ID: nht78-1.31

DATE: 10/19/78

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

TO: Colorado Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 22, 1978, letter asking whether the Federal government has any school bus safety standards that would prevent the State of Colorado from regulating in two areas.

A State is not permitted to have any regulation concerning an area of safety regulated by the Federal government unless the State regulation is identical to the Federal standard or imposes a higher standard of care than the Federal regulation and applies only to vehicles purchased for use by the State. With respect to the body diagonal strength test proposed in your letter, the agency does not regulate that aspect of performance. Therefore, the State of Colorado is permitted to regulate this aspect as long as its regulation does not conflict with any Federal standard.

Your second proposal would define "activity bus" in a manner that would except it from State requirements for lighting and color but would continue to require it to be constructed in accordance with the Federal school bus safety standards. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly granted activity buses the option of meeting all of the color and marking requirements for school buses or none of those requirements. That standard has been changed with respect to this option. All activity buses manufactured after April 1, 1978, must comply with all of the requirements applicable to school buses including the color and lighting requirements. Therefore, it is the opinion of the agency that your proposed definition of activity bus would conflict with Standard No. 17.

SINCERELY,

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

September 22, 1978

Roger Tilton National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The State Board of Education in Colorado is considering revision of current standards governing school bus construction.

Two matters have been raised which are connected with current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. They are:

1. Colorado prescribes a diagonal strength test for school bus bodies (sometimes referred to as a "racking load test"). Are there any federal standards which would preclude such a test being required in Colorado?

2. Current Colorado standards define an "Activity Bus" as a vehicle meeting Type II construction standards except for color, alternating flashing signals and stop-arm. Is such a definition acceptable under current federal standards?

The Board will begin reconsideration of these matters at the November 9 meeting. The information needs to be distributed to them as of October 20. I realize that this time frame is constricted; if you could forward some preliminary information by the October 20 date, it would be most helpful.

Thank you for your consideration.

Neal McCormick Consultant School Transportation

ID: nht78-1.32

DATE: 02/14/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 5, 1978, letter asking whether the joint connecting the front roof cap to the windshield header is considered a joint subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Standard No. 221 applies only to joints connecting body components to body panels in a bus body. Bus body is defined as "the portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space, exclusive of the bumpers, the chassis frame, and any structure forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting." Any joint falling outside the area prescribed for the definition of bus body is not considered a joint subject to the standard.

If the joint to which you refer is forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting, it is not subject to the requirements of the standard. The location of this joint, however, is not clear from your letter. The second paragraph of your letter indicates that the lower portion of the windshield glass extends forward of the referenced joint. If the lower portion of the windshield mounting as well as the glass is forward of the joint in question then that joint lies within the area defined as the "bus body" and is subject to the requirements of the standard.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

January 5, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

SUBJECT: 571.221 Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength

Section S4 defines a bus body as follows: "Bus body" means the portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space, exclusive of the bumpers, the chassis frame and any structure forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting.

Blue Bird school buses have a joint between the front roof cap and windshield header which is forward of the upper portion of the windshield glass, rubber and metal flange mounting. This joint "A" is illustrated in the enclosed photograph. The lower portion of the windshield glass protrudes forward of the subject joint. Based on paragraph S4, it is our understanding that joint "A" between the front roof cap and windshield header is exempt from the requirements of S5 because it is forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting.

Would you please give us a ruling on this at your earliest convenience.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

Windshield Glass

Windshield Mounting Rubber

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-1.33

DATE: 03/22/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 11, 1978, letter asking whether several joints in your school bus must comply with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

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) that encloses occupant space in a bus 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 several joints to which you refer, it appears that they do not need to comply with the requirements since they connect panels which are considered to be maintenance access panels.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that maintenance access panels are granted this exception from the requirements because of their need for removal for routine service to underlying components. The NHTSA will not consider all bus walls as maintenance access panels simply because wiring may be present behind them since routine maintenance would not be required on such wiring. Further, should any of the panels to which you refer in your letter not have wiring or other serviceable components requiring routine maintenance behind them, they will not be treated as maintenance access panels.

SINCERELY,

January 11, 1978

Joseph J, Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

SUBJECT: 571.221 Standard Number 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength

Section S4 defines a body panel joint as follows:

""Body panel joint" means the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, excluding spaces designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, and excluding doors, windows, and maintenance access panels." Blue Bird has initially set up the following panels to meet 60% joint strength per S5.

Front Upper Inner Panel

Rear Upper Inner Panel

Rear Vision Panel Inside Right Hand

Rear Vision Panel Inside Left Hand

Rear Inner Panel Right Hand

Rear Inner Panel Left Hand

Post Cap Rear Emergency Door Access Right Hand

Post Cap Rear Emergency Door Access Left Hand

We have had field and production line complaints regarding wiring access with the many rivets in these panels and propose to designate these panels as maintenance access panels per section S4 and install them with screws as shown in the enclosed pictures. Sheets 1 through 5 show the lamp wiring which is serviced by the appropriate inside panels.

We understand that competitive make buses are already using similar designs and we are being pressured by the marketplace from both the cost and serviceability points of view to adopt the proposals which appear in this letter.

We look forward to receiving your confirmation that these proposals fully comply with the requirements of FMVSS 221.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

[ENCLS. OMITTED]

ID: nht78-1.34

DATE: 01/25/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 24, 1977, letter asking whether the framework of a roof hatch must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of 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) that encloses occupant space in a bus 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 frame of a roof hatch, it appears that this joint need not comply with the requirements. This conclusion is reached because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that a roof hatch is equivalent to a door or window for the purposes of the application of the requirements. The joint connecting the frame of a door, window, or roof hatch to a bus body falls within the exception to the applicability of Standard No. 221.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

October 24, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this letter is to get an interpretation regarding the applicability of FMVSS 221 relative to roof hatch emergency exit components.

The attached photos show a roof hatch viewed from inside the bus and from the roof of the bus. We would like confirmation of our interpretation that the metal framework of the roof hatch opening, shown in the attached photos, enclosing the edges of the roof opening are for a "functional purpose" as used in FMVSS 221, paragraph S4 and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of that standard.

We will appreciate your early reply.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

CC: JIM MOORMAN; JIM SWIFT; GARY MOYSES; TOM TURNER

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-1.35

DATE: 05/11/78

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

TO: Dr. Arthur Yeager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone request of March 24, 1978, asking whether the seats in school buses are sufficiently strong to allow the installation of seat belts. You stated that some manufacturers are indicating that they cannot install seat belts because the floors of larger school buses cannot withstand the forces generated by seat belts.

As you indicated, Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 stated that school bus seats should be strong enough to withstand the forces seat belts would impose upon them. This statement was based upon the fact that the seats would be designed to comply with the other force requirements of the standard which would increase the strength of the seats making them capable of withstanding seat belt loads. At the time of that notice, there were special seat belt requirements for seat belts in school buses in the then proposed Standard No. 222. These seat belt requirements would have mandated lower belt load requirements than those found in Standard No. 210 which currently applies to school buses (under 10,000 pounds GVWR). The seats in larger school buses should be sufficiently strong to withstand the former proposed force requirements of Standard No. 222, but they might be incapable of withstanding the belt load requirements of Standard No. 210.

Manufacturers who indicate that the seats or floors of larger buses are not strong enough to install seat belts probably misunderstood the belt requirements for large buses. Seat belts can be installed for passenger seats in larger school buses without complying with any existing seat belt requirements. Seat belts for passenger seats are not required, for example, to comply with Standard No. 210. Therefore, a State would be permitted to establish their own acceptable belt load requirements for these seat belts in large school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggests that States adopt the belt load requirements previously proposed for Standard No. 222. School bus seats currently in production should be sufficiently strong to withstand the former proposed belt load requirements.

ID: nht78-1.36

DATE: 05/11/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1978, letter asking how to measure the head form contact area in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In your first paragraph, you indicate that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has allowed the knee form contact area measurement to be undertaken on or within a line 1 1/2 inches from the edge of the leg protection zone to ensure that the knee form will contact the entire surface. You ask that a similar line be established for the head protection zone contact areas.

As you know, the head form contact area requirements apply to more areas than do the knee form contact area requirements. The knee form contact area requirements apply only to seat backs and the backs of restraining barriers. The head form contact area, on the other hand, includes anything falling within a specified zone which might include the sides or tops of seats. Therefore, it is impossible to create fictional lines around the outer edges of objects that fall within the head protection zone for purposes of testing the compliance of those objects with the requirements. The agency notes further that it never stated that it would test knee form contact area on or inside a line 1 1/2 inches from the edge of a seat back or restraining barrier. The agency did state that it would test in a manner that "provides opportunity for the knee form to contact with the seat back or restraining barrier to the fullest extent possible." That interpretation can also be applied to the head form contact area requirements.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 9, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Reference: 1. W. G. Milby to Frank Berndt, December 20, 1976 2. Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby, February 23, 1977, N 40-30

Reference number 1 requests an interpretation that the centerline of the knee impact tests of FMVSS 222 only be required on or inside of a line 1 1/2" (same as knee form radius) from the edge of the leg protection zone. The reason for the request was to insure that it is physically possible to obtain the required contact area and to insure that enough padding of the correct composition is available for the knee form to contact.

Reference number 2 grants the request of reference number 1.

The purpose of this letter is to confirm our assumption that the same reasoning should be applicable to the head protection zone.

Thank you for your early response.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht78-1.37

DATE: 01/26/78

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

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 6, 1977, letter asking which portions of the roof and sidewall structure of your small bus must comply with the head impact requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In accordance with the head impact zone requirements outlined in paragraph S5.3.1.1 of the standard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that those portions of your bus constituting the bus sidewall and window structure are not required to comply with the head impact requirements. Only those portions of your bus which constitute part of the roof structure are included within the head impact zone requirements. We have marked in yellow on the enclosed drawing those areas that must comply with the head impact requirements.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

December 6, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Chief Counsel, Frank A. Berndt

Gentlemen:

Reference is made to S.5.3.1.1. of FMVSS 222 - School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, which states the bus sidewall, window, or door structure are not included in the impact zone.

Our question is, what all do you consider as window structure and if a side body pillar and the structure over the top of the window assembly to which the window is mounted, are also not included in the impact zone? The pillar and structure in question are marked in red for the Dodge and blue for a Chevrolet on drawing #K-4300021.

It would be appreciated if you would indicate on the extra copy of the drawing area needing or not needing to be included in the impact zone.

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht78-1.38

DATE: 04/25/78

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

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 28, 1978, letter asking whether portions of your van-type school bus have to comply with the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. You enclosed pictures showing portions of the bus designated in pink and yellow and question the standard's applicability to them.

The head protection zone requirements do not apply to portions of the school bus that are considered part of the bus sidewall. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers the sidewall to include those surfaces that run parallel to the outboard edge of a forward facing seat. Accordingly, the portions of your bus designated in yellow in the pictures need not comply with the requirements since they are part of the bus sidewall structure. The pink portions of your photographs represent part of the bus structure that is perpendicular to the bus sidewall. The NHTSA does not consider them to be part of the bus sidewall structure. Therefore, since they fall within the head protection zone they must comply with all of the requirements applicable to that zone.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PHOTO A VIEW LOOKING FORWARD TOWARD RIGHT-HAND FRONT SERVICE DOOR.

(Graphics omitted)

PHOTO B VIEW LOOKING FORWARD TOWARD LEFT-HAND FRONT DRIVER'S AREA.

(Graphics omitted)

Wayne Corporation

February 28, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This inquiry concerns Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The enclosed photographs marked and labeled as follows:

Photo A - View looking forward toward right-hand front service door, and Photo B - View looking forward toward left-hand front driver's area, show interior views of the Wayne Busette school bus described in the enclosed Wayne Busette specification sheet. The interior surfaces of the bus colored pink and yellow in Photos A and B fall within the head protection zone defined in FMVSS 222, S5.3.1.1. For purposes of clarity, the front row of passenger seats had been removed before the pictures were taken.

Please advise whether or not the areas colored pink and yellow in Photos A and B are subject to the requirements of FMVSS 222, S5.3.1.2, Head Form Impact Requirements, and S.5.3.1.3, Head Form Force Distribution. In responding to this inquiry, we ask that consideration be given to the first paragraph of S5.3.1.1, "The head protection zones in each vehicle are the spaces in front of each school bus passenger seat which are not occupied by bus sidewall, window, or door structure and which . . . ." Wayne believes that while the pink and yellow colored areas are located in front of a passenger seat, these surfaces should be classified as part of the bus sidewall, window, and door structure and, therefore, are excluded from the requirements of S5.3.1.2 and S5.3.1.3.

Your prompt attention and early reply to this inquiry would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

[Enclosures Omitted]

ID: nht76-3.18

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, letter concerning your previous suggestion for an amendment to the definition of "permanently attached end fitting" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. Your July 18, 1975, letter suggested that brake hose end fittings attached by means of a dimensional interference fit be considered, along with those attached by heat shrinking, to be permanently attached for purposes of the standard. Please forgive our oversight regarding that letter. We have identified it as a petition for rulemaking and now find it to have merit. Accordingly, the petition is granted and a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. We do expect to issue a proposal in the near future.

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

January 26, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74

A reply to our letter dated July 18, 1975 concerning the above subject has not yet been received. A copy of this original request for standard amendment is enclosed for your review.

Response at your earliest convenience would be greatly appreciated.

HEINZ W. GERTH

ID: nht76-3.19

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: NVT America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1976, in which you pose several questions concerning which of three companies participating in the construction of a motor vehicle would be considered the manufacturer for purposes of 49 CFR Part 566 and which would be responsible, therefore, for meeting the safety standards described in 49 CFR Part 571.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." Therefore, the company that assembles a vehicle is considered the manufacturer regardless of the name under which the vehicle is marketed. This interpretation is not affected by which company owns the engineering rights or trademark to the vehicle. A controlling corporation, however, may assume responsibility for conformity with the standards and may substitute its name for the name of its assembling subsidiary.

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires the manufacturer, as defined above, to submit identifying information and a description of the items it produces. You should further note that 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, requires the same manufacturer to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards.

I trust this fully responds to your questions.