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

ID: 77-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/77

FROM: HOWARD DUGOFF FOR JOAN CLAYBROOK -- NHTSA

TO: Charles Wilson; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 19, 1977, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. M. M. Davis, concerning the remanufacture of school buses.

The manufacture that Mr. Davis proposes to undertake would mount an old school bus body on a new school bus chassis. The regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that Mr. Davis enclosed in his letter explicitly state that the use of a new chassis in the remanufacture of a motor vehicle results in the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Such motor vehicle would be required to comply with all safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis or final manufacture of the vehicle or any time between those two dates. In the case of a remanufactured school bus using a chassis manufactured after April 1, 1977, the bus would be required to comply with all of the Congressionally mandated school bus regulations that became effective on April 1.

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

October 19, 1977

Joan Claybrook Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mr. M. M. Davis, Superintendent of the Newton Independent School District in Texas, in which he describes a problem regarding the rebuilding of their school buses.

I would appreciate your examination of the situation to see if the buses in question may be overhauled, as planned, in the Texas Department of Correction and still meet the Federal Safety Standards. Please advise me of your decision.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance.

Charles Wilson

cc: M. M. DAVIS

NEWTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

October 10, 1977

Hon. Charles Wilson I am enclosing a copy of the Highway Standard that Mr. Corbell of the State Board of Control and Mr. Biel of Texas Department of Corrections says will keep our Public Schools in Texas from buying new School Bus Chassis and having our old bus bodies rebuilt at Texas Department of Correction which would save from $ 1000 to $ 3500 on each bus.

We have five buses in the Prison System Bus Repair Facility now to rebuild bodies to be remounted on new chassis. This would save us $ 5000 to $ 15,000 on these five buses.

M. M. Davis, Supt. Newton ISD

(Graphics omitted)

GA-9502 GLIDER

NOTE: Frame and Cab height dimensions shown are with std. tires.

DIMENSIONS IN INCHES FOR SINGLE AND TANDEM REAR AXLE APPLICATIONS Cab Maximum CE Typical Maximum Series WB All OL 54 in. 74 in. 86 in. For Applications Std. Cab Cab Reference Only GA9732 255 201 181 169 165 GA9782 308 254 234 222 195

To determine max. AF for physical limitation with 36 inch upper kingpin setting and 5 inch corner deduct 62 inches from effective CA. Additional dimensional restructions of up 46 inches behind the cab for engine transmission (non-sleeper cab only) or up to 14 inches behind the cab for exhaust, air intake or oil filter (sleeper or non-sleeper) must be considered when determining effective CA.

ID: 77-4.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/77

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

TO: Ford Garage Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 27, 1977, letter asking whether a 15 passenger vehicle designed to transport children to and from a Y.M.C.A. recreation facility would be required to comply with the new Federal school bus safety standards.

The Federal school bus safety standards promulgated under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) apply to motor vehicles transporting 10 or more passengers to and from school or related events. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has tentatively concluded that facilities such as Y.M.C.A.s may not have been aware that school bus safety standards might be applicable to vehicles manufactured to transport children to and from these facilities. Accordingly, the agency has temporarily exempted from the requirements buses designed for use by such facilities.

You should note that the NHTSA plans to commence rulemaking that might require buses used for activities such as those described to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. The extended application of the standards would only affect buses manufactured after the effective date of the rulemaking action.

SINCERELY,

Ford Garage Company, Inc.

September 27, 1977

Joseph Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our local Y.M.C.A. is seeking a multiple passenger vehicle to transport underpriviledged and other children between the ages of 5 and 18 from outlying areas to their center during the winter months and to their day-camp during July and August. There is, of course, no charge for this service. TThe purpose is to make Y.M.C.A. recreation facilities available to children who would not otherwise have an opportunity to use them.

Pick-up points would be at various schools during the school year and central neighborhood stops on Saturdays and during July and August.

It appears that the most logical unit for their use from the standpoint of size and expense would be a 15 passenger Dodge Sportsman Maxiwagon. The question arises, however, as to whether or not this type unit meets all Federal and State requirements. I am therefore enclosing a copy of the invoice on the unit we propose and will appreciate your early reply.

Charles W. Jarvis Secretary

ID: 77-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/26/77

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

TO: Holiday Rambler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 1, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Federal safety standards to travel trailers and motor homes.

You first ask whether bed sheets and decorative bedspreads shipped with a motor home are required to meet Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. The items required to meet the standard are listed in S4.1 of the standard. That list does not include sheets or bedspreads. Therefore, they are not required to comply with the standard.

In a related question pertaining to Standard No. 302, you ask whether "mattress cover" as that term is used in the standard refers to the permanent mattress ticking or to a removable mattress cover. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the standard applies to both the permanent ticking and the removable cover. Therefore, both must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302.

In a question pertaining to Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, you ask whether it is permissible to label a bench seat "not for occupancy while vehicle is in motion" on one label or whether a seat must be labeled at each seating position. Standard No. 207 requires only one label for a bench seat in a motor home. You should note that Standard No. 207 does not apply to travel trailers.

You ask whether the NHTSA has jurisdiction over safety-related defects in motor homes not covered by safety standards. The agency has general defect jurisdiction granted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) for all safety-related motor vehicle defects. The NHTSA's defect jurisdiction also extends to the nonoperational safety of a vehicle.

In a final question you ask whether the agency has jurisdiction over travel trailers. The NHTSA has jurisdiction over "any motor vehicle" which is defined in the Act as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power . . ." Therefore, the NHTSA has jurisdiction over travel trailers that is identical to its jurisdiction over any other motor vehicle.

SINCERELY,

JUNE 1, 1977

Joseph Levin National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Holiday Rambler Corporation is a manufacturer of Recreational Vehicles including motor homes and travel trailers. We would like a ruling on items one through four listed below and information on item five: 1. Are bed sheets and decorative bedspreads sold and shipped in a motor home required to meet the standards of FMVSS 302?

2. In reference to FMVSS 302 define mattress cover is it:

a. The permanently installed cover or ticking which incapsulates the foam or other interior stuffing, or

b. Is it a removable outer covering that is intended specifically to protect the mattress itself from soil stain etc., which can be installed and removed for cleaning by the consumer?

3. When labeling a bench type seat "not for occupancy while vehicle is in motion" according to FMVSS 207 - S4.4, is one label sufficient or is it necessary to place labels 18" O.C. at each possible seating position?

4. Do those safety related defects in motor homes not covered by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard fall under the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? If the defect applies or occurs only in the camping mode, does NHTSA have jurisdiction?

5. Does NHTSA have jurisdiction over travel trailers and if so, to what extent?

Charles E. Klatt, Senior Director Codes, Legalities, Testing & Training

Memorandum

SUBJECT: Telephone Converstation

DATE: Sept 30, 1977

In reply refer to:

FROM: Safety Standards Engineer Office of Crashworthiness

THRU: AA, MVP

TO: Dockets 74-14, 2-14, & 2-12

On Sept 30, I called Mr. Premo of Sheller Globe Corp.

Discussion Mr. Premo had called the day before and asked for information about attendant seats in an ambulance. On Sept 30 we discussed the requirements & Stds 207, 208, and 210 as they applied to ambulances. I told Mr. Premo that, since the attendant seats were designated seating positions, his company had to comply with the requirements of (Illegible Word) three standards.

W. SMITH

ID: 77-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/77

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

TO: Alabama Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 7, 1977, letter to and conversation with Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus standards to college buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that colleges do not fall within the ambit of the school bus regulations. I am enclosing a copy of a previous letter on this issue. Accordingly, seat spacing in buses used to transport college students can be determined by the particular state in which the bus will be operated.

Your problem appears to be somewhat more complex than the above description, however, since you require the college bus to be painted yellow, have flashing lights, and be labeled "school bus." It is unlikely that any manufacturers will sell you a bus marked and painted as a school bus that does not comply with the Federal school bus requirements. Were they to do this, it would subject them to liability if the bus were misused to transport school children, which from all outward appearances it would be designed to do. We suggest that you label the bus with the name of the college or other institution and drop the "school bus" designation. This would permit manufacturers to supply the bus without fear of violating Federal requirements.

SINCERELY,

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway, Traffic Safety Adm.

The State of Alabama operates buses to transport students to past secondary schools that operate separate and apart from the "primary, preprimary and secondary schools". There is a great need for these buses to have a seat spacing greater than the requirement in FMVSS 222. Any assistance in getting this seat spacing relayed for past secondary will be greatly appreciated.

Norman N Lopez State Coordinator of Pupil Transportation Alabama Department of Eduction