ID: nht76-1.49

DATE: 12/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes' April 21, 1976, question whether motor vehicle rims that are labeled in conformity with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, may be installed on passenger cars.

The requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 120 for labeling of rims for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles do not affect the use of those rims on passenger cars. This situation would change if Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, is modified in the future to prohibit one or more of the items required by S5.2, but such an eventuality is considered to be unlikely.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

November 9, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Request for Interpretation: FMVSS-120

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We requested an interpretation on this safety standard in April, 1976 and have not yet received a reply. A copy of my April 21 letter is enclosed for reference.

May we hear from you soon on this matter? We have some pressing business decisions to make.

Very truly yours,

John F. McCuen

enclosure

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

April 21, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS-120 Non-Passenger Car Rims

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Kelsey-Hayes Company is a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment including rims for passenger car, truck, and other vehicle applications.

We make some rims that are used for both original equipment passenger cars and original equipment recreational trailers. As we understand the provisions of FMVSS-120, such a rim, when manufactured and sold for use on a trailer, must conform to FMVSS-120. It is not clear, however, whether rims conforming to FMVSS-120 may also be used on new passenger cars.

We envision circumstances under which a rim marked in conformance with FMVSS-120 is inadvertently shipped to a passenger car assembly plant for use on a new passenger car. We seek your interpretation of whether or not a manufacturer of passenger cars may use rims conforming to FMVSS-120. Assuming there is a safety benefit to the marking of rims for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, we assume those benefits are comparable when the same rim is used on a passenger car. This apparent benefit would seem to outweigh the costs associated with segregating identical wheels as a factor of the customers to whom we ship them to.

Accordingly, (Illegible Words) which would enable us to sell (Illegible Words) to FMVSS-120 for original equipment passenger car applications.

Very truly yours,

John F. McCuen

ID: nht76-1.5

DATE: 02/18/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 3, 1976, letter pointing out an error in the publication of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, in Supplement 109 to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

While the Federal Register is, of course, the official source of the law, we share your concern for the accuracy of the supplements. The error in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 was discovered immediately upon its publication and steps were taken to correct it. We expect the correction to appear in the supplement to be mailed on February 25, 1976.

YOURS TRULY,

Ford Motor Company

February 3, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" - Supplement 109, dated December 3, 1975

In the subject publication, the technical reproduction of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101, "Control Location, Identification and Illumination, Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses" is in error. Columns 3 and 4 of Table I are incorrect, and page 3 was revised without a change in the revision date.

Attachments I through IV show Table I:

* as it appears in the December 3 supplement,

* before the latest amendment,

* amendments published in Docket 1-18; Notice 11 (40 FR 31770-71) July 29, 1975,

* as it should appear.

We appreciate the fact that the Federal Register is the official source for information related to amendments to the rules. Howeve, the value of the supplement lies in the fact that the revisions and pagination provide for a complete and up-to-date reference that is of continued use. Mistakes in this document may lead to unnecessary confusion.

Because of the importance of this document in our daily work and because the source of the information originates with your staff, we would like to request that you look into this matter to correct the current mistake and, if possible, have some member of your staff included in a galley proof review procedure to ensure that supplements are complete and accurate.

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

Table 1 -- Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) None Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) None Manual Choke Choke None Head Throttle Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illegi.) (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps or CL (Illeg.) Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash (Illeg.) Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def None Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 COLUMN 5 Alternate Motor Vehicle Equipment Control (Illeg.) Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

n1 Use when engine control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification Lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Framed areas may (Illegible Words).

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE 1 - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) Manual Choke Choke Hand Throttle Throttle Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illeg.) Vehiclular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) or CL LPS Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes (Illeg.) Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

(Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted) Column 1 Column 4 Alternate Permissible Symbol . None None None None None Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) None Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) None None (Illegible Word) areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE I - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Motor Vehicle Equipment Word or Permissible Control Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start ENGINE START n1 None Engine Stop ENGINE STOP n1 None Manual Choke CHOKE None Hand Throttle THROTTLE None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Headlamps and Taillamps LIGHTS n2 (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal HAZARD (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps CLEARANCE LAMPS n3 or CL LPS (Illeg.) Identification Lamps IDENTIFICATION LAMPS or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping WIPER or System (Illeg.) (Illeg.) Windshield Washing WASHER or WASH (Illeg.) System Windshield Defrosting DEFROST or DEF None and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Conditioning System

COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 n3 COLUMN 5 Motor Vehicle Equipment Alternate Illumination Control Permissible Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes n1 Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and (Illeg.) n4 Taillamps Vehicular Hazard (Illeg.) n4 Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) n4 Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Washing (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Defrosting None Yes and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Yes Conditioning System

n1 Use when (Illegible Word) control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side maker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification lamps and/or side market lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Heated areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-1.50

DATE: 06/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 23, 1976, letter concerning the rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

In its present form, S5.2 requires a rim to which the standard applies to be marked with its size designation and, if it is a multi-piece rim, its type designation as well. There is no prohibition on the marking of additional information beyond that which is required. Therefore, the marking of single piece rims with a type designation is permitted.

Please note that, in a notice published on May 6, 1976 (41 FR 18659, Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration delayed the effective dates of several of the standard's requirements. In particular, the effective date of S5.2, Rim Marking, was delayed until August 1, 1977. A copy of this notice is enclosed for your convenience.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

February 23, 1976

Frank A. Berndt -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 120, S5.2

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, 'Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars," which was published in the Federal Register of January 23, 1976 as Docket No. 71-19; Notice 3.

In S5.2, it lists the information required to be marked on each rim on and after August 1, 1976. As we understand it, this requirement does not prohibit marking of additional information on rims. For example, although S5.2(6) requires that each rim be marked with information of the rim size designation, and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation, we believe that single piece rims should also be marked with the rim type designation, such as the type of flange denoted as J, JJ, etc., for reasons of vehicle safety.

We would appreciate your informing us of the correct interpretation at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

D. KIWANO FOR

K. Nakajima -- Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office

ID: nht76-1.6

DATE: 04/06/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: American Bosch Electrical Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 23, 1976, question whether Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, still references SAE J903a as it did in 1969, and whether a future reference to SAE J903b or SAE J903c is anticipated.

The answer to your first question is yes. The answer to your second question is no. A proposed change in Standard No. 104 would be published in the Federal Register, and interested persons would be given an opportunity to comment.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

American Bosch Electrical Products

February 23, 1976

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 104

Gentlemen:

As a manufacturer of automotive windshield wiping systems we have a requirement to maintain compliance with the referenced standard. FMVSS 104, effective January 1, 1969, references SAE J903a (May 1966) as criteria for test conditions of wiping systems. Concerning these two documents we have several questions:

1. Is FMVSS 104 currently of effective date January 1, 1969?

2. Are any changes in FMVSS 104 pending that (Illegible Word) reference SAE J903b or SAE J903c? If so, please explain.

This information is needed for present planning. Please reply to the attention of the undersigned.

Sincerely,

Alvin L. Slayton, Engineer -- Product Reliability Department

ID: nht76-1.7

DATE: 02/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alaska Traffic Safety Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to a request by Mr. William Hall, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regional Administrator for Region X, for a review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems with special consideration of the comments of Mr. Robertson in his memorandum of November 24, 1975.

It is the opinion of this agency that Standard No. 104 is appropriate for the State of Alaska. The essential feature of a wiping system, as far as safety is concerned, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are washed and wiped. These areas are established in the standard and are determined by the angles from the driver's eye position over which the windshield must be kept clear to provide a proper field of view. While targets of driver attention and environmental conditions may differ from state to state, if the critical areas are clear, the field of view provided to the driver is sufficient. The 1976 Scirocco appears to provide the required field of view.

The question therefore becomes whether the Federal standard on windshield wipers is intended to cover all aspects of wiping systems. If so, the situation is analogous to that presented to the court in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV S74-126 (E.D.Cal. 1974) which resulted in a holding that Standard No. 108 did preempt an inconsistent state regulation in the field of lighting requirements. The NHTSA has determined that the standard on windshield wiping systems, No. 104, is intended to leave the number of wipers to the discretion of the manufacturers. Under Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir, 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Thus, a state regulation differing from the standard would impair the Federal superintendence of the field within the meaning of the doctrine set forth in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963) and be preempted under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, U.S.C. 1392(d).

ID: nht76-1.8

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pacet International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your June 15, 1976, question whether Arcoflex windshield wiper blades must be certified as being in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards before they may be sold as aftermarket equipment through vehicle distributors' dealer parts programs.

Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, requires vehicles to be equipped with a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets specified performance requirements. It is up to vehicle manufacturers to certify that each vehicle they produce conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 104, in accordance with the certification procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 567.

Standard No. 104 is not an equipment standard, however, and is not applicable to wiper blades sold in the aftermarket. Therefore, there is no requirement that Arcoflex windshield wiper blades be certified, so long as they are not installed on vehicles as part of the wiping system prior to the first sale of the vehicle.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PACET INTERNATIONAL

The Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Gentlemen

This Company imports Arcoflex windshield wiper blades from Italy and sells them through the import aftermarket throughout the US. It is my understanding that your Department has no interest in this activity.

Recently, however, we have endeavored to sell our product to the import car manufacturers' US distributors for marketing through their dealer parts programs. The representatives of some of these companies have expressed the concern that, since they are wholly owned by the car manufacturers, your Department may wish for our product to be certified, even though it will not be used as original equipment on their cars.

Please be kind enough to clarify, therefore, whether or not Arcoflex wiper blades need to be certified by your Department before they may be sold through import car distributors' dealer parts programs.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated, since important sales decisions depend upon your reply.

Yours very truly,

Peter W Mole

ID: nht76-1.9

DATE: 08/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Clayton Dewardre Company Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Clayton Dewandre Company's May 20, 1976, request for confirmation that its "Dual Brake Booster" system is designed to conform to the definition of "split service brake system" and the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3 specified in Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems. In unimpaired braking, the Dual Brake Booster system supplies two separate brake circuits, the primary circuit which is initially powered by the driver's application of pedal force and subsequently supplemented by pressurized fluid from the pump accumulator system, and the secondary circuit which is powered by pressurized fluid from the pump accumulator system. In the event of a primary circuit failure, a mechanical connection unimpaired by a loss of reservior fluid continues to modulate the secondary circuit. In the event of the a secondary circuit failure, the driver's pedal application continues to actuate the primary circuit by muscular effort alone. A single master cylinder reservoir is provided to supply the primary circuit. A single pump reservoir supplies the pump, accumulator, and secondary circuit.

As you are no doubt aware, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not authorize a "type approval" of vehicle design as the basis for certification (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)). Our comments on the description of your system do not relieve the vehicle manufacturer of its responsibility to design a system for each of its products that actually complies with the standard's requirements.

From your description of the system, it would appear to qualify as a "split service brake system" as that term is defined in S4 of the standard. You state that, in the event either subsystem is failed, the other subsystem is capable of indefinite operation. This conforms to the

2

NHTSA's September 14, 1973, letter to Citroen on the meaning of "unimpaired operation" of a subsystem.

With regard to partial failure performance, you state that the vehicle can meet the requirements of S5.1.2 (inadvertently designated as S5.1.1 in your letter) using either of the two subsystems.

With regard to the requirements of S5.1.3 (for inoperative brake power assist unit or brake power unit), you indicate that the vehicle is capable of stopping within the specified distances of column IV of Table II "purely by muscular effort of the driver". By this we assume you mean that the vehicle conforms to the condition required for testing under S5.1.3.1, i.e., with one power unit inoperative and deleted of all reserve capability. Please note that the NHTSA regards the "pump and accumulator" energy source to constitute a "brake power unit" and not a "brake power assist unit", because the described unit "provides the energy required to actuate the brakes, either directly or indirectly through the auxiliary device, with the operator action consisting only of modulating the energy application level." (S4 definition of "brake power unit").

We are assuming that Clayton Dewandre does not object to making public the designs described in your May 20 letter. The NHTSA will place the materials in the public docket three weeks after the date of this letter unless we hear otherwise from you.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Clayton Dewandre Company Limited

May 20, 1976

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir,

Request for advice on the conformities of New Design equipment to the revised Hydraulic Brake System Standard FMVSS 105-75

Clayton Dewandre would like to take this opportunity to introduce to you our newly developed Hydraulic Brake Booster and associated system, (Illegible Word) on behalf of our potential customers, we seek clarification from you regarding its compliance with the revised Hydraulic Brake Standard FMVSS 105-75.

We would refer to section S4 and the definition of a "Split Service Brake System" which includes a statement that a failed sub-system, quote "shall not impair the operation of any other sub-system".

Our interpretation of the expression "impair" is "reduce (Illegible Word) prescribed effective level", and that same implied level is quantified under requirements S.5.1.1. Partial Failure and S.5.1.3. In-operative Brake Power Assist Unit. Both the latter clauses call for the same level of performance i.e. stopping distances from a vehicle speed of 60 m.p.h. without exceeding a pedal force of 150 lbs. Vehicle Cars Trucks<10000 lbs. trucks>10000 lbs. Stopping 456' 517' 613' distance (.263g) (.233g) (.195g)

We would like to show, with reference to the attached description of the Dual Brake Booster, that with a power failed situation or rear brakes failed, we have the same residual secondary braking i.e. the front brakes, being activated purely by muscular effort of the driver, with chamber (a) acting as a conventional master cylinder. The designed performance for this condition in the case of a 2000 Kg (4,400 lbs) gross weight vehicle would be .3g for a pedal force 71 lbs (316N). This meets the prescribed performance tabled above.

Should a failure occur in the other sub-system (Illegible Words) mechanically by further movement of the pedal (approximately 12 mm.) for full output to "knee point". Fluid under pressure is delivered by the valve in proportion to pedal effort. Again in this case, the system is tuned to provide an acceptable performance. The attached figures show a retardation of .3g for 52 lbs (231N) pedal force, which is well within the prescribed limits.

2

(Illegible Text)

Yours faithfully,

W. M. PAGE -- Senior Engineer - Systems Engineering

[Attachments Omitted.]

ID: nht76-2.1

DATE: 05/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: FILE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: TELEPHONE CONVERSATION CONCERNING STANDARD NO. 120, TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS

On April 20, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. John McCuen, an attorney for Kelsey-Hayes (313 941-2000). He asked the following questions concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120:

1. "Is use of the 'DOT' symbol permitted on rims manufactured before the August 1, 1976, effective date for the standard's rim marking requirements?" I replied that the agency's present position is as it has been in the past, namely, that such use is not permitted. I added that this interpretation is being reevaluated.

2. "Some rims are capable of being used on passenger cars as well as on multipurpose passenger vehicles. Is it permissible to label such rims pursuant to Standard No. 120, even though some might then be mounted on passenger cars?" I requested that Mr. McCuen send in a request for a written interpretation of that aspect of the standard.

3. "May rims manufactured before August 1, 1976, be sold in the replacement market after that date?" I replied that they may.

ID: nht76-2.10

DATE: 09/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's July 20, 1976, question whether the NHTSA's redefinition of "school bus" (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975) includes buses designed for intercity transportation utilized in charter operation to transport school children to and from school or related events, and what constitutes "interstate commerce" as that term is used in the redefinition. A second July 20, 1976, letter from Blue Bird Body requests reconsideration of two NHTSA interpretations of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, that were issued in an April 26, 1976, letter.

The redefinition of school bus (effective April 1, 1977) states:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

The definition is not intended to include intercity type buses on regular common-carrier routes, although they may be used in some circumstances to transport school students to and from school or related events. This bus type has never been considered a school bus under existing motor vehicle safety standards or Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17 (43 CFR 1204). In light of the major standard-setting activity undertaken by Congress for school buses under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (the Act) (15 UVS.C. @ 1392(i), it is unlikely that such a board change of regulatory direction would be contemplated by Congress without explicit discussion in the legislative history. The boundaries of coverage of the redefinition are explicitly left by the statute to agency determination, and the agency did not include the intercity buses you describe in the redefinition.

The meaning "interstate commerce" in the redefinition is the same as for that term in @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, which states that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import" non-complying vehicles. While the legislative history of the Act does not directly address the meaning of the term, the House of Representatives Committee Report stated:

. . . The purpose of this section is to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or importation into this country of vehicles . . . that fail to meet the Federal safety standards . . . (H.R. Rep. No. 1776, 89th Cong., 2d Sess 22 (1966))

The agency adopts the existing construction of the term set forth in Katzenback v. McClurg, 379 U.S. 294 (1974). To answer your specific question, however, it should be clarified that only the classification of the bus as a school bus is determined by the ambit of "interstate commerce" in those infrequent cases where a sale does not occur. Blue Bird Body's responsibilities to conform to the standards arise directly from its manufacturing activities under @ 108(a)(1)(A). For example, a bus built in Georgia must conform to the school bus standards if it is sold to a Georgia school for use in transportation of school students, even if it never leaves the State.

Your second July 20 letter requests reconsideration of the NHTSA's April 26, 1976, decision that the area of contact between headlining panels and the "header" over the windows qualifies as a body joint subject to the requirements of the standard. You assert that the area of contact is not such a joint because it is covered by a molding and therefore does not "enclose occupant space" and cannot be considered a "surface component".

"Body panel joint" is defined in the standard to mean, with several exceptions, the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component. Whether or not the joint itself is covered is not relevant to its status. The separate definition of "body panel" does refer to the surface of the exterior or interior of the bus and to use of the panel in enclosing the bus occupant space. Thus, it is the body panel and not the joint which must form part of the exterior or interior surface of the bus. In the case you describe, the head-lining panel does enclose the bus occupant space and constitutes a part of the interior surface of the bus. Thus it does form a "body panel joint" at the point of contact with the header (a separate body component).

You also suggest that the requirements do not apply to a joint where the edges of the body panel join a body component at a point other than at the edge of the body component. Your interpretation is incorrect. In the case you describe, the floor panel's edges form a right angle that is attached to a central portion of the tag panel at some distance from its edges. The definition of "body panel joint" refers to contact between the edges of the body panel and another body component, without regard to the proximity of the edges of the body component.

You also request confirmation that a statement on rubrails in our April 26 letter is fulfilled by ensuring that, in testing a complex joint to which rubrails are fastened, the rubrails are modified so that they are not held by the gripping fixture of the tensile strength test machine. Your interpretation is correct.

In a related matter, the NHTSA would like to advise you of failure in our April 26, 1976, letter to respond fully to Blue Bird Body Company's February 13, 1976, letter. You asked if the cove molding that is attached at the border of the bus body floor against the sidewall of the bus body would qualify as a surface component whose edges form a joint subject to the standard's requirements. From your description of the cove molding and its use at the edge of the floor, the agency considers that it does not have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. A copy of your illustration of this component is attached for the benefit of interested persons.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your July 28, 1976, letter to the Administrator, asking that the new definition of "school bus" become effective on April 1, 1977, instead of October 27, 1976. Your request has been granted by a recent notice of rulemaking.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

July 28, 1976

John Snow, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-492, precipitated a number of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as well as an amended definition of a school bus (Section 201). We have noted that Public Law 94-346 has changed the effective dates of the new standards from October 26, 1976 to April 1, 1977, but apparently the school bus definition remains effective October 26, 1976. We believe that this must be an oversight and probably wouldn't achieve the uniformity of a consistent change that you would desire. We do feel that this difference in dates will cause confusion and hardship. Therefore, we request that the new school bus definition also be changed to be effective April 1, 1977.

Thanks for your consideration in this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

C: BYRON CROMPTON; TBEA

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

July 20, 1976

Thomas W. Herlihy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The purpose of this letter is to clarify certain questions pertaining to definition of a school bus which becomes effective October 27, 1976.

First, we would like to know exactly what constitutes "Interstate Commerce" as it is used in the school bus definition. The question has been raised: do the new school bus standards only apply to buses which cross state lines while transporting students?

Another question relates to the scope of the exception clause which states that a school bus . . . "does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." Are we correct in assuming that this exception does not extend to Greyhound or Trailways type buses which are chartered for the purpose of ". . . .carrying students to and from school . . . related events. . . ."?

Thank you for your early reply to these important questions.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY July 20, 1976

Thomas W. Herlihy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

REFERENCE: 1. Letter W. G. Milby to R. B. Dyson, dated 2-13-76

2. Letter Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby, dated 4-26-76; N40-30

The purpose of this letter is to question several of the interpretations NHTSA has given us in reference 2 regarding FMVSS 221.

Item 4, page 2 of reference 1 pertains to the area where the header and headlining come in contact. As explained in reference 1, this area of contact is completely covered and, therefore, isolated from the bus occupant space by the wire molding. In reference 2 NHTSA said "the terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together they establish the following test. If the edge of the surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with another body component the requirements of S5 apply. . .".

In our opinion the area of contact between the header and headlining does not meet this criteria for two reasons:

1. Because it is completely enclosed by the wire molding, it cannot be construed to be "a surface component".

2. Also because it is covered by the wire molding it does not "enclose the bus occupant space".

Therefore, we would ask NHTSA to reconsider its interpretation given to us in reference 2 and rule that the area of contact between the header and headlining is not a joint which must meet the requirements of S5.

Item 15, page 5 of reference 1 pertains to the area of contact between the tag panel and the floor. In our opinion this does not meet the criteria required for a joint because the area of contact between the tag panel and the floor is several inches from the edge of the tag panel. This fact was overlooked in the preparation of reference 1. Hence in reference 2 NHTSA ruled that this would be a joint subject to the requirements of S5. Since the area of contact is several inches from the tag panel, we are proceeding on this not being a joint. I am including it in this letter merely to document the reason for our not considering it to be a joint after having received the interpretation given in reference 2 which was based on incomplete information.

In reference 2 NHTSA ruled that rubrails ". . . are not themselves considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered body components for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which they are fastened, they should be modified as necessary to prevent them from affecting testing of the underlying joint." In the many hundreds of joint tests we have run in preparation for compliance with FMVSS 221 we have come to the conclusion that it's virtually impossible to modify the rubrail in such a way that it does not have any effect on the underlying joint. We also feel that it is unrealistic to attempt to modify the rubrail so that it has no effect on the underlying joint. This is because that in order for the underlying joint to fail on a vehicle the rubrail must also fail. Therefore, in our testing of joints which include a rubrail we have modified them in such a way that the gripping fixture of the tensile testing machine only grips the panel portion of this specimen and in no way contacts the rubrail. In this way the tensile load is imparted wholly to the panel specimen. However, we cannot guarantee that the rubrail section has no effect on the underlying joint. We are confident that our testing method is more severe than any kind of loading that could even be imparted in an accident. Further we are confident that our testing method meets the full spirit of FMVSS 221. I include this discussion again simply to document our testing methodology and to indicate that we do not feel it is possible or reasonable to construct and test a sample joint in which the rubrail has no effect on the underlying joint.

Thank you for your consideration of the header to headlining and we look forward to your early reply.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

TOLERANCE ON ALL DIMENSIONS IS, PLUS (Illegible Word) OR MINUS (Illegible Word) UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED

INACTIVATES NOS.

REPLACED BY NOS.

RELEASED

BLUE BIRD BODY CO. FORT VALLEY, GEORGIA, U.S.A.

(Illegible Word)

COVE MOLDING TO FLOOR

(Illegible Words)

SIZE:

ID: nht76-2.11

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Sheller-Globe Corporation's August 31, 1976, question whether 5 described intersections in a bus body qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The windshield fence that you describe in section A of your letter connects the window glazing seal to the bus body and is considered to be a portion of the window by the NHTSA. Windows are excluded from the definition of "body panel joint" found in S4 of the standard. Therefore, the fence would be excluded from the requirements of the standard.

The "trim molding" described in section B of your letter constitutes a body panel that encloses occupant space. The fact that the trim is decorative does not place it within the exclusion of "spaces designed for ventilation or other functional purpose." Since the "trim molding" is a body panel and is connected to a body component, it creates a joint subject to the requirements of the standard. The fact that the molding, like every other part of the bus, has a function does not exclude it from the ambit of the joint requirement under the exception for "ventilation or other functional purpose."

In section C of your letter, your acknowledge that the joint where the skirt panel connects to the outside upper body panel falls within the ambit of the standard. You request an exception from the standard's requirements for this joint based upon a perceived lack of safety hazards resulting from failure of this joint in a crash situation.

To implement the Congressional mandate for school bus safety, the NHTSA drafted Standard No. 221 to cover all joints that are potentially dangerous in a crash situation. The agency adopted this broad coverage of joints to avoid the more piece-meal approach of analyzing each joint for possible safety problems, because it is impracticable to test every joint in every possible accident configuration. Therefore, since the joint you describe falls within the parameters of the standard, it must meet the requirements specified.

The joint described in section D of your letter where the vent eves connect to the outside roof panel is a joint within the definition of the standard. The outside roof panel is a "body panel" as defined in S4. The junction where a "body panel" connects to a "body component," the vent eves, constitutes a joint regulated by the standard.

With regard to section E of your letter, the NHTSA agrees that the joint where the outside and inside lower panels connect is within the scope of the standard. Whether or not the joint itself is covered by trim molding is not relevant to its status. It is still a joint within the definition of the standard and subject to all of the requirements therein.

I trust these interpretations fully answer your questions.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

August 31, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 221 - School Bus Body Joint Efficiency

Sheller-Globe Corporation respectfully requests interpretation on whether or not certain junctions within the framed structure of the Superior School Bus Body are "joints" by definition, and whether or not these junctions are subject to the requirements of the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Attached you will find an isometric drawing provided for purposes of your locating the area where these junctions in question are located within the framed structure of the Superior School Bus Body.

Also attached you will find section and part drawings identifiable by section to the isometric drawing provided.

A. Upper Pillar to Windshield Fence - Section 3-3:

The windshield fence is not a body structural member, its only function is to retain the windshield corner glass seal. As can be seen on the isometric drawing provided (Section 3-3), this part is not located within the bus occupant space. It is forward of the drivers seating position in the cab area. This part is fastened to the Number 1 Pillar by are welding.

Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that inasmuch as this part is for functional purposes as referred to in Paragraph S4. Definitions - "Body Panel Joints' and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

B. Pillar Facing to Side Body Pillar - Section 5.5, 5.5A and Drawing 62975-B:

This part is not a body structural member, it is as is defined: a "facing", a "trim molding". Its' function is purely decorative as can be seen on Section Drawings 5-5, and 5-5A. This part by virtue of its' construction (rolled or hemmed edges) would provide no sharp, harmful and/or cutting edges in the event of a crash condition. This part is retained to the side body pillar by four (4) rivets, two at the roof rail and two at the sill (see Drawing 62975-B).

Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that inasmuch as this part is for a functional (decorative) purpose as referred to in Paragraph S4. Definitions - "Body Panel Joints" and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

C. Outside Lower Body - Section 9-9: The Superior "Bus Body" sets on the chassis rails (chassis frame) at the lower surface of the underbody main crossmembers (the "O" body line - reference Section Drawing 9-9).

As Paragraph S4. Definitions ("Bus Body") defines the parameters of a bus body, all joints located within these parameters would be required to-comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

In an interpretation issued by the NHTSA, the fastening of body side rub rails to the outer bus body were excluded from the requirements of the above referenced safety standard. Section Drawing 9-9 (encircled area) depicts where the Skirt Panel is fastened to the Outside Upper Body Panel at the junction where the Body Rub Rail is fastened to the Skirt Panel.

Sheller-Globe Corporation realizes that this junction falls within the defined parameters of a "Bus Body", and accordingly shoull comply with the requirements of the above referenced safety standard. However, Sheller-Globe Corporation requests that this specific junction of the Superior School Bus be exempt from the requirements of the above referenced safety standard for reasons as follows:

A) This junction is located in an area within the structural frame-work of the Superior School Bus Body where probably the highest amount of structural integrity exists, at the bus body floor line perpendicular to the underbody main crossmembers.

B) The steel floor, the Skirt Panel and the underbody main crossmembers are fastened to one another by the 3/8" bolts and nuts, 4 at each body section as can be seen on Section Drawing 9-9.

C) Additionally, the steel floor is joined to the Skirt Panel (upper) in compliance to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

D) The Skirt Panel (upper) is joined to the Upper Inside Panel, at the Seat Rail in compliance to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

E) All interior and exterior longitudinal panel joints are joined, panel to panel, in compliance to the above referenced safety standard.

F) The steel floor is joined to the underbody main crossmembers in compliance to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

Most States require, in their State Specifications, that Rub Rails be installed at the floor-line of School Buses. Denial of this exemption would require that Sheller-Globe Corporation re-engineer this junction configuration, re-engineer and re-tool for the Rub-Rails and Outside Body Panels.

Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that if this junction failed in a crash condition, no loss of body structural integrity would result. Further, feature of this junction in a crash condition would not likely produce edges harmful to the occupants] of the School Bus.

D. Body Rail (Vent Eves) to Outside Roof Panel - Section 12-12A: Section 12-12A depicts where the outside roof panels insert into the roof rail at the vent eves. As further can be seen on Section 15-15, and the isometric drawing provided, the outside roof panels are all fastened as required by the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, i.e., 60% Joint Efficiency. The outside roof panels are joined to one another and to the roof bow facings as required by the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Inside roof panels are also joined to one another and to the roof bow facing as required by the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Presently, where the outside roof panels (as shown on Section 12-12A) inserts into the roof rail (the vent eves), Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that inasmuch as this outside roof panel edge would not, in the event of a crash condition, provide a harmful and/or cutting edge, the junction in reference does not form a part of the body structure, and further inasmuch as all junctions surrounding the junction in reference are joined as required by the above referenced safety standard, the junction in reference would not be required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

If the referenced junction is required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard, Sheller-Globe Corporation would be required to redesign and retool this area of the bus body structure and its' surrounding structure. The progress of "plug-welding" has been evaluated in joining in this area, however, the results of this process has not been satisfactory in complying with the requirements of the above referenced safety standard. Additionally, "plug-welding" in this area creates an eye-sore and is conducive to rust.

Sheller-Globe Corporation requests interpretation and guidance of the NHTSA pertinent to whether the referenced junction is or is not required to comply with the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

E. Outside Lower Panel to Inside Lower Panel - Sections 11-11 and 11-11-A:

Sheller-Globe Corporation realizes that where the outside and inside lower panels are joined according to normal interpretation, this joint would be required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

However, Sheller-Globe Corporation requests guidance on whether this joint, inasmuch as it is covered/protected by the trim moulding that is joined to the lower inside panel as required by the requirements of the above referenced safety standard, so that in a crash condition no harmful and/or cutting edges could be produced, need comply to the requirements of this safety standard.

If this joint that is formed by the outside and inside lower panels is required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Sheller-Globe Corporation would be required to re-design and re-tool this area and its' surrounding structure, possibly to include a re-design and re-tooling of all passenger windows.

Sheller-Globe Corporation solicits the NHTSA's expedient response to this matter, inasmuch as product engineering and tooling engineering for the 1977 model year Superior School Bus is pending an expedient response.

George R. Semark - Manager Vehicle Safety Activities

(Graphics omitted)

APP APP. SYM. REVISIONS DATE CK. DR.: B DATE: 7-27-76 CK. APP. APP. BUS-FRONT END YEAR: 76 (Illegible Words)

(Illegible Words)

3000 MODEL 1000

SECTION 5-5A

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)