Interpretation ID: nht73-1.22
DATE: 09/25/73
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA
TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 26 and August 7, 1973, requesting an opinion on the applicability of the emergency exit provisions (S5.3 to S5.5) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217), to buses that are of the same design as "school buses," but which are not manufactured (they are not painted yellow, nor do they have warning devices) nor used as school buses. You ask further that the standard exempt prison buses.
We interpret the exemption for school buses to include buses similarly designed, without regard to their intended use. 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.
With respect to your request regarding prison buses, we are presently considering similar requests previously received, and plan to respond by notice published in the Federal Register in the near future.
Yours truly,
August 7, 1973
Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Vehicles U.S. Department of Transportation
Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release
Thomas Built Buses, Inc., High Point, North Carolina, a manufacturer of school bus bodies, respectfully petitions the Department of Transportation for a revision in wording of said Standard, particularly section S5.2.3 School Buses. We petition that the wording in this section be changed to read as follows: "The emergency exit requirements do not apply to school buses or buses of like design adapted for use for other than transporting children to and from school, but if such buses contain any pushout windows or other emergency exits, these exits shall conform to S5.3 through S5.5."
We base our petition on the fact that we as a body manufacturer do offer our base product design for other uses such as churches, activity buses for schools used for field trips and other school events, Boy Scouts, YMCA's, Salvation Army Clubs, etc. These units are constructed of the same basic design as what is termed a school bus but may vary as to color and omission of specific school bus safety warning systems. Our conclusion is that as the Standard is presently worded, it is a double Standard in that it states the Standard applies not to school buses but to those same buses if used for other than hauling children to and from school. We feel strongly that the Standard should apply to neither school buses or those of like design used by other groups or the Standard should apply to all buses including school buses. Due to the basic design of the product for school use, we are in agreement with the Standard as proposed but suggest the above additions.
In addition to the above, we respectfully submit to the Department of Transportation that prison buses which are vehicles manufactured to haul prisoners from one point to another, should not be included under this Standard. Prison buses should be exempt along with school buses and the others listed. The basis for this petition on prison buses is due to the fact that the Standard contradicts the specific purpose of a prison bus. In other words, prison buses are security vehicles with a minimum of escape possibility whereby the Standard increases escape possibility.
We would respectfully request your expediting a ruling on this petition since all body manufacturers have buses as described in this petition on order to build after September 1, 1973, and the effective date of said Standard is September 1, 1973. If further information is required by you, please advise us immediately.
Respectfully submitted,
James Tydings Chief Engineer
c.c. Berkley Sweet Executive Secretary School Bus Manufacturers Institute 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D. C. 20015
July 26, 1973
Berkley C. Sweet Truck Body & Equipment Association
Dear Mr. Sweet:
Kindly forward this letter to the Department of Transportation for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation on FMVSS #217 - Bus Window Retention and Release.
We request an interpretation on the definition of "School Bus" as applied to units which we sell to school bus route contractors. Many contractors use their buses for purposes other than just carrying school children. For example, they may carry a Sunday School class to the beach for a weekend. Will the requirement for a minimum number of emergency exits be applicable to a bus used in such a case?
We request that the "designated seating capacity" for a handicapped persons vehicle be taken as the number of wheelchair spaces plus the seated passenger capacity.
Are "School Activity Buses" required to have a minimum number of emergency exits? Such buses are used to carry sports teams to games and classes on field trips. These buses are owned by the schools and used because most states have laws that preclude the use of state owned route buses for such activities.
We request an exemption for buses which are sold to prisons on the basis that we sold less than 100 of them during 1972. We expect to sell approximately 30 such vehicles this year. Also, there is the reason of possible prison escape.
Thanking you in advance for your services, we remain
Very truly yours,
James Tydings Chief Engineer