Interpretation ID: 86-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 27, 1986 The Honorable Alan K. Simpson United-States Senate Washington, D.C. Dear Senator Simpson: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. W. S. Beaver, Superintendent of Schools for Sheridan County, concerning our requirements for school buses. We contacted your constituent to find out more about his concerns regarding the standard we issued for the identification of school buses. Mr. Beaver explained that he believed some allowance should be made in our regulation to permit a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) that does not have school bus warning lights to be identified as a school vehicle when the vehicle travels on hazardous mountain routes. He further informed us that, although he has recently become aware that the issue he raises primarily involves State requirements, he would appreciate a clarification of our school bus regulations. We appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations for school buses which we issued under different Acts of Congress. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and requires sellers of new school buses to ensure that the vehicle they sell complies with our school bus safety standards. While new school buses must be equipped with a system of signal lamps under Safety Standard No. 108, there is no comparable Federal requirement for MPV's. Mr. Beaver understands that this is the case for MPV's and he has no argument with the nature of those requirements. The second set to regulations applicable to school vehicles was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, and applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Under the Act, we issued a series of highway safety program standards for State highway safety program standards for State highway safety programs, one of which is Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This "standard" is more in the nature of a guideline for State school vehicle usage laws, and it is with this standard that you constituent is most concerned. HSPS No. 17 contains recommendation for the manner in which school vehicles should be identified, such as the yellow color and "School Bus" signs. It recommends that MPV's used as school vehicles should either have the warning lights, yellow color and signing of a school bus or have none of those identifying features. Mr. Beaver was concerned that this was a Federal requirement which prohibited his MPV's from being identified as school vehicles since they do not have the school bus signal lights. As your constituent now knows, this was not an accurate understanding of HSPS No. 17's recommendations. The effect of HSPS No. 17's recommendation for school bus identification is dependent on State adoption. NHTSA does not require States to adopt each aspect of our highway safety program standards, and Wyoming has discretion in adopting some or all of HSPS No. 17's recommendations. Thus, the decision whether to permit an MPV to have a school bus sign alone, without the other identifying features of school buses, is within Wyoming's discretion. Mr. Beaver informed us that he is pursuing the matter with Wyoming State officials. I hope that this information is helpful, and that you or your constituent will not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel