in the enclosed information sheet.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this

address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

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: nht94-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gilbert Gallahar -- Kings Environmental Hydrogen Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/18/94 From Gilbert Gallahar To John Womack (OCC-9731)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gallahar:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to an on-board hydrogen generator used on an internal combustion engine to control exhaust emissions. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulati ons to you.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle e quipment, including an on-board hydrogen generator.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151 -159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be respons ible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please note that no FMVSS would preclude the installation of your product as an item of original equipment. Nevertheless, if your device were installed on a new vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or an alterer before the first consumer purchase, then the y would have to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

A commercial business that installs the on-board hydrogen generator would also be subject to provisions of the Safety

2

Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicl e safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs. For instance, compliance with FMVSS No. 301 might be degraded if the hydrogen generator affected the integrity of a motor vehicle fuel system. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install an on-board hydrogen generat or in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You may wish to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for any questions concerning emissions and air quality. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. You may also wish to contact the state of Arizona for information on its emi ssions testing regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald F. Lett -- Lett Electronics Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/19/94 From Donald F. Lett To Department Of Transportation (OCC-9590)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lett:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether any "pre-necessary authorization" is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume "pre-necessary authorization" means this agency's prior approval or permis sion to modify the tires in the manner you propose.

You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 1/2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a "D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire" into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self-certification system, neither NH TSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSS s. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure t o

2

comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance.

It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 1/2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Th erefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the ti re. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer wo uld constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle rep air business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously- complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate @ 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above.

Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters "DOT" appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire compli es with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section

3

will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties.

In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely a ffected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems.

Finally, I note that you used the term "previously D.O.T. approved" tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation "approves" tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the "DOT" code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/2/94 From Paul Anderson To John Womack (OCC-9923)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994, requesting information on which of the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020; December 2, 1992), would appl y to Type A-1 school buses. Your letter notes that Type A-1 school buses have a capacity of 16-20 passengers and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds.

The recent amendments to Standard No. 217 set new 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), r evised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effect of each of these amendments on Type A-1 school buses is discussed separately below.

Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2)

The recent amendments listed above revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. This section states:

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 base d 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, including Type A-1 school buses, are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear p ush-out window. These are the same exits required by Standard

2

No. 217 before the recent amendments. After deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door , (2) a emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows.

Please note that, while these new requirements apply to all school buses, it is unlikely that a 20 passenger school bus will require additional exits. Under the new requirements, a school bus with 21 designated seating positions (20 passengers plus the driver) is required to provide 9,072 square centimeters of exit area. A school bus with a front service door and either of the mandatory options (rear emergency exit door or side emergency exit door and rear push-out window) should easily exceed this am ount. To illustrate, in the past, the agency has estimated that the average front service door has a daylight opening of 12,916 square centimeters. For school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, a rear emergency door that is the minimum size re quired to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,270 square centimeters. A side emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,954 square centimeters. A rear push-out window that is the minimum size required has a daylight opening of 5,002 square centimeters.

Emergency Exit Release (S5.3)

The recent amendments added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. As explained above, the recent amendments should not require either of these types of exits to be instal led on Type A-1 school buses. However, if either of these types of exits are voluntarily installed on Type A-1 school buses, the release mechanisms must comply with these requirements. In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performan ce requirements, including the release requirements in S5.3, apply to "each" emergency exit. This language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus, including voluntarily installed ones. Other requirements apply to "require d" emergency exits. (See, for example, S5.5.3(c) discussed below.) Those requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits.

Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4)

The amendments of the extension requirements also apply to Type A-1 school buses. The recent amendments revised the extension requirements for side doors on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and set extension requirem ents for emergency roof exits on school buses with a GVWR

3

of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). These amendments also affect school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, as the requirements specify that these vehicles are to comply with the same requirements as school buses with a GVWR of more th an 10,000 pounds (except for the minimum size for rear emergency exit doors).

If a Type A-1 school bus has a side emergency exit door, that exit is required to comply with the amended requirements concerning access to the exit. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 c entimeters 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 flip s 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.

In addition, if an emergency roof exit is installed in a Type A-1 school bus, it is required to provide an opening at least 41 centimeters high and 41 centimeters wide under the new requirements.

Finally, all emergency exit doors, including emergency exit doors on Type A-1 school buses, are required to have a positive door opening device.

Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5)

Finally, the recent amendments revised the identification requirements (S5.5) for exits on all school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit," as appropriate. For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed by these amendments. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must b e outlined with retroreflective tape. Please note however, that the identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3).

You should be aware that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. I have enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that 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, NHTSA will not take enforcement measure s

4

regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

To summarize and answer your specific questions, Type A-1 school buses typically would not be affected by the recent amendment requiring either emergency roof exits or emergency window exits. However, required emergency exits (including a rear emergency exit door) are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape. In addition, all exits (required and voluntary) must comply with the new performance requirements for release and extension.

With respect to your receipt of an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent there are questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authori tative and which therefore can be relied upon by manufacturers are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might be misinterpreted by manufacturers as official age ncy guidance on which they may safely rely.

Please note that recent delay of the effective date of the recent amendments applies only to provision of emergency exits (S5.2) (59 FR 22997; May 4, 1994). The other amendments were effective on May 2, 1994. I also note that the May 4 notice does not s tate "that it only applys (sic) to School Buses with capacity of 24 to 90 passengers." The notice does refer to tables in a previous NPRM which listed the types of exits required under the proposal for buses with a capacity in that range.

I have also enclosed a copy of the recent final rules 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,

Enclosures

ID: nht94-3.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mike Parker -- House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/18/94 from Mike Parker to Christopher Hart, letter dated 1/31/94 from Steve Williams to William Moss, and letter dated 1/28/94 from Steve Williams to Terry L. Voy

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District, concerning your constituent's desire to install television monitors in school buses to air "drug-free videos." You asked whether the installatio n would be consistent with our school bus regulations.

I am pleased to explain our school bus regulations. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety s tandards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection." The standard has head impact protection requirements that require the area around a school bus passenger to be free of surfaces that could injure the child in a crash. All new school buses must be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 222.

Our regulations do not prohibit Jones County from installing the video equipment in their school buses. Since the FMVSS only apply to new school buses, we do not require existing school buses to continue to meet FMVSS No. 222. Further, NHTSA does not reg ulate in any manner how individual owners choose to modify their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District may install the television monitors in its school buses without regard to whether the head impact protection requirements of FMVSS No. 2 22 are maintained. However, we would urge Jones County to install the television monitors safely. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization ent ails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and to ensure that the seating area i s free from harmful structures. To protect school bus passengers, we suggest to Jones County that any video equipment installed on a school bus should be outside of an area that a school bus passenger might impact in a crash. Further, the equipment shoul d be installed so that it does not become unsecured, especially during a crash where any projectile can be very dangerous to the vehicle occupants.

We also note that the Safety Act limits how certain commercial businesses may modify new or existing school buses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor

vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with any FMVSS. If any of these parties installed the video equipment in a manner that rendered inoperative the compliance of the school bus with FMVSS No. 222, a possible violation of S108 (a) (2) (A) could result.

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District, the owner of the school buses, could install the equipment itself in its own shops without violat ing this or any other provision of the Safety Act. As mentioned above, NHTSA urges the school district to ensure that the equipment does not degrade the safety of the school buses, particularly with regard to the head impact protection provided by the bu ses.

I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding to your constituent. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please feel free to contact John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, at this address or at (202) 366-9511.

ID: nht94-3.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Huff -- Co-Chairperson, Special Transportation, Central Missouri State University

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 4/11/94: Letter from David Huff to Charles Holt (OCC-9936)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Charles Hott of this agency asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222), for wheelchair securement devices. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about the need to increase Standard 222's strength requirements for wheelchair securement devices that are part of an integrated system. In an integrated system, the occupant restraint system (lap and shoulder belts) is anchored to the wheelchai r securement device. You suggest that a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system should be required to withstand twice the load that is required for a securement device that is not integrated with the occupant restraint system.

While we share your belief that wheelchair securement devices should be sufficiently strong, we do not believe there is a need to increase Standard 222's present requirements for securement devices that are part of an integrated system. Rather, we belie ve a securement device that meets the standard's present requirements is capable of withstanding the forces imposed on that device in a crash, even when the device is part of an integrated system such as the one you described.

As you point out in your letter, S5.4.1.3 of Standard 222 provides for increasing the load requirement for a wheelchair securement anchorage when that anchorage is used by more than one wheelchair securement device. Moreover, S5.4.3.2(e) of the standard specifies that

When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1.3 [13,344 Newtons] a nd S5.4.3.2 [13,344 Newtons] shall be applied simultaneously . . .

Stated differently, the floor anchorage used for an integrated system must withstand a load of 26,688 Newtons, which is the sum of the load specified for the wheelchair securement device and the load specified for the occupant restraint.

However, Standard 222 does not require increasing the load for a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system, and there is valid reason for the different approach. Under S5.4.2(a) of Standard 222, wheelchair securement devices that incorporate webbing or a strap must comply with the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Type I systems are lap belts, and are required by S4.2(b) of FMVSS 209 to have a breaking strength of not l ess than "6,000 pounds or 2,720 kilograms." The 6,000 pound (2,720 kg.) requirement is equivalent to the 26,688 Newton requirement for an anchorage used for an integrated system. Thus, Standard 222 requires wheelchair securement devices to be as strong as an anchorage that secures both the wheelchair and the occupant restraint. Requiring the wheelchair securement device to be stronger than the anchorage cannot be justified by a safety need.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

TEXT: Dear

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. You asked whether footnote 4 of Table 3 of the standard applies to a motorcycle speedometer using a digital display. As explained below, the answer is no.

In your letter, you requested that information identifying your company be kept confidential. As explained in the March 25, 1994 letter to you from Heidi L. Coleman, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, when confidential treatment is claimed for material submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), our confidentiality regulation, 49 C.F.R. @ 512, requires the submission of a certification stating that the submitter has made a diligent inquiry to ascertain that the information submitted has not been disclosed, or otherwise made public (49 C.F.R. @ 512.4(e)) and other supporting information (49 C.F.R. @ 512.4(b)). However, in order to expedite our response to you, I will waive the requirement of the certification contained in 49 C.F.R. @ 512.

Under S5.2.3 of Standard No. 123, if a speedometer is provided, the item shall be identified by "wording shown in both Column 2 and Column 4" of Table 3 of the standard. Column 4 of Table 3 specifies that a speedometer shall be identified by "M.P.H." Yo u believe your speedometer meets this requirement. However, you ask whether footnote 4 of Column 4 applies to a digital display speedometer. Footnote 4 states:

M.P.H. increase in a clockwise direction. Major graduations and numerals appear at 10 mph intervals, minor graduations at the 5 mph intervals.

The answer to your question is no. Digital displays were not common in 1972, when the footnote 4 specifications were

2

published. The original Standard No. 123 drafters had in mind only dial display speedometers. For these reasons, we interpret the specifications in footnote 4 of Column 4 not to apply to digital display speedometers on motorcycles that provide a readin g of numeric vehicle speed.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached T o Letter Dated 5/5/94 From J. L. Steffy To Taylor Vinson (OCC-9948)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your FAX of May 5, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You describe a motorcycle lamp "which comprises a headlight with high and low beams and 2 symmetrically (sic) flanking front auxillary (sic) lamps possessing low beam (sic) that augment the headlight." You ask for our comments.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits auxiliary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance with Stan dard No. 108 includes certification to S5.1.3 and represents its determination that the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question i t.

Your letter contains too little information for us to comment further. For example, we do not know whether the candela of the auxiliary lower beam lamps is higher, lower, or the same as the main lower beam of the headlamp. Nor does the letter indicate whether the supplementary lower beam lamps are extinguished when the upper beam is activated.

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

Sincerely,