ID: 18148.drn

Mr. Bill Hooker, ARM
Loss Control Technician
Park District Risk Management Agency
P. O. Box 4320
Wheaton, IL 60189-4320

Dear Mr. Hooker:

This responds to your letter to Donald McNamara, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Region V Administrator, regarding our school bus regulations. You ask how NHTSA's requirements apply to various park and recreation associations, including those offering transportation services to the physically and mentally challenged.

Some background information may be helpful in answering your questions. Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. We require any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is any "bus" which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). Therefore, a 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." No dealer can sell a new van to transport students unless the van is certified as meeting our school bus safety standards. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she sells a new van for pupil transportation (i.e., a "school bus"), and the van does not meet the school bus standards.

Because our school bus regulations mainly regulate the manufacturer and seller of new school buses (vans), I will focus my answer on whether a dealer is permitted to sell vans to your member associations. Keep in mind that NHTSA does not regulate the use of motor vehicles, which is governed by the States. Because each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses, you should contact State officials for information about Illinois' school bus regulations.

Your questions are restated below, followed by our answers.

Does [NHTSA's statutory authority] regarding buses and vans over 10 passengers apply to a municipal park and recreation agency who provides transportation to participants of all ages and in a wide variety of programs?

A dealer may not sell a new 15-passenger van to a "municipal park and recreation agency" if the van would be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, or secondary" students to or from school or related events. In such a case, the dealer must sell only a bus that meets NHTSA's school bus standards.

As far as we can tell from your letter, including the copy of the April 30, 1998 memorandum you enclosed from Maribeth Meyers, we believe that our school bus regulations could apply to some of the vehicles sold by dealers to your associations. They would apply to new vehicles that are sold to associations (a) that are connected to a school, e.g., that have an arrangement with a school to provide a recreational program in conjunction with the school; or (b) that are picking up or dropping off students at a school.

I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of our publication, "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." The answer to one of the questions describes "school related events." Other specific situations described in Ms. Meyers memo are addressed below.

If a public sector park and recreation district operates under an intergovernmental agreement with a public school district to provide transportation to and from academic/recreation activities (please see attached letter for specific examples), how might [NHTSA's statutory authority] apply?

This question can best be answered by addressing the three scenerios described in Ms. Meyers' memorandum.

A. Leisure Education - In this situation, "Leisure Education" takes place during the school day and is set up with individual teachers. Registration forms with waivers are sent to each teacher, then are sent home with each child. Before a Special Recreation Association (SRA) will transport any child, a completed registration form must be on file. There is no description of how frequently this activity is offered.

Because the activity takes place during the school day, and is established with the teachers, NHTSA would consider this a "school-related activity." We are unable to determine how often this activity is offered. However, if the activity is offered on a regular basis, we may deem the transportation for the activity to be "significant." If the use of the bus for this activity would be "significant," any dealer wishing to sell a new bus to transport students for this activity must sell only a bus that meets NHTSA's school bus standards.

B. Afterschool Programs - In this situation, SRAs offer afterschool programs where children are picked up at school, go to the program, and are then taken back to school. There is no description of how frequently this program is offered.

The buses are being used to transport children "from school," which is an activity that is covered by our school bus regulations ("to or from school or related events"). If the program is offered on a regular and frequent basis, e.g., several days a week, NHTSA believes it would be a "significant" use of the vehicle. If the bus would be "used significantly" to transport students "from school," NHTSA would require a dealer selling a new bus to sell only a bus that meets NHTSA's school bus standards.

C. Summer Cooperatives - In this situation, during the summer, students attend school in the morning and participate in recreation in the afternoon. Since many of the recreational activities are off school grounds, the students are transported by SRA vehicles for the recreation and then returned to the school afterwards.

NHTSA would consider the afternoon recreational activities to be "school-related." Further, the buses are used to transport children "to or from school." It would appear that the buses are "used significantly" for pupil transportation. As such, a dealer selling a bus to the SRA for the recreational activities must sell only buses that meet NHTSA's school bus standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/3/98

ID: 08-003232 tunick door locks

ID: nht76-3.35

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Henke Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, letter concerning the relationship between snow plows that you manufacture and the front-axle GAWR's of the vehicles on which they are mounted. Your questions and our answers are as follows:

Questions 1. "Somewhere I read where fire trucks are not governed by FMVSS121 or axle weight restrictions as an emergency vehicle. Is this true?"

Standard No. 121 does not apply to fire fighting vehicles manufactured before June 1, 1976. In addition, it does not apply to such a vehicle manufactured from June 1, 1976, to August 31, 1977, that either has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more, or has two or more front, steerable axles with a GAWR of 16,000 pounds or more for each axle. Further, the standard does not apply to any vehicle meeting any one of criteria (a) through (d), as follows:

(a) An overall vehicle width of 108 inches or more;

(b) An axle that has a GAWR of 29,000 pounds or more;

(c) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 33 mph; or

(d) (1) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 45 mph, and

(2) An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR, and

(3) No passenger-carrying capacity.

Question 2. "Do you consider a snow plow an emergency piece of equipment?"

There are no exemptions in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations for "emergency vehicles" or "emergency equipment".

Question 3. "Would a D.O.T. compliance officer require a plow to be raised for weighing to check the GAWR?"

In determining whether a vehicle equipped with a snow plow has been assigned an improper GAWR, the NHTSA will consider the load imposed on the axle system when the plow is in the raised position.

Question 4. "The box or fold down flap I mention in letter - would this be considered a legal method of meeting GAWR, assuming it was part of a snow plow procedure program?"

Our letter of May 9, 1974, explained that proper weight ratings depend on what you, as a vehicle alterer, know, or can reasonably be expected to know, about how the plow-equipped trucks are likely to be loaded. It stated further:

A warning to the buyer not to exceed the rated cargo load or the weight ratings. . .would not be sufficient if it were reasonable to expect that the vehicles would, in practice, exceed these ratings at normal full load despite the warning.

Similarly, if the volume-reducing purpose of the box or fold down flap described in your letter to county engineers is likely to be defeated (whether intentionally of accidentally), then neither would be sufficient to validate a GAWR that would otherwise be exceeded by a fully loaded axle. If, on the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that your recommended loading procedure will be followed, then it is permissible to base the GAWR on the correspondingly reduced "full" load.

Question 5. "When weighing a truck for compliance would a full load of ballast be required even though the snow plowing procedure of governmental bodies call out a less than full load of ballast?"

The considerations discussed in #4 above apply here as well.

Question 6. "When we bid to a State where drawings and or detailed specifications of snow removal equipment are called out and no axle sizes or dump box sizes are called out are we responsible for this plow overweighing a front axle? We do not mount any equipment, we furnish equipment as specified."

The primary responsibility for weight ratings is with the party who, by mounting the snow plow, is the vehicle alterer. If, however, your advertising or bids promote the use of the snow plow in situations where front axles are likely to be overloaded, then the plow may be considered to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, which would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

YOURS TRULY,

Henke MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

January 26, 1976

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I am sorry this letter is so late but I want to thank you for answering our questions of May 9, 1974, your reference number N40-30(MPP).

As a manufacturer that mounts some show plows and auxiliary equipment for Iowa governmental bodies, we have established definite procedures that we follow as to mounting and recommending equipment that does not overload axles.

I have enclosed a letter sent to County Engineers in Iowa regarding the purchase of trucks to comply with laws for their intended useage. I have also enclosed snow plow literature showing weights imposed on front axles, also a copy of a recent D/A bulletin from Cincinnati.

Question 1. Somewhere I read where fire trucks are not governed by FMVSS121 or axle weight restrictions as an emergency vehicle. Is this true?

Question 2. Do you consider a snow plow an emergency piece of equipment?

Question 3. Would a D.O.T. compliance officer require a plow to be raised for weighing to check the GAWR?

Question 4. The box or fold down flap I mention in letter - would this be considered a legal method of meeting GAWR, assuming it was part of a snow plow procedure program?

Question 5. When weighing a truck for compliance would a full load of ballast be required even though the snow plowing procedure of governmental bodies call out a less than full load of ballast?

Question 6. When we bid to a State where drawings and or detailed specifications of snow removal equipment are called cut and no axle sizes or dump box sizes are called out are we responsible for this plow overweighing a front axle? We do not mount any equipment, we furnish equipment as specified.

We would appreciate any suggestions you may have and any comments as to our statements or procedures.

Thank you for your consideration.

HENKE MFG. CORP.

Edward A. Green President

[Attachments Omitted]

ID: nht90-1.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1990

FROM: Richard E. Portors -- Vice President and General Manager, Royale Limousine Manufacturers

TO: Zachary R. Fraser -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from P.J. Rice to R.E. Portors (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Please give me an advisory on my understanding of requirement 571.108 - S4.1.1.41 high mounted stop lamps section (a) projected area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches.

The 90 Cadillac stop lamps measure 6 sq. inches of area. When installing a boomerang TV antenna the shaft area displaces 1.125 sq. inch of area, this would leave an exposed area of 4 7/8" of light and would exceed the minimum requirements of section (a) . Also, section (b) would not be affected by the boomerang. Without window glazing, section (c) would not be affected either. I feel the boomerang antenna positioned properly would not affect the requirements of 571.108.

Please advise me on your findings as soon as possible.

Attached is a copy of the Federal Register, section 571.108, 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-85- Edition), page 218 (text omitted)

ID: 2812yy

Ms. Carol C. Verenes
District Transportation Supervisor
Aiken County Public Schools
843 Edgefield Avenue, N.W.
P.O. Box 1137
Aiken, South Carolina 29802-1137

Dear Ms. Verenes:

This responds to your letter of September 7, 1990 requesting "written correspondence relative to the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, adopted safety standards effective April 1, 1977, which applies to vans transporting school children." Additionally, you requested "information pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 220, 221, and 222" because your district is considering modifying vans to transport school children.

By telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff on September 28, 1990, you stated that your school district has stopped using its 12-15 passenger vans to transport school children, because you had been informed that such use violated federal law. You requested information on what needed to be done to modify your vans to comply with Federal school bus regulations. You also asked if a dealer who had sold your school district new vans which did not comply with school bus regulations would be required to modify the vans or replace them with complying vans.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one must consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use. Thus, under federal law, a 12-15 passenger van is considered a school bus if its intended use is to transport school children.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles. Therefore, to determine whether your school district may use noncomplying vans to transport school children, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

Your first question asked what must be done to bring your vans into compliance as a school bus. Again, I must emphasize that there is no regulation under Federal law requiring your school district to retrofit your vans to comply with federal regulations. However, the following is a list of all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 119 and 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124; Standards No. 201 through 204 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through 210; Standard No. 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); Standard No. 222; Standards No. 301 and 302.

Some of the standards which have unique requirements for school bus vehicles include, but are not necessarily limited to, Standards No. 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301; other standards (220, 221, and 222) are applicable only to school bus vehicles. Modification of the vehicles to comply with Standards No. 220 and 222 will be difficult and require recertification. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238.

Your second question asked whether the sale between the dealership and the school could be dissolved if you determined that any purchases of new vans did not comply with the regulations for school buses. While we have no regulations which void or "dissolve" sales of noncomplying motor vehicles, the school might be able to contact the dealership that sold the noncomplying school buses and arrange to have the vehicles repurchased. In addition, if you believe that you had been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of your intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of federal law. In the past, many dealers who have been notified by NHTSA of the illegality of selling noncomplying vans as school vehicles repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law. However, these instances involved essentially new vehicles. Section 154(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Safety Act specifies the repurchase remedy as, "the purchase price of such motor vehicle in full, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation" (emphasis added). Thus, it may be more cost efficient for the school district to use these vans for other purposes within the district or transfer them to other county functions. For future vehicle purchases, it may be advisable to inform dealers specifically that the vehicles will be used for transporting school children.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:57l.3 d:l/l5/9l

ID: nht91-1.21

DATE: January 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol C. Verenes -- District Transportation Supervisor, Aiken County Public Schools

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-7-90 to Joseph J. Levin, Jr. from Carol C. Verenes (OCC-5226)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 7, 1990 requesting "written correspondence relative to the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, adopted safety standards effective April 1, 1977, which applies to vans transporting school children." Additionally, you requested "information pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 220, 221, and 222" because your district is considering modifying vans to transport school children.

By telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff on September 28, 1990, you stated that your school district has stopped using its 12-15 passenger vans to transport school children, because you had been informed that such use violated federal law. You requested information on what needed to be done to modify your vans to comply with Federal school bus regulations. You also asked if a dealer who had sold your school district new vans which did not comply with school bus regulations would be required to modify the vans or replace them with complying vans.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one must consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use. Thus, under federal law, a 12-15 passenger van is considered a school bus if its intended use is to transport school children.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles. Therefore, to determine whether your school district may use noncomplying vans to transport school children, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

Your first question asked what must be done to bring your vans into

compliance as a school bus. Again, I must emphasize that there is no regulation under Federal law requiring your school district to retrofit your vans to comply with federal regulations. However, the following is a list of all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 119 and 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124; Standards No. 201 through 204 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through 210; Standard No. 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); Standard No. 222; Standards No. 301 and 302.

Some of the standards which have unique requirements for school bus vehicles include, but are not necessarily limited to, Standards No. 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301; other standards (220, 221, and 222) are applicable only to school bus vehicles. Modification of the vehicles to comply with Standards No, 220 and 222 will be difficult and require recertification. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code Of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238.

Your second question asked whether the sale between the dealership and the school could be dissolved if you determined that any purchases of new vans did not comply with the regulations for school buses. While we have no regulations which void or "dissolve" sales of noncomplying motor vehicles, the school might be able to contact the dealership that sold the noncomplying school buses and arrange to have the vehicles repurchased. In addition, if you believe that you had been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of your intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of federal law. In the past, many dealers who have been notified by NHTSA of the illegality of selling noncomplying vans as school vehicles repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law. However, these instances involved essentially new vehicles. Section 154(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Safety Act specifies the repurchase remedy as, "the purchase price of such motor

vehicle in full, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation" (emphasis added). Thus, it may be more cost efficient for the school district to use these vans for other purposes within the district or transfer them to other county functions. For future vehicle purchases, it may be advisable to inform dealers specifically that the vehicles will be used for transporting school children.

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

ID: nht80-1.42

DATE: 03/27/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter asking whether it is permissible for a State to transport children to and from school on regular city transit buses. The answer to your question is yes, if the buses are on their scheduled transit routes and are transporting both school children and adults.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has defined school bus in a way that allows buses sold for use as common carriers in urban transportation to transport school children without complying with school bus standards. This definition is located in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3. The agency permitted this exemption from the school bus safety standards in acknowledgment of the high costs involved in maintaining dual fleets of buses, one for school children and one for adults. Accordingly, the agency permitted cities with operating bus lines to transport children on those city buses. The agency also believes that joint bus fleets can help to conserve fuel.

The agency has made one restriction on the use of city buses to transport school children. The buses must be operating on their regular passenger routes and schedules and must not be operating on special school bus routes. Any vehicle that is operating exclusively as a school bus should be constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards.

SINCERELY,

March 6, 1980

Raymond J. Salehar Highway Safety Engineer Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration

Dear Mr. Solehar:

Thank you for sending HJR 21 for comments. Even though you state they would be informal, it is our practice to ask our legal department to make these comments.

I am forwarding HJR 21 to Joseph J. Levin, Chief Council, NHTSA for response.

David H. Soule Highway Safety Management Specialist Traffic Safety Programs

cc: J. J. LEVIN

Maryland Department of Transportation

Motor Vehicle Administration RAYMOND J. SALEHAR Highway Safety Engineer

David Soule:

This bill is a departure from the norm. . . . the problem is that Baltimore City is using Metro transit buses for school use by providing tickets to the students affected. They also have a small fleet of buses around the outskirts of the city and for handicapped students. These buses are painted yellow but our statute does restrict them from using flashing red lights.

Do you visualize any harm in this joint resolution?

Would appreciate your informal comments. If the commission proceeds you may be called later this year for more formal advice.

Thanks for the LPG information, your P. Aylor in Atlanta was a very information person.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 21

01r0067

By: Delegates Bird, Mooney, Maloney, Sheehan, Pitkin, Bainum, Scull, Simmons, Pesci, Donaldson, McCaffrey, and Cicoria

Introduced and read first time: January 17, 1980

Assigned to: Constitutional and Administrative Law

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION

A House Joint Resolution concerning

Dual Transportation Systems

FOR the purpose of requesting the Legislative Policy Committee to establish a commission to study the dual systems of transportation in urban areas of the State so that the yellow school bus system may be phased out wherever possible; and requiring the commission to report its findings by a certain date.

WHEREAS, The State of Maryland maintains a dual transportation system in its urban areas consisting of the yellow school bus for transportation of school children and transit buses for the general public; and

WHEREAS, Both systems are heavily subsidized by State grants to the local subdivisions of the State; and

WHEREAS, These transportation systems are too often duplicative in the services they render and inefficient in providing total transportation for the general public; and

WHEREAS, In the majority of urban areas throughout the United States, school children are encouraged to ride public transportation; and WHEREAS, The combination of public transportation and school transportation would result in substantial savings in State revenue, as well as the development of a unified and more efficient public transportation system; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the Legislative Policy Committee is requested to establish a commission for the purpose of studying the dual transportation system in the urban areas of the State of Maryland in order to develop a plan to phase out the yellow school bus system wherever possible and to encourage school children of appropriate ages to ride public transportation to and from school; and be it further

EXPLANATION:

Numerals at right identify computer lines of text.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 21

RESOLVED, That the commission shall consist of three members of the House of Delegates appointed by the Speaker of the House, three members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate, and three members to be appointed by the Governor, one member being the designee of the Secretary of Transportation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the commission shall make its final report to the Governor and the Legislative Policy Committee by December 31, 1981.

Maryland Department of Transportation

Office of the Secretary

DATE: 2/7/80

BILL NO.: HJR 21

COMMITTEE: CAL

SUBJECT: Phase out yellow school bus

DOT POSITION: SUPPORT

EXPLANATION: HJR 21 provides to establish a commission to study the dual systems of school bus transportation in urban areas.

COMMENT: It is recognized that this system is costly to the state because it is a dual system. Presently there are 413 yellow school busses being operated in Baltimore City. 100 are privately owned, 204 are contracted to the Department of Education and 109 are owned by the Department of Education.

The MVA supports the appointment of a select committee to study this matter and to make recommendations to combine these operations for possible phasing out of the yellow school bus operation.

For Information: Nance J. Stamboni

ID: 18414.drn

Sue Vallone, Rental Manager
Nichols Ford
2401 East I-20 at Campus Drive
Ft. Worth, TX 76119

Dear Ms. Vallone:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your dealership may lease new Ford Super Club Wagons (seating a driver and 14 passengers) to schools to transport students to and from school-related events. As explained below, Federal law permits the lease of a new van to a school where it will be used to transport students on a one-time or very occasional basis, but not when the new van will be "used significantly" to transport students. It also permits the one-time rental of such a van to a school for a special event. Further, because States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, you should also contact Texas officials to see if there are State laws that apply.

Some background information would be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute (known until a few years ago as the "Vehicle Safety Act"), at 49 U.S.C. 30112, requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses.

Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. Accordingly, a 15-person van (such as the Ford Super Club Wagon) that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If the new 15-person van is sold or leased to transport pupils (e.g., leased on a regular or long-term basis to a school), the vehicle is a "school bus" and must meet NHTSA's school bus standards. Conventional 15-person vans do not have the safety features necessary for them to be certified as school buses. Therefore, a conventional 15-person van cannot be sold, or leased on a long term basis, as a new vehicle, to a school for pupil transportation.

On the other hand, a one-time rental of a new 15-person van to a school (e.g., for a special event) would be permitted. Because such use would not constitute "significant use" as a school vehicle, the van would not be a "school bus" and thus would not be required to meet the school bus safety standards.

You ask about a June 10, 1985 interpretation letter to Salem Quality Equipment, Inc. from NHTSA's then-Chief Counsel, Jeffrey R. Miller. You believe that the letter indicates that, when new buses are leased by a dealer directly to a school district, the buses need not meet school bus standards because there is no sales transaction involved.

We have carefully considered your suggested interpretation but cannot confirm it. The last paragraph of the letter states:

The term 'introduction in interstate commerce' . . . addressed those situations where a new bus is leased by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer directly to a school or school district. In those situations, there is no sales transaction involved. When a new bus is leased to a school or school district directly from its manufacturer, distributor or dealer, the Vehicle Safety Act requires that the bus must comply with the school bus safety standards.

This paragraph is explaining that NHTSA's school bus requirement applies to both sales and leases of new buses. In that letter, the agency explained that "NHTSA's [school bus] definition includes buses 'introduced in interstate commerce' in order to account for those situations where buses are leased to schools for transporting students." (Emphasis added.) That is, there need not be a sale involved for the school bus requirements to apply. If a new school bus is "introduced in interstate commerce," for example, by a lease arrangement, then the vehicle must meet the school bus standards.

You also asked about your legal obligations when selling a used bus to a school or school district. The requirement to sell or lease complying school buses applies only to new vehicles. If a school wishes to buy a used 15-person van or enter into a long-term lease, NHTSA would not require the seller or lessor to sell or lease a school bus. However, NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 15-person vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since any potential liability your dealership may incur arising out of a sale or lease of a used vehicle would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with an attorney and your insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealer's Questions about Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571

d.9/3/98

ID: nht76-2.41

DATE: 10/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is a reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, referencing an opinion letter to you dated October 21, 1969, and asking whether it conflicts with an opinion letter to Ford Motor Company dated "December 5, 1975". (The true date of the letter is July 7, 1975, we do not know why your copy is dated otherwise).

The 1969 letter informed you that "if one compartment or lamp [in a multicompartment lamp] meets the photometric requirements [of Standard No. 108] the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore not regulated by . . . Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.". The letter also stated that "lamps on a vehicle and not required by this standard are generally subject to regulation by the States." Our 1975 letter to Ford, on the other hand advised the company in effect that the performance of the entire multicompartment assembly was covered by Standard No. 108, and that section 25950(b), of the California Vehicle Code was preempted by it. You have asked whether our letter to Ford conflicts with our earlier letter to you.

There is no present conflict. In an amendment to Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1973, (copy enclosed) the agency adopted paragraph S4.1.1.12 and figure 1 which established minimum photometric requirements that must be met by multicompartment tail, stop, and turn signal lamps. The act of establishing requirements for the additional compartments in a multicompartment lamp thus voided the 1969 letter to you and the interpretation to Ford is the correct one.

The Monarch taillamp, therefore, must meet the requirements of Table 1 of standard No. 108 and is not a lamp that is "in addition to the minimum required number" as that term is used in California Vehicle Code section 25950(b), which appears to have been amended in an effort to include it.

We appreciate your suggestion on an amendment to Standard No. 108 on lens color.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 16, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A3107

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We recently received a copy of Mr. James C. Schultz's opinion of December 3, 1975, to Ford Motor Company regarding the color of unlighted taillamps. This interpretation appears to conflict with the enclosed interpretation of October 21, 1969, we requested from NHTSA on a similar subject.

In answer to a question we raised on multicompartment lamps, Dr. Robert Brenner informed us that, "if one compartment or lamp meets the photometric requirements, the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore, not regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2". He also stated that "lamps on a vehicle, and not required by this standard, are generally subject to regulation by the states". These statements appear to mean that once a manufacturer meets the minimum requirements for taillamps for FMVSS No. 108, any additional lamps he chooses to add do not fall under that standard. With respect to the unlighted color of the minimum required lamps, we agree that we are preempted. However, in the case of the Ford lamp, the taillamp section in question was an additional one to which Ford, as an afterthought, attached an amber filter. This lamp was not needed to comply with the federal standards for taillamps, and was an additional lamp not governed by the federal standards as stated in the October 21, 1969, NHTSA interpretation. We, therefore, request that you reconsider whether the interpretation in your letter to Ford Motor Company was overly broad.

The color requirements of the Vehicle Code were amended last year and Section 25950(b) referred to in Ford Motor Company's letter now reads as follows:

"All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear."

"This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot-candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps, and turn signal lamps that are visible to the rear may be white when unlighted () and, with respect to vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1974, only such lamps that are in addition to the minimum required number and are visible to the rear may be white or amber when unlighted."

Until 1961, the Vehicle Code color requirements applied to all lamps, whether lighted or unlighted. In that year, the Legislature amended the Code to permit rear lamps to be white when unlighted in view of the General Motors and Chrysler taillamps which, for styling purposes, had white lenses to blend in with the chrome trim on the rear fenders and bumpers. At that time, the visibility problem with the white lenses was not initially apparent. It was then found that, in at least one design, the white lens reflected so much sunlight during the daytime that it washed out much of the effectiveness of the red stoplamp and turn signal. The white lenses were not objectionable on lamps that supplemented the regular red lensed rear lamps, but they were not satisfactory as a total replacement for those lamps.

Even though we recognize NHTSA's preemption in allowing a manufacturer to use any unlighted lens color he wishes for the minimum required rear lamps, we have a strong objection to that position. Observations of stoplamps in the daytime have shown that those with white lenses are less effective in attracting another person's attention than a lamp of the same output with a red lens. It might be argued that this problem of reduced signal effectiveness does not apply to taillamps, since they are only lighted at nighttime. However, during high brightness day-time fog when lights were required on vehicles, the red taillamps are so dim that the white or amber lens covers become a safety hazard due to the high brightness masking of the red light.

We have no technical objection to a rear lamp lens being any color darker than red, because this would improve the contrast of the red signal against its background. We are highly concerned about the use of lenses that are lighter than the required red because of their effect in washing out the signal in daylight. Standard No. 108 already acknowledges this difference with respect to turn signals where amber is required to have more candlepower output than red for equivalent daytime effectiveness. You might wish to make observations yourself in comparing the daylight effectiveness of the red lens on the Monarch with that of the amber lens when the taillamps are turned on. Daytime observations of the white lens on the various Cadillac year models illustrate varying degrees of effectiveness depending upon the slant of the lens and the taillamp intensity.

We would appreciate hearing from you with respect to a clarification of the two interpretations. We also ask that NHTSA consider amending Standard No. 108 to prohibit taillamps and stoplamps from having a lens cover of white, amber, or any other color that has a lighter contrast with the signal than the red lens.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: 8262

Jay Lee, President
Pacific Agritrade Inc.
2601 Elliott Ave.
Suite 5139
Seattle, WA 98121

Dear Mr. Lee:

This responds to your January 14, 1993, letter asking for information on how to have an air bag you wish to import from Korea tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. 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. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Safety Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. 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 method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method 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).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like.

It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as original equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. 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.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#208 d:3/26/93