ID: nht76-2.9

DATE: 04/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue bird Body Company's February 13, 1976, question whether 47 described intersections of bus body components qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. You also ask what test procedures are used in testing joints if the means described in S6.1.1 or S6.1.2 cannot be employed due to the configurations of the intersecting components.

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 a surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 47 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that the arears corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs of your letter are bus body joints and therefore must meet the 60-percent joint strength requirements: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 26, 28, 29, 50.

The front and rear headers described in paragraphs 2 and 12 are considered primarily structural and have only an incidental role in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered "body panels" for purposes of the requirements.

The wire molding discussed in paragraphs 3 and 10 is considered a maintenance access panel, excluded from the requirements only if a wire is installed behind the molding.

The bumper trim strip described in paragraph 17 is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

Your assumption that components located entirely below the level of the floor line are not subject to the standard is correct. However, body panels that do "enclose bus' occupant space" because a portion lies above the floor line are subject to the requirements. Thus, the rear center skirt described in paragraph 16, the bumper trim panel described in paragraph 18, and the auxiliary cross members described in paragraph 21 are not subject to the requirements.

The rubrails described in paragraphs 22, 23, 27, 28, and 29 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.

The wheelhousing trim described in paragraph 24 is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

Because the plywood described in paragraph 25 is attached to a floor panel and is only added to some buses for insulation purposes, it is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

The extruded aluminum trim described in paragraph 30 is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

The NHTSA agrees that paragraphs 30 through 36 and 38 through 46 describe joints between maintenance access panels and the bus body. The ventilation duct in paragraph 37 is the type of ventilation space that is not subject to requirements for joint strength.

In many of your requests for clarification, you asked what means would be employed to test joints in which the two body components in question are not flat surfaces in the same or parallel planes. The NHTSA intends to test joints that are not capable of being tested as specified in S6.1.1 or S6.1.2 by determining the nature of the two body components and testing identical materials joined by the same means as is used by the school bus manufacturer. The materials will be flat and conform to the dimensions described in Figure 1, and they will be oriented in the same fashion as described in Figure 1. For example, the 90-degree angle at the joint described in paragraph 20 is ignored for purposes of the NHTSA test procedure by simulating the joint and using opposing forces in the same or parallel planes. In this way, the agency can examine a manufacturer's technique to see if the fastening method constitutes the exercise of due care in complying with the joint strength requirement.

You also asked what procedure would be used in testing joints where more than two panels or body components are joined by one fastener (example in paragraph 29). In these cases, the definition of "body panel joint" in S4 describes several joints, involving one at each intersection area that qualifies as joint. For each pair of components, the tensile strength of the weaker panel is determined, and the joint is required to sustain a load of not less than 60 percent of that tensile strength. For example, in the case of two side panels riveted to a bow, one joint would be between the two lapped panels and 60 percent of the weaker panel would be the test requirement. At the same time, a separate test of the joint between the bow and the panel that contacts the bow would be required, with 60 percent of the weaker component's tensile strength established as the level of strength for testing.

I trust that this discussion will permit a determination of what portions of your products are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221 and what test procedures are employed in satisfaction of the requirements.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY February 13, 1976

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The purpose of this letter is to request interpretations on whether or not certain portions of our bus body construction are considered to be joints, which are subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

As you can see this is quite a lengthy letter; however, we feel it is necessary because the definitions given in the subject standard leave considerable latitude for interpretation.

We have prepared individual sketches and photographs of each area in question and keyed these sketches to the enclosed isometric drawing #47, Body Construction and Conventional Joint Strength, and photograph #48, Blue Bird All American front section and photograph #49, Blue Bird Conventional front section. These sketches are not necessarily to scale, but are rather intended to communicate the pertinent construction details.

In order to facilitate consideration of these construction areas, I will list them by sequence using the balloon numbers on the isometric drawing and two front end photographs.

1. Upper cowl to cowl. The upper left photograph shows these two members on the left front corner of the body. The upper right photograph shows this same sub-assembly from the inside. The front portion where the body cowl meets the chassis cowl is forward of the windshield area while the rearward portion is aft of the windshield area.

We know of no practical way that this seam can be tested using the procedure outlined in S6 because of the embossed portion of the upper cowl and because of the radius of curvature of these members.

Is this a joint under FMVSS 221 and if so, how should it be tested?

2. Front header to front corner post. The photograph shows the upper right corner of the bus body near the entrance door area looking from inside the bus. The horizontal lower surface of the front header is an exposed panel in the interior body area. However, we know of no practical way to assure 60% joint strength between this panel and the tubular vertical front corner post, which is a structural member; nor do we know of a practical way in which it can be tested using the procedure outlined in S6.

Is this a joint under FMVSS 221, and, if so, how should it be tested?

3. The photograph shows the wire molding, which is installed just above the side window area. The photograph is taken from the opposite side of the body looking up from a seated position. The sketch shows a section of this molding with its attachment to the 14 gauge bow and its function in covering and providing access to the wire harness. The wire molding runs the full length of the bus body on the inside on both right and left. It covers and provides access to the main body wiring harness. However, in some models, the wiring harness is only routed on the left side, but a right side wire molding is still provided.

We are assuming that this wire molding is a "maintenance access panel" as described in S4 and, therefore, not subject to the joint strength requirements.

Is this also a valid assumption on those models in which there is no right side body wiring harness, but the wire molding is still provided?

4. Header to headlining. The photograph shows the header which acts as a lintel above each window and is bolted between the main body posts. The photograph also shows a headlining panel in place looking from inside the bus. The sketch shows details of how the headlining rests on a ledge which is formed into the header. This ledge merely acts as a locater to facilitate installation of the headlining panel during the manufacturing process. The headlining panel is then riveted to the bows. There is no welding or mechanical fasteners between the headlining panel and the header. As shown in photograph #3, this is completely covered by the wire molding and, therefore, in our opinion, does not constitute a "portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space" as referenced in S4, and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Furthermore, we know of no way to connect the headlining panel to the header to meet the requirements of FMVSS 221 or to test it according to the procedure in S6.

Are we correct in our assumption that this is not a "body panel joint" and, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221?

5. Inside side panel to gusset. The gusset is a formed longitudinal body frame member which runs the full length of the bus body on either side. The formed flange in the gusset is used as a mounting ledge on which the outboard side of the passenger seats is mounted. The inside side panels are shown in the upper portions of the photograph and the gusset is shown in the lower portion of the photograph.

Is the area of contact between the inside side panel and the gusset a "body panel joint"?

6. Gusset to floor. This shows the area of contact between the 14 gauge floor panels and the 16 gauge longitudinal floor gusset which is a formed longitudinal framing member running the full side of the bus body on both right and left. The upper portion of the photograph shows the longitudinal gusset ledge; the mid portion of the photograph shows the vertical portion of the longitudinal gusset; and the lower portion of the photograph shows the 14 gauge floor. Because these members meet each other at right angles, we know of no practical way to test them using the procedure described in S6. Furthermore, the area of contact between these members presents no edge to bus occupants. We are, therefore, assuming that this does not constitute a "body panel joint" as described in S4 and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221.

Is this assumption correct?

7. Wheelhouse assembly. The photograph shows a rear wheelhouse assembly which provides tire clearance when the suspension goes into the jounce position. In the finished bus this assembly is covered with floor covering where it meets the floor.

Because of the configuration of this assembly, we know of no practical way to test it according to the procedure defined in S6.

Is this a "body panel joint" and, if so, how should it be tested?

8. Inside side rear vision panel to bow. The photograph shows the rearmost side split sash window and the rubber mounted rear vision glass looking from inside the bus. As seen from the photograph and in the cross section sketch, the joint between the inside vision panel and the bow is completely covered by the extruded aluminum frame around the window.

In our opinion the joint between the inside rear vision panel and the bow does not enclose the bus's occupant space and is, therefore, not a "body panel joint", which is subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

9. Side vision header. The photograph shows the left rear inside rear vision panel where it contacts the header, looking from inside the bus with the headlining panel and the wire molding removed. The sectional sketch shows the area of contact between the inside rear vision panel and the header. The upper edge of the inside rear vision panel is completely covered by the wire molding.

We know of no way that the area of contact between the header and the inside rear vision panel can be joined or tested according to FMVSS 221.

We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

10. Wire molding to rear upper inner panel. The photograph shows the longitudinal wire molding where it butts against the rear upper inner panel. This is a butt joint and, in our opinion, the wire molding constitutes a "maintenance access panel".

We are, therefore, assuming this joint is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

11. Upper emergency door trim. The photograph shows the emergency door opening looking from the outside of the bus with the emergency door open. The purpose of the upper emergency door trim is to provide a door stop and dam against which the rear emergency door weatherstrip can seal. This is strictly a trim part which provides no structural function.

It is our opinion that the area of contact between the rear header and the upper emergency door trim does not constitute a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this correct?

12. Rear header to bow. The photograph shows the butt joint between the rear header and rear bow. The rear header goes across the full width of the bus above the rear emergency door. The lower surface of the rear header is an interior panel. We know of no way to join the rear header to the bow or test it according to the requirements of FMVSS 221. We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

13. Upper corner post to bow, belt bar and header. The photograph shows the left rear corner of the bus body looking from inside. The isometric sketch shows the right rear corner of the body looking from outside. The upper corner post acts as an interior panel. We know of no way to join the upper corner post to the bow, belt bar and header or to test it in accordance with FMVSS 221.

We are assuming these are not "body panel joints" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

14. Lower corner post to bow, belt bar and floor panel. The photograph shows the left rear corner of the bus body looking from inside. The isometric sketch shows the right rear corner of the bus body looking from outside. We know of no way to join the lower corner post to the bow, belt bar and floor panel or to test it in accordance with FMVSS 221.

We are assuming these areas of contact do not constitute "body panel joints" and are, therefore, not subject to FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

15. Tag panel to floor. As seen from the sectional sketch, the tag panel meets the floor panel at right angles. We know of no way to test this in accordance with the requirements of S6.

We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

16. Rear center skirt panel to rear emergency door post support. Because of the configuration of these parts, we know of no way to test them in accordance with the procedure of S6. We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

17. Bumper trim strip. As shown from the photograph, this is merely a trim strip to improve the appearance of the rear of the bus where the bumper meets the body. Because of its function and because we know of no way it can be tested in accordance with the procedure of S6, we are assuming the bumper trim strip is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

18. Bumper trim panel. As can be seen from the photograph, the bumper trim panel serves the purpose of improving the appearance where the bumper meets the outside side panel. It can also be seen that the bumper trim panel is below the floor line and is therefore outside of the occupant space.

We are, therefore, assuming this panel is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

19. Side and rear vision inside to outside glass opening with rubber. The photograph shows the area of contact between the inside and outside rear vision panel flanges with part of the grazing rubber removed. As can be seen from the sectional sketch, this area of contact is completely covered by the glazing rubber which holds the glass in place. We know of no way to join the inside and outside rear vision panels or test them in accordance with FMVSS 221.

We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

20. Floor to floor. As can be seen from the sectional diagram, the testing procedure of S6 would put these fasteners in a tearing mode rather than in shear as was apparently assumed when the testing procedure was developed. The 14 gauge floor panels are covered with rubber floor covering in the finished bus.

We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

21. Floor to auxiliary cross member. The photograph shows the bottom side of a floor panel with hat section auxiliary cross members spot welded to the floor panel.

Because these auxiliary cross members are attached to the outside of the occupant space and are below the floor line, we are assuming the area of contact between the auxiliary cross member and the floor is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

22. Rubrail to rubrail overlap. Because rubrails are attached to the exterior skin of the bus body in our opinion they do not "enclose the bus occupant space" and, therefore, do not constitute "body panel joints".

Therefore, we are assuming rubrail overlap joints are not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

23. Side vision side panel. The area of contact between the outside side vision panel and the outside side panel is covered by the rubrail as seen from the sectional diagram.

Is this a "body panel joint" or not, and, if so, how should it be tested; with or without the rubrail in place?

24. Wheelhousing trim to side panel. As seen from the photograph and from the isometric drawing #47, the wheelhousing trim is simply an angular piece of sheet metal to trim the cut edges of the side panels around the wheel opening cutout. This trim provides no structural function and is outside the bus's occupant space.

We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

25. Plywood floor to metal floor. The photograph and sectional diagram show the installation of 5/8" thick plywood which is installed over the 14 gauge steel floor panels as optional equipment for insulation purposes. This option is primarily used in cold climates. The plywood provides no structural strength to the body. It is covered with rubber floor covering on the finished bus. We know no way to join the plywood to the floor or the plywood to itself in accordance with FMVSS 221.

We are assuming the plywood to steel and plywood to plywood are not "body panel joints" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

26. Bow cap to bow. As seen from the photograph and from the sectional sketch, the bow cap is merely a trim part to finish off the exterior of the structural body bow. Because of the configuration of these parts, we know of no way to test them according to the procedure of S6.

We are assuming the area of contact between the bow cap and the bow does not constitute a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

27. Rubrail to side panel. As seen from the sectional sketch, the rubrail is added to the exterior skin of the bus body and does, therefore, not enclose the occupant space. We are, therefore, assuming that the area of contact between the rubrail and the outside panel does not constitute a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

28. Side panel rubrail to sill. We know of no way to test the area of contact between the window sill, the outside side panel and the rubrail in accordance with the procedure of S6.

We are assuming these areas of contact do not constitute "body panel joints" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

29. Side panel to side panel. By the definition we understand the area of contact between the outside side panels to be "body panel joints", but two things are unclear. (1) Is our assumption correct that the area of contact below the floor line does not enclose the occupant space and is, therefore, not a "body panel joint"? (2) When this body panel joint is tested, should it be tested with all the members attached which include the rubrail, the two outside overlapping side panels and the body bow?

30. Aluminum trim to roof panel. The aluminum trim shown in the photograph and sectional diagram is used for appearance purposes only when transit type windows are ordered. Because the aluminum trim is added to the exterior skin of the body and does not serve to enclose the occupant space, we are assuming that the area of contact between the aluminum trim and the roof panels is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

The following items are keyed to photograph #49, Blue Bird Conventional Front Section.

31. Fresh air intake. The fresh air intake which is shown in the photograph in our opinion constitutes a "maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not a "body panel joint". Is this assumption correct?

32. Conventional switch panel. In our opinion this switch panels constitutes a "maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

33. Conventional left hand heater to bow and cowl. In our opinion the panels and trim enclosing the heater cores and ducting shown in the photograph constitute "maintenance access panels" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct? photograph is covered with a rubber floor covering on a finished bus. In our opinion this panel constitutes a "maintenance access panel" to the transmission and linkage and wiring and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

35. Dash covers and lower dash trim to belt bar. The end dash cover, the center dash cover and lower dash trim provide access to defroster ducting, instrumentation and wiring. In our opinion these constitute "maintenance access panels" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

36. Conventional transmission plate to floor. The transmission plate as shown in the photograph provides access to the transmission and linkage. In our opinion this constitutes a "maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

37. Heater duct to floor and gusset. The photograph and sectional diagram show the heater duct which is designed for ventilation. It is, therefore, not to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

38. Conventional right hand corner defroster and heater. In our opinion these panels are designed for ventilation purposes and provide maintenance access and, therefore, are not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

The following items are keyed to photograph #48, Blue Bird All American Front Section.

39. All American center grill access to radiator. In our opinion this panel is a "maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

40. All American switch panel and stationary switch panel. In our opinion these are "maintenance access panels" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

41. Plastic dash to belt bar and angled dash trim to heater panel, All American. In our opinion these panels constitute "maintenance access panels" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

42. All American driver's floor board panels. In our opinion, these are "maintenance access panels" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

43. All American right hand heater. In our opinion these panels provide ventilation and access to the right hand front heater and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

44. All American engine hood and ledge. In our opinion these components provide for maintenance access to the engine and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

45. All American instrument panel. In our opinion this constitutes "a maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

46. All American front access panel. In our opinion this constitutes a "maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

The preamble to FMVSS 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, as it appeared in the Federal Register dated January 27, 1976 said, "It is anticipated that this rule will burden manufacturers only to the extent of requiring the installation of more rivets than are currently used. The NHTSA has reviewed the economic and environmental impact of this proposal and determined that neither will be significant." In light of this, we are assuming that the NHTSA did not intend for major structural changes. We are certain that you understand that many of the areas discussed above would constitute major structural revisions if they were judged by you to be "body panel joints" which are subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Obviously, there is not time for such changes between now and October 26, 1976, the effective date for this standard.

We feel that to resolve each of the questions raised above, a meeting is required between NHTSA personnel and Blue Bird personnel. We are hereby requesting that such a meeting be held on February 24, 1976.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests and your early reply.

W. G. MILBY Staff Engineer

[Attachments Omitted]

ID: nht76-3.1

DATE: 11/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: E. Edelman & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1976, to Dr. James D. Gregory, requesting information on aftermarket gas caps as they relate to compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), No. 301. Your inquiry has been forwarded to this office for reply. Apparently your letter of May 26, 1976, was either lost or misdirected, as we can find no record of it in our files, and we sincerely apologize for this delay in responding to your inquiry.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate vehicle fuel tank caps as such; however, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, specifies performance requirements to assure the integrity of the entire vehicle fuel system (which includes the fuel tank cap) in various crash modes.

Thus, if installation of your replacement cap is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the cap or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of S103(2)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-503). That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (S108(a)(2) (A)). Thus, it is illegal for any of the above named persons to install a fuel tank cap that he knows will cause the vehicle to be in non-compliance with the fuel system integrity standard. Federal Law does not, however, prohibit the owner of a vehicle from purchasing and installing a fuel tank cap of his choice on his own vehicle, even though he may compromise the Fuel System Integrity Standard.

We are interested in any information regarding safety problems associated with replacement gas caps as a basis for further action. If you could provide any such information, we would be most grateful.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

SINCERELY,

May 26, 1976

James B. Gregory, Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration I am writing to you for some clarification on Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75 (part 571; S 301-75. This standard spells out original equipment manufacture's responsibilities for designing automobiles against fuel spillage after crash tests. This implicitely means that manufactures of gas caps for OEM customers are required to provide gas caps which conform to the roll-over requirements.

My question is, do the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards in any way impose requirements on parts manufacturers who make gas caps for after-market retail outlets to market caps which meet the OEM roll-over specifications?

For any company to volentarily follow the practice of meeting the roll-over specifications when others do not, self-imposes a severe marketing penalty because of the additional large number of caps which are needed for complete market coverage. This poses warehouse customer inventory stocking problems. Since some companies are using one cap for the OEM which meets roll-over requirements, and a different cap for the after-market at a decided competative advantage, it is imperative to us that this question of applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard be answered.

I await your early reply.

Ronald W. Cooke Engineering Manager

ID: nht76-3.10

DATE: 08/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William K. Rosenberry Esq.; Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflett of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client "may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements" of Standard No. 302.

You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems, No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the addition of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the non-compliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).

With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabric supplier "test each fabric lot for flammability before certification." In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of "due care" the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the "warranty" of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a "due care" defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.

Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alternations.

I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 for your information.

ID: nht76-3.11

DATE: 03/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Consumer Product Safety Commission

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht76-3.12

DATE: 08/20/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Attwood Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 23, 1976, in which you ask whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to portable toilets.

Standard 302 applies to the motor vehicles listed in Section S3, including the equipment installed in them at the time of sale. Section S4 lists those parts of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements, and a portable toilet is not included. Therefore, it is not subject to the standard. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.

SINCERELY,

June 23, 1976

Federal Highway and Transportation Safety Administration NHTSA

DEAR SIR:

I am trying to find the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 302 which covers portable toilets. Please send me any information you have on this.

Thank you.

SINCERELY,

ATTWOOD CORPORATION

Don Dekker

ID: nht76-3.13

ID: nht76-3.14

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Theft Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1976, concerning "track sheets" and "autotels."

Section S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, lists those components of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements. I have enclosed a copy for your information. An "autotel" under the back seat, between the frame and the body, or pasted to the top of the gas tank does not fall within the ambit of the standard. Consequently, it is our view that this most important and effective deterrent to vehicle theft is not discouraged by any existing motor vehicle safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed that Standard No. 302 be amended to include all materials exposed to the occupant compartment air space. If this amendment is adopted, an "autotel" under the seat presumably would fall within the purview of the standard. In this case, the "autotel" could not burn at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. We believe that this would not prove an impediment to the continuation of the "autotel" program as flame-retardant paper is readily available.

If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE THEFT BUREAU

January 8, 1976

Dr. James Gregory, Administrator NYTSA Department of Transportation

We are writing this on behalf of our own investigative efforts as well as for law enforcement generally.

Each auto manufacturer in the United States when assembling a car uses what is called a track sheet or autotel. This piece of paper, and in some cases two pieces of paper, contains detailed information on the identification of various parts of the car being assembled and contains the numbers and information necessary to positively identify that vehicle.

Over the years, auto theft investigators, including our own investigators and those in law enforcement, have been able to identify hundreds of stolen cars by use of this material even though the numbers stamped into the frames and affixed to the dashboard have been changed or obliterated by thieves.

This paper is usually secreted in some portion of the vehicle, sometimes put under the back seat, sometimes between the frame and the body, and in one particular make of car is Scotch taped onto the top of the gas tank.

We have been informed that there is a possibility that this practice might be regarded as adding to the flammability of the interior of a car and, to our knowledge, at least one manufacturer has discontinued this invaluable aid to automobile identification because of the possibility that these tracks might be prohibited by regulation.

I would request that you consider the extreme value of the inclusion of auto tel in the vehicles and, also, consider the very minimum possibility of these contributing to any fire hazard in the car.

We would like a clarification of your Agency's position in this matter in order that we may request the manufacturers to continue these tracks.

We would appreciate any consideration you can give our request.

Michael J. Murphy President

cc: HON. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECY. OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. EDWARD LEVY -- ATTY. GENERAL; JOHN CARSON -- BRANCH CHIEF, CONTROLS & DISPLAYS, NHTSA

ID: nht76-3.15

DATE: 09/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bing Johnson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1976, in which you ask about our regulations concerning the modification of "vans" to make them suitable for camping. The modifications you propose to make include the installation of plumbing, water, electricity, and additional seating.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @@ 1381, et seq.) prohibits the manufacture, offer for sale, sale, introduction in interstate commerce or importation of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. This prohibition does not apply (except for importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Under these provisions, you are responsible for the compliance of any vehicle that you modify up to and including the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale.

The manufacturer must comply with all applicable safety standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). His certification appears on a completed vehicle. It would be your responsibility to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards after your modifications. Under Part 567 of our regulations, you must attach a label to the vehicle that states that, as altered, the vehicle continued to conform to the standards.

From the description of the modifications you describe, it appears that you might affect the compliance of the vehicle with the following standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. It should be noted that any additional weight created by your modifications or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.

We also would point out that if you modify a Ford "Econoline" in all probability you would change the vehicle classification from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle. This should be noted on the certification label that you attach to the vehicle.

I have enclosed an information sheet that explains where you may obtain copies of these regulations.

Sincerely,

Aug. 16, 1976

Dear Sir, I am interested in your policies and regulation for camping, vans. I am planning to do modifications of standard manufactured vans (e.g: Ford "Econoline") which would involve plumbing, water, electrical (no (Illegible Lines)) seating.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention.

Bing Johnson

ID: nht76-3.16

DATE: 05/12/76

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1976, concerning testing procedures pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

As you point out, S5.1.3 of the standard provides that thin, heat resistant wires are used to support a "specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning." One of your customers asserted that support wires should be used in testing his materials, and you have asked when the use of support wires is appropriate.

Your interpretation of the standard in this case is commendable, and your test practices are calculated to demonstrate clearly the exercise of due care that a particular product complies with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, an NHTSA July 19, 1971, interpretation of Standard No. 302 (copy enclosed) permits use of support wires when any bending of the tested material occurs. At the time of that interpretation, it was believed that the support wires would not influence the test results.

More recent testing by the agency demonstrates that the support wires do significantly affect burn rates, and the agency intends to issue an interpretative amendment of the standard that will limit use of support wires.

Thank you for your responsible approach to testing products that are required to conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

SINCERELY,

INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

February 18, 1976

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We are an independent testing laboratory, whose services include conducting the tests for flammability, including the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302. A question concerning the test procedure and method has been brought to our attention and we need an official interpretation.

The test method states, "A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat-resistant wires, spanning the width of the u-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals". We have always interpreted this statement to mean that if the material would have a tendency to become almost vertical upon ignition you would support the material with the wires, otherwise the wires would not be needed; as an example, a specimen of plastic or a headlining material would be supported by the wires. A large percentage of our testing is on materials related to carpeting, either woven or tufted, and we do not use the wires for support since the material does not have a tendency to become vertical during the test.

A manufacturer has sent us some material which is to be used as an upholstery fabric and asked us to conduct the test No. 302. We conducted the test according to the procedure; however, we did not use the support wires on this material as we felt the material was not covered under the above statement. The material was cut into four specimens, two specimens in the machine direction and two specimens in the "cross-machine" direction. Two specimens are tested with the "face up" in both directions and two specimens are tested with "face-down" in both directions, as we cannot determine prior to the test which will give us the most adverse results (para. S5.2.2). The material failed the test. We are enclosing a copy of the test results with the manufacturers name blotted out.

When the manufacturer received the report, he was quite upset, as a copy of his letter to us shows. The material, according to him, should be tested using the support wires which in this case allows the material to pass the test; however, if the support wires are not used, the material will almost always fail the test. We have told him that we do not conduct the test so that the results would always be beneficial to the manufacturer, but that we conduct the test in accordance with the standard and our interpretation of the test method which in some cases is not beneficial to the manufacturer. It is our opinion that flammability tests are not conducted in such a way as to suit a manufacturer because he wants a passing report, but that the test should be conducted under the most adverse conditions so as to give a true look at the material being tested.

I am enclosing a piece of the material in question and hope to have a ruling as soon as possible as to whether or not support wires should be used with this material. We have other tests to perform which we are holding until we hear from you.

Cornelius C. Setter

INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

TEST NUMBER

-REPORT-

CONSUMER: (Illegible Words)

SUBJECT: (Illegible Words) (Illegible Text)

ID: nht76-3.17

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Fachnormenausschuss Kraftfahrzeuge - FAKRA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 31, 1975, in which you recommended a modification of the testing procedures pursuant to Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your modification would require the presence of support wires in all tests. After consideration of the recently-complied test data on the use of support wires in the testing procedures, the NHTSA has decided that modification of the standard should be considered along the lines you suggest.

The NHTSA has interpreted Standard No. 302 to permit the use of support wires when any bending of the tested material occurred. At the time of that interpretation, it was believed that support wires would not influence the test results. More recent testing by the agency indicates that the use of support wires does significantly affect burn rates. For this reason, the agency is considering various possibilities in addition to the one you suggest.

Thank you for sending us a copy of your Draft International Standard. We appreciate your concern in this matter.

SINCERELY,