Interpretation ID: nht87-2.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Allan Fogel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Allan Fogel New York City Office of the Comptroller Bureau of Management Audit 161 William Street New York, NY 10038

Dear Mr. Fogel:

This responds to your March 6, 1987 letter to my office asking whether we consider a "Mobile Instructional Unit" (MIU) to be a "school bus." You wish to know whether Federal school bus safety standards apply to such a vehicle. You have asked, in addition , whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on hydraulic brakes applies to an MIU. It is my opinion that the MIU is not a school bus under the applicable Federal law and regulations and is thus not required to meet the school bus standards. If th e MIU is equipped with air brakes, it is not subject to the hydraulic brake standard.

The background information you provide explains that the MIU is a self-propelled unit built on a new or used school bus chassis. MIU's are "completely self-contained with all furnishings, (including desks for 10 pupils)." When an MIU is built with a used chassis, the Board of Education's contractor guts the interior of the bus and constructs a classroom facility within the shell. According to your letter, the MIU's are never used to transport pupils: "The empty vehicle is driven to the site by the contr actor where it is parked and then pupils and teacher enter the vehicle. At the end of the day after instruction, the pupils and teacher disembark and the empty vehicle is driven back to the garage by the contractor."

Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381-1431) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. We ave issued several standards which apply to School buses, a class of vehicle defined b y the Act as "likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary or secondary school students to or from schools or events related to such schools." (l5 U.S.C. 1391(14)) The bus from which an MIU is built would have had t o comply with the school bus standards at the time of its original manufacture. As long as a bus continues to be used as a school bus, the law does not allow a contractor to modify it in a way that takes it out of compliance with the school bus standards . (l5 U.S.C.

1397(a)(2)(A) However, if the bus is modified so that it will no longer be used to transport students, it ceases to be a school bus and does not have to continue to meet the standards applicable exclusively to school buses. In the case of the MIU, it see ms clear that the vehicle would no longer be suitable for transporting students to or from school. The MIU would thus not have to meet the school bus standards.

Although the school bus standards would not apply, the MIU would;d continue to be a motor vehicle and would continue to be subject to other standards under the Act. You have asked about the applicability of Standard No. 105, hydraulic Brakes. Since the b uses from which the MIU's are built were originally equipped with air brakes, the hydraulic brake standard would not apply to them. However, there is a separate standard for air braked vehicles, Standard No. 121, a copy of which I have enclosed. If the c ontractor built am MIU in a way that impaired the air brake system, he or she might be in violation of the Act. The contractor would also have to ensure that several other regulated safety systems -- the windshield wipers, the Driver's safety belt, etc. -- remained operative.

MIU's built with new chassis also fall outside the ambit of the Safety Act's school bus definition. Since they are not school buses under Federal law, the MIU's Are not subject to our school bus safety standards. However, the MIU's would be subject to ot her standards, including Standard No. 121 for air braked vehicles. The contractor should be able to inform you of the compliance of the vehicles with applicable Federal safety standards.

Since you may be interested in reviewing the standards which apply to vehicles such as the MIU, I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC INFORMATION)

April 24 1987 Mr. Stephen Oesch Chief Counsels Office National Highway Safety and Transportation Administration 400 - 7th Street, SW - Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch: Pursuant to my letter of March 6, 1987 and our recent telephone conversation, I am enclosing a brochure depicting what a mobil classroom vehicle looks like.

Although the vehicle shown here was not adopted by the New York City Board of Education, the one actually in service has the same function and a similar interior layout. The only difference being that the vehicle in the brochure was remanufactured from a used school bus, while the vehicles presently employed by the Board of Education have a body which was built from scratch and placed on a 1986 school bus chassis.

Whether or not this type of vehicle can actually be considered a school bus is an essential aspect of my study and therefore I would appreciate such a determination from your office as soon as possible. Many thanks for your cooperation.

Sincerely, Allan Fogel Enclosure

Erika Jones Chief Counsel's Office National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On June 3, 1986, the New York City Board of Education announced a plan to provide services to Chapter 1 sectarian school students in September, 1986. The plan provides that the sectarian school children in the Program will receive services of a nearby pu blic school. where there is no space in the public school, MIU's (Mobile instructional Units) will be leased to serve the sectarian school children. This plan was developed as a result of the July 1985 United States Supreme Court decision in Aquiler vs. Felton.

In order to carry out this plan, the New York City Board of Education prepared and advertised specifications for the leasing of MIU's, including drivers. The MlU specifications call for a self-propelled mobile instructional unit completely self-contained with all furnishings, (including desks for 10 pupils), installed generator, air-conditioning, heating and ventilating system. The specifications also call for a chassis which shall be 1977 or newer. The finished vehicle although it has a school chassis, has a custom built non-school bus body. These vehicles have been built and are now serving the New York City Board of Education.

The Comptroller's Office of the City or New York is conducting an audit of this contract as to the quality of construction and the safety regulations that apply to the vehicle. We are at an impasse however, because we are not sure if this vehicle can act ually be called a school bus and if the Federal Regulations of 1977 do in-fact apply.

The term Mobile Instructional Unit is actually a misnomer since pupils are not transported at all. The Empty vehicle is driven to the site by the contractor where it is parked and then pupils and teacher enter the vehicle. At the end of the day after Ins truction, the pupils and teacher disembark and the empty vehicle is driven back to the garage by the contractor. We were informed by thy New York State Department of Transportation that these vehicles are not certified and inspected every 6 months as are school buses that transport children.

In consideration of the above, the New Pork City Comptroller's Office would like your office to provide a ruling as to whether or not this type of vehicle can actually be considered a school bus, and whether or not any of the 1977 Federal safety standard s (DOT HS 805 674 revised April 1985) apply. We are specifically interested in Standard No. 105 which deals with hydraulic brakes and requires a split system. The vehicles in question have air brakes, so we would also like to know if the revised safety r egulations apply to any way to air brakes as well.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Very truly yours, Allan Fogel field Supervisor (212) 566-6075