ID: nht94-7.50

DATE: March 9, 1994

FROM: Doug Bereuter -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from Christopher A. Hart to Doug Bereuter (A42; Part 303)

TEXT:

I am writing to convey my continuing intense interest in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rulemaking concerning compressed natural gas vehicle fuel systems and fuel containers. As I have made absolutely clear to you and other Department of Transportation officials, ANY FURTHER DELAYS IN THE COMPLETION OF THE RULEMAKING SIMPLY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. Every day that goes by without a final rule creates further hardship for Brunswick Corporation and its employees. CLEAR PROGRESS ON THIS MATTER IS IMPERATIVE! Let me know the status of the rulemaking.

ID: nht94-7.6

DATE: April 4, 1994

FROM: William G. Franz -- Vice President, Fabrication, Wells Aluminum

TO: Walter Myers -- NHTSA

TITLE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to William G. Franz (Std. 217)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers:

Subsequent to our recent phone conversation, I am formally requesting an interpretation of paragraph S.5.1.2 regarding the window opening size. Specifically, my question is as follows:

Does the 8 inch window opening size apply to the total outside frame dimension or does it apply to each pane of glass? The enclosed picture shows a typical retention test being performed on a push out window with two separately framed pieces of glass. In other words, would a pane of glass which measures less than 8 inches across need to be subject to the retention test?

For your information, Wells Aluminum Corporation manufactures push out windows for the school bus industry.

I look forward to your response.

WGF/cih

myers.ltr

ID: nht94-7.7

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from Jane L. Dawson to Walter Myers

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed two questions regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Your first question related to the definition of "daylight opening" found in the final rule amending FMVSS 217, dated November 2, 1992, (57 FR 49413) (hereinafter Final Rule). Specifically, you asked "(w)hat constitutes an obstruction and how close to the door does an object have to be in order to be considered an obstruction?"

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. I have enclosed a copy of a March 24, 1994 letter to Mr. Bob Carver of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles which provides an example of how the amount of area to be credited was determined for a specific design.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993, (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

In your second question you referred to the current provisions of S5.2.3.1(b), FMVSS 217, which provides that a left-side emergency door must be located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. You then asked whether that requirement was changed in the Final Rule. The answer is yes.

Section S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217, as amended in the Final Rule, provides manufacturers two options for the provision of school bus emergency exits, S5.2.3.1(a) (Option A) and S5.2.3.1(b) (Option B). Option A requires a rear emergency door. If additional emergency exit area is required, the first additional emergency exit must be a left side door located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. Option B requires a left-side emergency door and a pushout rear window, but does not designate a specific location for them. Thus, the amended standard does not specify a location for a left-side emergency door installed for Option B, the equivalent of current S5.3.3.2(b).

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Walter myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.8

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William D. McIntosh -- Quality Assurance Manager, Perstorp Components (Ontario, Canada)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/93 from William D. McIntosh to Chief Council, NHTSA (via John Messera)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S 571.302), applies to your product. You state that you manufacture a "composite assembly acoustical abatement product" that is installed against vehicle sheet metal and is then covered by carpet, trim, or the instrument panel. You had further questions about testing your product and certifying its compliance if the Standard applies to it. I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The "Safety Act") establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Under the Safety Act's authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 302 which specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Among the listed items that might be applicable to your acoustical abatement product are floor coverings and engine compartment covers. That is, the standard would apply to your product if the acoustical abatement material is a part of one of the covered items and is within 1/2" of the occupant compartment.

You indicate in your letter that you are uncertain whether to test your product to Standard No. 302 as a composite with other materials. S4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 states, "Any material that adheres to other material(s) at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a composite...." You indicate in your letter that your product has multiple layers that always

adhere to each other. Accordingly, assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 302, the agency would test your product as a composite material, in accordance with S4.2.2.

Please note that there are other NHTSA requirements that could affect the manufacture and sale of your product. A motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer incorporating your product in its vehicles or equipment would be subject to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles or equipment do not contain any safety related defect. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act 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 motor vehicle safety standard..." Under this section, the entities mentioned above are required to ensure that the addition of your product would not adversely affect the compliance of any component or element of design on a vehicle with an applicable Federal safety standard. With respect to Standard No. 302, the addition of your product must not reduce the vehicle's overall flammability resistance.

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

ID: nht94-7.9

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marc D. Marutani -- National Truck Sales Manager, ARI (Mt. Laurel, NJ)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/31/94 from Marc D. Marutani -- National Truck Sales Manager, ARI (OCC 9660)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 31, 1994, requesting an interpretation of whether a 15-passenger Ford Econoline Wagon would be considered a school bus. "The client requesting the vehicle is a mental health and substance abuse facility handling adolescents on a full-time on-site basis. There is a school located on the premises, since the children reside at the location. The vehicle's purpose would primarily be used for miscellaneous transportation of juvenile patients and facility personnel, both on and off campus, as opposed to providing commuting services to and from home."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify our requirements for school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including new school buses. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, which "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell or lease any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if they are aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus.

Whether you are required to sell or lease a certified school bus to your client depends on the anticipated use of the vehicle. The mental health and substance abuse facility operated by your client is not a school, however, it does operate a school on the premises. If your client were to purchase or lease a new bus to be used solely for transporting students to athletic events at other schools, it would be a violation of Federal law for you to sell or lease them a new vehicle that is not a school bus. This is because the vehicle would clearly be significantly used as a school bus. On the other hand, it is not a violation of Federal law for you to sell or lease them a new vehicle that is not a school bus if your client will use the vehicle for general purposes, even though such vehicles may be used occasionally to transport students to school- related events. Your letter states that the vehicle would be used for "miscellaneous transportation." If a significant portion of that use would not be transportation of students to school-related events, you are not required to sell or lease a school bus.

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.

ID: nht94-8.1

DATE: March 8, 1994

FROM: David A. Scott -- President, RKS International L.L.C.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to David A. Scott (A42; Part 591)

TEXT:

After contacting your Chicago representative, I was informed that you were the authoritative person qualified to respond to my inquiries.

RK Technologies, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation. We deal mostly with China. We are presently considering importing from China to the United States fiberglass kit cars. Our consideration is to import the cars either disassembled or partially assembled in China. We will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S., for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires,etc. The cars will be sold in the United States.

Please provide us with the information guidelines and/or restrictions that will have to be met to ensure compliance with the possible imports and with the assembling and circulation of cars in the U.S.

I would appreciate your prompt attention and response and I thank you in advance.

ID: nht94-8.10

DATE: February 15, 1994

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

TO: George Entwistle -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert Hellmuth -- OVSC, NHTSA; Thomas Turner -- Specialty Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: NEF-31GEn/NCI 3302

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/8/94 from John Womack to Thomas Turner (A42; Std. 131); Also attached to letter dated 1/26/83 from Frank Berndt to Thomas D. Turner

TEXT:

Last Week I received by FAX an advanced copy of NCI 3302 concerning an apparent non-compliance of stop arms with strobe lights to FMVSS 131 Section S6.2.2, "Flash Rate." Blue Bird is forwarding a copy of NCI 3302 to our supplier of stop arms, Specialty Manufacturing Company in Pineville, North Carolina, so that they can determine if a non-compliance exists.

In studying the requirements of S5.3, a question has arisen. S5.3 Conspicuity states "The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both." Some of the stop arms we install are reflectorized and have strobe lights. Based on NCI 3302, it appears that the strobe lights do not comply with S6.2.2, so these stop arms do not comply with the "S5.3.2" or the "both" option of Section S5.3. However, these stop arms fully comply with the S5.3.1 option of Section S5.3; and the use of the strobe lights could be considered as optional lighting, not required by FMVSS 131 and therefore not required to meet the requirements of S6.2.

NOTE: As a general rule, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No. 108 as long as it does not "impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment" required by the standard. (See attached letter from Chief Counsel dated January 26, 1983.)

It is our understanding that a stop signal arm that fully complies with the requirements of S5.3.1 has satisfied the requirements of S5.3 Conspicuity, even if it has optional strobe lights installed that do not meet S5.3.2.

WE REQUEST CONFIRMATION THAT THE OVSC CONSIDERS A REFLECTORIZE STOP SIGNAL ARM THAT FULLY COMPLIES WITH S5.3.1 AS COMPLIANT WITH S5.3 WITH OR WITHOUT STROBE LIGHTS INSTALLED.

Your immediate response is needed so that we can proceed with work on our response to NCI 3302.

ID: nht94-8.11

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/2/93 from Jane L. Dawson to Charlie Hott (OCC-9045)

TEXT:

This responds to your questions about a December 2, 1992, rule that amended Standard No. 111, Rear-view mirrors, by establishing field-of-view requirements around school buses (57 FR 57000). The rule amended Standard No. 111 to require a bus driver to be able to see, either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of and along both sides of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your first question asks: Are we required to certify that the mirror system HAS THE ABILITY to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system HAS BEEN adjusted?

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each new vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicle complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). NHTSA evaluates a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards using the test procedures and conditions specified in the FMVSS's. Standard 111 requires that specified areas must be visible when viewed from the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female (S9, S13). The test procedures of S13 state that, when testing a school bus, NHTSA will adjust an adjustable mirror to the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female before the test, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations (S13.3). Of course, to comply with Standard 111, the mirror will have to be able to be adjusted to the required location at the time NHTSA tests the vehicle.

Your second question asks: Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area straight down from the mirrors and 200 feet rearward?

In an October 21, 1993, telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you ask whether S9.2 of Standard 111 requires measurement beginning at the ground below the System A mirror (and extending at least 200 feet behind that plane).

The answer is yes, the mirror must provide a view of the area straight down from that mirror and extending 200 feet rearward. Section S9.2 states that each school bus must have two outside rearview mirror systems: A System A driving mirror and a System B convex cross view mirror. The System A mirror on the left side of the bus is required by S9.2(b)(2) to provide a view of "the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, AND OF THAT AREA OF THE GROUND WHICH EXTENDS REARWARD FROM THE MIRROR SURFACE not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet)" (emphasis added).

Please note that the agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition in which Blue Bird Body Company has requested that the agency amend

Standard No. 111, with respect to System A driving mirrors.

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

ID: nht94-8.12

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Attorney at Law

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/7/94 from John Womack to Lawrence A. Beyer (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter requests an opinion letter from your office concerning the re-importation of a certified vehicle.

My client wishes to re-import vehicles which were certified by the original manufacturer and purchased in the U.S. These vehicles would then be modified and sent back to the U.S. The vehicles in question are motorcycles which would then have a shell placed around it. The frame would be slightly modified and seating lowered to incorporate the design. However, my client would not knowingly render inoperative wholly or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with the FMVSS.

On November 16, 1992, your office issued a letter regarding this matter. Please advise me if this letter is still your interpretation.

ID: nht94-8.13

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Gary D. March -- Director, Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Gary D. March (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the safety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion corresponds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She indicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in- between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be

delivered and perhaps have bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.