ID: 7234-2

Mr. Gerald A. Guertin
6800 Kitty Hawk Drive
Pensacola, FL 32506

Dear Mr. Guertin:

Your letter of March 30, 1992 to former Secretary Skinner was referred to this agency for reply. You expressed concern that you had not received a response to an earlier letter, addressed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the use of vans to transport school children. I regret that you did not receive a response to your previous letter.

You indicated that you are a school teacher in Florida and asked us to verify your understanding of why you cannot use nine- to 15-passenger vans to transport school children. You stated that, at the present time, seven-person rifle teams, eight-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, and the like are prohibited from being transported in vans and must instead use "gas-guzzling, 37-passenger school buses." Since these clubs must raise their own gas money, you stated that they could get "more trips for the buck" if they could use vans. You indicated that you were permitted to use vans prior to a crash about seven years ago in which a cheerleader was killed. You understand that van roof standards were apparently not what they should be and that NHTSA then "came forward with the need for `acceptability of crash-worthy tests' for vans," placing the cost of developing and performing such tests on manufacturers. You suggested that van manufacturers opted out of the school van business because they were reluctant to fund the new tests.

Your understanding is not quite correct, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less; vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Florida law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref# 571.3 d:5/27/92

ID: 7236

John J. Jacoby
President
Cleartec
1919 Paper Mill Road
Huntington Valley, PA 19006-5813

Dear Mr. Jacoby:

I have been asked to respond to your April 6, 1992 letter to former Secretary Skinner, because our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is the part of the Department of Transportation that administers the program about which you asked. Specifically, your letter asks whether there are any Federal regulations that affect a new product Cleartec has developed. The product, Clean Sweep Strips, is a transparent material applied to the windshield in a herringbone pattern, in the path of the wipers, to clean the wipers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Your letter states that Clean Sweep Strips could be manufactured into new windshields. If a windshield with Clean Sweep Strips were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Clean Sweep Strips installed, complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has issued two safety standards, compliance with which might be affected by the installation of your Clean Sweep Strips. First, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a number of requirements for light transmittance, abrasion resistance, and optical deviation and visibility distortion for windshields. Second, Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, establishes requirements for a minimum area that must be wiped by the wiping system, and the frequency at which the wiping system must operate. Any manufacturer that installed your product as original equipment on a windshield would have to certify that the windshield continued to comply with Standards No. 205 and 104 with your product installed.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

This provision means that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business cannot install your Clean Sweep Strips on any vehicle if such installation results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 205 or 104. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation.

I note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, individual vehicle owners may install your Clean Sweep Strips on their own vehicles, even if this installation causes the vehicles to no longer comply with applicable safety standards. Such installations may be regulated, however, by State law. If you are interested in further information on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Additionally, under the Safety Act, Clean Sweep Strips would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Finally, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:104#205 d:5/29/92

ID: 7237

Ms. Anne Volmerange
11041 Vena Ave.
Mission Hills, CA 91345

Dear Ms. Volmerange:

I have been asked to respond to your letter to Mr. Clarke Harper of our Rulemaking division. Your letter requests authorization from NHTSA to replace the automatic two point shoulder belt installed in your vehicle with a manual lap/shoulder belt. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for safety belt installation in all vehicle types. In addition, S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). There are several different designs of automatic belts available, and many manufacturers are installing air bags accompanied by conventional manual lap/shoulder safety belts. Based on your description, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle has chosen to install diagonal automatic shoulder belts at the front outboard seating positions. The manufacturer has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208.

After a vehicle equipped with automatic crash protection has been sold to a retail purchaser, such as yourself, the provision in Federal law that affects modifications to the automatic crash protection system is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

With regard to your vehicle, the automatic safety belts are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits your dealer, any other dealer, and any manufacturer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the existing automatic belts in your car and replacing them with manual belts.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you from removing the automatic belts from your own car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to remove the automatic belts yourself and improperly install manual belts, you would be putting yourself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:5/19/92

ID: 7240

Mr. Bill Willett
1609A Sumner Drive
Mobile, AL 36605

Dear Mr. Willett:

This responds to your letter of April 17, 1992, with repect to motor vehicle lighting. You believe that a "flickering brake light is an improvement to the existing dim-bright red light now used." The light you have in mind is one which "flashes on and off at a faster rate than that of the turn signal and emergency flashers." The light is intended "to alert the driver that the brakes are applied as long as the brakes are used . . . ." You have asked "Is there any Federal law preventing me from doing research by adding another device to the vehicle lights."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that stop lamps be steady-burning when the brakes are applied. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from any modification that renders wholly or partially inoperative motor vehicle equipment, such as stop lamps, installed pursuant to a standard such as Standard No. 108. Were the existing stop lamps to be rewired to flash, we would regard the change from steady burning to flashing as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of this prohibition. However, please note that the prohibition includes only four categories of persons, and does not apply to modifications made by a "survey group member" who is not within one of those categories. Nor does it apply to modifications made by a vehicle owner.

In addition, you should check with the authorities in Alabama to ensure that your modifications do not violate any provision of the State motor vehicle code.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/8/92

ID: 7241

Mr. Thomas Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, with respect to the automatic extension of a stop signal arm. You were especially concerned with the interaction between a provision in Wisconsin's Administrative Code requiring activation of the stop signal arm under specified conditions and the stop signal arm activation requirements set forth in Standard No. 131. I have responded in detail to your questions below.

Before I answer your question about your company's design for complying with both the Wisconsin Code and Standard No. 131, I would like to note that it does not appear that the Wisconsin regulation is inconsistent with Standard No. 131 with respect to the stop signal arm activation requirements. The Wisconsin Administrative Code states that:

"Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation."

S5.5 of Standard No. 131 states that "The stop signal arm shall be automatically extended in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated..." (emphasis added) Both the Wisconsin requirement and the requirement in Standard No. 131 tie the activation of the stop signal arm to the operation of the red signal lamps. In addition, the Wisconsin regulation also ties the activation of the stop signal arm to the opening of the service door. Based on this information, it appears that a manufacturer could comply with both Standard No. 131 and the Wisconsin regulation by designing its school buses so that opening the service door automatically activates both the stop signal arm and the red flashing lamps. If the Wisconsin regulation were interpreted in a way that does not tie the automatic extension of the stop signal arm to opening the service door, then there could be an inconsistency with Standard No. 131.

You asked whether Blue Bird's system for activating the stop signal arm in accordance with Wisconsin's requirement complies with the requirements of Standard No. 131. You explained that, on its school buses sold in Wisconsin, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. Under this system, the red flashing lamps are activated before the service door has been opened and before the stop signal arm has been extended. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that Blue Bird's system would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 131.

Standard No. 131 explicitly requires the stop signal arm to be automatically deployed whenever the red signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 are activated. As explained in the final rule adopting Standard No. 131, "any system of activation is permissible provided the stop signal arm is extended during, at least, the entire time that the red warning lamps are activated." (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991). As described in your letter, the system your company has developed for its Wisconsin school buses has the red warning lamps activated by a manual switch and the activation of those lamps does not activate the stop signal arm. Hence, that system does not comply with the explicit requirement of Standard No. 131 that the stop signal arm be automatically extended whenever the red warning lamps are activated.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref:131 d:6/17/92

ID: 7244

Mr. Al Twyford
Suite 1200
140 Mayhew Way
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

Dear Mr. Twyford:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1992, to the Federal Highway Administration, which has been forwarded to this agency for reply.

You wish to complain "about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4) which operate at the same time." If this agency plans to do nothing about it, you "plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators."

You are not alone in your concern about headlamp glare created by new motor vehicles. Other citizens have brought the subject to the attention of Members of Congress. I enclose a copy of a recent letter from the Deputy Administrator of this agency to Senator Cohen of Maine which is representative of our views on this issue. You will see that a number of factors may be responsible for creating a perception of glare. We note that you have already been in touch with the Department of California Highway Patrol, and that California has no periodic motor vehicle inspection.

With respect to the specific comments in your letter, the agency does not "approve" specific headlamp designs. Standard No. 108 sets forth photometric performance requirements to be met on both the upper and lower beam, and does establish maximum limitations at some of the photometric test points. Further, in a four-headlamp system, the upper and lower beams may be provided by all headlamps. Headlamp manufacturers must ensure that their products meet these requirements, and certify that each headlamp complies by placing a "DOT" mark on the lamp. There is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain permission from this agency before introducing the lamps into the market.

We appreciate your concern.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:5/14/92

ID: 7245

Mr. C. Scott Thiss
Chairman & CEO
S&W Plastics, Inc.
10206 Crosstown Circle
Eden Prairie, MN 55344

Dear Mr. Thiss:

This responds to your letter of April 23, 1992, requesting a re-interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as it applies to your after market product, "High Light." This request is occasioned by the modifications you have made pursuant to my letter of January 23, 1992, to Terry Semprini, and after a meeting with NHTSA personnel on April 16.

Initially, we advised that it appeared that "High Light" had the potential to render inoperative the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. There were three reasons for this advisory. First, the placement of "High Light" to the left of the vertical centerline did not fulfill basic locational requirements of Standard No. 108 applicable to required equipment on new motor vehicles that lamps be located one on each side of the vertical centerline and as far apart as practicable, and thus "High Light's" signals could be perceived as conflicting or unclear when viewed simultaneously with the original equipment lamps. Second, the hazard warning portion of "High Light" operated through the stop lamp portion of the device rather than through the turn signal system, which meant an observer could be faced with the necessity of interpreting the meaning of simultaneously flashing red and amber lamps on the rear of a trailer, as well as the meaning of the original stop lamps should the brakes also be applied. Finally, the stop lamp portion of the device comprised a combination of a "V" and an inverted "V", a lighting array unlike any currently in use, which could create a momentary delay by a following driver in taking appropriate action.

To address these concerns, you have modified "High Light" to eliminate the hazard warning portion, and have changed the stop lamp so that it now appears as horizontal lights across the center of the device. While it is not possible to change the intended location of "High Light" due to the configuration of trailer doors, you believe that its placement in the direct line of vision of a following driver adds to its visibility.

Although you have not fully described the revised configuration of "High Light", we believe that it can now be described as follows. It is a diamond-shape lamp, the left side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a left turn signal, and the right side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a right turn signal. In addition, two red lamps in the center form a stop signal. We understand that the amber lamps flash when they are in use, and that the red lamps are steady burning. In this configuration, it would appear that the lamps can serve as auxiliary turn signal and stop lamps without impairing the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires on the rear of trailers. Assuming that our understanding is correct, "High Light" would not appear to render inoperative, either in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:5/27/92

ID: 7246-3

Mr. Hal Balzak
28025 N. Sarabande Lane #1216
Canyon Country, CA 91351

Dear Mr. Balzak:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you have received a copy of this standard and would like clarification of two issues. Your questions are addressed below.

Your first question asked whether Standard No. 201 applied to passenger cars manufactured between January 1, 1968 and September 1, 1981. The answer to this question is yes; the standard applied to all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

Your second question asked whether Standard No. 201 applies to instrument panels manufactured for replacement of damaged units. The answer to this question is that, by its own terms, Standard No. 201 applies only to new motor vehicles. This means that the standard applies to original equipment components, including instrument panels, but not to replacements for those components.

However, you should be aware of an important provision in Federal law. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that "(n)o manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." This provision applies to both new and used vehicles.

You specifically asked about the replacement of damaged instrument panels. I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with the safety equipment installed on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:201#VSA d:6/11/92

ID: 7252

Mr. Timothy C. Murphy
Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights)
Transportation Safety Equipment Institute
P.O. Box 1638
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632-0638

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your letter of April 30. 1992, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked "whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation" of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you have enclosed "Figure 1" which "shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps." Accordingly you have concluded "that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp."

NHTSA adopted a definition of "effective projected luminous lens area" on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean "that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . ." No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute "significantly" to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that "the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose", and that "lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design" but instead "take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area."

In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref.108 d:5/27/92

ID: 7255

The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4202

Dear Mr. Duncan:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Clarence Lowe, an instructor for Campbell County Comprehensive High School, concerning the use of 15- passenger vans to transport school children. Campbell County has been informed by the Tennessee State Department of Education that vans cannot be used to transport children to school or school-related events. In light of school budget constraints, Mr. Lowe would like to use these vehicles for transporting students to off-campus vocational programs. Your letter also enclosed a letter from Ernest Farmer, Tennessee Director of Pupil Transportation, explaining why the State of Tennessee has instructed schools not to use vans to transport school children. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less; vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Thus, the 15-passenger vans referred to by Mr. Lowe are classified as buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for Campbell County to use its 15-passenger vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Tennessee law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Campbell County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

ref:571.3 d:5/29/92