ID: 77-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. Dujoff for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Martha Storts Amster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 20, 1977, letter concerning Federal school bus safety standards. Your letter was forwarded to us by Ms. Margaret Costanza, Assistant to the President, since these standards are promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

As you may know, several new school bus safety standards are applicable to school buses built after April 1, 1977. These standards were established in accordance with a directive from Congress in the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). Congress enacted that directive after determining that school buses deserved additional safety protection to prevent deaths and reduce injuries.

In your letter, you contend that our standard pertaining to school bus seating (Standard No. 222) requires seat spacing that is too small for older school children. It is our understanding after extensive consultations with bus manufacturers that the new school bus seat spacing requirements result in seat spacing that is essentially equivalent to seat spacing in buses manufactured prior to April 1. Therefore, most new school buses should be manufactured similar to older buses as far as seat spacing is concerned. Some school buses, however, may have slightly reduced seat spacing. We are aware of concerns expressed about reduced seat spacing in some new buses. We are not convinced that the problem originates from the requirements of Standard No. 222, however. Currently, we are examining buses manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the standard to determine whether a modification of the standard is necessary.

Maximum seat spacing has been controlled in buses to provide for the passive restraint of school bus occupants. The seat backs in the new buses are designed to absorb the force of children colliding with them during a crash. If seat spacing were increased, the seats in these buses would not be capable of absorbing sufficient impact force to protect children in accidents. The NHTSA adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus safety in response to public comments claiming that to require only seat belts in school buses would not be sufficient since the belts might not be used by many children. Accordingly, to provide a significant increase in occupant protection, the agency adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus seat safety.

In a final question in your letter, you ask about the costs and benefits of the new school bus safety standards' requirements. The agency has estimated that the total industry cost of compliance with those standards is approximately $ 40 million annually. The benefits should include a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries resulting from school bus accidents.

If I can be of further assistance to you, do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

July 19, 1977

Dear Ms. Amstor:

Thank you so much for your letter and for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

So that your letter might receive benefit of the best possible consideration, I hope you will not mind that I have asked other interested offices here to thoroughly review it and assist me by responding directly to you. I trust you will be hearing from them very shortly.

With all best wishes,

MARGART COSTANZA Assistant to The President

June 28, 1977

Midge Costanza The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington D.C.

Enclosed is recent correspondence that I believe should be brought to the attention of someone on President Carter's staff. Quite possibly ninety percent of the problems dealt with in the oval office are inherited. Let's hope this administration will have the foresight to prevent situations like this from developing in the future.

Martha Storts Amster

I would guess that President Carter knows the Luce family that owns Blue Bird Body Company. Fort Valley is only 60 miles from Plains.

June 20, 1977

Senator Dennis Deconcini

I am writing you concerning new safety regulations from the Department of Transportation as they apply to the school bus industry. My husband, Harry Amster, is a school bus distributor for Blue Bird Body Company, whose main plant is in Fort Valley, Georgia.

The particular regulations that concern me are those regarding seats and seat spacing. Harry has taken delivery on one bus, brought it to Arizona, showed it to the State Inspectors, and is awaiting their decision before taking delivery on the remaining buses already built in Georgia. When the inspectors saw this bus last Thursday, they did not pass it. They went back to the State to see how the others in their department interpreted this new law. They were calling people in California and in Washington to find out exactly what they think it means. The people at the plant in Fort Valley evidently interpreted the law as they understood it, and have built a whole bunch of buses that way. The crux of the problem is that someone got confused. The seats in the bus in Arizona are fine for elementary children, but most unsatisfactory for high school youngsters or adults. Extra padding on the back of the seats plus spacing requirements does not allow enough knee room. These requirements have added $ 1200.00 to the cost of each new bus. This, plus the fact that the cost of buses has risen 20% in the last 3 years, is pyramiding the costs that must be passed on to the school districts. As these costs rise, more and more states are going to state purchasing, thus eliminating the local distributors. My husband is a leader in his field, provides good service for his customers, has a serviceman and a truck on the road in Arizona to satisfy the needs of his customers and employs 50 people in his business.

So it appears to me that the fact that the school bus industry had the safest record of public transportation to offer was ignored when the law was passed. The position of the factory is that the buses meet the Federal requirements, so it's up to the distributor to sell this product to his customer. The State will have to compromise its position or the schools won't have buses in the fall. The fact that some kids on the Hopi Reservation have to ride a bus 80 miles one way to get to school with their legs jammed in small space will just be ignored. The fact that the school people did not want padding on the back of the seats because of vandalism and higher maintenance is of no consequence.

Who is the ultimate loser? What is the real cost of the new Department of Transportation standards for scholl buses? Were they necessary at all? Whatever the answers, there are certainly going to be some busy people all across the United States before the true implications of these new regulations are known. It would be impossible to estimate the productive man hours lost and the dollar value wasted because someone decided to set mandatory equalizing standards for the sake of conformity and protection.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION,

Martha Storts Amster

June 29, 1977

Representative Morris Udall

This is a follow up to my letter of last week to Dennis DeConcici about the school bus problem in Arizona.

My husband just returned from a trip to the Blue Bird Body Company in Fort Valley, Georgia. The Blue Bird factory people are making every effort to help straighten out the seating problems created by the new DOT standards. While Harry was there, he worked with them in the bus yard; they measured all the seats and the spacing between the rows. The decision was made to assess each individual district, school, and age of the potential riders. Harry called each district that was affected. Blue Bird is going to take out the seats in the 26 buses that are already built for Arizona. They will reinstall them according to the district's needs, providing this does not exceed the federal standards which are generally accepted to be 25 1/4 inches of kneespace. This is not adequate for adult seating. Enclosed is a copy of correspondence that Blue Bird used to determine its calculations. I doubt if it is customary for lawyers in Washington to ride school buses, much less, those on the Hopi reservation from Keams Canyon to Winslow. According to the wording in his letter, he cannot be held accountable, anyhow.

Harry said it was really hot in Georgia this week, and that he and the other fellows working with him knew how hot it was. I have a feeling it's really going to be hot for the men who have to change all those seats, because after they do the buses for Arizona, there are another 140 units already built for other school districts around the country. Those seats will probably have to be changed, too. I do not know what Blue Bird will do about the assembly line. Somebody ought to send the fellow in DOT who set those standards to Fort Valley with a screwdriver. Enclosed in a copy of a letter I received from Joe Luce, one of the owners of Blue Bird Body Company.

There is another requirement, Joint Strength Standard #221, that states that a joint must be 60% as strong as the two members it joins. As interpreted by Blue Bird, there are 330% more interior rivets, 175% more interpreted by Blue Bird. there are 330% more interior (Illegible Word) 175% more exterior rivets, and 57 joints more redesigned. This requirement added $ 523.00 per unit over last year's models. Blue Bird decided to use rivets; some of the other manufacturers plan to use (Illegible Word) I'm going to allow someone else to fuss about that requirement -- when they can't unglue the panels to repair damaged ones.

Harry said the trip to Fort Valley cost him about $ 1000.00. While he was gone, he missed a hid opening and lost two buses to one of his competitors -- so I don't think he plans to go back for a while. However, if there is any more legislation pending that concerns regulations on school buses, we would like to be notified so we can make arrangements to be in Washington for the hearing.

My mother, Ruth Storts, has been out of town: I talked with her yesterday and she told me she had received acknowledgement from the White House about the letter you took to Washington for us. It is really good to know that we have representatives from Arizona who try to do what they say they are going to do. Thank you for the excellent delivery service.

Martha Storts Amster

ID: 77-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/23/77 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: ROBERT K. DORNAN -- MEMBER, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7/29/77 FROM WILLIAM B. STOVER TO BRIAN YOUNG OF CONGRESSMAN DORNAN'S OFFICE; LETTER DATED 3/4/71 FROM MR. FERGUSON -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO EISUKE NIGUMA OF TOYOKOKYO COMPANY, LTD.

TEXT: Dear Mr. Dornan:

This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1977, to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, forwarding a letter from Mr. William B. Stover, concerning seat belts in his 1977 Datsun.

The automotive businesses, contacted by Mr. Stover to have the third belt assembly installed in the rear seat of his vehicle, are apparently basing their denials to accept the work on Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397 (a)(2)(A)) which prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with applicable standards. I am assuming their fears would be that the installation of the additional belt assembly might compromise the effectiveness of the other two belt assemblies in a crash situation by increasing the load in the area of the inboard belt anchorages beyond the design limits if two adults inadvertently used one of the existing belt assemblies and the new belt assembly, and a potential product liability situation might be created.

I sincerely appreciate Mr. Stover's desire to modify his vehicle, not to circumvent the safety standard, but to protect his children. There is no provision in the Act that prevents Mr. Stover from modifying his vehicle, however, the automotive repair facilities cannot be forced to make the modification. Mr. Stover is free to purchase and install the belt assembly himself.

I hope this information is sufficient to satisfy Mr. Stover. Please contact me again if you need further information.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-4.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 8, 1977, letter posing several hypothetical questions concerning the responsibility to attach a new label to a vehicle if altered prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Section 108(b) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), states that the prohibition against the delivery of a nonconforming vehicle "shall not apply to the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle. . . .after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." You ask at what point in time the "first purchase" is deemed to have occurred. We have taken the position that the purchase is not complete until the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser.

In general, the issuance of title to which you refer in your letter is irrelevant to a determination of whether there is a need for the manufacturer's representative to attach a new label to an altered vehicle, as required by Part 567.7, Certification. Delivery of the vehicle is the point at which the first purchase is complete and the responsibility to attach a new label ceases. We would note that if the issue of vehicle modification is raised and decided upon during the sales conversations we would consider a subsequent modification occurring after the point of delivery to be an event requiring the attachment of a new label.

In particular response to your hypotheticals, paragraphs B and D through H represent occasions when vehicle alterations would result in the need to attach a new label in accordance with the requirements of Part 567.7. The reason for this conclusion is that all of the hypotheticals result in the alteration of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), or gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) or the attachment or removal of non-readily attachable components. There would be no need, in paragraphs B and D, to attach a new label if the vehicle manufacturer had availed himself of the option of listing alternative GAWR's, with appropriate tire sizes, as long as the newly installed tires were among those listed on the certification label.

Paragraphs A and C do not present alteration situations in which the GVWR or the GAWR are affected. Although the tires would have a greater load capacity than that rated on the vehicle label, there is no need to change the rating of the vehicle, as is the case when tires are installed that have lower load capacities. Further, the installation of tires constitutes the installation of readily attachable components. Therefore, there is no need to attach a new label in accordance with Part 567.7 in these situations.

ID: 77-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Grand Teton Trading Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 12, 1977, requesting information concerning the certification requirements for acrylic glazing to be used in motor vehicles. Specifically, you are interested in the separate certification responsibilities of the company that manufactures the acrylic sheets, the company that cuts and shapes the acrylic, and the company that constructs aluminum frames around the acrylic and sells windows to the customized van market.

Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.3 of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specify that prime glazing material manufacturers shall certify each piece of glazing that is for use in motor vehicles in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) and with section 6 of the ANS Z26 standard. These requirements would be applicable to the company from which you buy acrylic sheets, since that company would qualify as a prime glazing material manufacturer.

As a manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing for use in a motor vehicle, your company would be required to certify its product in the same fashion as your supplier (paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205). Please note, however, that under section 6 of ANS Z26 your company is required to mark any section of glazing that it cuts with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was cut. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to the certification markings on the acrylic sheets you purchased.

The company that constructs aluminum around the glazing and sells windows to the customized van market would be required to certify its product in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment (including glazing) may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must certify that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, Standard No. 205 in this case.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

GRAND TETON TRADING CO.

September 12, 1977

Guy Hunter Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

I have been advised by Mr. Bradley Marks of your Colorado office to write you concerning clarifications of the Motor Vehicle Standard No. 205.

We are a company who intends to purchase acrylic sheets from a manufacturer that states his product has been certified to meet the requirements of ANSI-Z26. We intend to cut sections of the acrylic sheets to various shapes that will be used as window inserts. Our customer will construct aluminum frames around the acrylic insert and market the window to the customized van market.

Based upon the situation stated above, I have the following questions:

1. What should I expect from the manufacturer of the acrylic sheets in the area of ANSI-Z26 certification?

2. What is our company required to do to comply with ANSI-Z26?

3. What is our customer required to do to comply with ANSI-Z26?

This is a new market area for our company and we would appreciate any information and clarification you can provide.

Robert P. Ducey

ID: 77-4.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Avon Tyres Limited

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your petition of September 28, 1977, for an inconsequentiality determination has been forwarded to this office for reply.

The "noncompliance" in question is the failure of Avon Tyres to provide correct spacing between the symbol DOT and the alphanumeric code on certain tires. This requirement is imposed by 49 CFR 574.5. In addition S4.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 requires that each tire "shall be labelled with the . . . brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer in the manner specified in Part 574". The requirement in question is primarily one of information rather than one of safety performance, and we therefore choose to regard the incorrect spacing as a noncompliance with Part 574.

A manufacturer's obligation to notify and remedy arises only upon the discovery of a safety-related defect, or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore Avon's failure to correctly space the information required by Part 574 is neither a safety-related defect nor a noncompliance with a safety standard, and it has no obligation to notify and remedy. Since Avon's petition is moot, it will not be considered.

No corrective action is required for the tires in question. We note Avon's assurances of future conformance and we will close our files without imposing a civil penalty for the company's technical violation of Part 574.

YOURS TRULY,

F. Armstrong, Director, Office Of Standards Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

SEPTEMBER 28, 1977

I enclose herewith a Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Non-Compliance in respect of the tires mentioned in your letter to the Universal Tire Company -- Reference NMV-22R Au. PC1 7708-040.1. The date of your letter was September 9th, but we did not receive a copy here until September 23rd. The petition is signed by a Director of the Avon Rubber Co. Ltd.,

I trust the format is satisfactory, but if you require any clarification or amendments please contact me.

B. E. Clapson Technical Director Avon Tyres Limited

Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Non-Compliance

Introduction

This Petition is made in accordance with Part 556 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. It concerns tires as referred to in letter NMV-22RAu PC1 7708-040.1, dated September 9th, 1977, from the U.S. Dept. of Transportation to Universal Tire Corporation. More details of these tires are given in the appropriate section below.

Petitioner

The Petitioner is the Avon Rubber Co. Ltd., of Bath Road, Melksham, Wiltshire, England, a Corporation organised and existing under the laws of England.

Items Involved

The items specifically involved are passenger car tires of "Bolide" brand contained in two shipments through Portland, Oregon, as follows:-

Container 4252157 100 units 155SR12 Tubeless

250 units 155SR13 Tubeless

550 units 165SR13 Tubeless

100 units 175SR13 Tubeless

100 units 165SR14 Tubeless

100 units 175HR14 Tubeless

50 units 155SR15 Tubeless

250 units 165SR15 Tubeless

Sub Total 1500 units

Also Container 4295605

400 units 155SR13 Tubeless

300 units 165SR13 Tubeless

100 units 175SR13 Tubeless

100 units 165SR14 Tubeless

100 units 175HR14 Tubeless 100 units 155SR15 Tubeless

400 units 165SR15 Tubeless

Sub Total 1500 units

Grand Total 3000 units

These specific tires were produced in the period January-July 1977. Other Bolide brand tires of earlier periods of manufacture are in service in the United States. These have similar errors in markings and it is requested that this Petition be regarded as including such earlier tires.

Defect or Nonconformity

With reference to Figure 1 of Part 574 Rev 11/29/74, the letters D.O.T. are more than 0.75 inch from the alphanumeric code on the following sizes of tire

175SR13 Tubeless (actual separation 1.5 inches) 165SR13 Tubeless (actual separation 5 inches)

In addition the distances between tire size codes and tire type codes are between 0.75 inch and 1.0 inch on all moulds, instead of the correct separation of between 0.25 and 0.75 inch.

Views and Arguments

Exemption is sought for the above errors in markings on the grounds:

that they are unrelated to any safety or performance characteristics of the tires and that they

do not result in any wrong or misleading information being conveyed to the user.

All the necessary information concerning the tires is contained in the markings as they stand, and they can be readily understood by anyone familiar with such code marks.

However we recognise that the purpose of Part 574 is to standardise markings for the benefit of consumers, and we have taken urgent steps to bring all our markings into conformity. We deeply regret that these errors have arisen and that a mistake early in our DOT engraving programme should have been allowed to proliferate and become the standard for subsequent mould markings. Suitable corrections to the moulds are in hand and tires bearing date codes of 417 and subsequent will conform in all respects with Part 574.

Director

AVON RUBBER COMPANY LIMITED

ID: 77-4.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/10/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Satterlee, Mestayer & Freeman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 31, 1977, to our Fort Worth, Texas office and October 7, 1977, telephone conversation with Robert Churella of my staff concerning the existence of any Federal motor vehicle standard that would require doors on garbage trucks.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that require vehicles to be equipped with doors. In fact, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 571.206), which regulates door locks and door retention components, specifically exempts from its application those motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has, however, promulgated a standard requiring trucks manufactured after July 1, 1971, to be equipped with seat belts. This requirement would provide protection for an individual riding in a vehicle without a side door.

SINCERELY,

Request for Ruling on Rights of Accident Victim Described in Attached Letter

September 16, 1977

Regional Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Joseph J. Levin, NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The regional office has received the attached request for a DOT position statement concerning the described accident. I am therefore forwarding the attached request to your office for consideration.

E. Robert Anderson

ATTACH.

SATTERLEE, MESTAYER & FREEMAN

August 31, 1977

Dept. of Transportation National Highway Transportation Safety RE: Mary Johnson vs. Continental Insurance Company, et als Civil Action No. 77-2583 Our File #77-506

I represent Mary Johnson, concerning an accident which her son was involved in on or about June, 1977. Mrs. Johnson's son, Herman Johnson, was driving a garbage truck on a Louisiana highway, and was involved in an automobile accident, whereby he was ejected from the vehicle. The vehicle did not have any doors whatsoever on it.

I have written the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and have been informed by this agency, that the above occurance is not under OSHA jurisdiction. Since the accident occurred on a Louisiana highway, I am of the opinion that the Department of Transportation would have jurisdiction over any complaint which my client has.

I am requesting that you furnish to my office a Department of Transportation complaint pertaining to the above.

Thanking you for your time and cooperation, I remain

Charlotte A. Hayes

ID: 77-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/10/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills and Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1977, to Mr. Francis Armstrong of our Office of Standards Enforcement, in which you asked whether our regulations require seat belts in fifth wheel vehicles.

Our seat belt requirements are specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), which applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. I am assuming that by fifth wheel vehicle you mean a towed vehicle attached to the towing vehicle by means of a fifth wheel. If I am correct in this assumption, these vehicles would be classified as trailers, which are not subject to Standard No. 208. There would therefore be no Federal requirement for seat belts in these vehicles.

SINCERELY,

October 4, 1977

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcements Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

To further promote the R.V. industry, the Pennsylvania Recreational Vehicle and Camping Association (PRVCA) supported fifth-wheel riding, provided certain safety features were incorported.

Now, fifth wheel riding has been made part of the Pennsylvania Vehicle code, becoming legal July 1, 1977. This brings to 25 the number of states that have made it legal to ride in fifth wheels. The law requires seat belts in all designated seating. Would you please advise me as to how the code speaks to the use of seat belts in fifth wheel vehicles.

Thank you for your assistance.

Robert W. Locke Manager RV Sales -- INDIANA MILLS AND MANUFACTURING, INC.

ID: 77-4.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 11, 1977

FROM: James Tydings -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Roger Tilton -- Office of the Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: Re "Head Start" Buses

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-21-77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to James Tydings; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ron Marion (A37; VSA 102(14) Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from Frank Berndt (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Martin V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 5-12-81 from Frank Berndt to Doris Perlmutter; Also attached to letter dated 6-11-90 from Ron Marion to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 4915)

TEXT:

It is our understanding that the latest definition of a school bus was issued on December 23, 1975, with an effective date of October 27, 1976. This definition was published in the Federal Register Vol. 40, No. 251, Wednesday, December 31, 1975.

In the preamble of this notice, the reference is made to the (The Act)- Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974.

This Act included a definition of a "school bus" wherein this definition used the word "preprimary" as referring to students.

If this be true, are we correct that "Head Start" buses used to transport preprimary students to the Head Start Programs, funded by HEW, are school buses as defined in the above notice, and are subjected to all of the Federal Motor Vehicles Standards applicable to school buses?

Thanking you in advance, we remain sincerely yours.

ID: 77-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rototron Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1977, with respect to moped tires. You have informed us that you wish to manufacture mopeds that would be equipped with an unspecified quantity of tires that are "not marked with the letters DOT and [do not] have the letters UY which is the code assigned by the DOT to this company. . ." You have asked "to have an interim approval from your office for use of this tire until we can arrange for this manufacturer to engrave the necessary letters in their mold".

The symbol "DOT" is the tire manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Without that certification a moped manufacturer would appear to have no reasonable basis for certifying that vehicles of his manufacture equipped with these tires comply with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your use of these tires might therefore be an apparent violation of the certification requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act subjecting you to civil penalties. If the tires in fact failed to comply, additional penalties could be imposed, and you would be required to notify and remedy the noncompliance.

The fact that part of a foreign manufacturer's production may be certified as meeting DOT standards cannot be relied upon as an assurance that a tire that is not marked with the DOT symbol or manufacturer code letters will also comply. Indeed, it is a prima facie indication that the tire was not manufactured for the American market and does not meet Federal safety standards.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

September 1, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are about to enter the manufacture of a moped and we wish to make use of a tire which is manufactured by the CHENG-SHIN CO. of Taiwan. This tire is imported for the Worksman Trading Co. in Brooklyn, New York, and bears the name WTC and is marked "Made in Taiwan", but is not marked with the letters DOT and it doesn't bear the letters UY which is the code assigned by the DOT to this company whose product line generally speaking is DOT approved and marked accordingly.

We wish to have an interim approval from your office for use of this tire until we can arrange for the manufacturer to engrave the necessary letters in their mold.

Very truly yours, ROTOTRON CORPORATION; Stuart Pivar President

ID: 77-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Wagner Electric Corporation's October 26, 1977, request for confirmation that S5.6.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, does not prohibit the use of a two-valve sequential means to release the parking brakes on a towed vehicle.

I have enclosed for your information an interpretation that addresses this question, stating that a two-valve sequential release is permissible under S5.6.4.

SINCERELY, This responds to your April 23, 1974, question whether Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, is a proposal, whether buses manufactured after January 1, 1975, must conform to Standard No. 121 under all circumstances, what "cut-off date" exists for determination of brake equipment suppliers' ability to provide 121 components on time, and to what extent a bus must be completed to be certified as in compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

Standard No. 121 has been a final rule since February 27, 1971, and had an effective date of January 1, 1973. In 1972 the effective date was postponed until September 1, 1974. Recently the NHTSA further delayed the effective date for trucks and buses until March 1, 1975, having concluded that suppliers will be able to supply all necessary components by that date.

All buses manufactured after the effective date of an applicable standard must comply with its requirements, under @ 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (13 U.S.C. @ 1392(a)(1)), which states "No person shall . . . manufacture for sale . . . any motor vehicle . . . on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard. . . ."

You asked whether a trailer which is substantially complete before the effective date but lacks one or more parts due to parts shortages can be certified as conforming although it is equipped with a pre-121 brake system. By analogy with the rules allowing manufacturers to omit "readily attachable" items to be added later in the chain of distribution (Import regulations @ 12.80, Parts 567, 568), the NHTSA will accept a good-faith determination that a vehicle is substantially completed, where only a few parts subject to shortages are missing.

I would also like to answer a technical question raised by R. E. Houser of your engineering staff. In an April 23, 1974, letter he asked for an interpretation of the S5.6.4 language "The parking brake control shall be separate from the service brake control." as it applies to the DD-3 two-step brake release. The S5.6.4 requirement for a separate parking brake control is intended to address the actuation of the brake. We interpret this language not to prohibit the use of a two-step release involving a manual and a foot control.

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

October 26, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Request for Interpretation of Section 5.6.4 of FMVSS-121

Section 5.6.4 of FMVSS-121 establishes the need for a parking brake control on a truck or bus to control the parking brakes on the vehicle and of any air braked vehicle that it is designed to tow. This section is reproduced below for your immediate reference.

Section 5.6.4 S5.6.4 Parking brake control trucks and buses. The parking brake control shall be separated from the service brake control. It shall be operable by a person seated in the normal driving position. The control shall be identified in a manner that specifies the method of control operation. The parking brake control shall control the parking brakes of the vehicle and of any air braked vehicle that it is designed to tow.

We request an interpretation which conforms that Section 5.6.4 does not preclude the sequential operation of two valves to release the parking brakes on the towed vehicle.

We have concluded that multiple valve operation is permissible to release the parking brakes on the towed vehicle. Our conclusion is based on the following observations:

1. A towing vehicle has historically been equipped with a separate trailer air supply valve to permit closure of the lines leading to the trailer when the vehicle is operated without an attached trailer. The ability of the parking brake control mentioned in Section 5.6.4 to establish air flow to the trailer is, therefore, dependent upon the operational position of the trailer air supply valve. An adverse interpretation of Section 5.6.4 would, therefore, eliminate the use of this simple disconnect feature and impose a design restriction which apparently was not intended.

2. Section 6.1.14 of FMVSS-121 defines the venting of the lines leading to the trailer when testing the towing vehicle emergency brake system per Section 5.7.3(a). The venting of the trailer supply line could appreciably reduce the pressure available on the towing vehicle to effect the emergency stop. Many vehicle manufacturers have elected to use a trailer air supply valve, which, under these conditions, will automatically trip to the closed position to preserve a high pressure in the tractor service brake resorvoir system.

These tripping air supply valves respond in a similar manner when the parking brake control required by Section 5.6.4 is utilized to park the combination vehicle. It is, therefore, necessary to manually restore the trailer air supply valve to the depressed position before air flow to the towed vehicle can be restored. An adverse interpretation of Section 5.6.4 would prohibit the use of these systems.

3. A clarification proposed in Docket 75-16 Notice 4 defines the desired interaction of the various push-pull valves provided on a tractor to control the tractor parking brakes and the flow of air to the trailer. We refer you specifically to Section 5.6.1(c)(1) and Section 5.8.1.2, which are reproduced below for your convenience.

Section 5.8.1.2

S5.8.1.2 Truck-tractor service brake system-criditional requirements. The service brake system of a truck designed to tow an air-brake-equipped vehicle shall, under the conditions of S6.1.15, be capable of modulating the air pressure in the control line of the control trailer by means of the service brake control. The service brake system shall be equipped with a means of opening and closing the connections from the service brake system of the towing vehicle to the supply and control lines of the control trailer, and simultaneously to open and close a vent to the atmosphere in the supply line to the control trailer. This means shall close automatically in all cases before automatic application of the parking brake system occurs, and before air pressure in all reservoirs of the truck service brake system drops to a level chosen at the option of the top manufacturer that is more than 20 psi, but less than 45 psi. This means shall also operate by utilization of a manual control that does not override automatic operations consisting of a red octagonal knob that, when pulled, closes the air supply to the towed vehicle and vents the trailer supply line to the atmosphere, and when pushed, opens the air supply line to a towed vehicle and permits presentation of the trailer supply (Illegible Word). The following legend shall appear on, above, or below the knob in block capital letters at least one-eighth of an inch in height:

TRAILER AIR SUPPLY

FUEL TO (Illegible Words)

Section 5.6.1.6(c)(1)

(c) In the case of a truck designed to tow an air-brake-equipped vehicle, be equipped with two parking brake system controls that meet the requirements of (1) and (2):

(1) The tractor and trailer parking control shall consist of a yellow diamond-shaped knob that, when pulled, applies the parking brake system of the towing vehicle and vents the trailer supply line to the atmosphere, and, when pushed, releases the parking brake system of the towing vehicle and permits pressurization of the trailer supply line. The following legend shall appear on, above, or below the knob in block capital letters at least one-eighth of an inch in height:

TRACTOR-TRAILER PARK PULL TO APPLY PUSH TO RELEASE:

Note in Section 5.6.1.6(c) that the tractor trailer park valve when pushed releases the tractor parking brakes and "permits pressurization of the trailer supply line". In Section 5.8.1.2, the trailer air supply valve when pushed opens the air supply line to a towed vehicle and "permits pressurization of the trailer supply line". The term "permits" accurately describes the present interaction of the two valves in question. The tractor trailer park valve cannot pressurize the trailer air supply line unless the trailer air supply valve is positioned to deliver air to the trailer supply line. Similarly, the trailer air supply valve cannot pressurize the trailer air supply line if previously vented by the tractor trailer park valve. The driver must restore the particular valve(s) to the appropriate delivery position to effect repressurization of the trailer air supply line. The sequence of valve restoration is dependent on the type of tractor protection system provided on the vehicle.

In conclusion, the apparent intent of the present Section 5.6.4 of FMVSS-121 is to insure the provision of a single (common) control means to apply the parking brakes on all of the vehicles in the combination and does not preclude the sequential operation of two valves to release the parking brakes on the towed vehicle. Interpretation of Section 5.6.4, which confirms this intent, will clarify this matter.

John W. Kourik, Chief Engineer Brake Products