Interpretation ID: nht74-1.41
DATE: 04/01/74
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA
TO: Blue Bird Body Company
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, requesting clarification of the definition of "school bus" as it appears in NHTSA regulations. You point out that school bus is defined for purposes of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean "a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school . . .", but is defined differently in Highway Safety Standard No. 17 (23 CFR 204.4), i.e., "any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 15 pupils to and from school". You also refer to our interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 which states that the term "school bus" as defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 includes buses designed as school buses but which are not intended or sold to transport children to and from school. You state that as a result it is unclear whether buses designed but not used as school buses, including church and civic group buses, must be equipped with warning lamps under S4.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In this regard, you state that you require purchasers to indicate on their purchase order whether the bus will be used primarily to transport children to and from school, and ask whether this is an acceptable form for a manufacturer to use to determine whether a vehicle will be used as a school bus.
We do not interpret Standard No. 108 to require warning lights on buses that are not intended to be used to transport school children. Our interpretation regarding Standard No. 217, exempting school bus-type buses from the emergency exit requirements of that standard (which applies as well to buses manufactured by Blue Bird), was based on what we believed at that time was a special need to exempt such buses from the requirements of that standard. We are aware of the inconsistency in the application of the definition of "school bus" in Standards Nos. 108 and 217 and we intend to modify these requirements so that they will be applied consistently.
The difference between the definition of B school bus in the Highway Safety Act and in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under the Vehicle Safety Act is that the latter statute and the requirements issued thereunder apply to the manufacturing process. The requirements issued under the Highway Safety Act apply more directly to school bus use.
Whether a particular bus is a school bus cannot be ascertained merely by the representation of the purchaser. The manufacturer should base his decision as well on the objective characteristics of the vehicle, so that he can be reasonably certain that the purchaser's representations are bona fide.
SINCERELY,
December 6, 1973
Richard Oyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA
REFERENCE: N40-30 (MPP) to Mr. James Tydings, September 25, 1973 N40 30 (MPP) to Mr. G. R. Seward, October 31, 1973
In phone conversations with Mr. Pescoe on November 29 and 30, 1973, we learned of the reference letters which deal with the definition of the term "School Bus" as used in FMVSS 217 Bus Window Retention and Release, S 5.2. Mr. Pescoe has sent us copies of these letters.
In your letter to Mr. Tyiings you say:
School bus is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean,
"a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school. . .
We are of the opinion that buses which share the same design as buses that clearly fall within the definition of "school bus" are school buses under Standard No. 217, and are therefore exempt from the emergency exit provisions of the standard. No modification of the standard is accordingly called for."
In this explanation, you have called attention to the word "designed" in the definition. Highway Safety Program Standard 17, however, uses a different terminology in defining a school bus. In Paragraph III, Definitions, it says:
"Type I school vehicle" means any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. . ." (Illegible Word) the definitions of "school bus" in 49 CFR 571.3 and "Type I (Illegible Word) vehicle" in Highway Safety Standard 17, it is unclear whether it is the way a vehicle is designed or used which determines if it is a school bus or not. We believe that NHTSA should clarify its intent regarding this.
We are concerned with these specific questions:
1. Are all buses which are designed as school buses according to your interpretation in the reference letters required to have warning lamps under FMVSS 108 S 4.1.4? This would include church buses, civic group buses, etc. We believe that such a ruling would defeat the entire purpose of Highway Safety Program No. 17 which attempts to uniquely identify school buses. Accordingly we suggest that only buses used primarily to carry children to and from school be equipped with warning lamps. To tell us when we may delete warning lamps from a bus, we have been asking purchasers or distributors (who sometimes buy stock vehicles) to sign a statement on the purchase order indicating the intended use of the vehicle. See copy of blank purchase order enclosed. Does NHTSA consider this to be an acceptable method of determining if a vehicle is a school bus for the purposes of FMVSS 108 and Highway Safety Standard No. 17?
In closing we would like to indicate our agreement with the NHTSA's interpretation of "school bus" for the purpose of FMVSS 217 which exempts from the emergency exit provisions of that standard, buses which share the same design as those which meet the 49 CFR 571.3 definition but may used for purposes other than the (Illegible Word) of school children. Are the interpretations in the reference (Illegible Word) to Thomas Built Buses, Inc. and Sheller-Globe Corp. legally binding and do they also apply to Blue Bird Body Company?
Thank you for your reply and your continued help in these matters.
W. G. Milby Project Engineer
cc: DAVE PHELPS; JIM MOORMAN
NAME OF AGENCY: Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Routine
TYPE OF MESSAGE: SINGLE
TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE
SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION LIMA, OHIO
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF DECEMBER 6 NHTSA WOULD CONSIDER THE USE OF A ROOF EMERGENCY EXIT AS APPROPRIATE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO S5.2.1 OF STANDARD NO. 217 IF IT WERE IMPRACTICABLE TO USE A REAR EXIT BECAUSE, AS YOU STATE, RETOOLING AN EXISTING CONFIGURATION WOULD BE EXCESSIVELY EXPENSIVE.
RICHARD B. DYSON ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, N40-30
NAME AND TITLE OF ORIGINATOR: Michael P. Peskoe, Attorney DATE AND TIME PREPARED: Dec. 12, 1973
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. COAST GUARD TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER
12/06/73
LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER, CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON D C 20590 SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION PLANS TO MODIFY EXISTING MOTOR HOME INTO A BUS. MOTOR HOME CONFIGURATION CONTAINS LARGE PICTURE WINDOW IN REAR. COSTS OF TOOLING TO ADD EMERGENCY EXIT EXCESSIVE. ALTERNATE SCHEME IS TO INSTALL EMERGENCY EXIT IN ROOF PERMITTED BY MVSS-217 PARAGRAPH S.5.2.1.
WILL EXIST IN ROOF BE ACCEPTABLE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS?
DUE TO URGENCY, REPLY REQUESTED 12-7-73. R M PREMO, SHELLER-GLOBE CORP, VEHICLE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CENP