TOP STORY
million based on the approximately 2,000 new motorcoaches sold each year. At this writing, the United Motorcoach Association, a leading industry advocate
comprised of private bus carriers, remained tight-lipped on the NPRM as it had yet to submit its comments. But, Kenneth Presley, UMA’s vice president of industry relations, did say that the organization was satisfied that NHTSA had performed the necessary scientific studies on motorcoach crash forces that the industry has called for over the past several years ahead of any seat belt requirement. But he also added the NPRM presented just as many questions as it did answers, such as a provision to add a definition of “motorcoach” to 49 CFR Part 571.3 of the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards because of the vehicle’s unique safety risks. “[NHTSA] followed exactly the same
protocol they used in the development of the school bus rule,” commented Johnson from IMMI, the manufacturer of the Pre- mier seat for motorcoaches that features three-point seat belts as well as compart- mentalization technology used in the company’s Safeguard flex seats for school buses. “Tey looked at the deceleration of a vehicle versus time and how that particular deceleration generated forces for occu- pants both restrained and unrestrained.” He added that much of the sled crash
results paralleled what NHTSA ruled on school bus seats, that being lap belts can induce injuries and that single frame seats had trouble protecting both belted and unbelted passengers. In addition, Johnson said the seats that did not meet FMVSS 210 requirements for anchorage had is- sues with regard to failures and fractures. Te new NHTSA NPRM also seeks to
define motorcoaches in the federal ve- hicle regulations for the very first time. Currently, the U.S. Department of Trans- portation lumps motorcoaches under the category of “bus,” which refers to any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 passengers. Te NHTSA NPRM seeks to add a motorcoach delineation similar to what it previously published for mul- tifunction school activity bus (MFSABs) and school bus. Te new classification stems from a recommendation issued by NTSB in June that NHTSA define all bus body types, especially those over 10,000 pounds (excluding school buses) when developing rulemaking on occupant protection, roof strength, and window glazing, all safety upgrades NTSB advo- cates for motorcoaches. But NHTSA proposes motorcoaches
would be defined as only those vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of at least 26,000 pounds. NTSB, on the other hand, has called for a classification of 10,000 pounds. NHTSA said it seeks crash and cost data to help determine if the proposed definition should be expanded to include more vehicles or narrowed. ■
Public comments can be made on docket NHTSA-2010-0112 through Oct. 18.
24 School Transportation News Magazine October 2010
Oct10_STN.indb 24 9/14/10 12:17 PM w J
W t
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88