Interpretation ID: nht76-2.10

DATE: 09/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's July 20, 1976, question whether the NHTSA's redefinition of "school bus" (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975) includes buses designed for intercity transportation utilized in charter operation to transport school children to and from school or related events, and what constitutes "interstate commerce" as that term is used in the redefinition. A second July 20, 1976, letter from Blue Bird Body requests reconsideration of two NHTSA interpretations of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, that were issued in an April 26, 1976, letter.

The redefinition of school bus (effective April 1, 1977) states:

"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.

The definition is not intended to include intercity type buses on regular common-carrier routes, although they may be used in some circumstances to transport school students to and from school or related events. This bus type has never been considered a school bus under existing motor vehicle safety standards or Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17 (43 CFR 1204). In light of the major standard-setting activity undertaken by Congress for school buses under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (the Act) (15 UVS.C. @ 1392(i), it is unlikely that such a board change of regulatory direction would be contemplated by Congress without explicit discussion in the legislative history. The boundaries of coverage of the redefinition are explicitly left by the statute to agency determination, and the agency did not include the intercity buses you describe in the redefinition.

The meaning "interstate commerce" in the redefinition is the same as for that term in @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, which states that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import" non-complying vehicles. While the legislative history of the Act does not directly address the meaning of the term, the House of Representatives Committee Report stated:

. . . The purpose of this section is to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or importation into this country of vehicles . . . that fail to meet the Federal safety standards . . . (H.R. Rep. No. 1776, 89th Cong., 2d Sess 22 (1966))

The agency adopts the existing construction of the term set forth in Katzenback v. McClurg, 379 U.S. 294 (1974). To answer your specific question, however, it should be clarified that only the classification of the bus as a school bus is determined by the ambit of "interstate commerce" in those infrequent cases where a sale does not occur. Blue Bird Body's responsibilities to conform to the standards arise directly from its manufacturing activities under @ 108(a)(1)(A). For example, a bus built in Georgia must conform to the school bus standards if it is sold to a Georgia school for use in transportation of school students, even if it never leaves the State.

Your second July 20 letter requests reconsideration of the NHTSA's April 26, 1976, decision that the area of contact between headlining panels and the "header" over the windows qualifies as a body joint subject to the requirements of the standard. You assert that the area of contact is not such a joint because it is covered by a molding and therefore does not "enclose occupant space" and cannot be considered a "surface component".

"Body panel joint" is defined in the standard to mean, with several exceptions, the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component. Whether or not the joint itself is covered is not relevant to its status. The separate definition of "body panel" does refer to the surface of the exterior or interior of the bus and to use of the panel in enclosing the bus occupant space. Thus, it is the body panel and not the joint which must form part of the exterior or interior surface of the bus. In the case you describe, the head-lining panel does enclose the bus occupant space and constitutes a part of the interior surface of the bus. Thus it does form a "body panel joint" at the point of contact with the header (a separate body component).

You also suggest that the requirements do not apply to a joint where the edges of the body panel join a body component at a point other than at the edge of the body component. Your interpretation is incorrect. In the case you describe, the floor panel's edges form a right angle that is attached to a central portion of the tag panel at some distance from its edges. The definition of "body panel joint" refers to contact between the edges of the body panel and another body component, without regard to the proximity of the edges of the body component.

You also request confirmation that a statement on rubrails in our April 26 letter is fulfilled by ensuring that, in testing a complex joint to which rubrails are fastened, the rubrails are modified so that they are not held by the gripping fixture of the tensile strength test machine. Your interpretation is correct.

In a related matter, the NHTSA would like to advise you of failure in our April 26, 1976, letter to respond fully to Blue Bird Body Company's February 13, 1976, letter. You asked if the cove molding that is attached at the border of the bus body floor against the sidewall of the bus body would qualify as a surface component whose edges form a joint subject to the standard's requirements. From your description of the cove molding and its use at the edge of the floor, the agency considers that it does not have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. A copy of your illustration of this component is attached for the benefit of interested persons.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your July 28, 1976, letter to the Administrator, asking that the new definition of "school bus" become effective on April 1, 1977, instead of October 27, 1976. Your request has been granted by a recent notice of rulemaking.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

July 28, 1976

John Snow, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-492, precipitated a number of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as well as an amended definition of a school bus (Section 201). We have noted that Public Law 94-346 has changed the effective dates of the new standards from October 26, 1976 to April 1, 1977, but apparently the school bus definition remains effective October 26, 1976. We believe that this must be an oversight and probably wouldn't achieve the uniformity of a consistent change that you would desire. We do feel that this difference in dates will cause confusion and hardship. Therefore, we request that the new school bus definition also be changed to be effective April 1, 1977.

Thanks for your consideration in this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

C: BYRON CROMPTON; TBEA

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

July 20, 1976

Thomas W. Herlihy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The purpose of this letter is to clarify certain questions pertaining to definition of a school bus which becomes effective October 27, 1976.

First, we would like to know exactly what constitutes "Interstate Commerce" as it is used in the school bus definition. The question has been raised: do the new school bus standards only apply to buses which cross state lines while transporting students?

Another question relates to the scope of the exception clause which states that a school bus . . . "does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." Are we correct in assuming that this exception does not extend to Greyhound or Trailways type buses which are chartered for the purpose of ". . . .carrying students to and from school . . . related events. . . ."?

Thank you for your early reply to these important questions.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY July 20, 1976

Thomas W. Herlihy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

REFERENCE: 1. Letter W. G. Milby to R. B. Dyson, dated 2-13-76

2. Letter Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby, dated 4-26-76; N40-30

The purpose of this letter is to question several of the interpretations NHTSA has given us in reference 2 regarding FMVSS 221.

Item 4, page 2 of reference 1 pertains to the area where the header and headlining come in contact. As explained in reference 1, this area of contact is completely covered and, therefore, isolated from the bus occupant space by the wire molding. In reference 2 NHTSA said "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 the surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with another body component the requirements of S5 apply. . .".

In our opinion the area of contact between the header and headlining does not meet this criteria for two reasons:

1. Because it is completely enclosed by the wire molding, it cannot be construed to be "a surface component".

2. Also because it is covered by the wire molding it does not "enclose the bus occupant space".

Therefore, we would ask NHTSA to reconsider its interpretation given to us in reference 2 and rule that the area of contact between the header and headlining is not a joint which must meet the requirements of S5.

Item 15, page 5 of reference 1 pertains to the area of contact between the tag panel and the floor. In our opinion this does not meet the criteria required for a joint because the area of contact between the tag panel and the floor is several inches from the edge of the tag panel. This fact was overlooked in the preparation of reference 1. Hence in reference 2 NHTSA ruled that this would be a joint subject to the requirements of S5. Since the area of contact is several inches from the tag panel, we are proceeding on this not being a joint. I am including it in this letter merely to document the reason for our not considering it to be a joint after having received the interpretation given in reference 2 which was based on incomplete information.

In reference 2 NHTSA ruled that rubrails ". . . are not themselves considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered body components for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which they are fastened, they should be modified as necessary to prevent them from affecting testing of the underlying joint." In the many hundreds of joint tests we have run in preparation for compliance with FMVSS 221 we have come to the conclusion that it's virtually impossible to modify the rubrail in such a way that it does not have any effect on the underlying joint. We also feel that it is unrealistic to attempt to modify the rubrail so that it has no effect on the underlying joint. This is because that in order for the underlying joint to fail on a vehicle the rubrail must also fail. Therefore, in our testing of joints which include a rubrail we have modified them in such a way that the gripping fixture of the tensile testing machine only grips the panel portion of this specimen and in no way contacts the rubrail. In this way the tensile load is imparted wholly to the panel specimen. However, we cannot guarantee that the rubrail section has no effect on the underlying joint. We are confident that our testing method is more severe than any kind of loading that could even be imparted in an accident. Further we are confident that our testing method meets the full spirit of FMVSS 221. I include this discussion again simply to document our testing methodology and to indicate that we do not feel it is possible or reasonable to construct and test a sample joint in which the rubrail has no effect on the underlying joint.

Thank you for your consideration of the header to headlining and we look forward to your early reply.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

TOLERANCE ON ALL DIMENSIONS IS, PLUS (Illegible Word) OR MINUS (Illegible Word) UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED

INACTIVATES NOS.

REPLACED BY NOS.

RELEASED

BLUE BIRD BODY CO. FORT VALLEY, GEORGIA, U.S.A.

(Illegible Word)

COVE MOLDING TO FLOOR

(Illegible Words)

SIZE: