ID: 571-110--placard--CHP

ID: 10266

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27251

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1994, regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer can certify that a passenger seat complies with Standard No. 210 with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. If the seat manufacturer can certify using 1/2" steel plate, your letter also asks whether the final stage school bus manufacturer must retest using a typical 14 gauge school bus floor to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 210.

By way of background information, each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, as your letter recognizes, manufacturers are not required to test their products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

Section S2 of Standard No. 210 states that the standard applies to "passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses." The standard does not apply to seats as items of

equipment. Therefore, it is the vehicle manufacturer rather than the seat manufacturer that is required to certify compliance with the standard. More specifically, the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the vehicle, with the seat installed, complies with Standard No. 210. Of course, one of the bases for the vehicle manufacturer's certification may be test results and other information provided by the seat manufacturer.

If the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)).

Standard No. 210 includes strength requirements for seat belt anchorages. The test procedure requires the specified force to be applied through body blocks at specified angles and for specified periods of time. As you state in your letter, the procedure allows the agency to replace the seat belt webbing with "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the seat belt assembly." If substitute material is used, the test procedure requires the material to "duplicate the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly." This provision was included to ensure that the material was strong enough to pass the load to the anchorage during the test and, therefore, that the strength of the test anchorage rather than the seat belt was tested.

Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer may base its certification on a test performed with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. This, in effect, is a request for a determination of whether a vehicle manufacturer's reliance on the fact that the seat belt anchorages did not fail when a 1/2" steel plate test fixture is used would constitute "reasonable care" in assuring that the completed vehicle complied with the standard. This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. However, I would like to say that attachment of a seat or anchorage to stronger material (whether 1/2" steel plate or some other material) than the material used in the construction of the vehicle in which it will actually be installed would not appear to provide a manufacturer with information on whether or not the anchorage, when attached to the vehicle structure, will withstand the specified loads.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#210 d:2/2/95

ID: nht90-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KARL-HEINZ FABER -- SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/19/90 FROM KARL HEINZ FABER TO BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA; RE ARMREST STORAGE COMPARTMENT; OCC 4699

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1990 to Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR @ 571.201). More specifically, yo u stated in your letter that future Mercedes-Benz vehicles will come equipped with new armrests between the two front and, where applicable, two rear seating position. The new design will have a built-in compartment that can accommodate car phone storag e. It will be covered by a lift-up lid that will afford easy access to the phone.

Your letter indicated that your company believes the lift-up lid on this armrest would not be subject to the provisions of S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 for "interior compartment doors," since those provisions do not apply to doors incorporated in center armrests. However, your letter indicated your company's belief that the new armrests would be subject to the requirements of S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, which applies to folding armrests. As explained more fully below, these beliefs appear to be correct applications of the standard.

At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the F ederal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards wo uld apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information.

With those caveats, I agree with you that sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 do not appear to apply to the lift-up lid on your armrest design. Section S3.3 of Standard No. 201 requires that interior compartment doors "located in an instrument p anel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position" remain closed when tested in accordance with the demonstration procedures in section S3.3.1 of the Standard. It is not clear if the lift-up lid on your armrest de sign would qualify as an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR @ 571.3 "(any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effec ts"). If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid on the armrest would be considered an "interior compartment door." If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid would not be an "int erior compartment door" and S3.3 and S3.3.1 would not apply to it. Even if the lift-up lid were considered an interior compartment door, it would not appear to be subject to sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of the Standard. This is because those sections apply only to interior compartment doors "located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position. . . ." Only interior compartment doors located in the listed components must comply with S3.3 and S3 .3.1. Since an armrest is not among the listed components, interior compartment doors located in an armrest are not subject to S3.3 and S3.3.1.

You also discussed the applicability of section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201 to your armrest design. Section S3.5.2 applies to armrests that folds into the seat back or between two seat backs. Based on the information supplied in your letter, we agree th at your armrest design would be subject to section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, because it is a folding armrest between two seat backs. We also agree with your suggestion that Mercedes-Benz may comply with section S3.5.2 by ensuring that this armrest des ign is "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material."

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or need some additional information on this subject.

ID: aiam4009

Dear Mr. Gabler: Thank you for your letter asking about our requirements for lap belt and expressing your views on state laws requiring the proper use of safety belts. We appreciate hearing from concerned citizens on the important subject of improved motor vehicle safety.; You asked whether safety belts on your county buses are legal if thos belts are designed only as lap belts and do not restrain both the pelvic and upper torso areas of the body. The answer to your question is that those belts are permitted to be installed on buses. Some background information may be helpful. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. Our Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, requires installation of safety belts in new motor vehicles.; Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type o vehicle. For large 'buses' (i.e., those carrying 11 or more persons), the standard requires installation of a lap belt for the driver. The passenger seats on buses are not required to have belts, but lap belts may be installed if desired. For smaller van-type 'buses' (i.e., those carrying 10 or fewer persons) and for passenger cars, the standard requires installation of lap-and-shoulder belts for the driver and right-front passenger positions, and lap belts for all other seating positions.; Safety belt usage requirements are established by the states, not b the Federal government. To date, 14 states have enacted safety belt use laws, and two other states have belt use laws awaiting gubernatorial approval. Those laws generally require belt usage only in passenger cars, we are not aware of any state which requires belt usage in buses. Moreover, as a practical matter, belt use requirements are limited to the equipment actually installed in the vehicle. This agency does urge all motorists to use safety belts wherever they are available, regardless of whether usage is required by state law.; In your letter, you stated your disapproval of state laws that requir the use of safety belts by motorists. You expressed concerns that being restrained by a belt would be unsafe in an accident and that belt usage laws invade your privacy. We appreciate this opportunity to explain our position on those issues relating to belt usage laws, and hope that this discussion will help shed some light on this very important topic.; You seem to believe that the chances of escaping injury in a crash ar greater if safety belts are not worn. Our accident data clearly show that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. Our traffic records show that vehicle occupants who do not wear their safety belts are nearly twice as likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries than belted occupants. One important reason is that belt usage reduces that likelihood of being thrown outside the vehicle in a crash. We estimate that ejected occupants are 25 times more likely to be killed than those who remain inside the car. Even in the rare cases of vehicle fires or submersion under water, the use of a safety belt improves the chances for survival by keeping the occupants conscious and uninjured so that they may escape quickly.; While we believe the evidence is overwhelming as to the benefits o safety belt usage, we recognize that there are always a few exceptions to the general rule. We are aware that belt usage is not a panacea, some accidents are so severe that injuries or fatalities will result regardless of whether any occupant protection systems are used. However, we believe that the preliminary data from New York, the first state to enact a belt use law, confirms our belief in the lifesaving potential of belt usage. The New York belt usage law went into effect on January 1 of this year and belt usage climbed to roughly 60 percent, and traffic deaths during the first six months of the year declined by 18 percent compared to the same period last year.; We recognize that a safety belt use law requires an action that man people do not take voluntarily. However, all traffic laws involve some restraint on individual behavior. Most are accepted without a second thought: we drive on the right side of the road, obey speed limits and stop at red lights. In many cases, the failure of motorists to obey these laws will have an impact on other motorists as well as themselves. The same is true for failing to wear safety belts, because automobile accidents have many 'victims'--family, friends, employers and taxpayers--all of whom bear some measure of the human and economic cost. During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic injuries and deaths have resulted in an annual cost to society of $57 billion resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenues. We believe that the relatively small intrusion resulting from safety belt use laws is justified by the substantial societal burden of vehicle-related deaths and injury.; Thank you again for sharing your views with us. I hope this informatio is helpful.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-1.4

DATE: 01/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 8, 1979, letter and follow-up meeting in which you ask several questions about the compliance of your school buses with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. In your letter, you ask about four separate joints and ask whether they would be required to comply with the standard.

As you know, the standard applies to any joint of a body panel that encloses bus body space and a body structure member. An exception from the standard exists for those joints that connect maintenance access panels. In our meeting with you, we stated the agency's objection to the existing industry practice involving maintenance access panels, and further stated that the agency was contemplating rulemaking to restrict the maintenance access panel exception.

Responding directly to the four joints that you reference in your letter, you first ask whether the contact point between the headlining panel and the spring clip is a joint subject to the standard. A spring clip is entirely enclosed within a bus wall. Its function is to aid in holding the body panel in place while the rivets or adhesives are being applied. It serves no function beyond that. The agency does not believe that a spring clip is either a body structure member or a body panel enclosing occupant space. Accordingly, the joint of this clip and any other body member is not a joint subject to the standard.

In your second question, you ask whether the joint between the headlining panel and the headlining panel positioning tab is a joint subject to the standard. The positioning tab is a device that is approximately two inches long and contacts the headlining panel in two places between the bus body bows. The purpose of this tab, is to prevent buckling of the headlining panel between the two bows. The agency concludes that positioning tabs are body structure members. Therefore, if they contact a body panel at its edge, the intersection of these two components creates a joint subject to the standard.

Your third question asks whether an extruded aluminum sash assembly must comply with the standard. You state in your letter that this assembly is part of the window and, therefore, exempt from the requirements. The aluminum sash assembly to which you refer is an add-on device above the window found in your larger buses to provide more headroom. The agency concludes that this device has no function as a part of the window but merely is a trim panel that serves to cover part of the bus sidewall. Accordingly, the joint connecting this panel to the remainder of the bus structure would be required to comply with the standard.

Finally, you ask whether the joint between a positioning angle and a headlining panel must comply with the joint strength requirements. A positioning angle is a body structure member that runs from bow to bow and supports the edge of the headlining panel to prevent buckling. The agency concludes that this positioning angle is a body structure member and its connection with a body panel is a joint subject to the standard's requirements.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD

BODY COMPANY

October 8, 1979

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: FMVSS 221

REF: 1. Letter from Francis Armstrong to Albert L. Luce dated 6-1-79; NEF-31 MPa CIR 2087

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The subject standard requires 60% joint strength for certain defined joints on school buses; other joints, as defined in S4 of the standard, are exempted. The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation that certain aspects of a proposed design change are exempted under the provisions of S4.

In preparation for initial compliance with the subject standard, Blue Bird Body Company redesigned the wire service panel and obtained approval for the new design; please refer to letter to and from NHTSA on February 13, 1976 and April 26, 1976 respectively.

In reference 1, NHTSA raised questions concerning our wire service panel. The questions carried no allegations of non compliance. However, in keeping with Blue Bird Body Company's philosophy of meeting the spirit of NHTSA regulations as well as the letter, we are now proposing changes to the wire service panel and surrounding components. These changes are described by the two enclosed prints.

The prints show cross sections of the proposed wire service panel design for 74" headroom and 77" headroom vehicles. The specific items with regard to this design proposal which we would like you to confirm are:

1. That the area of contact between the headlining and spring steel clip is not a joint subject to FMVSS 221 requirements. As shown on the prints, this clip is used only as an assembly aid to support headlining panels while permanent fasteners are installed. The clip will be approximately 3/4" wide. While the permanent integrity of the design is not dependent on the clip, the intent is to leave it in place after the permanent fasteners are installed.

2. That the area of contact between the headlining and the headlining panel positioning tab on the header of 74" headroom models is not a joint subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. The purpose of the tab is to prevent the headlining from bowing outward between roof bows. The tab is shown full size on the 74" headroom print. There will be two tabs per window section.

3. That the window frame extension on 77" headroom models is exempted under the provisions of S4 where windows and body panel joints designed for ventilation are exempted.

4. That the headlining panel positioning angle on 77" headroom models is exempted. This angle performs the same function on 77" headroom models as the headlining panel positioning tabs serve on the 74" headroom models; see item 2 above.

Your early review and confirmation of these items will be appreciated. We are available for conference at your convenience to answer any questions you might have.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ENCLS.

ID: aiam4088

Dear Ms. Cheng: Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986, concerning th requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You asked whether S4.1.2.3.1(a) of the standard requires a vehicles with a manual, nondetachable Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 in a perpendicular impact.; The answer is that such a Type 2 safety belt system currently does no have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard. However, we have recently set 30 mph frontal crash protection requirements for manual Type 2 safety belts used in the frontal outboard seating positions in future passenger cars. The dynamic test requirement for manual safety belts would go into effect on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirement of Standard No. 208 is rescinded. A copy of the notice on dynamic testing of manual safety belts is enclosed.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 3265o

Vicky Johnson, Esq.
Office of the Chief Counsel
Kansas Department of Transportation
7th Floor, Docking State Office Bldg.
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1568

Dear Ms. Johnson:

This is a response to your letter asking for my comments on a school transportation issue that has arisen in Kansas. I apologize for the delay in this response. You explained that, in the past, many school districts in your State used vans with more than ten seating positions to transport school children, even though these vehicles were not certified as meeting Federal school bus standards. According to your letter, you informed those school districts that there are "civil liability risks" associated with transporting students in vehicles that do not meet Federal school bus standards. Further, you said you informed those districts that a manufacturer or dealer who sells a school district a bus that is not a certified school bus may be in violation of Federal law. According to your letter, most of those school districts now recognize the "considerable risks" associated with this practice.

You are concerned that some of these districts are now purchasing the same vehicles that were previously certified as buses, but the vehicles now have only ten seating positions. Accordingly, the vehicles are now certified by the manufacturer as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). You believe that this situation is not a violation of Federal law because dealers are no longer selling school districts "buses" that are not certified as school buses. However, you believe there is still a considerable risk of civil liability for the school districts in the event of a crash. You asked for our comments on this practice.

Generally speaking, there is no violation of Federal law when a dealer sells a properly certified MPV to a school district. On the other hand, NHTSA has maintained a long-standing position that if a dealer sells an MPV or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, that dealer is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with all applicable school bus standards. (40 FR 60033, 60034, December 31, 1975.) For example, let us assume that a dealer sells a school district a vehicle that is certified as an MPV by its manufacturer. The vehicle has ten designated seating positions when it is delivered to the dealer, but is large enough to accommodate an additional bench seat, which would result in the vehicle having at least 13 designated seating positions. In this instance, a dealer who sells such a vehicle to a school district would have violated the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) against selling vehicles that do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

In essence, NHTSA has concluded that a dealer may not legally sell a school district a vehicle that is capable of being converted into a school bus, unless: 1. that vehicle is certified as complying with applicable school bus standards; or 2. the dealer has reason to believe that the buyer has no intent of converting and using the vehicle as a school bus.

If the dealer is uncertain of the buyer's intent, the agency has suggested that the dealer request a written statement of purpose from the buyer. (Id.) The agency has taken this position because the dealer frequently is the person in the distribution chain with the best knowledge of how a buyer intends to use a vehicle.

Applying this reasoning to the situations described in your letter, the dealers selling MPVs to school districts might have done so in violation of Federal law. If the MPVs in question were capable of being converted into school buses, and the dealer had reason to believe that the purchasing school district intended to convert the vehicles to school buses, the dealer could only sell the MPV to the school district if the vehicles were certified as conforming to all applicable school bus standards. Your letter did not provide enough information for us to offer an opinion on any such potential liability. If you know of instances where a dealer may have sold vehicles to a school district under circumstances such as I describe here, please report this information to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, Room 6113, NEF-30 at the address on this letterhead.

With respect to your question about the risk of civil liability in the event one of these vehicles is in a crash, that is a question of State, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how the matter would be resolved under Kansas law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Kansas to get an opinion about how the laws of Kansas would apply in such a situation.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#571 d:l2/9/88

ID: aiam4469

"Dear Mr. Costa: I am responding to your letter seeking a interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Specifically, you expressed concern that some transit system passengers are opening the rear emergency exits on your public transit vehicles. Apparently, some passengers open these emergency exits to commit acts of vandalism. You state that 'in the interest of safety the rear emergency window (in these vehicles) should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window.' You asked whether Standard 217 would prohibit your body shop from modifying your transit buses in this manner. Assuming that your body shop does not hold itself out to the public as a business that repairs motor vehicles for compensation, the shop would not be prohibited from modifying the buses as you describe. Under paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard 217, buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more (such as your transit buses) must have at least one rear emergency exit, unless the configuration of the bus precludes installing an accessible rear exit. The manufacturer of your buses has stated that the bus configuration does not preclude installing an accessible rear exit. Therefore, your manufacturer must deliver buses that are equipped with a rear emergency exit. On the other hand, your repair shop is subject to different considerations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits certain commercial establishments from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design included on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In your example, the rear emergency exit is an element of design included in the buses in compliance with an applicable safety standard, and removing these exits would render inoperative that element of design. However, the 'render inoperative' prohibition applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. A 'motor vehicle repair business' is defined in /108(a)(2)(A) as 'any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.' Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard. Assuming that your transit system body shop does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles for compensation, it can make the modification you describe without violating any Federal requirements. The problem you describe apparently involves the design for releasing the kind of emergency window exit in your vehicles. Standard 217 does not require a specific design for releasing an emergency exit. Rather, the Standard sets out a ceiling for the magnitude of force necessary to release the exit, and a required direction for applying the release force. The transit system could replace the 'operable' rear emergency window with a push-out window or other type of design that would still meet the release requirements of Standard 217, yet make it difficult or impossible for a passenger to commit the acts of vandalism you describe. Please note that the purpose of our emergency exit requirements for buses is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit in the event of an emergency. Though nothing prohibits you from modifying the vehicles to close off the rear emergency exit, I urge you to give your fullest consideration to the implications of making this modification. It is NHTSA's position that compliance with Standard 217 is the safest way to facilitate vehicle exit in an emergency, and it is my opinion that you needn't eliminate the rear window exit to resolve your problem. Further, you might want to check with the State of Washington to learn if it prohibits modifications that would make your transit buses no longer comply with Standard 217. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 05-009256drn

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