ID: 07-003334as

ID: aiam4705

"Dear Mr. Jones: This is in response to your letter to NHTSA in whic you asked questions concerning the circumstances in which Ford vans with more than ten designated seating positions would be considered school buses for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in this response. Your letter asked whether the vans that you describe would be considered school buses if used to transport adult education students, college students, high school students (including athletic teams), playground teams with no connection to schools, day care center clients, or children transported by churches that do not have day schools, but occasionally transport children. The starting point for the agency's analysis of when vehicles used in these circumstances would be required to comply with FMVSS requirements applicable to school buses is Section 102(14) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). That provision defines 'Schoolbus' as a 'passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' When interpreting this provision, the agency has always looked to the nature of the particular institution purchasing the buses. If its central purpose is the education of primary, preprimary or secondary students, the agency has determined that the buses purchased must comply with the FMVSS requirements for school buses. If the institution is concerned primarily with the education of post-secondary students, or serves a function that is custodial rather than educational, NHTSA has said that the buses need not comply with the school bus requirements. The agency has already explained the application of this provision to several of the circumstances raised in your letter. On July 12, 1977, in a letter to Mr. Jim Thomason, the agency said that buses used to transport adults and other post-high school students to vocational training need not comply with the FMVSS school bus requirements because these passengers do not fall in the categories of 'primary, preprimary or secondary students.' However, that interpretation also noted that a bus used by a vocational school connected with a secondary school would fall within the scope of the school bus requirements. The agency has also determined, in a March 17, 1976 letter to Mr. W.G. Milby (and reaffirmed several times since then), that buses used to transport college students need not comply with the standards for school buses. The same letter also includes our opinion that a bus used to transport school athletic teams to activities falls within the scope of the definition of school bus, and must comply with the applicable FMVSS. A May 10, 1982 interpretation letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin determined that vehicles used to transport children to day care centers need not comply with the school bus standards. The rationale for this decision is based on the fact that these facilities serve an essentially custodial function, although they may have some educational components, and are not considered to be schools. Your letter also asks about transportation of children by churches which do not operate day schools. In a November 20, 1978 letter to Mr. J. Perry Robinson, this office determined that the term 'school' does not include church schools such as Sunday schools, or those providing other religious training. As noted in that letter, however, a normal preprimary, primary or secondary school operated under the auspices of a church would be required to comply with the the school bus requirements. Finally, your letter asks whether vehicles used to transport 'playground teams' with no connection to a school would be required to comply with the school bus requirements. The agency has not addressed this question in any past interpretations. However, it is my opinion that a bus used to transport 'playground teams' that are organized independently of any school or educational organization would not be required to comply with the school bus standards. The term 'school' cannot be construed to include athletic teams not connected with any school or educational organization. I hope you have found this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4803

"Dear Mr. Pugh: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretatio of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). More specifically, you asked about the requirements for safety belts at the various seating positions in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating under 10,000 pounds that you called 'van conversions.' You first asked whether a 'van conversion' would be classified as a passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Vehicles commonly called 'vans' may be classed in four different vehicle categories (set forth at 49 CFR 571.3) for the purposes of our safety standards, depending on the configuration of the particular 'van.' Most cargo vans are classified as 'trucks' under our safety standards, because those vehicles are 'designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' Most passenger vans are classified as 'multipurpose passenger vehicles,' because they do not meet the definition of a 'truck', but are 'constructed on a truck chassis.' Those vans that have eleven or more designated seating positions are classified as 'buses,' because they are 'designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Finally, one minivan (the Nissan Axxess) was certified by its manufacturer as a 'passenger car,' because it was 'designed for carrying 10 persons or less.' Additionally, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. If you are interested in the appropriate classification for a particular van conversion, we will offer our tentative opinion if you will provide us with detailed information on the van conversion in which you are interested. You next asked on what date safety belts were required in 'van conversions,' what type of safety belts, and at what locations those belts were required. As explained above, we do not class vehicles as 'van conversions' for the purposes of our safety standards. If the vans were classed as passenger cars, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the car. Beginning December 11, 1989, passenger cars were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. Since September l, l989, all passenger cars are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection for outboard front-seat occupants. Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the vehicle. Beginning September 1, 1991, vans classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles or trucks (other than motor homes) must have lap/shoulder belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions. Motor homes manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 will continue to be required to have lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. In addition, effective September l, l99l vans must meet dynamic crash test injury criteria for the front outboard seating positions. If the vans were classed as buses, buses manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder or a lap-only safety belt at the driver's seating position. Beginning September 1, 1991, buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less (except school buses) must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at all front and rear outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. Also, the agency has proposed extending the automatic crash protection requirements mentioned above to these other vehicle classifications. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4716

"Dear Mr. Schreyer: This responds to your letter to Mr. Harry Thompso of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210). You posed two questions, which I will answer in the order presented. First, you noted that the State of Nevada will be procuring some prison buses, equipped with lap-only safety belts at the passenger seating positions. You correctly noted that no safety standard requires safety belts to be installed for passenger seating positions on buses, but asked if this agency could 'provide direction on what course of action TMC should take.' You asked particularly whether you should design the anchorages for the lap-only safety belts to conform with the requirements of Standard No. 210. NHTSA answered this question in a March 22, 1989 letter to Mr. Keith McDowell, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. As we said in that letter, NHTSA must decline to issue any 'guidelines' beyond or in addition to the requirements set forth in the safety standards. Therefore, since Standard No. 210 expressly exempts passenger seats in buses from the standard's anchorage requirements, Federal law leaves the question of how any such anchorages should be designed entirely up to the judgment of the bus manufacturer. Please note, however, that the State of Nevada is free to specify certain design and performance criteria with which these anchorages must comply in its contract for these buses. Second, you asked for a clarification of the testing conducted to determine compliance with Standard No. 210. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test with which anchorages must comply. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 reads as follows: 'Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to those anchorages.' You asked whether all seats in the coach must be tested simultaneously or whether a single seat would be tested, and then the next seat tested, and so forth. Please note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are 'floor-mounted' anchorages for 'adjacent designated seating positions.' Assuming that there is an aisle or some other separation between the seat assemblies in your buses, the only 'adjacent' designated seating positions would be those common to one occupant seat. Therefore, no more than one occupant seat's anchorages would be tested simultaneously under Standard No. 210. Even those anchorages common to one occupant seat would be tested simultaneously only if the anchorages were floor-mounted. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 2869o

Mrs. Patricia Bicking
1132 Chestnut Avenue
Woodbury Heights, NJ 08097

Dear Mrs. Bicking:

This is a response to your letter of last fall in which you asked a number of questions concerning seat-belts and large school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your correspondence, you enclosed a letter of January 19, 1984, from this Office to Thomas Built Buses, Inc., (Thomas), and the incoming letter from Thomas that was the basis of our interpretation.

Your first question references the January 1984 letter, and asks why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decided that when school bus manufacturers install seat-belts or seat-belt anchorages on large school buses (over 10,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR]), the manufacturers do not have to certify that the belts or anchorages meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards 208, 209, and 210.

The answer to this question is that NHTSA does not require a school bus manufacturer to install seat-belts on large school buses. Our regulations require a motor vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance to all applicable standards. You ask whether this decision still stands. The answer to that question is "yes" for the reason just stated. The agency does not require large buses to have seat-belts because the "compartmentalization" concept (to which you allude in your letter) supplies adequate protection for passengers in large school buses.

Let me give you some background information on our school bus regulations that I think will help address your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses to have passenger crash protection through "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include high seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

You also asked whether there have been any improvements in school bus seating compartments since 1977, and whether the improvements are mandatory. The answer to your question is that there have been no major changes in the school bus safety standards since they became effective in April, 1977. However, the agency continuously reviews school bus safety standards to assess whether it is appropriate to add or amend a requirement.

You may be interested to know that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces); the drivers' training and experience; and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contace Joan Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:222 d:5/4/88

ID: nht88-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/88

FROM: GERALD PETERSON -- TARACO ENTERPRISES INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- N.H.T.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/02/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GERALD PETERSON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 202; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM CARL C CLARK TO JERRY PETERSON; LETTER DATED 09/29/86 FROM DALE T FANZO TO DIANE STEED

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

My name is Gerald Peterson and I would like to introduce you to a new safety product that our company produces called the Truck Hed-rest. This product is designed to help protect the head of the driver and passenger of a truck in an accident when their head is snapped back against the rear window of a vehicle. A brochure, a description of the product and safety information is enclosed.

I am very concerned about the safety of trucks and would like you to send me any information on petitions filed, concerning the safety problems on trucks.

I have done extensive testing on our product and feel it to be a terrific and inexpensive product.

I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future. If you have any questions please call me anytime.

ENCLOSURES

THE ORIGINAL

TRUK -- HEDREST

* Tested and fits into NHTSA guidelines, for rear end collisions up to 50 MPH D.O.T. to help protect against possible neck and head injuries.

* Inexpensive.

* Mounts to truck rear window or van bulkhead.

* Hi-lo temperate velcro mounting material.

* Attractive and easy to install, removes easily with the Velcro(tm).

* Use with sliding rear window.

* Washable and adjustable.

* Use as seat cushion.

* Use as a cushion when canoeing.

* Kneeling pad.

* Five colors: Burgundy, Tan, Black, Blue and Brown.

* Passes MVSS-302 Test for fire and toxic fumes.

* Customized company logo can be imprinted on the Hedrest.

DON'T BE CAUGHT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF TRUK-HEDREST IN YOUR TRUCK OR VAN

Taraco Enterprises, Inc. would like to introduce you to a new safety product that our company produces called the Truk-Hedrest. This product is designed to help protect the head of the driver and passenger of a truck or van in an accident when their hea d is snapped back against the rear window or bulkhead of a vehicle. It gives the person added protection that could prevent injuries to your employees and could save your company medical and injury-related expenses. This is the first after-market head p rotection devise of its kind on the market today.

The Truk-Hedrest is easily attached to the back window of a vehicle with Velcro(tm) and therefore can be taken off at any time. A brochure describing the Truk-Hedrest is enclosed along with a general description of the product, some of its features, the safety testing done and a current price sheet. Please read through all the materials to get a good understanding of what the Truk-Hedrest is and how it can protect your employees or yourself.

If your company would like to know more about the Truk-Hedrest and the added protection it can give your employees, please give me a call at (612) 228-3417. I will be glad to provide you with a sample of our product along with other literature on it. A video tape which shows the extent of injuries that can occur to the driver or passenger of a vehicle if their head hits against the back window or van bulkhead is also available.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Jerry Peterson President

SAFETY TESTING

The Hedrest was tested extensively under the following conditions to determine to a certain extent the safety it provided to a person's head in a vehicle that was rear ended. These tests were performed by TEI with Gerry Peterson using NHTSA guideline s.

A bowling ball weighing approximately 10 pounds (which is the approximate weight of a human head as per the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration guidelines) was dropped onto the rear window of a truck. The distance the ball was dropped vari ed to simulate the velocity a head would hit the rear window. The test was designed to see at which levels the head was most likely to break the rear window tempered glass. Without the Hedrest on the glass, the bowling ball broke the glass at a height o f 7.5 feet or a contact velocity of 15 mph. With the Hedrest on the rear window glass, the bowling ball was dropped from a height of 25 feet or 54 mph contact velocity and the rear window did not break, indicating that the chance of head injuries should decrease or not be as extensive. The reason the window did not break was because the Hedrest displaced the force of the blow throughout the entire perimeters of the Hedrest and tempered the blow. The test showed the added protection the Hedrest can giv e to the driver or passenger of a vehicle.

Another interesting fact about how dangerously exposed the head is, is the high impact that can occur when the head hits the glass at just 35 MPH. The force of impact or contact velocity of a head hitting the rear window at 35 MPH without any protect ion would equal approximately 100 G's at the point of impact and extensive injuries could and probably will result.

Illbruk Manufacturing Co. who helped develop the Hedrest also tested the Hedrest for fire hazard and toxic fumes. The Hedrest passed the MVSS-302 test in both of these areas. Also, different materials were tested to determine which would produce the be st and safest Hedrest.

TRUK-HEDREST

Specifications

The Truk-Hedrest is made of a soft yet firm foam material covered by a micro-thin layer of a special plastic. The plastic coating protects the Hedrest, allows it to be washed, and gives it a long life. The Hedrest measures 14 inches horizontally and 8 inches vertically so that if the vehicle is hit at an angle there still should be enough room to protect a person's head.

The Hedrest is attached to the back of the window of a vehicle by three pieces of Velcro(tm) that are placed in three strategic places so that the Hedrest will not interfere with the opening of a split window on the back of a truck. One-half of the Velcr o(tm) is attached to the back of the Hedrest and one is attached to the glass on the rear window. This allows the Velcro(tm) to be separated and the Hedrest removed if desired. The adhesive on the Velcro(tm) pieces is made to withstand drastic temperat ure changes and will not fall off.

The Truk-Hedrest also passes the MVSS-302 test for fire and toxic fumes. It has also been tested under NHTSA guidelines for collisions up to 50 mph.

The Hedrest does not claim to prevent all injuries to the head of a driver or passenger in a collision but rather it is designed to help protect the head by helping to reduce the extent of injuries that can occur when an accident occurs.

ID: 1985-03.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

This responds to your two letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. We apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your December 6, 1984 letter asked about paragraph S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217 and the ellipsoid used to measure the unobstructed opening of a pushout window or other emergency exit. To simplify matters, I will refer to the illustration you attached with your letter. You asked whether you may rotate the ellipsoid in such a way that axis C-D may be horizontal instead of axis A-B.

By way of background information, I would like to explain that NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letters.

Paragraph S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217 states that:

After the release mechanism has been operated, each push-out window or other emergency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall...be manually extendable by a single occupant to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches.

Since the language of section S5.4.1 requires only that "a major axis" of the ellipsoid to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the emergency exit, you are not prohibited from positioning the ellipsoid with only a single major axis, such as C-D, horizontal. If there is unobstructed access of the ellipsoid through the opening, with major axis C-D horizontal, then the emergency exit meets the requirement of S5.4.1 as that section is written.

Even if the design of the exit would not violate S5.4.1, however, we urge you to ensure that the design would not complicate efforts of the passengers to use the emergency exit. It appears that the intent of the agency was for the plane generated by the major axes to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the exit. Otherwise, since a major axis of the ellipsoid will at all times be horizontal, no matter how the ellipsoid is passed, the benefit of such a requirement would be reduced. Further, the opening to the emergency exit could be significantly reduced when the only horizontal major axis is C-D.

The agency issued an opinion in April 1977, stating that S5.4.1 and S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 require the long side of a rectangular roof exit to be parallel to the center line or the side wall of a bus. That opinion interpreted S5.4.1 as requiring the ellipsoid to be passed through the exit with more than one of its major axes horizontal. That interpretation relied on the intent of the standard, but not the language of S5.4.1.

This letter reconsiders the 1977 opinion and holds that the language of S5.4.1 requires only one major axis of the ellipsoid to be horizontal.

The two questions in your December 13, 1984 letter dealt with an outside release mechanism for pushout rear emergency windows. In a telephone call to this office on February 25, 1985, you said that the rear emergency pushout windows would be on school buses and buses other than school buses. You also asked whether an outside release mechanism may be installed on rear emergency doors on buses other than school buses.

Your first question was whether the following interpretation was correct:

FMVSS 217 does not require emergency exits to have outside release mechanisms, except for school bus emergency doors. Therefore, if we provide an outside handle to operate a pushout rear emergency window, it does not have to meet any force level or type of motion requirements.

You are correct that Standard No. 217 does not require emergency exits on school buses to have outside release mechanisms, with the exception in S5.3.3 for school bus emergency doors. We assume that there are release mechanisms for the pushout rear emergency windows located within the bus which meet all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. If the emergency exit meets all applicable requirements of the standard, an outside release mechanism for a pushout rear emergency window, that is provided in addition to the release mechanisms required by the standard need not meet any force application and type of motion requirements.

Your second question was whether the outside handle on the pushout rear emergency window could be equipped with a key operated mechanism that disengages the handle from outside the bus for security purposes. The handle, even when locked from the outside, does not ever prevent operation of the window's release mechanisms from inside the bus. The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 217 does not prohibit the type of handle you described when all applicable requirements of the standard can be met.

Our answers given above apply to outside release mechanisms on pushout rear emergency windows on school buses and buses other than school buses.

An outside release mechanism on rear emergency doors on buses other than school buses would likewise not have to meet any force application and type of motion requirements, if the emergency door meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. The outside release mechanism can be equipped with the locking device you described, provided that Standard No. 217's requirements are met.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CPR Part 517.217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Dear Mr. Berndt:

For purposes of FMVSS 217 the unobstructed opening a pushout window or other emergency exit, not required by S 5.2.3, must provide is defined as follows:

"...an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches."

When applying this requirement to a side pushout window with an adjacent seat, as shown in Figure 1 attached, we initially interpreted this requirement to mean the major axis A-B which is parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the major axis that must be kept horizontal. This interpretation required placing of the adjacent seat so that a 20 inch horizontal opening was maintained at the height the ellipsoid passed out the opening.

In certain body/capacity combinations, it requires uneven spacing of the seats to provide this clearance at pushout window locations required in certain states. Upon restudying the requirements, we have realized that the requirement is for a major axis to remain horizontal at all times. Since the ellipsoid is generated by rotating an ellipse about its minor axis, it is a circle in the top or bottom plan view and, therefore, has a multitude of major axes including A-B, C-D, E-F, as shown in the top view of Figure 1. Based on this, it is allowable to rotate the ellipsoid about axis C-D as shown in the side view of Figure 2 as long as axis C-D is kept horizontal at all times.

We feel rotating the ellipsoid about any major axis is allowed by the standard's wording as long as a major axis is kept horizontal, and that lt meets the intent of the standard and does not compromise safety in any way. We seek your confirmation of this interpretation as it will permit us to better meet our customer's needs by providing more flexibility in positioning seats adjacent to pushout windows.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and your early reply.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

dh/2057 Attachment

c: FMVSS 217 Correspondence File Jim Moorman David Carter

"INSERT GRAPHIC"

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CFR Part 571.217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to make a correction in our December 6, 1984 letter discussing unobstructed opening requirements of FMVSS 217 and to request other interpretations regarding this standard. First, the reference in our December 6 letter should have been to 49 CFR Part 571.217 instead of 517.217. Please make this correction and accept our apology for any confusion this error may have caused.

Second, we request your confirmation of two interpretations regarding pushout rear window release mechanisms as follows:

1. FMVSS 217 does not require emergency exits to have outside release mechanisms, except for school bus emergency doors. Therefore, if we provide an outside handle to operate a pushout rear emergency window, it does not have to meet any force level or type of motion requirements.

2. Since an outside handle is not required on a pushout rear emergency window, we could provide a handle, with a key operated mechanism that allows the outside handle to be engaged or disengaged with the pushout window release mechanisms. Disengagement of the outside handle allows locking of the bus for security purposes but does not ever prevent operation of the release mechanism from inside the bus. We feel such a device therefore, meets the letter and intent of FMVSS 217.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Very truly yours, Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

fvc c: FMVSS 217 Correspondence File Jim Moorman David Carter

ID: nht91-4.10

DATE: May 31, 1991

FROM: Elizabeth Anania

TO: Steve Kratzke

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-24-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Elizabeth Anania (A38; Std. 207; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Tarantino of your agency, in reference to my husband, Vincent Anania. He suffered a stroke a year ago and now, after intensive therapy, is able to walk unassisted and care for himself. The only impairment he has which could be considered a handicap is some paralysis in his right arm and hand. He is anxious to complete his independence by being able to drive. Toward that end, he was evaluated by Mr. Michael Suggs of Bryant Driving School here in Raleigh, who specializes in handicapped drivers, and was judged to be qualified to drive without restrictions.

The problem is getting behind the wheel -- that is, entering the car. The seat does not go back quite far enough for his knee to clear under the steering wheel. One or two inches farther back would allow easy entry (strangely, exiting is not a problem).

Our car is a '91 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser Station Wagon and could be slightly modified to slide back a little more, but the agency told me it was against federal law. I am hoping we can secure permission to make the change, as driving is important to him. I should add that, of course, once behind the wheel, he would return the seat to its normal position for driving.

We will appreciate your advice on this matter very much.

ID: aiam4583

"Dear Mr. Smith: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner o behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Maureen Andrews, of Derry. You expressed concern about the absence of safety belts for school bus passengers and about the number of persons to occupy a school bus seat. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress amended the Act to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards addressing various aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel system integrity. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to make school buses, already a safe mode of transportation, even safer. We have considered the safety belt issue in connection with our safety standard for school bus passenger crash protection, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. Standard No. 222 requires that large school buses provide passenger crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Providing compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and protect them during a crash. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of whether these passengers use safety belts. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our notice terminating a rulemaking proceeding to decide whether Standard No. 222 should be amended to specify certain requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses. We decided not to amend the standard since these belts appear to be currently installed in a manner that ensures adequate safety performance. The notice provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by Mrs. Andrews. As explained in the notice, school buses in this country have compiled an excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses differ from small school buses in that they have greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. For all of these reasons, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities in large school buses is not the same as that for smaller vehicles, such as small school buses. Thus, although Standard No. 222 does require safety belts for passengers in small school buses, we conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts in large school buses is not justified at this time. Mrs. Andrews also asks about requirements that apply to the number of children that are allowed to sit on a bench seat. We are not authorized by Congress to regulate the number of persons that may occupy a school bus seat. However, for the purpose of ensuring that school bus manufacturers properly design their large school buses, we do specify the method for establishing the number of designated seating positions on a bench seat. The number of seating positions on a bench seat is calculated under Standard No. 222 by dividing the bench width in inches by 15 and rounding the result to the nearest whole number. Under this formula, a 39 inch bench seat has three seating positions. (39 divided by 15 = 2.6, which is rounded to 3) For small school buses, the determination of the number of positions ensures that the bench seat would have sufficient restraint systems for the maximum number of persons that should ever occupy the seat, and that the seat provides crash protection to all these persons. For large school buses, the determination ensures that the forces applied to the seat during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the number of occupants and of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash. It should be noted, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the Standard No. 222 formula is not meant to be an absolute measure of the seating capacity of the bus, irrespective of occupant size. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, while a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students, it may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of widely varying ages and sizes, the appropriate capacity of the bus will fall somewhere between those two values. The decision on how many passengers may be comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved, and in accordance with state and local requirements. Since NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate how States use school buses, the agency could not preclude a State from allowing the number of passengers on a bench seat to exceed the number of designated seating positions on that seat. However, we agree with Mrs. Andrews that a student should not stand while riding in a school bus. We agree further that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalization. We believe that Mrs. Andrews' concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by her working with the local school board and state officials. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Enclosure";

ID: nht72-6.26

DATE: 05/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: CITROEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1972, in which you posed questions about the operation of the seat belt warning system under Standard 208 and about the intent of the headlamp adjustment requirement under Standard 215.

Your questions on Standard 208 deal with the requirement in S7.3.3 that the warning system in a vehicle with an automatic transmission must not operate when the engine is operating and the gear selector is in the "Park" position. In answer to your first question, if the two conditions for non-operation exist, the warning system must not operate, regardless of the position of the hand brake lever. If either condition does not exist, e.g., the transmission is in "Park" but the engine is not operating, it would be permissible to have the system operate, and its operation could be controlled by the hand brake so long as the hand brake circuitry does not interfere with the mandatory operation of the system under S7.3.1 and S7.3.5.

If the shift lever is in the neutral position, as stated in your second question, you are free to choose whether to have the system operate or not, since S7.3 does not require either operation or non-operation when the transmission is in neutral.

In response to your last question on Standard 208, an "operating engine" is an engine that is rotating. It is permissible to have a system in which the warning operates when the transmission is in "Park" and the ignition is "On", but the warning must shut off when the engine begins to operate.

Your question on Standard 215 is whether the headlamps must be adjustable after the tests "so as to permit restoration of normal lighting" or whether it is sufficient for the lamps to be adjustable +4 degrees vertically and horizontally whether or not this restores normal lighting. Our reply is that the requirement is intended to provide for the safe operation of the lamps after impact and that the lamps must therefore be adjustable in a manner that restores normal lighting.