ID: nht94-7.14

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harry C. Gough, P.E. -- Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/2/93 from Harry C. Gough to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 9398)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 2, 1993, with respect to the term "alternately flashing" as it applies under Safety Standard No. 108 to school bus lamps. You ask for our opinion because a manufacturer of strobe lighting has supplied documentation indicating that the system complies with Standard No. 108.

According to your letter, in this system, the lamp on one side of the school bus (front and rear) "flashes on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the bus repeats the aforementioned pattern." You inquire as to whether "alternately flashing" refers to this pattern, "or do the four distinct on/off cycles on each side of the school bus defeat the intent of the term alternating."

As you know, paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, which requires that school bus warning lamp systems "flash alternately." We believe that the light emanating from a strobe lamp that flashes four times in 0.255 second will be perceived as a single flash of varying intensity and not as four separate flashes, and that when this is followed by an identical pattern on the other side of the bus, the system is one that is alternately flashing within the meaning of Standard No. 108.

Further, under this interpretation, the flash rate meets SAE J887's specification of 60-120 flashes a minute. Unlike other SAE materials incorporated by reference relating to signal lamps (e.g., J1133 School Bus Stop Arms in Standard No. 131 School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices and J590b Automotive Turn Signal Flashers in Standard No. 108), J887 contains no "percent current 'on' time" requirements.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht94-7.15

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J.L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 3/9/94 from J.L. Steffy to Dave Elias (OCC 9753)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of model year designations specified in 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a 1994 model year vehicle may use the symbol "P" to designate model year. The answer is no.

You stated that Triumph wishes to use, in its VIN, a letter code designating the year of vehicle manufacture. Triumph marks the letter "P" in the VIN of a vehicle manufactured in November 1993. Triumph considers this a MY 1994 vehicle.

The format for VIN content information is specified in part 565. Table VI of part 565 specifies that MY 1993 is designated by the letter "P" and MY 1994 is designated by the letter "R." Designating a MY 1994 vehicle with the letter "P," as you wish to do, could engender confusion since it would represent that the vehicle is a MY 1993 vehicle. Such confusion could hinder the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.

You also asked if Triumph may be permitted a modification of the part 565 model year designations and designate its MY 1994 vehicles as "P." The answer is no. NHTSA has no procedures to permit manufacturers to modify or waive any of part 565.

We note that Triumph could use the letter "P" to designate the vehicle as a 1993 MY vehicle. Section 565.3(h) defines "model year" as:

the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.

Assuming the actual production period of the vehicle is less than two calendar years, a vehicle manufactured in November 1993 could be a MY 1993 vehicle, identified by the letter "P."

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

ID: nht94-7.16

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Delapp -- Executive Coach Builders, Inc. (Springfield, MO)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to undated letter from Tom Delapp to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 8868)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, "Door locks and door retention components," as it pertains to the locking mechanism of a so-called "5th" door installed on your limousines. I apologize for the delay in responding. We conclude that the locking mechanism on the 5th door is not prohibited by Standard 206.

Based on your letter and a conversation with David Elias of my office, I understand that you have replaced the extra panel on the right side of a 1993 Lincoln Town Car based limousine with a passenger door (i.e., the 5th door). The door consists completely of the original equipment manufacturer's materials and hinges. The 5th door is a supplementary door, and does not replace or effect in any way the two side rear doors with which your vehicles are normally equipped.

When the 5th door is closed, its locking mechanism engages automatically, and the door cannot be opened from the inside or the outside. A solenoid locking mechanism that unlocks the 5th door is located inside the vehicle in a "privacy panel" behind the driver's seat. For the driver to unlock the 5th door, the car must be stopped and the driver must then get out of the car and reach through a window into the area behind the driver's seat. The locking mechanism cannot be reached by the driver while seated in the driver's seat, and cannot be reached by the passengers in the rear seats. The 5th door cannot be accidentally opened; unless the locking mechanism has been actively disengaged, the door remains locked. Disengaging the locking mechanism for the 5th door allows the driver to open the door from the outside, although passengers could push the door open from the inside, as well.

There are two pertinent requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to your situation. First, S4.1.3 (Door Locks) states that:

Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

In two prior letters, to Mr. Charles Murphy on May 10, 1974, and to Mr. Gary Hackett on April 11, 1988, the agency interpreted S4.1.3 to mean that the locking mechanism must also be OPERABLE from within the vehicle.

The first question to be addressed is whether the 5th door meets the requirement of S4.1.3. We believe the answer is yes, the door is equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle that is operable from within the vehicle. The operating means for the locking mechanism is in the interior of the vehicle in that the locking mechanism engages automatically when the 5th door is closed. While the means to

disengage the operating mechanism is not accessible to occupants in the vehicle, Standard 206 does not require the locking mechanism to be capable of being disengaged by an occupant. This is because the purpose of the standard is to minimize the chance that occupants of the vehicle will be ejected in a collision. Thus, the thrust of the standard is to ensure that occupants are retained within the vehicle, such as by requiring doors to have door locks that occupants are capable of locking.

The second pertinent requirement is S4.1.3.2 (Side Rear Door Locks), which states that:

... when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The 5th door appears to comply with S4.1.3.2, in that it cannot be opened from the outside or inside when the locking mechanism is engaged.

In a letter to Ms. C.D. Black, dated April 10, 1987, the agency interpreted a question on child safety locks that is relevant to your situation. The child safety lock operated as a "secondary locking system" that, when activated, rendered the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. (It had no effect on the outside door handle.) As we stated in that letter, our conclusion was that Standard 206 permitted the child safety lock because the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems that interfere with the ENGAGEMENT, but not with the DISENGAGEMENT, of the primary locking system. In that letter, we wrote:

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of... S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of ENGAGING the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is ENGAGED. Since we have determined that... S4.1.3.2 do(es) not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202)366- 2992.

ID: nht94-7.17

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: Michael E. Klima -- Managing Engineer, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

TO: Edward Jettner -- Safety Standards Engineer, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 208 Compliance for 1988 Pickup Trucks

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/26/94 from John Womack to Michael E. Klima (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Thank you in advance for your time and effort in responding to the following questions relating to the application of the dynamic requirements of FMVSS 208 to pickup trucks. The pickup truck in questions has a production date of April, 1988 and a GVWR of 4,400 pounds.

Specifically, does the S6 'Injury Criteria' requirements of 49 CFR 571.208, that includes the Head Injury Criteria (HIC), apply to this 1988 model pickup truck equipped with a Type 2 lap and shoulder belt protection system for the front outboard seating positions and complies with S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3?

Secondly, is a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test required for this 1988 model pickup truck to comply with all applicable portions of 49 CFR 571.208?

Finally, do all of the requirements listed in the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? If not, which portions of 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? Is this truck in compliance with the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard if it meets or exceeds the portions that you have identified?

I would appreciate your timely written response with regard to this matter. For your convenience a copy of the standard is enclosed. Again, thank you for your time and effort. Please contact me at (810) 649-3775 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-7.18

DATE: March 28, 1994

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 2/21/94 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC 9719)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1994, requesting further clarification of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Section S5.5.3(c) states that "(e)ach opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape." *1 Your letter referenced our July 7, 1993 letter to you in which we stated that S5.5.3(c) permits interruptions in the tape necessary to accommodate curved surfaces and functional components. You requested confirmation "that retro-reflective tape around the perimeter of the rear of a school bus can be used to satisfy the requirements of S5.5.3(c)."

I cannot interpret the requirements of S5.5.3(c) as you request, since for many, if not most, designs the nearest possible location will be closer than the perimeter of the bus. While we appreciate your concerns about durability if numerous cuts or notches are made to accommodate rivets, our July 7 letter stated that manufacturers have the option of placing the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets. As an example, from the illustrations you enclosed, it appears that it may be possible to apply retroreflective tape outside the rivets adjacent to the lower portions of the door. Thus, that would be the nearest possible location, rather than the perimeter of the bus itself. I note, however, that the illustrations do not provide sufficient detail of all obstructions for us to determine the nearest possible location for each design.

I also note that your letter stated in support of your request that all school buses are required to have a rear emergency exit. While this is true, the type of emergency exit will vary and retroreflective tape at the perimeter of the exit would allow rescuers to immediately know the precise location of the exit. Moreover, retroreflective tape at the perimeter would enable rescuers to immediately know which type of exit is in this location. This information could be vitally important. Because push-out windows are not required to have a means of releasing the exit from outside the bus (S5.3.3.2), this information would allow rescuers to quickly determine that they should move to the sides of the bus to locate an exit they can open.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if we did not interpret the standard as you requested. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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

*1 The July 7, 1993 letter also stated that the agency planned to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. This notice has not yet been published. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

ID: nht94-7.19

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- U.S. DOT, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Ray Paradis (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Per my discussion with Taylor Vinson, I have enclosed an overall side view of Dakota Manufacturing Companies 24 ton ramp trailer.

The question is whether a center side marker light is required. The overall length is 30'8" including the ramp in transport position.

In reviewing competition, I cannot find any center lights being used.

ATTACHMENT

Drawing of Trail-Eze, model D20R24. (Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht94-7.2

DATE: April 6, 1994

FROM: Ivan L. Bost -- Director Of Engineering, Comm-Trans, The Sully Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: Federal Ruling On 3 Point Shoulder Harnesses In Rear Outboard Seating Positions In The Vans We Convert For Commercial Use.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack to Ivan L. Bost (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles,

We at Comm-Trans manufacture/convert and sell a line of commercially developed vans for use in the commercial shuttle industry. Our customers represent such markets as hotels, churches, limousine co's, airport ground transportation services, rent-a-car co's and non emergency medical transport co's.

My primary question pertains to whether or not 3 point shoulder harnesses are required in the vehicles that we convert that seat from 10 - 15 people including the driver. Please see the specifications and floor plans I have enclosed. The GVWR of the vehicles in question is in excess of 8500 pounds and less than 10,000 pounds. We as a company have been installing these shoulder harnesses since 1992. The reason for my question is it has recently been brought to our attention at a few of my competitors are not installing shoulder harnesses and are using standard lap belts in the same size and type vans.

I have also talked with Charlie Case in your office and he reinforced what we are doing with the definition of a bus under 571.3 and regulation 208 in section S.4.4.3.2. Please take the time to review this issue and get back with me in writing with a legal interpretation of the standards.

Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-7.20

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributor Association, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to faxes dated 2/14/94 and 1/12/94 from Richard Kreutziger to Walter Myers (OCC 9559); Also attached to letter dated 2/20/87 from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

This responds to your Fax of January 12, 1994, requesting an information on the extent to which a state can adopt requirements for school buses which exceed the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This also responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the location requirements for a side emergency door exit in Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

Your January 12, 1994 FAX requested clarification of when a state could impose requirements on school buses which exceeded the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Specifically, you asked whether the state could impose such requirements on (1) a public school and (2) a contractor providing transportation for a public school. 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 FMVSS that are different from the applicable FMVSS, 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 imposing higher requirements would be preempted under S103(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. In addition, the agency has previously interpreted the phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" to include public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school. See, for example, February 20, 1987 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin (copy enclosed).

Your February 14, 1994 FAX asked whether the November 2 final rule permits a right side emergency exit door to be to the rear of the passenger compartment.

The answer is yes. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

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

(Appendix omitted.)

ID: nht94-7.21

DATE: March 25, 1994

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 11/15/93 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 15, 1993, in which you requested an interpretation of the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993, 58 FR 4586, which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection to include requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems.

You referred to the second sentence in S5.4.3.2 of the standard which provides in pertinent part: "When more than one wheelchair occupant restraint shares a common anchorage, the anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons multiplied by the number of occupant restraints sharing that anchorage." You stated that you believe that this language is intended to address the situation where restraints from two different wheelchair occupant restraint systems share a common anchorage, and is not intended to address the situation "where the lower end of an upper torso restraint joins the pelvic restraint and goes to one of the rear floor anchorages of a single occupant's restraint system." You stated that if the latter, the floor anchorage would be required to withstand a force of 13,344 Newtons each for the upper torso restraint and the pelvic restraint; and if the wheelchair was also secured to that floor anchorage, the anchorage would be required to withstand 3 x 13,344 Newtons.

Your letter included two figures illustrating typical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system designs. In Figure 1, the upper torso restraint is attached to the lap belt at the buckle, and the lap belt is attached to the vehicle at the same anchorage as the rear anchorage for the wheelchair securement device. In Figure 2, the upper torso restraint is also attached to the lap belt; however, the lap belt is attached to the rear wheelchair securement device instead of the wheelchair securement anchorage. You asked for verification that the required load for the rear anchorages for both designs is 2 x 13,344 Newtons rather than 3 x 13,344 Newtons.

You are correct that the load for the rear anchorages for both these designs would be 26,688 Newtons (2 x 13,344 Newtons). The relevant section to determine this load is S5.4.3.2(e) which states:

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) and S5.4.3.2 (13,344 Newtons) shall be applied simultaneously...

The term "wheelchair occupant restraint" includes both the pelvic and upper torso restraints (see S5.4.4). In your designs, each rear floor anchorage would be required by S5.4.3.2(e) to withstand a combined force of 26,688 Newtons, which includes the load specified for the wheelchair occupant restraint and the load specified for the wheelchair securement device.

The second sentence of S5.4.3.2, which you quoted in your letter, addresses the situation where the wheelchair occupant restraints for more than one wheelchair, e.g. two wheelchairs, are secured to the same floor anchorage. This requirement parallels a requirement in S5.4.1.3 which addresses the situation where the wheelchair securement devices for more than one wheelchair are secured to the same floor anchorage. Thus, for example, if either of your designs were installed in a bus such that the right rear anchorage was shared with another identical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system (functioning as the left rear anchorage for the second system), that floor anchorage must be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons for each occupant restraint system and 13,344 Newtons for each wheelchair securement system, for a total force of 4 x 13,344 Newtons, such force to be applied simultaneously as required by S5.4.3.2(e).

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.22

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: Roger W. Bruett -- Chief; Signed by Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Carol I. Morton (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

It has come to our attention, new headlamps are being installed on BMWs, 750 models. These lamps are called XENON and are "Hella SSB 352 (lower beam) and Hella SSB 328 (upper beam) with replaceable bulb headlamp with glass lens and plastic reflector.

This office received a complaint from a BMW Dealership indicating an owner of one of these vehicles is being continually stopped by law enforcement because of these headlamps. The reason for concern from the officers, is the intensity of the light beam from these lamps is much whiter and appears to be stronger.

We would like to know if these headlamps are legal for use on motor vehicles. A report was sent to us stating they meet all the requirements of the FMVSS 108. This report was generated by ETL Testing Laboratory in New York.

I would appreciate your response on this subject as soon as possible.