Interpretation 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