ID: nht76-2.45

DATE: 03/17/76

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

COPYEE: HERLIHY; ARMSTRONG; HITCHCOCK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to several questions raised by Blue Bird Body Company concerning the applicability of school bus safety standards to certain bus types under the newly-issued redefinition of school bus (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The new definition (effective October 27, 1976) reads:

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

In your February 24, 1976, letter you ask whether buses utilized to transport athletic teams and school bands to and from athletic events quality as school buses under the definition that becomes effective October 27, 1976, and, if so, whether they must therefore comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

From your description of the use of an "activity bus" to transport students to and from athletic events related to the students' school, it would be included as a school bus under the new definition if it were sold for this use. It appears clear that the manufacturer and dealer in these cases would both be aware that the purchasing school intended to use the bus to transport students to events related to their school, such as athletic events involving school teams. In close cases, the knowledge of parties to the sales transaction would be determinative of whether the bus was "sold . . . for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events . . . ." Any bus determined to be a school bus under the new definition would be required to meet all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture.

Your December 16, 1975, letter asks whether transit buses that are based on a basic school bus design must meet the requirements of Standard No. 217, Emergency Exits, that apply to buses other than school buses. Since receipt of your letter, the redefinition of school bus has been issued and Standard No. 217 has been amended by the addition of requirements for school buses. In answer to your question, only a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school qualifies as a school bus. A bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation would be required to meet the requirements of Standard 217 for buses other than school buses.

Your separate question regarding the configuration of emergency exits has been answered in an earlier interpretation of the provision you question. A copy of that interpretation is enclosed.

Your March 4, 1976, letter asked whether the new definition of school bus includes buses that are sold for transportation of college-age students. You argued that an intent to include buses other than those for the transportation of preprimary-, primary-, and secondary-school students would go beyond the statutory definition added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14)), and apply the standards to a broader variety of vehicles than those for which they were developed. The NHTSA finds this argument to have merit. It therefore withdraws its discussion of the breadth of the regulatory definition of school bus that appeared in the December 31, 1975, preamble. The agency will not consider buses sold for the transportation of college-age students to be school buses.

You also asked if any motor vehicle safety standard requires that school buses be painted yellow. No motor vehicle safety standard requires yellow paint. At this time however, standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires installation of warning lights, and this would entail the use of yellow paint by the operator under Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17.

In an area unrelated to school bus definition, you asked in a February 20, 1976, letter whether the description of vehicle roof appearing in S5.2(b) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, applies to determination of roof size under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b). The description is intended to apply to roof measurement under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b).

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 24, 1976

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

SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 75-24; NOTICE 02, REDEFINITION OF "SCHOOL BUS"

We frequently have orders for "activity buses" which are owned by schools for such trips as may be taken by the school band, football or other athletic teams. These buses often have recliner or headrest seats and more than average leg room to make the students comfortable for longer trips. Equipment such as warning lamps would probably never be used on this type bus since it usually departs from the local school or other designated sites and doesn't pick up and discharge students like a daily school bus. Schools also like to paint these buses with their own colors rather than NSBC.

Will it be legal for Blue Bird to fulfill market demand for buses as described above or must this type bus be NSBC in color, have school bus warning lamps, FMVSS 222 seats and barriers? Who is responsible for saying if this bus is a "school bus" or not?

Thanks for your help in this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY March 4, 1976

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

SUBJECT: DOCKET 75-24, NOTICE 2, REDEFINITION OF "SCHOOL BUS"

Additional questions regarding this subject have arisen since my letter of February 24, 1976 to you on the same subject. Therefore, please consider this letter to be an addendum to my letter of February 24, 1976.

We are assuming that buses owned and operated by parochial schools for the use of transporting students to or from school are "school buses" as well as buses owned and operated by public schools. Is this assumption correct? We understand that if these buses are "school buses" then they must meet all standards which apply to school buses. However, we are not sure if it must be painted NSBC yellow as described by Pupil Transportation Standard #17.

Specifically, if a customer such as a private school orders a bus and states on the purchase order that it will be used as a school bus, may we paint it a color other than NSBC yellow?

Public Law 93-492 defines a "school bus" as " . . . . a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than ten passengers in addition to the driver, and which the secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools;".

Based on this definition, we are assuming there is no intent for college buses to be defined as "school buses". This conclusion seems to be further substantiated by the fact that college buses do not pick up and discharge students in such a way that they need to control traffic by the use of warning lamps. They are usually not NBSC yellow and their passengers would probably average more than the 120 lb. passenger weight which is required to be used as a basis for gross vehicle weight rating certification of school buses. Also, FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, was obviously designed for 120 lb. passengers since it effectively limits the maximum knee clearance to approximately 25". This seat spacing is entirely inadequate for college students.

Based on these facts, we are assuming that college buses are not "school buses" and are, therefore, not subject to any standards which apply to school buses. Is this assumption correct?

We are in urgent need of the answers to each of these questions since they affect decisions we must make immediately regarding seat tooling and orders which are currently being solicited. Your early response will be greatly appreciated.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY December 16, 1975

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

REFERENCE: 1. N40-30 (MPP) Letter to Mr. James Tydings from R. B. Dyson dated September 25, 1973.

2. N40-33 (MPP) Letter to Mr. George R. Seamark from R. B. Dyson dated October 31, 1973.

The above references say that vehicles which share the same design as school buses but which are not used as school buses are considered to be school buses for the purposes of Standard 217 and they are therefore exempt from the emergency requirement of that standard.

We are currently evaluating the city bus market potential. The vehicles which we anticipate using for that application share many of the same design features and components as school buses. On the other hand, there are many areas of dissimilarity.

Our question is whether or not such a bus intended for city transit type usage must meet the requirements of paragraphs S5.2 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS 217.

The enclosed photograph shows a sliding window type emergency exit which we would like to propose as a potential alternative to push-out type emergency windows. Are we correct in assuming that such a configuration qualifies as a valid emergency exit provided that it meets the emergency exit release requirements of paragraph S5.3 and the emergency exit identification requirements of S5.5?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 20, 1976

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

SUBJECT: FMVSS 220 - SCHOOL BUS ROLLOVER PROTECTION

In S5.2b the vehicle roof for vehicles of GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less is described as "that structure, seen in the top projected view, that coincides with the passenger and driver compartment of the vehicle."

In S5.2a which addresses vehicles of GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., the same detailed description of the vehicle roof is not given. This detail is necessary for locating the force application plate.

Are we correct in assuming that we may locate the force application plate for vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. in accordance with the definition of the "vehicle roof" which is given in the S5.2b?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

ID: nht76-2.46

DATE: 01/14/76

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

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 8, 1975, asking four questions, the answers to which would provide an interpretation of Standard No. 108 with respect to separation distance of a turn signal lamp from the nearest edge of a Type 2 headlamp.

SAE Standard J588d, Turn Signal Lamps, June 1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires in pertinent part that "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam . . . ." We agree with your opinion that the reference to filament center may have been added because of the difficulty of determining the location of the optical axis in certain instances. In the vast majority of cases, however the filament center is on the optical axis, and the addition of the provision assists in determining compliance with the requirement.

You have asked:

"1. Is the filament center always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?"

The answer to this question is no. In some instances the filament center will not be on the optical axis. When this is the case the standard is ambiguous as to whether distance is measured from the optical axis or the filament center. While we prefer the optical axis, under the present wording either must be viewed as legally supportable.

"2. Is the center of the emitted light always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?"

The answer is yes.

"3. If the answers to the above two questions are no, does the vehicle manufacturer have the choice as to which method is most favorable to him?"

Yes, because of the ambiguity the manufacturer may choose either the optical axis or filament center as the point of measurement.

"4. What is the optical axis of a two- or three- compartment lamp?"

The optical axis of a multi-compartment lamp is the center of the light emitted by the array, treated as a single complex light source. The "half-value" method you described in your letter is a valid method of finding the optical axis of a complex light source as well as that of a simple one.

Finally you have asked whether, if we agree with the need for clarification, the letter can be considered a petition for rulemaking or whether a formal petition should be submitted.

We agree that clarification is needed and accordingly plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 8, 1975

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

When inspecting 1976 passenger cars, we discovered a problem in measuring the distance of a front turn signal lamp from the nearest edge of the Type 2 headlamp. Federal Standard No. 108 requires that turn signal lamps meet the 4-inch minimum spacing in SAE J588d. Standard No. 108 also permits lamps to be mounted closer than the 4-inch interval if they emit 2-1/2 times the minimum candlepower otherwise specified.

SAE J588d clearly states that the distance shall be measured from the optical axis of the turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring from the headlamp providing the low beam. It then, unfortunately, makes the requirement ambiguous by a parenthetical reference to the filament center.

The SAE wording was satisfactory when it was adopted a number of years ago, because lamp designs then had the optical axis coincident with the filament. More recent designs have kept the filament 4 inches from the headlamp but have used the ambiguity as a loophole to allow the optical axis to be unreasonably close to the headlamp.

The 4-inch separation was adopted by SAE after a number of complaints about the lack of effectiveness of some turn signals that were snuggled up against the headlamps. The brightness of the adjacent low beam headlamps washed out the turn signals so they would not attract an oncoming driver's attention unless he was looking almost directly at them. The SAE Lighting Committee made nighttime demonstrations of turn signals at various distances from the headlamps in view of a proposal that the edges of the lamps be separated by a minimum distance such as 2 or 2 inches. A jury-type judgment indicated that the present requirement was barely acceptable usually and would allow vehicle manufacturers sufficient design freedom in placing the lamps on vehicles.

The attached drawing illustrates the absurdity of the "filament center" interpretation for modern-day turn signals (and incidentally the skill and ingenuity of lamp designers). Figure I shows a current lamp with a filament center meeting the 4-inch requirement but with an optical center much closer to the headlamp. Figure II illustrates a left-hand version of the same lamp with a filament center that does not meet the 4-inch requirement but with an optical center farther removed from the headlamp. The second lamp provides a more effective signal from an opposing driver's viewpoint, but it would be illegal if measured from the filament center.

The filament center reference apparently was added to the SAE standard because of an assumed difficulty in determining the location of the optical axis. An axis of any object usually passes through a point of symmetry. In the case of a symmetrical light beam meeting turn signal photometric requirements, the optical axis falls in a plane on either side of which is one-half of the total light output. The optical axis is easily located by measuring the intensity of the lamp at HV and then sliding an opaque card with a straight edge across the face of the lens until the photometer reading is one-half the HV value.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we would appreciate your interpretation of Standard No. 108 with respect to the following questions:

1. Is the filament center always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?

2. Is the center of the emitted light always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?

3. If the answers to the above two questions are no, does the vehicle manufacturer have the choice of which method is most favorable to him?

4. What is the optical axis of a two- or three-compartment lamp?

If you agree with the need for clarification, can this letter be considered a basis for your initiating a proposed change in Standard No. 108 or must this Department submit a formal petition for a rulemaking?

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEATH -- Commander, Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

cc: Lou Owen, NHTSA; Francis Armstrong, NHTSA

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-2.47

DATE: 02/12/76

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

TO: F. A. McNiel

COPYEE: HON. J. J. PICKLE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your petition of November 7, 1975, "for the correction of subsection S4.5.4 and S4.6(b) as set forth by existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108."

It is your opinion that S4.5.4, which requires activation of stop lamps upon application of the service brakes, is design restrictive, and "leaves no opportunity for innovation by the private sector for other solutions for the activation of a motor vehicle's stoplamps". You have suggested that S4.5.4 be amended to include at its end "or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle".

Any performance standard is design restrictive to some extent; it must restrict manufacturers to designs that meet the desired performance requirements. Its validity as a performance standard depends on whether the restrictions of the standard are only as narrow as reasonably necessary to achieve the desired safety performance. In this case we have found that the requirement meets this test. A signal to other drivers that the service brakes are being applied is precisely the performance being sought in S4.5.4. A signal based on some other condition (e.g., vehicle deceleration, might not be as timely, or might fail altogether to operate at the critical moment (as where it is based on lifting the accelerator pedal). Since the requirement is limited to the desired safety performance, we find it valid, and your petition in this area is denied.

You also ask for an amendment of S4.6(b) to include "rearlamps" among those that may be flashed for signalling purposes, since you believe that conventional wiring circuits presently allow these lamps to be flashed when headlamps are flashed. When the headlamps are flashed by means of the on-off switch, it is true that rear lamps will flash. But that type of flashing is in no way restricted by the standard. The flashing intended to be regulated by S4.6(b) is by automatic means (see S3 definitions) and, except for rear turn signal lamps, these automatic devices would not be connected to rear lamp circuits. Thus, there appears to be no need for the amendment you suggest and your petition is accordingly denied.

We appreciate your continuing efforts on behalf of traffic safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

F. A. McNiel 611 Bouldin Avenue Austin, Texas 78704

NOVEMBER 7, 1975

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

Re: A petition for the correction of sub-sections S4.5.4 and S4.6(b) as set forth by existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Gentlemen:

Quoting from a letter date of Jan. 29, 1968, from William Heddon Jr., Director of the Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau, in answer to a letter that Congressman J. J. Pickle had forwarded to the Department of Transportation in my behalf, - Director Haddon states:

"under the law the Congress directed us to set 'performance' standards and not standards requiring specific devices or designs. The Congress chose this approach to give the private sector the greatest opportunity for innovation and to permit a variety of solutions in meeting specific performance requirements".

The 'performance' standards as established by FMVSS No. 108 for the functioning of a motor vehicle's stoplamps are as follows;

Except for the size, location, lens type, and candlepower, the only standard 'set' for stoplamp functioning that is covered by FMVSS No. 108 is sub-section S4.5.4, which states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes".

Sub-section S4.5.4 is in direct conflict with Director Haddon's letter on two seperate counts, i.e.

1. Said section as worded constitutes a mandate of intendence that a 'specific design' (use of the service brakes) shall be the only means used to activate a motor vehicle's stoplamps.

2. Also, as worded sub-section S4.5.4 leaves no opportunity for innovation by the private sector for other solutions for the activation of a motor vehicle's stoplamps.

In order to comply with Director Haddon's interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, I propose that sub-section S4.5.4 be expanded to read as follows:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon the application of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle".

Under Section S4.5 'special wiring requirements'

Sub-section S4.5.7 states - (a) "When the parking lamps are activated the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated", - and (b) "When the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated". - Thus, the said section stipulates that it is mandatory that the side marker lamps be in-circuit with the taillamps and license plate lamps.

Under Section S4.6 'when activated'

S4.6 states, - (a) "Turn signal lamps, hazard warning lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall flash", - and (b) "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes".

Contextually, S4.5.7 (a) and (b), and S4.6 (b) make it unlawful to flash headlamps and side marker lamps by use of the conventional lamp activating means, as this act would also flash taillamps and license plate lamps.

The only manner by which headlamps and side marker lamps could be flashed and still leave taillamps and license plate lamps steady-burning would be to isolate headlamps and side marker lamps from the conventional wiring circuit by means of auxiliary wiring and switching means which would operate indipendent of the conventional lighting system.

Installation of such auxiliary wiring and switching means would tend to be costly, - and to what avail? In what instance could the flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes enhance traffic safety, - and at the same time, the flashing of taillamps and license plate lamps be detrimental to traffic safety?

To make S4.6(b) credible, and to prevent perhaps millions of motorists from unwittingly breaking the letter of the law by flashing a vehicle's lights with the conventional light switch, I propose that the word 'rearlamps' be inserted after the word 'headlamps' to make the sub-section read -- "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps, rearlamps, and side marker lamps for signaling purposes".

In order to bring FMVSS No. 108 more into line with the apparent intent of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, I respectfully petition the Department of Transportation for rule making to re-phrase sub-sections S4.5.4 and S4.6 (b) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to include the wording that I have proposed.

Such re-phrasing would establish a standard against which any beneficial means for activating a motor vehicle's stoplamps could be tested.

Such a standard would provide an opportunity for the private sector to innovate means for improving the 'performance' of a motor vehicle's conventional stoplamps in a manner that could materially reduce the toll of "10 percent of the fatal motor vehicle accidents and 49 percent of all motor vehicle accidents" ascribed by the National Highway Safety Bureau as resulting from rear end collision type accidents.

Such re-phrasing would also remove the current restriction that now makes it unlawful under any circumstances for a motorist to flash a vehicle's lamps by the use of the conventional lamp activating switching means.

Respectfully,

Fred A. McNiel Traffic Safety Advocate

copy: Hon. J. J. Pickle

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.]