Interpretation ID: BlueBird2point.drn
Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P. O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030
Dear Mr. Turner:
This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, and the "make inoperative" provision of our statute. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that Blue Bird is investigating the feasibility, legality and practicability of equipping school bus passenger seats with Type 2 seat belt assemblies (lap and shoulder belt systems). You ask three questions about how our requirements may affect this endeavor.
Some background concerning school buses might be helpful in addressing your questions. In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued Standard No. 222, which provides for school bus passenger crash protection through the "compartmentalization" concept. Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. The seats must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet be flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant. They must be constructed by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger. On large school buses (gross vehicle weight greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds)), compartmentalization provides effective occupant crash protection without the use of seat belts.
In the absence of a specific design proposal, we cannot offer an opinion as to whether a lap and shoulder belt system can be attached to existing school bus seats without reducing the benefits of compartmentalization during a crash. We also have limited information about how an integrated lap and shoulder belt system on a school bus seat would perform in a crash or otherwise affect the current safety of school buses. I have enclosed a copy of our October 28, 1999, letter to Mr. Gilbert A. Perea, which contains a more detailed discussion of our concerns about attaching a shoulder belt to a school bus seat back.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also has begun an extensive research program to study occupant protection systems for school bus passengers. One objective of the plan is to improve current school bus crash data to better define the types of crashes that produce injuries to occupants in order to evaluate the effectiveness of current Federal crash protection requirements.
The research plan also will evaluate new school bus occupant crash protection systems in controlled laboratory tests that represent real-world crashes. Based on those tests, NHTSA may propose new occupant protection requirements for school buses if overall safety can be improved.
Turning now to your questions, you first ask:
Question One: "As a manufacturer of school buses, is Blue Bird prohibited from installing Type 2 seat belts on the passenger seats in buses manufactured and sold as school buses based on the [make inoperative] provision cited above?"
You refer to 30122 of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), which prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from making modifications that "make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on a new or used vehicle would be subject to penalties of up to $1,100 per violation and injunctive relief.
In answer to your question, 30122 would prohibit Blue Bird from installing Type 2 belts if such a modification would cause a seating system already in compliance with Standard No. 222, or any other applicable FMVSS, to no longer comply. Note that 30122 only applies to a vehicle that has been previously certified as in compliance with the FMVSS, and that 30115 prohibits you as a manufacturer from certifying vehicles that do not comply with all applicable FMVSS. Similarly, 30112 prohibits the sale of noncomplying buses.
Neither Standard No. 222 nor our statute directly prohibits the installation of Type 2 belts for passengers in large school buses. If you can install these belts and preserve the school bus' compliance with all applicable FMVSSs, you may do so. As previously explained, however, we are concerned that the incorporation of shoulder belts into existing school bus seats could reduce crash protection.
Question Two: "Does the [make inoperative] provision prohibit the after-market installation of Type 2 seat belts and/or restraining bars or other devices attached to school bus seat backs and does the agency intend to actively enforce this provision?"
As stated above, the make inoperative provision does not prohibit the installation of belts or restraining bars per se, as long as the modified school bus can meet all applicable Federal safety standards. We do not believe, however, that Type 2 seat belts or restraining bars are generally compatible with existing school bus seats. We are currently investigating these and other occupant protection issues in our school bus safety research program. With respect to enforcement, we intend to actively pursue any violations of law that adversely affect the safety of children on school buses.
Question Three: "Would federal law preempt a state from requiring Type 2 seat belt assemblies on the passenger seats of new school buses they purchase."
Section 30103(b) of our statute states that when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, that section provides that a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for vehicles or equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the Federal standard.
States would be preempted from requiring Type 2 belts on large school buses procured for the State's own use if the belts would cause the bus to not meet Federal school bus standards and thereby result in a lower level of safety performance than that required by the standards. Therefore, if installing Type 2 belts would either make a new school bus not able to meet Standard No. 222 or would "make inoperative" the compliance of a previously certified school bus with Standard No. 222, the State requirement would be preempted.(1)
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:222
d.7/12/00
1. We note that this letter does not affect our interpretation letter of February 20, 1987, to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin of the New York State Department of Transportation. In that letter, we stated that NHTSA's laws do not preempt a New York state law that requires passenger belts on N.Y. public school buses. In the context of the Chauvin letter, we were discussing lap belts only, and not Type 2 belts. The lap belts did not prevent school buses from meeting Federal motor vehicle safety standards.