This
is an original
NHTSA Interpretation File[This
file was downloaded from the NHTSA
Website] March
31, 1999 The Honorable
Doug Bereuter
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2701 Dear
Congressman Bereuter: Thank
you for your letter regarding child care centers that have found it difficult
to purchase vehicles to transport children to and from school and school-related
activities. You have forwarded a letter from Ms. Gina Dunning, Director of the
Regulation and Licensure Division of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services, on this issue. Ms. Dunning has separately written to Mr. Frank Seales,
Jr., our Chief Counsel at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
and Mr. Seales has replied to her successor. A copy of his letter is enclosed.
We have been
working to ensure that our school bus safety program provides the safest possible
vehicles for children, consistent with our statutory mandate. Among other things,
we have been working with the organizations conducting after-school programs and
with the vehicle manufacturers to find a satisfactory solution. In
your letter, you ask first whether the regulation pertaining to vehicles used
to transport children to and from school was the product of the 1974 amendment
that required the agency to issue the school bus standards. To answer, I must
give you a brief background on the applicable law. The 1974 amendment, now codified
as 49 U.S.C. 30125, defines a school bus as [a]
passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers,
that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly
to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school
or an event related to school. This
definition has not changed since 1974. The current controversy arose as the result
of the agency's application of this definition to specific situations involving
vehicles sold to after-school programs. In two 1991 interpretations, our Chief
Counsel stated that a vehicle sold to an organization providing after-school programs
did not have to meet the school bus standards (letters to Vel McCaslin of Grace
After School, May 29, 1991, and September 6, 1991). When the issue was raised
again, in 1998, the Chief Counsel reexamined the McCaslin interpretation and concluded
that it did not consider the statutory terms "to or from school" and was thus
erroneous. In a letter to Don Cote of Northside Ford on July 23, 1998, the Chief
Counsel concluded that it was the use of the vehicle (i.e., whether it was used
to transport children to and from school), not the identity of the purchaser (i.e.,
whether it was a school) that determined whether the vehicle had to be a school
bus. In response to a letter from the National Child Care Association, the Chief
Counsel confirmed this interpretation in a letter of September 17, 1998. Copies
of these letters are enclosed. The
Cote letter expressly overruled the McCaslin letter, and has had the effect of
prohibiting motor vehicle dealers from selling 12-15 passenger vans that do not
meet the school bus standards to any organizations that intend to use the vans
to transport children to and from school. It is this prohibition that has caused
Ms. Dunning and others to become concerned about the availability and cost of
vehicles for these organizations. We
believe the Cote letter correctly applies the law, but we do not believe that
it will have the consequences that organizations providing after-school programs
have feared. The law does not affect organizations that provide custodial care
and do not transport children to or from school or an event related to school.
Since the law applies to dealers, not purchasers, it does not affect the ability
of these organizations to continue to use the vehicles they now own, so they are
not faced with the immediate need to replace their current vehicles. They can
accordingly make plans to acquire vehicles that meet school bus standards on their
normal replacement schedule. We would be glad to discuss these issues further
with Ms. Dunning's successor and others in Nebraska. We
have examined the issues of cost and availability. Our inquiries to the vehicle
manufacturers indicate that while school buses are somewhat more expensive than
large vans, the difference is not so large that it should prevent after-school
programs from acquiring school buses. The cost range for 15-passenger school buses
is approximately $29-31,000, compared to $25-28,000 for 15-passenger vans. The
leadtime required for delivery of a school bus may be two or three months longer
than for a large van, but this should not present a problem for organizations
that follow a systematic plan for vehicle replacement. You
expressed concern whether "children are indeed safer being transported by school
buses than commercial vans," and indicated that while that might have been true
in 1974, vans are safer today than they were in 1974. All motor vehicles, including
passenger vans and other buses, must meet higher safety standards today than they
did in 1974. Nevertheless, children are still much safer when transported by school
bus, than by passenger van or passenger car. This point is illustrated in the
enclosed NHTSA publication "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children."
Page 12 of the publication shows how safety is enhanced for school buses, with
a table summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school
buses. Passenger vans are not required to meet the described safety enhancements. Your
third question asked about enforcement actions NHTSA has conducted on this issue.
In response to this question, I am enclosing a NHTSA press release of March 18,
1998, describing enforcement actions taken against dealers who illegally sold
or leased new vans that were used as school buses. The press release lists dealers
that were sanctioned and the civil penalties assessed against each dealer. NHTSA
currently is engaged in investigations of other dealers that may have sold new
buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to schools. You
also wish to know whether there is a study or any evidence showing that "commercial
vans" built in the past two years are safer than those built in 1974. The Federal
motor vehicle safety standards have been substantially amended since 1974. As
a result, passenger vans and other vehicles built today generally must meet higher
safety standards than they did in 1974. Nonetheless, vehicles that meet the school
bus safety requirements have safety enhancements that passenger vans do not have,
such as improved crash protection requirements and better body joint strength
protection. NHTSA
has a very strong focus on child safety in transportation, and, to the extent
it can statutorily do so, is doing its best to facilitate school bus purchases
for those child care centers that want to purchase school buses for their school-aged
children. As I noted above, our information indicates that the cost difference
between a 15-passenger van and a small school bus is not significant. The agency
is currently seeking information to further analyze the cost issue. We are also
currently working with our partners in state and local communities, and in the
school bus industry, to see what can be done to reduce the time between a school
bus order and its delivery. For
your information, because of the increasing number of pre-school aged children
being transported by school buses and the pupil transportation community's request
for guidance on how to safely transport these children, NHTSA released a February1999
Guideline for Transporting Pre-school Aged Children in School Buses. A copy of
this document is enclosed for your information. I
hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel
free to contact me. Sincerely,
Ricardo Martinez, M.D.
Enclosures (4 items)
ref"VSA#571.3 |
