ID: nht89-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAN TREXLER -- SPECIFICATIONS ENGINEER THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/08/89 FROM DAN TREXLER -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 3560

TEXT: Dear Mr. Trexler:

This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1989, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Erika Jones. You have received requests "to install a master electrical disconnect switch on many buses." When the switch is turned to the "off" position "it ren ders inoperative the warning signals (to the driver) required by FMVSS 105, 121 and 217. It also inactivates the hazard warning flasher required by FMVSS 108." You ask whether installation of the switch would constitute a noncompliance, or a "safety rel ated hazard." if it is accessible to the seated driver, or if remotely located in the battery or engine compartment, without ready access to the driver.

Although you have not explained the purpose of such a device, we understand that a battery disconnect switch of this nature is deemed desirable by many bus owners to prevent drains on the battery when the bus is at rest. When the switch is activated, th e bus cannot be started and driven because electric power is not available. Under this circumstance we do not believe that the switch either creates a noncompliance with any of the standards listed, nor constitutes a safety related defect, regardless of its location. When the bus is in operation the warning systems of the standards are not affected. The possibility of inadvertent activation when the bus is in use does not constitute a defect in performance, construction, components, or materials such as to create a safety related defect. To forestall any possibility of inadvertent activation, however, you may find it preferable to locate the switch away from the driver.

We understand that a purpose of this switch is to reduce the likelihood of fire after accidents in which there has been fuel spillage. In this circumstance, it is likely that the bus would be positioned either in the roadway or adjacent to it. Safety w ould be enhanced if the hazard warning signal power source were separate from the batteries inactivated by the disconnect switch, so that these warning lamps could continue to operate.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam0636

Dear Mr. Zach: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1972, in which you aske several questions concerning the effects of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 on a type of center console seat manufactured by your company.; Before answering your specific questions about the standard, I want t clear up what seems to be a misconception in your letter about the obligations created by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act grants us authority to issue safety standards and provides, in Section 108(a), that no person shall; >>>manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or delive for introduction in interstate commerce . . .any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect. . .unless it is in conformity with such standard.<<<; A dealer or distributor of a vehicle manufactured after the effectiv date of an applicable standard is thus obligated to maintain the vehicle in conformity with the standard, even though he might be in the 'after-market' according to your terminology.; To answer your specific questions: >>>1. A seat installed on or after January 1, 1972, on a truc manufactured before January 1, 1972, will not have to conform to the standard. A truck manufactured before January 1, 1972, would not have had to conform on the date of its manufacture. Since the standard applies only to the vehicle and not to the equipment separately, the date of the vehicle's manufacture is controlling.; 2 and 3. A seat installed on a truck manufactured on or after Januar 1, 1972, will have to conform to the standard, except that a person who has purchased a truck for his own use and not for resale may have a seat installed after purchase even though the seat does not conform. The standard does not regulate seats as a separate item of equipment and therefore does not expressly prohibit their sale and installation in this fashion.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam4815

"Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your inquiry concerning th applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, to specific joints attaching the floor and stepwell of a school bus. Your letter included a blueprint of the floor and stepwell structure of a large school bus, and asked whether the joints joining the stepwell to the Number 1 and 2 floor sections of the bus are required to comply with the joint strength requirement of Standard No. 221. Based on the information provided in your letter, I conclude that the joints attaching the floor sections to the stepwell are required to comply with the joint strength requirement contained in S5 of Standard 221. I also conclude that the joints in the stepwell are subject to that requirement. As you are aware, S4 of the Standard defines 'body panel' as: '...a body component used on the exterior or interior surface to enclose the bus' occupant space.' S4 also defines 'body panel joint' as: '...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.' S5 of the Standard requires that body panel joints must comply with the strength requirement. The floor panels and stepwells of a bus are body components which come within the definition of body panel, as they serve to enclose the occupant space of the bus. The joints attaching the floor panels to the stepwell are body panel joints, since they represent the area of contact between the edges of a body panel (either a floor panel or the stepwell) and another body component (either the stepwell or a floor panel), and do not represent a space designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, or a door, window, or maintenance access panel. I note that the joints attaching the stepwell to the floor sections are identical to, and in the same horizontal plane as, the joints used elsewhere in the floor assembly. I also note that the stepwell assembly described in your letter is also subject to the joint strength requirement. The various portions of the stepwell serve to enclose the occupant space, and are therefore body components which come within the definition of body panel. Therefore, the joints attaching those portions of the stepwell which enclose the occupant space are body panel joints subject to the requirements of the Standard. Your letter argues that the stepwell joints are exempted from the definition of 'body panel joint' by virtue of their being designed for another functional purpose. You do not, however, state the purpose. I disagree with this assertion. As noted above, S4 of the Standard exempts spaces designed for ventilation or another functional purpose from the definition of body panel joint. The agency's longstanding criterion for determining the applicability of this exemption has been whether the body panel joint in question is considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space. See, March 18, 1977 letter to W.G. Milby (copy attached). In this case, the stepwell clearly has the function of enclosing occupant space. I note that, by enclosing occupant space at a location which provides access to the front door, the stepwell occupies a critical location in relation to an important exit. Because of its location, the integrity of the stepwell in a crash is as important as the integrity of any other component comprising the floor. In addition, you argue that the joints between the floor sections and the stepwell need not comply with S5 because they are below the level of the floor. This argument is based on your interpretation of an April 26, 1976 letter from this office to W.G. Milby at Blue Bird which states that components located entirely below the floor level are not subject to the Standard. That letter did not intend to exclude from the Standard all portions of a bus located below the plane formed by the primary floorline of the bus. The exclusion of those portions below the floor level was instead predicated on the assumption that there is a body panel (i.e., a floor panel) at floor level which encloses the occupant space, and which is located between the occupant space and that portion of the bus excluded from the standard. I note that the floor level of a bus is not a single continuous plane, it is determined at any particular point by the plane of the panel that comprises the floor at that point. Therefore, I do not agree that the stepwell-to-floor panel joints indicated in your letter are below the floor level or are excluded from the standard's joint strength requirements. I hope you have found this information useful. Please do not hesitate to contact J. Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: nht94-5.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1994

FROM: Kenneth Sghia-Hughes -- Research Engineer, Solectria Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/2/95 from Philip R. Recht to Kenneth Sghia-Hughes (A43; Part 301; Std. 102)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Solectria Corporation produces electric vehicles (EV's) on the chassis of existing new vehicles and is currently developing a ground-up electric vehicle. In the course of reviewing NHTSA's regulations covering vehicle manufacturers, we have identified qu estions regarding the application of specific standards and regulations to our electric vehicles. Solectria Corporation requests a formal interpretation of these regulations with regard to the following issues:

1. 49 CFR 571.301, FMVSS #301 -- Fuel system integrity

Opinions vary as to the applicability of this standard to electric vehicles with no petroleum-based fuel source. The stated purpose of the standard is "to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage. . . . and resul ting from ingestion of fuels during siphoning." The standard states that it applies to "passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. . . . .", implying that it applies to all passenger vehicles, but to only those trucks with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. On the face of it, this standard appears not to apply to electric veh icles with no liquid fuel, but enough doubt as to NHTSA's interpretation of this standard with respect to EV's exists that Solectria requests an official interpretation from NHTSA.

2. 49 CFR 571.102. FMVSS #102 -- Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect

This standard is written so that it literally only applies to vehicles with manual or automatic transmission. Most of our vehicles delivered to date and all of the models currently in production have a single speed transmission which requires no shif ting, either manual or automatic. Solectria vehicles nevertheless meet the requirements of this standard for automatic transmission vehicles, in keeping with what Solectra believes is the intent, if not the letter, of the regulation. Solectria requests a clarification of this standard with regard to single speed transmissions, as commonly encountered in electric vehicles. If deemed applicable to single speed transmission vehicles. Solectria requests that S3.1.3 Starter interlock, be rewritten or inte rpreted to include the initial activation of EV motor controllers as well as engine starters.

Please feel free to contact me for any additional information.

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-5.40

DATE: June 29, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Bart Gordon -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/4/92 from Bart Gordon to Adele Derby

TEXT:

Thank you for your June 4, 1992, letter to Ms. Adele Derby, Associate Administrator for Regional Operations, regarding the use of 11-15 passenger vans for school purposes.

You stated in your letter that some confusion exists in Tennessee as to whether such vans can be used to transport students such as the debate team or the cheerleading squad to extracurricular activities. You said that it is your understanding that there are regulations prohibiting the sale of such vans for school use, and that your question is whether schools that currently own such vans can use them. You pointed out that the specific confusion seems to lie in whether this agency's definition of a school bus applies to these vans and if so, whether the vans must comply with our school bus safety standards. Finally, you advised that the State of Tennessee, in interpreting our regulations, advised schools to stop using vans in the 11-15 passenger category.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) appreciates the opportunity to clarify for you our school bus regulations. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. SS1381 - 1431 (hereinafter Safety Act), authorizes NHTSA to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments. These amendments directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all school buses. Such standards became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to every school bus manufactured on or after that date. The standards may be found in 49 CFR Part 571.

Under Federal law, a vehicle, including a van, designed for carrying 11 or more persons is a bus. A bus is a school bus if used or intended for use in transporting students to and from school or school-related activities.

The Safety Act requires each person selling a new school bus to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, a person may sell a new bus, including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons, to a school or school district only if the vehicle is certified as complying with our school bus safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the bus. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus and the vehicle is not certified as such.

Please note that Federal law and our implementing regulations directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. School districts are not prohibited by Federal law from using their vans to transport school children, whether or not such vans meet school bus safety standards. However, states are free to impose their own standards relating to the use of

motor vehicles, including school buses. Therefore, Tennessee may impose any regulation it deems appropriate regarding the use of school buses.

We also would like to note that it is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children. In addition, use of noncomplying vehicles of any kind to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. School districts should consult their attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on this issue.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: aiam2947

Dear Mr. Ives: This responds to your November 6, 1978, letter asking for a interpretation of the warning buzzer requirement of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; The standard requires a warning buzzer to sound when an emergency doo release mechanism is not in the closed position and the vehicle's ignition is on. From conversations with you and our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, we have determined that your rear emergency door uses a warning buzzer that sounds when the door release mechanism is not in the closed position unless someone continues to exert pressure to hold the door closed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers such a warning device to be in compliance with the standard. The purpose of the warning alarm is to warn passengers and the driver when a door is accidentally left in the open condition while the vehicle ignition is in the on position. You device appears to meet the intent of the standard.; We have discussed this issue with Mr. Jerry Alexander of the Californi Highway Patrol, and he has indicated that he will accept our determination. We are sending him a copy of this letter for his information.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-5.36

DATE: 11/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Glascock; Ballon; Vorder; Bruegge & Friedman

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1975, to Ms. Karen Kreshover, of this office, asking if there have been any previous interpretations of Section 580.5(b) of 49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, indicating that new car dealers must provide odometer disclosure statements to purchasers of new vehicles. Your question was prompted by a September 17, 1975, letter from this agency to Mr. William C. Koch, advising him that a new vehicle dealer must complete disclosure statements for all vehicles he transfers to persons who are taking possession for purposes other than reselling the vehicles.

Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration takes the position that section 580.5(b) clearly expresses the requirement that new vehicle dealers must execute odometer disclosure statements when transferring new vehicles to individuals purchasing them for purposes other than resale, it has on two previous occasions explicitly pointed out this responsibility in correspondence. Copies of these two letters are enclosed for your information.

ID: 571-217-Rear Door Emergency Exit-Emad Louis--SPW

ID: aiam3426

Dear Mr. Bingham: This responds to your letter of March 12, 1981, concerning the strengt requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, for a dual buckle (i.e., a two buckle unit) anchored in a vehicle by one common anchorage attachment.; As explained below, I disagree with your judgment that the standar does not deal adequately with the dual buckle design. Your proposal to test the dual buckle with 5,000 pounds of force is also incorrect, the correct force is 6,000 pounds.; Section 3 of the standard defines 'hardware' as 'a metal or rigi plastic part of a seat belt assembly.' That section further defines 'attachment hardware' as 'any or all hardware designed for securing the webbing of a seat belt assembly to a motor vehicle.' As described in your letter and shown in its attached photograph, the dual buckle has a common metal anchorage attachment. Since the purpose of that metal part is to secure the webbing to the vehicle, it is considered attachment hardware.; Section 4.3 (c)(2) specifies that 'attachment hardware designed t receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 6,000 pounds or 2.720 kilograms without fracture. . . .' Since the common anchorage attachment is designed to receive the force created by the ends of two seat belt assemblies, it must meet the requirements of S4.3(c)(2).; You are correct that the attachment bolt is required to withstand force of at least 9,000 pounds or 4,080 kilograms under paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0353

Dear Mr. Leventhal: This is in reply to your letter of May 14, 1971, on the subject of th effective date of the requirements for seat belts and seat belt anchorages in multipurpose passenger vehicles.; You have been correctly informed by RVI that the seat belt installatio standard (No. 208), and the seat belt anchorage standard (No. 210) are effective July 1, 1971, with respect to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. The amendment to Standard No. 208 issued September 30, 1970, required seat belts effective July 1, 1971. That standard will be superseded by the new occupant crash protection standard on January 1, 1972, but it is in full effect from July 1, 1971, to January 1, 1972. We regret any confusion that may have arisen as the result of the issuance of the occupant crash protection standard.; The requirements for seat belt anchorages have not been affected in an way by the occupant crash protection rule and it is therefore surprising to find that the effective date of the anchorage standard has also been misunderstood. We would hope that the changes in procurement schedule to which you refer would not result in inability to conform to the standard by July 1, 1971.; On the basis of the information presently available to us there doe not appear to be sufficient cause to postpone the effective dates of Standards No. 208 and 210.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel