Interpretation ID: nht92-3.41

DATE: September 24, 1992

FROM: C. Morris Adams

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Paula Hanna -- Exec. Sec., NAPT; Charles Gauthier -- MVSS Compliance Section, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/1/92 Est. from Paul Jackson Rice to C. Morris Adams (A40; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I retired from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. in December 1990, after 45 years of service to the school transportation industry in North America. Although I retired, I remain totally committed to and interested in school transportation safety for our children.

During the last seven years of my career, I spent a very large percentage of my efforts in behalf of our children by educating our people and regulatory agencies on the pros and cons of lap belts vs. compartmentalization in school buses. The overwhelming evidence is in support of compartmentalization as mandated by NHTSA.

New York state and New Jersey along with some local districts are mandating lap belts in addition to NHTSA mandated compartmentalization. Therefore, the purpose of this letter of request for a legal ruling from your office as to the legality of lap belts on school buses that are required by federal regulation to utilize the passive restraint system - compartmentalization.

FMVSS 222 has as its intent the prevention of passengers colliding with dangerous objects inside the bus.

Compartmentalization relies upon specially designed energy absorbing passenger seat systems (structure, padding, flexibility spacing) to provide the spreading of energy forces over a large percentage of the child's body upon impact with the seat and/or barrier immediately in front of the passenger.

School bus manufacturers build and certify in compliance with FMVSS 222. If lap belts are required by the purchaser, they are installed.

At this point in the process there seems to be no problem for anyone involved. However -

The beneficial purpose of FMVSS 222 has now been removed. Once the lap belt is applied to the child, the child's body pivots around the belt and the head will come into contact with the seat back or barrier in front of the child. In addition to violent head injuries, possible pelvic and abdominal injuries or fatalities may result. The impact energy forces no longer are spread over the upper torso and upper thighs. Therefore, the intent of FMVSS 222 is no longer attainable even though the bus was built and certified to comply with the "technical" requirements of FMVSS 222.

The addition of the lap belt or a lap bar restraint rendered

compartmentalization null and void.

If the seats are allowed to be spaced so that when the child pivots around the lap restraint the head will not contact the forward seat back or barrier, the beneficial intent of FMVSS 222 is still violated. In addition, wider spacing would reduce passenger capacity.

Wider spacing of seats would destroy compartmentalization and should the child passenger not have the belt fastened, then the child could become a flying missile with no designed compartment to restrain it.

Based upon the above data I strongly believe lap belts or restraining bars violate the beneficial intent of FMVSS 222 and should be ruled illegal in use on school buses required to meet FMVSS 222.

In the interest of the 23 million pupils transported daily in safe school buses, I respectfully request a prompt ruling in their behalf.