ID: nht76-2.48

DATE: 02/26/76

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

TO: Peterbilt Motors Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1976, asking whether it would violate Standard No. 108 to wire truck tractors to permit "the customers to activate the truck trailer tail lamps when the tractor marker lamps are activated rather than when the headlamps are activated."

S4.5.3 of Standard No. 108 which requires the tail lamps to be illuminated when the headlamps are activated applies only to single motor vehicles and not combinations thereof. Therefore we confirm your understanding that the wiring circuitry you propose to install will not violate Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

February 6, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- U. S. Department of Transportation

Reference: FMVSS-108, Section 4.5.3

Gentlemen:

Peterbilt Motors Company has been requested to construct a fleet of truck tractors. These tractors will, of course, comply with the above referenced regulation, including the referenced sub-section regarding tail lamp operation.

However, we have been further requested to provide electrical wiring and circuitry on the tractors to the tractor cabs which will permit the customer to activate the truck trailer tail lamps when the tractor marker lamps are activated rather than when the headlamps are activated.

Through telephone contact with your office, we were informed that our providing such circuitry would not be in violation of the referenced regulation.

Therefore, by this letter we wish to confirm your telephone remarks and to state our intention that, unless otherwise notified, we will provide the circuitry requested by this customer.

Sincerely,

Arlen E. Riggs -- Legal Manager

cc: K.R. Brownstein - Corporate Legal

ID: nht76-2.49

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Registry of Motor Vehicle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1976, question whether specific aspects of Massachusett's requirements for the construction, location, and size of fuel tanks in school buses would be preempted by the Federal requirements for school bus fuel system integrity that become effective April 1, 1977 (Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity). I regret that we have not responded to your questions sooner.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d) does preempt State motor vehicle safety requirements of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal standard applicable to the same aspect of performance. In the cases you cite, it appears that the fuel tank seams and the location of the tank are items of design that are identical to the aspects of performance (integrity of the fuel system) regulated by the barrier impact tests of Standard No. 301-75. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that these aspects of fuel system construction are preempted by Standard No. 301-75, effective April 1, 1977. In developing the performance requirements of the standard, the agency did not intend to regulate fuel tank size.

The second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or its political subdivisions could specify additional fuel system features in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.

SINCERELY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

June 29, 1976

Chief Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Department of Transportation

Enclosed is a copy of current rules and regulations concerning minimum standards for construction and equipment of school buses. We have two distinct bus categories, a type I bus has a seating capacity of seventeen or more passengers and a type II bus has a seating capacity of sixteen or less passengers.

On page 16 under fuel system we specify the minimum capacity of a fuel tank for either type bus and we also state where said tank shall be mounted. We also require both type buses to have a tank meeting Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. On the type II school bus, the chassis manufacturers have a tank that is mounted at the rear of the vehicle. We have always considered this as a hazardous and dangerous location. A small bus hit in the rear, with a fire ensuing in that area would render the emergency door useless for evacuation. The same would apply when such a bus is tipped over on its' right side rendering the service entrance useless. If a fire occurred at the rear, the emergency door could not be used and the children would be trapped inside the vehicle.

In reference to F.M.V.S. Standard 301, Fuel System integrity I am posing several questions.

1. Will this standard pre-empt Massachusetts requirements for special heavy duty welded seam fuel tanks on both type I and type II school buses?

2. Will this standard force us to accept a standard 301 tank mounted wherever the chassis manufacture wishes to mount same or can we retain our requirement of mounting the tank on either side of a type II school bus.

3. Will this standard specify the minimum capacity of a fuel tank?

Charles V. Mulhern Supervisor School Bus Inspection

[ENCLOSURE OMITTED.]

ID: nht76-2.5

DATE: 02/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Jeep Corporation's October 16, 1975, petition to initiate rulemaking to amend the present definition of "Unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR @ 571.3) which reads:

"Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

Jeep requests that the definition be amended to "indicate that the unloaded vehicle [weight] does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories." The Jeep petition argues that the impracticality of conducting some dynamic testing with "work-performing accessories" in place may force the discontinuance of some factory-installed accessories although factory installation may be more safe than a subsequent aftermarket installation.

The Jeep Corporation petition is denied. As a general matter, the NHTSA has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed. The NHTSA has evaluated the potential problems of dynamic testing with heavy or protruding accessories in place and concludes that a decision on the practicality and wisdom of so doing should be made on a "standard-by-standard" basis. As you noted, the NHTSA has provided for removal of work-performing accessories in conducting compliance tests under Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. If Jeep considers dynamic testing in other standards to be unjustifiably burdensome because of the necessity of testing with all accessories in place, it would be appropriate to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard in question.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

October 16, 1975

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

RE: Petition For Rulemaking 49 CFR Part 571.3 - Definitions

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" contained in Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 571.3.

Currently, unloaded vehicle weight means the weight of the vehicle to be loaded with its maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for normal operation, but without occupants or cargo. This is the base vehicle condition used throughout the safety standards when vehicle dynamic performance is being evaluated. Jeep Corporation requests that this definition be revised to clearly indicate that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories. Currently, it is unclear whether a vehicle being subjected to a dynamic test should include such items.

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as "Jeep Special Equipment", are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modification which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle. Thus, it would be in the best interests of safety to allow Jeep Corporation to continue to provide approved special equipment.

This will not be possible, however, if future dynamic testing procedures in several safety standards require vehicles tested to be equipped with all types of special equipment accessories. To assure compliance to any Federal Standards with all possible vehicle equipment combinations would create a financial and testing burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which, as noted earlier, may not be in the best interest of public safety.

The NHTSA has, in the past, recognized the influence of certain work-performing equipment on vehicle dynamic performance. In Docket No. 73-29; Notice 1, published in 38 FR 33501, the NHTSA proposed the exemption of original equipment snow plows from vehicles being tested to the braking requirements of Standard (Illegible Word)

The concept of eliminating the effects of "work-performing accessories" from the unloaded vehicle weight was further confirmed by the NHTSA in its recent promulgation of Standard 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. In this standard, it is stated that, "(F)or the purpose of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR Part 571.3) such that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories.

Jeep Corporation submits that for the reason stated above, such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.

Stuart R. Perkins Director Vehicle Safety

ID: nht76-2.50

DATE: 02/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gillig Brothers School Bus Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for information concerning methods of ensuring the compliance of school buses with the barrier crash test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity.

Standard No. 301-75, while establishing minimum performance levels, does not specify any particular design requirements for school bus fuel systems. A manufacturer is free to design his vehicles in the manner that he believes most appropriate to ensure compliance. To this end, you may find helpful information in a study by Dynamic Science entitled School Bus Safety Improvement Program. The NHTSA cannot assure you, however, that following the suggestions contained in the study will guarantee that your school buses will comply with the standard.

The study is filed in the NHTSA's public docket as document number 75-03-GR1. Copies may be obtained by writing to:

Technical Reference Branch National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5108 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

You should refer to the following publication numbers: HS 801-615, -616, and -617.

ID: nht76-2.6

DATE: 03/15/76

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

TO: Alberto Negro - FIAT

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 6, 1975, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

You asked whether the standard permits marking or penetration of the protected zone to a depth greater than 1/4 inch, by windshield wipers during a barrier crash test. Please excuse our delay in answering your question.

Paragraph S5. of Standard No. 219 states that "no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template" (emphasis added.) Windshield wipers are "components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield." Therefore, Standard No. 219 does allow penetration of the protected zone by windshield wipers during the barrier crash test.

Please note that Standard No. 219 was amended, Docket 74-21, Notice 3, to substitute the term "daylight opening" for "windshield opening", and to add the new term to the requirements of paragraph S5. The amendments are effective September 1, 1976, for passenger cars, and September 1, 1977, for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. I am enclosing a copy of the notice for your information.

Please contact us if we can of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT - U.S.A. BRANCH

November 6, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A.

We are kindly requesting your official interpretation of the Paragraph S.5 of the Standard 219 - "Windshield Zone Intrusion":

". . .no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, affixed according to S6, to a depth of more than one-quarter inch, and no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield below the protected zone defined in S6."

The windshield wipers of a vehicle, that are normally in contact with the windshield under barrier crash condition could become detached from the windshield and spring back after impact penetrating the protected area for a depth of more than one-quarter inch or leave a light mark on the windshield surface.

In our opinion such penetration or marking is permitted by the Std. 219 and does not represent any safety hazard. We would appreciate your prompt reply with the official NHTSA interpretation on the matter.

Alberto Negro Director

ID: nht76-2.7

DATE: 05/05/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 29 and 31, 1976, and April 14, 1976, requests for confirmation of several interpretations you have made regarding the new safety standards for school buses and the definition of "school bus" as they become effective in October 1976.

Your interpretation is correct that "bus passenger compartment" as used in S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, means that portion of the bus that is rearward of the forwardmost point on the windshield.

Your request confirmation that the requirement in S5.7(a) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, to open emergency exits during the application of force to the bus roof are inappropriate and therefore not applicable in the case of roof exits. Your interpretation is correct, and the NHTSA intends to modify the language of Standard No. 220 appropriately.

You request confirmation that the knee impact requirement of S5.3.2.1 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, does not apply to the rear row of seating in a school bus because there is no passenger seating behind this row. Your interpretation is correct. I would like to point out that the seat back of the rear row of seating also is not subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.1 for the same reason. You are also correct that "school bus passenger seat" as defined in S4 does not include a wheelchair that is placed in a school bus to transport non-ambulatory bus passengers. Our response on other issues concerning special arrangements for handicapped passengers will be forthcoming as a response to the outstanding Sheller-Globe petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 222.

In your March 31, 1976, letter you asked whether a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying kindergarten and nursery school children to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus under the redefinition of "school bus" that becomes effective October 27, 1976 (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The answer to your question is yes, because the statutory definition underlying the NHTSA definition of school bus specifically lists preprimary students as passengers of school buses. See 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14).

In your April 14, 1976, letter you ask whether the requirement of S5.3.1.3 of Standard No. 222 for a minimum "contact area" on a described spherical head form refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the spherical head form, or the area of contact on the head form as seen in projected view. The "contact area" refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the head form.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY March 29, 1976

Thomas W. Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We have several questions requiring interpretations for recently issued safety standards which apply to school buses.

FMVSS 217

S5.2.3.1 states in part "Each school bus shall provide at the manufacturer's option one emergency door on each side in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment . . .". We need a definition of the term "bus passenger compartment." Are we correct in assuming that this means the front of front windshield to the back of the bus body so that the engine hood on a Conventional type school bus is effectively eliminated? This in effect would define the bus passenger compartment as the "box" which the passengers occupy. We feel that this is the most workable definition of the term since any other definition would have to reference some other bus component which would not be easily identified in all bus configurations.

FMVSS 220

S4b states in part "each emergency exit of the vehicle provided in accordance with Standard 217 (571.217) shall be capable of opening as specified in that standard during the full application of the force and after release of the force . . .".

S5.7a states in part "In the case of testing under the full application of force, open the emergency exits as specified in S4b while maintaining the force applied in accordance with S5.4 and S5.5."

These requirements seem unrealistic and indeed practically impossible with respect to roof emergency exits. As written the force application plate would have to have an access hole through which the roof emergency exit would open. Obviously, roof emergency exits will be in different protions of the bus for different bus sizes and, therefore, would necessitate a variety of complicated force application plates. More importantly would be the questionable meaning of such a test since the configuration of the access hole in the force application plate would significantly affect the deflection in the area of the roof emergency exit. This, of course, would affect the operation of the emergency exit as far as latch forces and opening forces are concerned. In addition, this requirement does not seem to be realistically required in accident situations. The only time a roof load would be imposed is when the bus is in the rolled over orientation. Obviously, in this condition passengers would not be able to use roof emergency exits and would choose one of the other emergency exits that are required on all bus configurations.

We, therefore, request that roof emergency exits need not be tested during the application of the roof load but rather before and after the application of the roof load. Because of the timing involved, we must proceed on this assumption in order to meet tooling deadlines for the October 26 effective date.

We request your written approval of this approach and rulemaking action which would clarify this requirement.

FMVSS 222

We are somewhat unsure of the requirements of S5.3.2.1 with respect to knee impact requirements for the last row of seats in a bus. As we understand this requirement the rearmost seat in a bus does not have to meet the knee impact requirements on its seat back since there will be no occupants behind it. These are special seats because of the rear emergency door exit requirements of FMVSS 217 and, therefore, require special tooling. We are committing tooling on this assumption and request your concurrence.

From previous conversations with NHTSA personnel it is our understanding that wheelchair seating positions in buses for transporting handicapped students need not meet the requirements of FMVSS 222. For buses which have occupant positions for both wheelchair confined passengers and ambulatory passengers we are assuming that the seating and barrier requirements of FMVSS 222 only apply to those ambulatory passengers who will occupy a standard type school bus passenger seat. In other words, we are assuming that the definition of "school bus passenger seat" in FMVSS 222 does not apply to a wheelchair in a school bus.

We feel that there will be many questions regarding the applicability of FMVSS 222 to handicapped buses in the future. Some general guidelines form NHTSA concerning this matter should be considered.

May we have your early written reply to each of these matters?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

April 14, 1976

Tad Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 222

We need an interpretation on Paragraph S5.3.1.3, head form force distribution, of the subject standard. The last sentence of this paragraph reads: "Where any contactable surface within such zones is impacted by the head form from any direction at 5 feet per second, the contact area on the head form surface shall be not less than three square inches."

Do the words "contact area" refer to the spherical contact area on the head form or the projected contact area?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 31, 1976

Thomas W. Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Part 571, Docket No. 75-24; Notice 02, Redefinition of "School Bus."

The question has arisen as to whether a bus that carries kindergarten and nursery school children would be defined as a "school bus."

Thanks for a ruling on this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

ID: nht76-2.8

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1976, in which you ask whether emergency exits required by a State beyond those required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, are subject to the performance requirements outlined in S4(b) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection.

Standard No. 220 requires that all emergency exits provided in accordance with Standard No. 217 must meet certain minimum performance levels during and after the simulated rollover test. Additional emergency exits mandated by State law are not exits "provided in accordance with Standard No. 217" and, therefore, would not be subject to the requirements of S4(b) of Standard No. 220.

You should note that Standard No. 217, in addition to mandating the provision of certain school bus doors and exits under S5.2, also regulates certain aspects of all emergency exits under other provisions of the regulation.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

August 24, 1976

Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS 220 "School Bus Rollover Protection" scheduled to become effective on April 1, 1977 will require the operation of each emergency exit during and after the simulated rollover test. This requirement is cited in FMVSS 220, S4 Requirements (b) and reads as follows:

"(b) Each emergency exit of the vehicle provided in accordance with Standard No. 217 (@ 571.217) shall be capable of opening as specified in that standard during the full application of the force, and after release of the force. A particular vehicle (i.e., test specimen) need not meet the emergency exit opening requirement after release of force if it is subjected to the emergency exit opening requirements during the full application of the force."

The State of New York has also issued regulations governing school buses bought in for use in that state (see NY 721.36 K and Z enclosed).

In order for a school bus manufacturer to comply with New York's specifications the bus must be built with roof hatches in addition to standard emergency exits as provided in FMVSS 217.

Our question is as follows:

Will additional emergency exits specified by a state over and above those required in FMVSS 217 be subjected to the performance requirements found in FMVSS 220 S4 (b)?

THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ENC.

[New York Regulations Omitted.]

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.