Interpretation ID: aiam4281
Director of Engineering
Thomas Built Buses
L.P.
P. O. Box 2450
High Point
NC 27261;
Dear Mr. Mathieson: This is in reply to your letters to Francis Armstrong, Robert Williams and Taylor Vinson, all of this agency. I regret the delay in this reply. In summary, Thomas wishes to mount a body of its construction to a 'General Motors chassis model; G31303, certified by G.M. to have a 10,000 1lbs. maximum GVWR .' Tw prototypes have been operating. In testing for compliance with the frontal impact requirements of Standard No. 301, the rate of fuel leakage from a pinched or broken fuel line greatly exceeded the amount permitted by the standard. The test conducted by Thomas used sandbags to simulate occupant loading, and the impact velocity was reported to be 30.4 m.p.h. You have asked the following four questions:; '1. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with th discovered fuel leak constitute a safety defect?'; '2. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with th discovered fuel leak constitute an apparent or alleged noncompliance with FMVSS 301 requirement?'; The result of the frontal barrier crash test do not constitute a alleged or apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 301 as the impact velocity exceeded the 30 m.p.h. maximum test requirement. In addition, the vehicle's test weight in your test exceeded the test weight specified in S7.1.6(b) of the standard. Further, those results do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of the vehicle. For NHTSA to find a safety related defect at 30.4 m.p.h. would be the equivalent of imposing a new standard without following Administrative Procedure Act requirements for rulemaking.; However, in our view, Thomas could not in good faith certify complianc of the completed bus with the 30 m.p.h. requirements if there was a failure when a correctly loaded bus was tested at 30.4 m.p.h and no counterbalancing data showing passes in other tests. Had NHTSA conducted a test at 30.4 m.p.h. and found a failure, it would have proceeded to conduct another test in accordance with the specifications of Standard No. 301 and test at a speed slightly less than 30 m.p.h. and with a Part 572 dummy in the driver's seat.; >>>3. 'What is NHTSA's interpretation of the correct vehicle tes weight for FMVSS 301 certification testing of school buses and non school buses for vehicles in the under and up to 10,000 lbs.' class and equipped with seat belts required to comply with FMVSS 208?'<<<; The test weight is set forth in paragraph S7.1.6(b) of Standard No 301. That section provides that a 'bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus the necessary test dummies as specified in S6., plus 300 pounds or its rated cargo load and luggage capacity weight, whichever is less,....'; >>>4. 'If Thomas Built Buses performs a certification test to th requirements of FMVSS 301 with a similar vehicle (equipped with required seat belts which are required to comply with FMVSS 208) at a test weight as noted by GM (approximately 7,500 pounds) and the results show full compliance, what is the legal status or implication of completing and offering for sale this type of vehicle at a GVWR of up to 10,000 lbs. and indicating that it complies with FMVSS 301 on the basis of a successful test at the lower GVWR.'<<<; This question cannot be answered because the facts stated in you question appear to be incorrect. Our review of the documentation you enclosed shows that GM has rated the incomplete vehicle at 10,000 pounds GVWR, rather than at approximately 7,500 pounds GVWR, as stated in your letter. GM has, however, specified the maximum unloaded vehicle weight as 6866 pounds, and stated that the completed vehicle will comply if its unloaded vehicle weight does not exceed this amount. It has also stated that the maximum unloaded vehicle weight plus 634 pounds (which, when added to 6866 pounds equals 7500 pounds) cannot exceed the vehicle's GVWR, which is 10,000 pounds in this case. GM therefore has made no weights outside those values, and the burden of certification falls upon the final state manufacturer who completers the vehicle in a manner outside the limits cited by GM.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel