ID: nht93-5.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Cary Klingner -- Trison Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/12/93 from Cary Klingner to John Womack (OCC-8874)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 12, 1993, with respect to Trison's "Daytime Running Lights" module. You have heard that "federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept", and ask whether the device "complies with the regulations."

As you have described it, the product activates the lower beam headlamps whenever the engine is running, and may be overridden by the vehicle's headlamp switch. The module "can be installed by any car owner."

On January 11, 1993, we amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to permit motor vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps (other than parking and fog lamps) wired to operate automatically during daytime. Before the amendment, paragraph S5.5.3 of Standard No. 108 required taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. However, the amendment modified this requirement to state that taillamps "need not be activated if the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity" when in use as daytime running lamps. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. We have received petitions for reconsideration of aspects of the rule other than S5.5.3, and it is possible that the standard will eventually be amended in response to them.

The amendment does not establish requirements for aftermarket equipment such as your module. There is no Federal restriction on the sale of the module, but there are restrictions on its installation on new vehicles. A manufacturer, distributor, and dealer of a new motor vehicle must deliver it in full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As we understand it, your module would activate the lower beam headlamps at their full intensity, and the taillamps would not be activated until the main headlamp switch was used. This would create a noncompliance with S5.5.3, since the taillamps must be activated when the headlamps are activated at full intensity. In addition, the module also impairs the effectiveness of the taillamps within the meaning of a prohibition imposed by S5.1.3. For these reasons, a manufacturer or dealer could not legally install the module on a new motor vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

With respect to installation of the module in a vehicle after its first sale, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "render inoperative, in whole or in part," lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because the taillamps apparently will not operate when

the lower beam headlamps are activated at full intensity by the module, in our opinion, the taillamps have been rendered inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition.

However, the module can be installed by the vehicle owner. The statutory prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner, and modifications by the owner are subject only to State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

We do not understand your remark that "Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated," and believe that your interpretation must be incorrect. Under the Act, if a State has a standard on lighting performance, it must be identical to the Federal standard.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

ID: nht93-5.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Jerry G. Thorn, Esq. -- General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/93 from Jerry G. Thorn to John Womack (OCC 8810)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 22, 1993 requesting an interpretation of whether an aerosol brake cleaning product marketed under the Solder Seal/Gunk brand is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As explained in further detail below, this item is considered motor vehicle equipment.

As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ....

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the brake cleaning aerosol, it appears that the product would be an accessory under the Safety Act. This is based on the information provided in your letter and by Harleigh Ewell of your office to David Elias of mine in a July 23, 1993 telephone conversation. An advertisement you enclosed for the brake cleaning aerosol contains statements (e.g., "quickly dissolve and flush away brake fluid," and "helps to eliminate brake squeal and 'chatter'") indicating that a substantial portion of the expected use of the product is related to maintaining motor vehicles. Also, according to Mr. Ewell, the product is sold in auto supply stores, which further indicates its intended use with motor-vehicles. Second, based on the product's purpose as suggested by statements on the advertisement, (e.g., "cleans and evaporates almost instantly," "can be applied without disassembly of the unit," and "keep out of reach of children") and by the type of store that retails the product, it appears that the aerosol brake cleaner is intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias at the above address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-5.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: James G. O'Neill

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/4/93 from James G. O'Neill to D. Fujida (Fujita) (OCC 8758)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that would apply to a plastic toy holder you wish to manufacture for child car seats. You indicate on a sketch provided with your letter that the toy holder would fit into a mounting bracket that is attached by screws to the car seat.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA issued Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for new child seats used in motor vehicles and aircraft. A new child seat that is sold with your toy holder attached to must be certified by the seat manufacturer as meeting Standard 213. NHTSA would determine the compliance of the new child seat with Standard 213 by, among other things, testing it with a test dummy in a 30 mph dynamic test.

Based on the information in your letter, it appears that a new child seat with your toy holder might not meet Standard 213. S5.2.2.2 of the standard specifies, among other things, that each child seat must not have any fixed or movable surface (other than restraining devices) in front of the test dummy restrained in the child seat. This requirement is to prevent items that could injure a child in a crash from being installed where they could be impacted by a child. While your sketch is unclear, it appears that the toy holder could be located in front of the dummy. If so, the toy holder could be impacted by a child in a crash.

Also, a new child seat with the toy holder attached to it might not comply with S5.2.4 of Standard 213. S5.2.4 requires any rigid part of the child seat that can be contacted by the head or torso of the dummy in the dynamic test to have a height of not more than 3/8 inch above any adjacent surface, and have no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. A restrained dummy could impact a toy holder attached to the side of the child seat if the dummy twisted during the dynamic test.

If your product will be sold to consumers as an aftermarket item, Standard 213 does not apply to it, since the standard only applies to new child seats and not to accessory items. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to the toy holder.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are subject to the defect provisions of the Safety Act. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your toy holder contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If data indicated that a child seat accessory exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as a toy holder installed where it was impacted by children, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely that your product would be attached to a child seat by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if such a person were to attach the toy holder, he or she could violate S108 (a)(2)(A) if the child seat's compliance with S5.2.2.2 and S5.2.4 were compromised. Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of S108.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, child seat owners could attach the toy holder without having to meet Standard 213. We reiterate, however, that in the interest of safety, a plastic toy holder should not be installed where a child could impact it in a crash.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed an information sheet that provides additional information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/17/93 from Ray Kesler to John Womack (OCC 8660)

TEXT:

This responds to your follow-up letter to the agency in which you request further interpretation of the requirements in Standard No. 111 relating to convex mirrors. Specifically, you asked about how section S5.4.1, which limits the radii of curvature's permissible variance, relates to S12, which specifies the procedures for determining a convex mirror's average radius of curvature. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your request.

As Marvin Shaw of my staff informed your associate Lawrence Hufstedler in a telephone conversation, section S12 sets forth a detailed multi-step procedure for calculating a convex mirror's average radius of curvature. The first step is to take ten readings on the mirror surface with a 3-point linear spherometer as specified in Figure 1 of the Standard. (See S12.1.) The second step is to convert each of the ten readings to a "radius of curvature calculation" using Table 1. (See S12.5.) The third step is to calculate the "average radius of curvature" by adding all 10 radius of curvature calculations and dividing by 10. (See S12.6.)

Mr. Hufstedler asked how S5.4.1 affects the calculations. That section states "none of the radii of curvature readings shall deviate from the average radius of curvature by more than 12.5 percent." This means that some of the radii of curvature readings may be up to 12.5 percent different than the average radius of curvature. In numerical terms, this means that if a mirror had an average radius of curvature of 36 inches a given radii of curvature reading could be as low as 31.5 inches and as high as 40.5.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht93-5.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Richard Muraski -- President/CEO, Equa-Brake, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/93 from Richard Muraski to John Womack (OCC 8668)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation about the use of your product, the Equa-Brake mechanical auxiliary air brake system. You stated that this product "increases brake force and improves brake performance on all vehicles that are equipped with air brakes." You were concerned about whether the use of your product would be affected by an agency decision to deny a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Washington Company. That petition had requested the agency to require a device that regulates air pressure differential between the two wheels on each axle (57 FR 29459, July 2, 1992).

As explained below, neither the requirements of Standard No. 121, nor those of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), under which the standard was issued, prohibit the installation of your product in most situations. The one exception is that if your product is installed on a vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, neither the act of installation nor the operation of the device may render inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about auxiliary brake systems. However, since this device is tied to a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with standard No. 121. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If the Equa-Brake is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR S567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device

or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A).

Your letter expressed concern about the effect of the agency's decision to deny the rulemaking petition submitted by the Washington Corporation. Please note that the Washington petition requested that the agency amend Standard No. 121 to REQUIRE a device that regulates a brake system's air pressure differential between two wheels on each axle. In denying the petitioner's request to require such a device, the agency emphasized that its decision not to require a product in no way prohibited the optional installation of the device provided the vehicle continued to comply with the applicable standards.

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

ID: nht93-5.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1993 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Gail Lindsey -- Hillsborough County Public Schools, Risk Management and Safety Department, Tampa, Florida

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/23/93 from Gail Lindsey to Ron Engles (OCC 8807)

TEXT:

Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle of the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply.

You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You, therefore requested information on "crash safety standards" of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter.

For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992; Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992; Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988; a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations; a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan.

The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations.

Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-5.6

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1993

FROM: Dave Beidleman -- Arizona Department of Transportation, Equipment Services

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/93 from John Womack to Dave Beidleman (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

ADOT is in the process of having ten (10) dump trucks built for use within the Highways Division. We have encountered a problem with the placement of the rear identification lamps which, we hope, you can help solve. When the dump body on these units is raised, the rear cross sill comes in contact with the pintle hitch. The pintle hitch must remain positioned as is to properly mate with trailers in the fleet. The contractor has pre-punched holes for the identification lights in the rear cross sill of the dump body. We want to raise the center light of the 3-light identification light group by approximately 1-1/2 inches, and include a cut-out in the rear cross sill to provide necessary clearance at the pintle hitch when the dump body is raised. The outer lights of the 3-light identification light group cannot he raised due to the positioning of underbody tailgate release mechanism.

CFR 49 - 571.108(S5.3.1.1) states "...if motor vehicle equipment (e.g., mirrors, now plows, wrecker booms, hackhoes, and winches) prevents compliance with this paragraph by any required lamp or reflective devices, an auxiliary lamp or device meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be provided." Can we proceed with this modification on this basis, without violating the requirements for identification lights established in FMVSS 108? (See attached drawing)

Drawing omitted. (Shows dump body - rear elect.)

ID: nht93-5.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1993

FROM: Ron Marion -- Sales Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/16/93 from John Womack to Ron Marion (A41; Std. 131)

TEXT:

We at Thomas Built Buses, Inc. have been asked to provide school buses for a customer in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Since in this location they drive on the left side of the road, these buses will be built as right hand drive vehicles with the entrance door located on the left side.

The customer would like to have only one stop arm, to be located on the vehicles right side.

I would like to obtain an interpretation of FMVSS 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. Would it be acceptable to place only one stop Arm on the school bus and locate it on the right side for this U.S. holding?

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

ID: nht93-5.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 6, 1993

FROM: Charles D. Shipley -- Director, Ohio Department of Public Safety

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/93 from John Womack to Charles D. Shipley (A41; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)); Also attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Allan Schwartz (Std. 108)

TEXT:

It is our understanding that NHTSA is reviewing questions and concerns from the various states regarding installation of neon lighting units to the underside and/or other portions of motor vehicles.

The Ohio Department of Public Safety has received inquiries regarding the legality of neon lighting installation to vehicles operated in this state. While Ohio law does not specifically prohibit installation of underbody neon lighting, in responding to such inquiries, we have noted that such lighting may be in violation of one or more of Ohio's vehicle lighting statutes.

The two sections of Ohio law to which we frequently refer are (1) Ohio Revised Code Section 4513.17 when someone proposes installing red or blue neon lighting because it prohibits equipping a motor vehicle with, and displaying flashing red, or flashing red and white or flashing blue, or flashing blue and white light except for law enforcement officials and (2) Ohio Revised Code Section 4513.13 which requires that side cowl, fender or side lights emit a white or amber light without glare. Regarding O.R.C. Section 4513.13, we have noted that while proposed neon lighting may be mounted underneath the vehicle rather than on the vehicle side as addressed in this statute, such neon lighting-installed vehicles may result in confusion to other drivers regarding the placement, the purpose, and the effect of the proposed lighting. This confusion to motorists would be of special concern when vehicles are operated on rural highways.

Also, under ORC 4513.12 addressing spotlights and auxiliary driving lights, motor vehicles may not be equipped with more than three auxiliary driving lights on the front of the vehicle. We feel that in certain conditions, underbody neon lights could also bi mistaken for auxiliary driving lights.

We have additionally suggested that those inquiring contact NHTSA for information on applicable federal regulations. We would appreciate any guidance you might be able to provide in this area.

For your information, I am forwarding copies of the following Ohio statutes and administrative code sections which address vehicle lighting and equipment standards:

ORC Sections 4513.02 through 4513.19 addressing Ohio vehicle lighting, ORC Section 4513.261 addressing directional signals,

OAC Section 4501:2-1-09 addressing motor vehicle equipment standards for lighting, OAC Section 4501:2-1-10 addressing motor vehicle equipment standards for turn signals and OAC Chapter 4501-15 addressing Ohio vehicle lighting.

Thank you for any information and guidance you are able to provide in addressing the possible hazards and confusion presented by underbody-mounted neon lighting.

ID: nht93-5.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/17/93 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC-8680)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows:

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

Your two questions and the answer to each follows.

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 2 proposed the use of "one inch wide" retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a "minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape." The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a "minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape." Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide.

Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3 (c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available.

You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801; July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to "metric equivalents" in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term "metric equivalents" was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

2. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that "each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter....." The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening.

In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off.

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.