F PB99-917003

 NTSB/SIR-99/02

NATIONAL

TRANSPORTATION

SAFETY

BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594

HIGHWAY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

PUPIL TRANSPORTATION IN VEHICLES NOT

MEETING FEDERAL SCHOOL BUS STANDARDS

7162
National Transportation Safety Board. 1999. Pupil Transportation in Vehicles Not Meeting

Federal School Bus Standards. Highway Special Investigation Report NTSB/SIR-99/02.

Washington, DC.

This report contains the findings of a special investigation conducted as a result of four fatal

accidents involving nonconforming buses used to transport school children. In the first

accident, on March 25, 1998, three children were ejected when the passenger van transporting

them collided with a transit bus in Sweetwater, Florida. On March 26, 1998, two people were

fatally injured when the specialty bus transporting the students collided with a truck tractor

semitrailer in Lenoir City, Tennessee. On December 8, 1998, one child was ejected and fatally

injured when the passenger van transporting them collided with a pickup truck in East Dublin,

Georgia. On February 16, 1999, in Bennettsville, South Carolina, three children were ejected

and six children were fatally injured when the passenger van transporting them was struck by a

tow truck.

From its investigation, the Safety Board identified safety issues in the following areas: the

adequacy of occupant crash protection and crashworthiness of nonconforming buses used to

transport school children, the adequacy of State regulations and guidelines governing

nonconforming buses used to transport school children, and the adequacy of State laws

governing the use of restraint systems in nonconforming buses transporting school children.

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation,

railroad, highway, marine, pipeline, and hazardous materials safety. Established in 1967, the agency is mandated by

Congress through the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to investigate transportation accidents, determine the

probable cause of accidents, issue safety recommendations, study transportation safety issues, and evaluate the safety

effectiveness of government agencies involved in transportation. The Safety Board makes public its actions and

decisions through accident reports, safety studies, special investigation reports, safety recommendations, and

statistical reviews.

Recent publications are available in their entirety on the Web at http://www.ntsb.gov/. Other information about

available publications may be obtained by contacting:

National Transportation Safety Board

Public Inquiries section, RE-51

490 L'Enfant Plaza East, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20594

(800) 877-6799 or (202) 314-6551

Safety Board publications may be purchased, by individual copy or by subscription, from the National Technical

Information Service. To purchase this publication, order report number PB99-917003 from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, Virginia 22161

(800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000
Highway Special Investigation Report

National Transportation Safety Board

 490 L’Enfant Plaza East, S.W.

 Washington, D.C. 20594

NTSB/SIR-99/02

PB99-917003

Notation 7162

Adopted: June 8, 1999

PUPIL TRANSPORTATION IN VEHICLES NOT

MEETING FEDERAL SCHOOL BUS STANDARDS

iii Special Investigation Report

Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

Accident Synopses............................................................................................................. 4

Sweetwater, Florida ................................................................................................ 4

Lenoir City, Tennessee............................................................................................ 5

East Dublin, Georgia............................................................................................... 6

Bennettsville, South Carolina ................................................................................. 7

Adequacy of Occupant Crash Protection and Crashworthiness of 

Nonconforming Buses Transporting School Children ................................................ 9

Occupant Crash Protection Standards................................................................... 11

Body Integrity Standards ...................................................................................... 12

Adequacy of Existing Regulations and Guidelines Governing Vehicles 

Used to Transport School Children ............................................................................ 15

Federal and National Guidelines........................................................................... 15

Inconsistency Between State Laws and Federal Guidelines................................. 18

Adequacy of Laws Governing the Use of Restraint Systems in Vehicles 

Transporting School Children..................................................................................... 24

Past Safety Board Actions .................................................................................... 24

Use of Restraints in the Subject Accidents........................................................... 25

Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 27

Recommendations........................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Buses............................. 31

Appendix B - History of Safety Recommendations on School Bus 

Crashworthiness and Operations................................................................................ 37

Appendix C - Injuries..................................................................................................... 48

Appendix D - Guideline for the Safe Transportation of 

Pre-school Age Children in School Buses................................................................... 49

Appendix E - Head Start Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Transportation ........ 53

Appendix F - Status of Safety Recommendations H-96-14 through -16 

on Child Restraint Systems.......................................................................................... 70

Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................ 72

1 Highway Special Investigation

Introduction

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the National Transportation Safety Board

investigated a number of catastrophic school bus accidents in which children were killed

or severely injured because of the vehicles’ joint failure and structural collapse. Based on

its findings in these accident investigations, the Safety Board issued several safety

recommendations1

 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to

improve the crashworthiness of school buses so as to afford our nation’s youth better

occupant crash protection in the event of accidents. 

The resulting revisions to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), contained in

Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), require that large and small

yellow school buses2

 transporting children to and from school or school-related activities

have roof rollover protection, energy-absorbing seats, and greater body joint strength than

most other types of vehicles. The enactment of these standards has had an enormous

impact on the safety of student transportation. According to a NHTSA fact sheet on school

buses, the number of school bus passenger fatalities nationwide averages fewer than 10

each year out of approximately 10 billion student trips.3

In recent years, the Safety Board has investigated several serious accidents

highlighting a disturbing trend in pupil transportation. Some school districts, day care

centers, Head Start facilities, contract transportation companies, and other concerns are

using “nonconforming buses,” that is, vehicles for student transportation that meet the

Federal definition of a bus4

 but not the Federal occupant crash protection standards of

school buses. This trend is potentially serious in that it puts children at greater risk of fatal

or serious injury in the event of an accident. During an 11-month period beginning in

spring 1998, the Safety Board investigated four accidents involving nonconforming buses,

summarized below, that resulted in 9 people dying and 36 people sustaining serious and

minor injuries. Most of the victims, including the eight fatalities, were children.

On March 25, 1998, in Sweetwater, Florida, a 15-passenger van hired by parents to

take children to and from school collided with a transit bus. Three children were ejected

and sustained head injuries. On March 26, 1998, in Lenoir City, Tennessee, a 25-passenger

1 School bus crashworthiness standards that are applicable to this report are listed in appendix A. Past

Safety Recommendations that relate to rollover strength, body joint strength, and seating and crash

protection are listed in appendix B. 

2 The large yellow school bus, which is the vehicle that most people associate with student

transportation, has a seating capacity of more than 50 and a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of more

than 10,000 pounds. Many school systems use small yellow school buses (10,000-pound GVWR or less)

when large school buses exceed their pupil transportation needs. 

3 The number of student trips was obtained from a January 1999 position paper of the National

Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation.

4 FMVSS (CFR 571.3) defines bus as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and

school bus as a bus that carries students to or from school or school-related activities. 
Introduction 2 Highway Special Investigation

specialty bus5 taking children from a school-related activity collided with a truck tractor

semitrailer. Two people, one of whom was ejected, were fatally injured. On December 8,

1998, in East Dublin, Georgia, a 15-passenger van transporting children to a Head Start

program6 collided with a pickup truck. One child was ejected and fatally injured. On

February 16, 1999, in Bennettsville, South Carolina, a 15-passenger van transporting

children home from an after-school church program was struck by a tow truck. Three

children were ejected, and a total of six children were fatally injured. 

Based on its findings in these accidents, the Safety Board initiated the special

investigation that is the subject of this report. In the course of its investigation, the Board

found that while most States require that children can only be transported to and from

school on buses meeting Federal school bus crashworthiness standards, some States either

allow or do not prohibit the use of nonconforming buses for school-related activities, Head

Start programs, child care facilities, and “for-hire”7 transport despite Federal guidelines to

the contrary. The Safety Board is firmly convinced that the best way to maximize pupil

transportation safety is to require the use of school buses or buses built to equivalent

occupant crash protection standards. When States and various school systems allow

children to be transported in vehicles not meeting Federal school bus construction

standards, the Federal intent of protecting school children is undermined.

In two of the accidents that are the focus of this special investigation (Lenoir City

and Bennettsville), bus crashworthiness is an issue. In two others (Sweetwater and East

Dublin), occupant crash protection is an issue. In three of the accidents, most of the child

occupants were not wearing the available restraints. (The specialty bus in the Lenoir City

accident was not equipped with restraints, nor was it required to be.) The proper use of

age-appropriate restraints is essential for passenger safety in almost all motor vehicles.

However, a review of State and local laws showed that they do not require or, in some

cases, do not address this most fundamental safety feature for pupil transportation. 

This special investigation report discusses the subject accidents in greater detail,

the lack of occupant crash protection of the various types of nonconforming vehicles, and

the State and local laws that undermine the safety of pupil transportation. The specific

safety issues include the following:

5 Specialty bus is the industry term for the small buses that are commonly used as shuttle or tour buses.

Additional information about specialty buses appears later in this report. No Federal standard defines the

names and configurations for buses of these sizes and types. The Safety Board will address this issue in an

upcoming report.

6 Head Start is a child development program that has served low-income families since 1965.

7 For-hire vehicles are those that are contracted by an individual or group but not by an institution, such

as a school system.
Introduction 3 Highway Special Investigation

– The adequacy of occupant crash protection and crashworthiness of

nonconforming buses transporting school children; 

– The adequacy of State regulations and guidelines governing nonconforming

buses used to transport school children; and 

– The adequacy of State laws governing the use of restraint systems in

nonconforming buses transporting school children

 
4 Highway Special Investigation

Accident Synopses

Sweetwater, Florida

On March 25, 1998, about 3 p.m., a 1992 Dodge Ram model B350 15-passenger

van, occupied by the driver and 10 students, ages 6 to 11, struck the left side of a Miami

Transit Authority (MTA) bus at an intersection in Sweetwater, Florida. The van was

owned and operated by the driver, who had been contracted by the students’ parents to

provide transportation to and from a local elementary school.

At the time of the accident, the van was traveling southbound on 113th Avenue en

route from the school to the students’ residences; the MTA bus was on its scheduled route

traveling eastbound on 3rd Street. Traffic flow at the intersection of 3rd Street and 113th

Avenue was controlled by a two-way stop sign for east-west traffic. Police reports indicate

that as the eastbound MTA bus was approaching the intersection, it passed another transit

bus that was loading passengers at a bus stop and entered the intersection without stopping

at the stop sign. About the same time, the southbound passenger van, which had the rightof-way, entered the intersection and struck the side of the transit bus. At impact, the van

rotated about 90 degrees counterclockwise and remained upright (figure 1). The MTA bus

continued to travel eastbound and remained upright. 

Figure 1. The passenger van that was involved in the Sweetwater collision
Accident Synopses 5 Highway Special Investigation

One van passenger and the van driver sustained serious injuries; the passengers’

injuries resulted from contact with multiple interior surfaces, and the van driver’s injuries

resulted from damage intrusion in the floor pedal area. The remaining passengers

sustained minor or no injuries. The transit busdriver sustained minor injuries. The van was

equipped with lap-shoulder belts at the outboard seating positions and with lap belts at the

interior seating positions. According to Miami-Dade County police reports, the van driver

and the transit busdriver were wearing their lap-shoulder belts when the accident occurred.

The van passengers were not wearing the available restraints. Three children were ejected

from the van; all sustained closed-head injuries. One child who was not ejected suffered a

closed-head injury and a fractured clavicle.

Lenoir City, Tennessee

On March 26, 1998, about 2:20 p.m., a Rocky Top Tours, Inc.,8 “mini-coach,”9

occupied by 22 William Blount High School students, 2 adults, and an adult driver, was

struck on the left side by a truck tractor semitrailer combination vehicle near Lenoir City,

Tennessee. The specialty bus was en route from an academic competition in Kingston,

Tennessee. According to witnesses, the specialty busdriver, who was operating in the right

eastbound lane on Interstate (I)-40, missed her intended exit and was turning left across

the left eastbound lane of I-40 to make a U-turn at a median crossover. The truck tractor

8 Rocky Top Tours, Inc., is an intrastate and interstate passenger carrier that is registered with the U.S.

Department of Transportation as USDOT 602917.

9 Mini-coach is the manufacturer’s term for this specialty bus.

Figure 2. The specialty bus that was involved in the Lenoir City collision
Accident Synopses 6 Highway Special Investigation

semitrailer, which was traveling in the left eastbound lane, struck the specialty bus at a

point directly behind the driver’s seat, tearing the bus body open (figure 2).

One student passenger was ejected and sustained fatal injuries, and an adult

passenger seated in the impact area sustained fatal injuries. The driver and other

passengers of the specialty bus sustained injuries ranging from minor to serious; the

truckdriver sustained minor injuries.

The accident bus was a 1990 National Coach specialty bus designed to carry 24

passengers and a driver. The driver’s seating position was equipped with a lap-shoulder

belt, which the police determined had been used; the passenger seating positions were not

equipped with seat belts.

East Dublin, Georgia

On December 8, 1998, about 8:10 a.m., a 1995 Ford 15-passenger van, occupied

by a driver; five children, ages 4 and 5; and an adult aide, struck the left side of a 1996

Chevrolet pickup truck in East Dublin, Georgia (figure 3). The van was transporting the

children from their homes to the local East Dublin Georgia Head Start program center.

The van was traveling westbound on County Road 20. When the van reached the

intersection of Georgia State Route 31, its driver drove through a stop sign, entered the

intersection, and hit the southbound pickup, which was being operated by a 17-year-old

driver. Each vehicle overturned onto its left side and came to rest in a grassy area near the

southwest corner of the intersection. 

Figure 3. The passenger van that was involved in the East Dublin collision
Accident Synopses 7 Highway Special Investigation

During the accident sequence, a 4-year-old child was ejected from the van and

sustained fatal injuries; he was found about 10 feet from the van. Eight of the 10 windows

in the van shattered during the accident. The van driver sustained serious injuries; the

adult aide and remaining four children sustained minor injuries. Although the pickup

truckdriver was wearing his seat belt and remained in his vehicle, he sustained fatal

injuries from impact and intrusion. 

Safety Board investigators interviewed the adult aide, who stated that she could

not remember any details of the accident, including the children’s seating positions and

restraints use. The van driver refused Safety Board requests for an interview. The children

were not interviewed because of their ages. Investigators found a child safety seat in the

van, but could not determine whether it had been used by any of the children because it

had been moved during rescue operations. The outboard seating positions were equipped

with lap-shoulder belts, and the interior seats were equipped with lap belts only.

The Laurens County Rural Transit System owned the van and transported the

children under contract to the Middle Georgia Community Action Agency, Inc.

(MGCAA), which operated the Head Start center.

Bennettsville, South Carolina

On February 16, 1999, about 5:20 p.m., a 1996 Dodge 15-passenger van, occupied

by an adult driver and six children, ages 7 to 11, was traveling eastbound on County Road

209 when it was struck by a northbound tow truck on State Route 9 (figure 4). The van

driver reported that she had stopped for the intersection stop sign, then had proceeded

across the two southbound lanes to the median crossover area, where she again had

stopped before proceeding across the northbound lanes. She said she never saw the tow

truck approaching. A witness who had been stopped at the westbound stop sign said,

however, that the van did not stop at the sign and continued to travel into the path of the

tow truck, which struck the right side of the van. After impact, the van came to rest upright

against a tree about 100 feet northwest of the intersection. The overturned tow truck was

next to the van.

The outboard seating positions were equipped with lap-shoulder belts, and the

interior seats were equipped with lap belts only. None of the van occupants was restrained

at the time of the accident. Of the six children in the van, three were ejected during the

accident sequence and sustained fatal injuries. Three children remained in the van;

however, they sustained fatal injuries because their seating positions were in the impact

area. The van driver sustained moderate injuries. The tow truckdriver sustained moderate

injuries. 

The 15-passenger van was owned and operated by the Wallace Family Life Center,

an affiliate of the United Methodist Church. The van had picked up the children at school

around 3 p.m. and had taken them to the center for after-school care. The children were en

route home after the center had closed when the accident occurred.
Accident Synopses 8 Highway Special Investigation

Table 1 summarizes the four accidents that are the subject of this special

investigation. A table listing the occupant injuries according to the criteria of the

International Civil Aviation Organization appears in appendix C. 

Figure 4. The passenger van that was involved in the Bennettsville collision

Table 1. Summary of Subject Accidents

Accident 

Location

Type of 

Vehicle Type of Operation Occupants

Ejected/

Injury Type

Not Ejected/

Injury Type

Sweetwater 15-pass.

van

Privately operated “for hire”

To and from school

10 children 

(ages 6-11); 

1 adult

3 children/

minor

1 child/serious

6 children/none

1 adult/serious

Lenoir City 24-pass. 

+ driver 

specialty 

bus

Contracted by school

To and from school activities

22 children 

(high school 

age);

3 adults

1 child/fatal 1 child/serious

16 children/minor

4 children/none

1 adult/fatal

2 adults/none

East Dublin 15-pass.

van

Contracted with transit agency

To and from Head Start

5 children 

(ages 4-5);

2 adults

1 child/fatal 4 children/minor

1 adult/serious

1 adult/minor

Bennettsville 15-pass.

van

Church-owned

From school to day care to 

home

6 children 

(ages 7-11);

1 adult

3 children/

fatal

3 children/fatal

1 adult/serious
9 Highway Special Investigation

Adequacy of Occupant Crash Protection and 

Crashworthiness of Nonconforming Buses 

Transporting School Children

In the early 1970s, the Federal Government deliberately developed stronger design

standards for school buses because they carry children. All bus structures, regardless of

type, must meet Federal standards; however, only school buses have Federal standards

specifically addressing occupant protection, joint strength of the body panels, and roof

rollover protection. Table 2 summarizes the occupant crash protection attributes required

by Federal or industry standards for the types of buses discussed in this report.

Figure 5 shows the fives types of buses discussed in this report that are used to

transport school children. The occupant crash protection standards for school buses assure

their passengers a higher degree of safety than other vehicles. Specialty buses, vans, and

motorcoaches do not have comparable crashworthiness and occupant protection standards

required by the Federal Government. 

Although Federal regulations specify the minimum construction standards for all

buses, industry builds the various types of nonconforming buses based on their anticipated

usage and service life. Specialty buses, which are generally used for light duty

transportation, such as local tours or airport shuttles, are expected to accrue the same

lifetime mileage as a passenger car or light truck. They typically are built like recreational

vehicles, such as motor homes. Fifteen-passenger vans, which are generally used as

passenger vehicles, are expected to accrue about the same lifetime mileage as passenger

cars. The vans typically are built to the Federal standards required for all buses that are not

school buses. Motorcoaches, which generally are used for long distance interstate

Table 2. Required Crash Protection Attributes for Various Bus Types

Type of Bus

Crashworthiness 

(Joint Strength and 

Roof Rollover)

High Backed 

PaddedSeats

Minimum

Seat Spacing Seat Belts

Large school bus

Gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR) > 10,000 lb.

Yes* Yes* Yes* No

Small school bus

GVWR ≤ 10,000 lb. Yes* Yes* No Yes*

Motorcoach Yes** Yes** No No

Specialty bus No Varies No No

15-passenger van No No No Yes*

* Federal Standard

**Industry Standard
Crash Protection & Crashworthiness 10 Highway Special Investigation

 Figure 5. Types of buses and applicable standards

Large school buses must be built to Federal school bus standards

Small school buses must be built to Federal school bus standards

15-passenger vans must be built to Federal bus standards

Specialty buses must be built to Federal bus standards

Motorcoaches must be built to Federal bus standards;
Crash Protection & Crashworthiness 11 Highway Special Investigation

transportation, are expected to accrue several million miles in their service life. The

motorcoach industry typically manufactures motorcoaches stronger than Federal

regulations require because of their anticipated usage. Because of their size and weight,

motorcoaches afford their passengers greater safety than vans and specialty buses.

Motorcoaches have other safety features to protect the passsengers, such as seat

anchorages and improved body crush, which were incorporated as a result of crash testing.

Occupant Crash Protection Standards

School bus occupant crash protection standards require that the vehicle have

compartmentalization, that is, an interior design using high-back, padded seats spaced

comparatively close together, so that, during an accident sequence, occupants have less

room to move around the vehicle or to be ejected.10 Fifteen-passenger vans do not have

federally required seating compartmentalization.

During the Sweetwater accident sequence, several children in the passenger van

struck multiple interior surfaces; three children were ejected and sustained head injuries.

One child who remained in the vehicle received serious injuries from striking interior

surfaces. In the East Dublin accident sequence, the four children in the passenger van who

received minor injuries and who were not ejected probably were wearing restraint devices.

The child who died probably was not wearing a restraint device and, given the vehicle’s

dynamics during the crash, probably struck multiple interior surfaces before being

ejected.11

In its 1989 Safety Study Crashworthiness of Small Poststandard School Buses12

the Safety Board states:

Unrestrained passengers on a school bus are less likely to be ejected than

occupants of passenger cars because they are not seated next to a door,

windows are usually partitioned, seatbacks are usually closer and higher,

and passengers are farther from the windshield.

The unrestrained passengers in Sweetwater and East Dublin accidents did not

receive the benefits provided by the occupant crash protection standards of school buses.

The Safety Board concludes that had the unrestrained children in the Sweetwater and East

Dublin accidents been in a school bus or a vehicle built to comparable seating standards,

the compartmentalization of the vehicle may have contained them within their seating

areas and prevented them from striking multiple interior surfaces or from being ejected. 

10 To provide additional protection to passengers in small school buses, FMVSS 222, “School Bus

Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,” requires that either lap belts or lap-shoulder belts be installed at all

designated passenger seating positions in small school buses (under 10,000 pound GVWR). In February

1999, based on testing that it had conducted, NHTSA published Guideline for the Safe Transportation of

Pre-school Age Children in School Buses (see appendix D), which recommends that preschool-age children

be transported in child safety restraint systems.

11 Whether the child’s fatal injuries resulted from his striking the interior of the van or being ejected

could not be determined because the family did not allow an autopsy.

12 NTSB/SS-89/02.
Crash Protection & Crashworthiness 12 Highway Special Investigation

Body Integrity Standards

Federal standards for school bus body joint strength (FMVSS 221) require body

panel joint strength levels that typically are greater than those in specialty buses and vans.

Federal rollover standards (FMVSS 220) necessitate a strong cage-like structure to

support the roof in the event of a rollover. Thus, the greater body panel joint and the

structural strength of a school bus provide an extra measure of safety in collisions as

compared to nonconforming buses. 

In November 1998, NHTSA issued an amendment to FMVSS 221 requiring that

small school buses (equal to or less than 10,000 pounds GVWR), such as the type shown

in figure 6, meet the same body joint strength standards as larger school buses by May 5,

2000. The standard requires that school bus body panel joints be strong enough to resist

separation during a crash that can cause sharp cutting edges and openings through which

children can be ejected.

In 1993, the Safety Board investigated an accident in Snyder, Oklahoma,13 that had

a scenario similar to that of the Bennettsville collision, except that the vehicle struck in the

Figure 6. The strong cage-like structure of the small school bus supports the roof

in the event of a rollover. The body panel joints resist separation during a crash.

13 For additional information, see Highway Accident Report Collision of Small School Bus and TractorSemitrailer near Snyder, Oklahoma (NTSB/HAR-94/04).
Crash Protection & Crashworthiness 13 Highway Special Investigation

side was a small school bus that met FMVSS 220 and the striking vehicle was a fully

loaded truck tractor semitrailer. As table 3 shows, despite the larger size and far greater

weight of the striking vehicle in the Snyder accident, the school bus afforded better

protection from intrusion damage than the nonconforming 15-passenger van in the

Bennettsville accident. 

The Safety Board concludes that had the children in the Bennettsville accident

been riding in a school bus instead of a passenger van, the striking tow truck probably

would not have intruded as much, and the children in the impact area probably would have

had more survivable space because of the school bus’s greater structural strength.

The bus in the Lenoir City accident met the FMVSS applicable for specialty buses,

yet it did not provide ample protection to its occupants. Upon impact, the side of the

specialty bus was torn from the frame and its floor was split (figure 7). One passenger was

ejected through the opening that was created.

The degree of damage probably resulted from the vehicle’s construction, which

was typical of small (in this case, 24-passenger) specialty buses that are built with large

windows to facilitate sightseeing and that are primarily used for short-distance excursions.

The Lenoir City specialty bus had a floor that was constructed of thin metal-covered

plywood supported by a tubular metal frame. The sides of the bus body were a framework

of square metal tubing that supported the exterior sheet metal panels. Body panels were

attached to the framework by means of riveting, adhesive compounds, and 2-inch-wide

double-sided tape. The specialty bus had some fiberglass components, most of which

formed the front and rear body fascia.

A school bus or a motorcoach would more likely have provided the occupants with

greater protection because of Federal or industry design requirements. (A school bus

would have been designed with greater joint strength to comply with the FMVSS for

crashworthiness; a motorcoach would have been designed with greater strength to meet

the demands during its long service life.) The Safety Board concludes that in the Lenoir

City accident, the passenger probably would not have been ejected and the specialty bus

probably would have sustained less damage had the vehicle met Federal school bus or

equivalent structural standards because it would have had greater floor and joint strength.

Table 3. Comparison of Snyder and Bennettsville Accidents

Striking Vehicle Weight

Speed

(estimated) Struck Vehicle

Weight

(approximate)

Amount of 

Intrusion

Tow truck

(Bennettsville) 10,000 lbs 55 mph 15-Passenger van 5,730 lbs 44 inches

Truck tractor

semitrailer

(Snyder)

 66,500 lbs 55-60 mph 20-Passenger 

small school bus 8,324 lbs 29 inches
Crash Protection & Crashworthiness 14 Highway Special Investigation

The Safety Board concludes that given their better crashworthiness and occupant

protection, had school buses or buses providing equivalent occupant crash protection been

used in the four accidents that are the subject of this special investigation, the vehicles

probably would have sustained less damage and the passengers may have suffered fewer

and less severe injuries.

Figure 7. Cracked plywood flooring in Lenoir City specialty bus
15 Highway Special Investigation

Adequacy of Existing Regulations and Guidelines 

Governing Vehicles Used to Transport School 

Children

The Federal Government regulates the standards to which vehicles must be built,

but the States mandate what type of vehicle should be used to transport school children.

As part of this special investigation, the Safety Board reviewed the statutes and policies

governing the transport of children for the States and local areas in which these four

accidents occurred. In some cases, the laws were ambiguous. Some statutes allowed the

transport of school children in nonconforming buses in certain situations. Others did not

address the carriage of children enrolled in certain programs. Table 4 shows the school bus

definitions and summarizes the vehicle requirements for pupil transportation contained in

NHTSA guidelines and in the State and local laws of Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, and

South Carolina. In the following section, the Safety Board reviews Federal and national

laws and rules and discusses how the regulations in these four States, contrary to Federal

guidelines, allow school children to be transported in vehicles not meeting school bus

occupant crash protection standards.

Federal and National Guidelines

NHTSA

In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require that new school buses meet the

FMVSS (49 CFR 571) on specific aspects of bus safety, including floor strength, seating

systems, and crashworthiness. NHTSA’s Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil

Transportation Safety, establishes minimum recommendations for a State highway safety

program for pupil transportation, including program administration; identification,

operation, and maintenance of buses used for carrying students; and training for

passengers, pedestrians, and bicycle riders. Guideline 17 recommends that buses meeting

the structural FMVSS for school buses be used for transporting children to and from

school or school-related activities.

In recent years, NHTSA has published opinions and regulatory amendments

defining school bus safety requirements.14 With respect to the use of nonconforming buses

for Head Start programs, in 1977, NHTSA issued an interpretation letter in a response to

an inquiry as to whether Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools for

purposes of applying the Federal school bus safety standards. The letter reads, in part: 

14 NHTSA’s published opinions and regulatory requirements for school buses can be found on the

agency’s website (www.nhtsa.dot.gov). 
Existing Regulations & Guidelines 16 Highway Special Investigation

Table 4. Comparison of NHTSA Guidelines and State Laws Governing Pupil Transportation

NHTSA Florida Tennessee Georgia South Carolina

School 

bus 

definition

Any vehicle 

designed to carry 

more than 10 

passengers to or 

from school or 

school-related 

activities. All new 

school buses must 

meet FMVSS on 

specific aspects of 

school bus safety, 

including floor 

strength, seating 

systems, and 

crashworthiness.

All vehicles 

operated by or 

under contract with 

local school boards 

to transport 

children to and 

from school or 

school-related 

events must meet 

Federal school bus 

standards 

contained in 49 

CFR 571. Use of 

15-passenger vans 

prohibited.

Vehicle with 11 or 

more seating 

accommodations, 

including the 

driver’s, that is 

used for purposes 

that include 

carrying pupils to 

or from school or 

school-related 

events. 

Conventional 

buses, transit 

buses, or van-type 

equipment.

Motor vehicle 

operated for 

the 

transportation 

of children to 

or from school 

or schoolrelated 

activities.

Motor vehicle that 

complies with 

State board of 

education color 

and identification 

requirements that 

is used to 

transport children 

to or from public 

school or school 

activities.

Use

Recommended/Required Vehicle for Use

NHTSA Florida Tennessee Georgia South Carolina

To/From 

school

Recommends 

buses meeting 

school bus 

FMVSS.

State requires 

buses meeting 

school bus 

FMVSS, if 

operated by public 

school.

Dade County Code 

excludes privately 

operated buses 

seating 24 pupils 

or fewer from the 

State requirement 

for school buses.

Recommends 

school bus or 

buses meeting 

same standards.

Requires 

school bus.

School bus 

recommended but 

not required. 

Legislation 

proposed to 

transport all 

children on school 

buses.

To/From 

schoolrelated 

activities

Recommends 

buses meeting 

school bus 

FMVSS.

Requires buses 

meeting school 

bus FMVSS, if 

operated by public 

school.

State recommends 

school bus or bus 

meeting same 

standards.

Blount County 

policy manual 

recommends 

school buses or 

commercial 

vehicle.

Excludes 15-

passenger 

vans from 

school bus 

standards.

School bus not 

required.

Head 

Start

Recommends 

buses meeting 

school bus 

FMVSS.

School bus not 

required unless 

operated by a 

public school.

School bus 

transportation laws 

not applicable.

School bus 

transportation 

laws not 

applicable.

School bus not 

required under 

State law but 

covered under 

Federal Regional 

IV Office of Head 

Start.

Day care Recommends 

buses meeting 

school bus 

FMVSS.

School bus 

transportation laws 

not applicable.

School bus 

transportation laws 

not applicable.

School bus 

transportation 

laws not 

applicable.

School bus 

transportation laws 

not applicable.
Existing Regulations & Guidelines 17 Highway Special Investigation

[NHTSA] has determined that these [Head Start] facilities are primarily

involved with the education of preprimary school children. Thus, the buses

used to transport children to and from the Head Start facilities are

considered school buses...and must meet all Federal school bus safety

standards.

In 1998, NHTSA issued an interpretation letter regarding the use of

nonconforming vans at day care centers. The Iowa Department of Education had asked if

the school bus FMVSS applied to buses operated by publicly or privately owned day care

facilities to transport children to and from school. NHTSA responded that the pertinent

issue is whether the bus is “used significantly” to transport children to or from school or a

school-related event. Citing a case in which students were being transported 5 days a

week, NHTSA stated, “In our view, such regular use of the vehicle to pick up students

‘from school’ (even if the same students are not transported each day), would constitute a

‘significant’ use of the vehicle.”

NHTSA wrote that regular use on alternate days would be considered

“significant.” In the same interpretation, NHTSA pointed out that Federal regulations only

pertain to the purchase of a new vehicle and advised that State laws should be consulted

because they stipulate what vehicle types are required for student transportation.

Head Start Bureau

Currently, the Head Start Bureau15 does not have any mandatory requirements for

the transportation of children in Head Start programs, even though approximately 60

percent of Head Start participants receive transportation services. 

In 1993, the Head Start Bureau issued an Information Memorandum, “Safe

Transportation of Head Start Children,” encouraging all Head Start grantees to contact

their State Directors of Pupil Transportation to determine if Head Start is included in State

student transportation plans. The memorandum recommends that if Head Start is not

included in the plans, grantees should use the State school bus operations plan as a guide

to develop pupil transportation safety procedures.

In 1995, the Head Start Bureau issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to

establish required safety features and operating procedures for any vehicle, including all

buses, used to transport children to Head Start programs. (See appendix E.) The NPRM

proposes that the transport of Head Start children be limited to school buses.

According to a Head Start Bureau representative, school associations, child safety

advocacy groups, and manufacturers generally support the rulemaking effort. Many transit

agencies and State and local government agencies oppose the NPRM, citing financial

concerns. For example, transit agencies pointed out that under the NPRM, if buses

transporting Head Start children were required to be “school bus yellow,” a transit agency

15 The Head Start Bureau is a subordinate organization of the Administration for Children, Youth, and

Families, which is within the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and

Human Services (DHHS). 
Existing Regulations & Guidelines 18 Highway Special Investigation

would not be able to use that vehicle for any other type of transportation, which could

cause a financial hardship.

The Head Start Bureau representative indicated that the agency is in the process of

reviewing the final rule. The Safety Board considers this regulatory requirement very

important; the DHHS should make every effort to expedite the rulemaking to prevent

future injuries and fatalities to children enrolled in Head Start programs.

National Associations

The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services

(NASDPTS)16 states in a position paper, “We believe that it is appropriate to require higher

levels of safety in vehicles that transport children to and from school and school-related

activities.” NASDPTS further states that “school children should be transported in school

buses which provide them with the highest levels of safety, not in vans which do not meet

the stringent school bus safety standards issued by the Federal Government.”

In December 1998, the National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT)17

and NASDPTS enacted a joint resolution stating that they supported additional Federal,

State, and local legislation to eliminate the transport of children to educational programs

in vehicles that do not meet school bus FMVSS.

Inconsistency Between State Laws and Federal Guidelines

In each of the subject accidents, the transport of children in nonconforming buses

was allowed by State law or local codes, which is inconsistent with the intent of Federal

and national recommendations to use school buses for pupil transportation. 

Florida

In Florida, neither the State nor the local school board has regulations governing

the type of vehicle that a private contractor hired by a parent or a parents’ group must use

to carry children to school. Thus, by statutory exclusion, the use of the nonconforming van

involved in the Sweetwater accident was allowed for pupil transport even though Florida

statutes require that all vehicles operated by or under contract with school boards for

transporting students to and from school meet Federal school bus occupant crash

protection standards.18 Likewise, Dade County does not require that privately operated

buses with a seating capacity of less than 24 pupils meet the State requirement to use

school buses for pupil transportation.19

16 NASDPTS is comprised mainly of State government agency representatives who are engaged in

school transportation. Federal agencies, other associations, and transportation services suppliers, such as

school bus manufacturers, supporting the efforts of NASDPTS to promote school transportation safety and

efficiency may also have member representatives to NASDPTS. 

17 The NAPT is an organization that promotes safety and efficiency in pupil transportation. 

18 Florida Statutes, Chapter 234.051.

19 Dade County Code, Section 30-372.
Existing Regulations & Guidelines 19 Highway Special Investigation

Tennessee

In Tennessee, State laws20 require that buses used to transport pupils for activities

other than to and from school meet the construction requirements imposed on school

buses. However, another section of the State regulations21 listing approved buses for pupil

transportation includes some vehicles that may meet the definition of nonconforming bus,

including “conventional buses” and “van-type equipment.” Moreover, the Blount County

regulations governing pupil transportation in Lenoir City22 allow the use of “commercial

vehicles” for extracurricular activities. Thus, the lack of uniform guidance in the State of

Tennessee regulations and the lack of specificity in the Blount County policy manual

permit the use of nonconforming buses, such as the specialty bus in the Lenoir City

accident, for pupil transportation. Allowing the use of such vehicles that do not meet

school bus occupant crash protection standards to transport students to and from

extracurricular activities is contrary to Federal guidelines.

Georgia

In Georgia, the State law23 requires that children be transported to and from school

and church in a school bus meeting specifications prescribed by the State Board of

Education. However, Head Start transportation is not addressed in the specifications

because the program is not within the purview of the Georgia State Board of Education.

Thus, by exclusion, Georgia law allows the use of a nonconforming van to transport

children to a Head Start facility despite NHTSA’s interpretation that Head Start is an

educational program and, as such, children enrolled in the program should be transported

in school buses to and from the centers. The State exclusion is also contrary to the national

Head Start Bureau’s proposals that the transport of Head Start children be limited to

school buses. 

The Safety Board believes that the DHHS should require that Head Start children

be transported in vehicles built to Federal school bus structural standards or the

equivalent.

As mentioned earlier, NHTSA’s Guideline for the Safe Transportation of PreSchool Age Children in School Buses recommends that preschool-age children be

transported in child safety restraint systems24 on school buses. Because Head Start

children are primarily preschool age, the Safety Board believes that the DHHS should

incorporate and mandate the use of the guidelines from this NHTSA publication into its

rules for the transportation of Head Start children.

20 Manual for School Administrators, Tennessee State Board of Education.

21 Pupil Transportation of the Department of Education, Chapter 0520-1-5, Tennessee State Board of

Education.

22 Blount County School Board Policy Manual.

23 Georgia Official Code, Section 40-8-112.

24 Commonly known as a child safety seat or child restraint.
Existing Regulations & Guidelines 20 Highway Special Investigation

The Safety Board is convinced that, pending regulatory revisions, other entities

can take an active role in improving the safe transportation of children enrolled in Head

Start programs. In East Dublin, the children were being transported by a local transit

company. The Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) comprises a

network of community-based agencies and coordinated services that ensures mobility for

an estimated 75 million people at risk of being unable to provide or afford their own

transportation. Among those at risk are the economically disadvantaged preschool-age

children enrolled in Head Start programs. The Safety Board believes that the CTAA

should inform its members of the circumstances of the East Dublin accident and the added

safety benefits of transporting children by school bus and that it should encourage them to

use buses built to Federal school bus structural standards or the equivalent to transport

children.

South Carolina

The transportation of children enrolled in day care centers is not specified in

Federal or State laws. Thus, by statutory exclusion, the use of the nonconforming van

involved in the Bennettsville accident was allowed for pupil transportation. However, the

Bennettsville van was used to pick up children after school to take them to the Wallace

Family Life Center. Therefore, according to NHTSA’s interpretation of the Federal

regulations, the regular use of the vehicle to transport students from school meant the

children should have been transported in a school bus. 

While the operation of the vans and the specialty bus in the Sweetwater, East

Dublin, Bennettsville, and Lenoir City accidents probably met applicable State and local

laws, the children transported in those vehicles were not afforded the same level of

protection as children transported on school buses or buses built to equivalent structural

standards. When the State government does not prohibit the use of vans or buses not

complying with school bus FMVSS or comparable standards for school transportation,

parents may believe their children are being transported in the safest mode possible. The

Safety Board concludes that Federal and State laws regarding student transportation do

not provide uniform safety. Further, the lack of State legislation regarding Head Start and

day care transportation allows for situations in which students may be transported in a

vehicle that does not provide the maximum available protection during accidents.

For this report, the Safety Board reviewed a February 1999 NASDPTS survey to

which 32 State directors responded. Table 5 shows the results of the survey. Only 26

directors said that their States prohibit the use of nonconforming vans to transport children

to and from school; 6 directors said that their States had no such prohibitions. Regarding

the transport of children to and from school-related activities, 19 States prohibit the use of

nonconforming vans and 13 do not. Twenty states currently permit the use of

nonconforming vans for Head Start transportation, while eight do not.25 Twenty-three

States allow the use of vans in day care centers and six do not.

25 The total number of responses to some questions varies because some State directors did not answer

all survey inquiries.
Existing Regulations & Guidelines 21 Highway Special Investigation

What is particularly disturbing about the NASDPTS survey results and the

findings from the four accidents that are the subject of this report is that they highlight

problems that the Safety Board identified more than 15 years ago. In 1983, based on its

investigations of several school bus accidents and its review of accident data, the Safety

Board concluded that while the overall safety record of school bus transportation in this

country was good, the protection of school bus passengers in crashes was a matter of

intense concern. On September 28, 1983, the Safety Board made the following safety

recommendation to the Governors of the 50 States and the Mayor of the District of

Columbia:

H-83-40

Review State laws and regulations and take any necessary legislative

action to ensure that vehicles designed to carry more than 10 passengers

and weighing less than 10,000 pounds GVWR and used to transport

children to and from school, school-related events, camp, day care centers,

or similar purposes meet all FMVSS applicable to small school buses.

Of the recipients responding, only 11 (Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida,

Guam, Louisiana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Virginia) said

that they required the use of buses meeting FMVSS for transporting school children

during these events. Based on their responses, Safety Recommendation H-83-40 was

classified “Closed—Acceptable Action” for these 11 recipients.26 However, in reviewing

the State statutes for the 1998 Sweetwater accident, the Safety Board determined that

Florida law does not prohibit the use of nonconforming buses that are privately hired to

transport school children. 

The survey responses also indicate that several States allow vehicles that do not

meet the FMVSS for small school buses to be used to transport school children in some

situations. For example, Florida prohibits the use of nonconforming buses for public

school transportation, but not for private schools. Florida, California, New Mexico, and

Oklahoma27 permit the use of nonconforming buses by day care and Head Start providers. 

Table 5. Results of the NASDPTS Survey

Does the State Prohibit the Use of Nonconforming Buses 

for Pupil Transportation... Yes No

to and from school? 26 6

to and from school-related activities? 19 13

for Head Start? 8 20

for day care? 6 23

26 The disposition of this safety recommendation for the remaining States appears in appendix B.

27 The States mentioned here are used as examples. Not all States for which Safety Recommendation

H-83-40 was closed responded to the survey. 
Existing Regulations & Guidelines 22 Highway Special Investigation

Based on concerns expressed by the school transportation industry, questions

posed to NHTSA, and its special investigation findings, the Safety Board is convinced that

children being transported on nonconforming buses are not receiving the protection that

would be provided by buses meeting the structural FMVSS applicable to school buses.

Therefore, the Safety Board classifies Safety Recommendation H-83-40 “Closed—

Superceded” and recommends that the Governors of the States and and the Mayor of the

District of Columbia require that all vehicles carrying more than 10 passengers (buses)

and transporting children to and from school and school-related activities, including, but

not limited to, Head Start programs and day care centers, meet the school bus structural

standards or the equivalent as set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Enact regulatory measures to

enforce compliance with these statutes.

The Safety Board believes that all States should adopt NHTSA’s Guideline for the

Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses, distribute the guideline

to all school bus operators transporting preschool-age children to and from school or

school-related activities, and encourage those operators to implement the guideline.

The Safety Board is also convinced that a number of national associations are in a

unique position to promote the use of school buses to maximize safety in pupil

transportation. The National School Boards Association (NSBA), a not-for-profit

federation of State associations of school boards across the United States and its

territories, is a nationwide advocacy and outreach organization for public school

governance. A goal of the NSBA is to foster systemic reform in the public schools by

encouraging and preparing local school board members to become catalysts for change.

The National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) is a voluntary

membership organization for more than 1,000 precollegiate schools and associations in

the United States. Independent schools are distinct from other schools in that they are

supported primarily by tuition, charitable contributions, and endowment income rather

than by tax or church funds. A primary mission of the NAIS is to serve as an advocate for

member schools to national and regional media, to 10 Federal agencies, and to 13

congressional committees. The NAIS tracks and analyzes legislation and regulations in a

number of areas and provides its member schools with information through a variety of

sources, including statistical surveys, magazines, and a website.

The National Conference on School Transportation, which usually is held every

5 years, is attended by representatives from State departments of education, public safety,

motor vehicles, and other State agencies responsible for the administration of pupil

transportation at the State level. A primary purpose of the conference is the review and

revision of the National Standards for School Transportation, which the conference then

provides to State policymakers and legislators as guidelines for developing State

standards. 

The National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) is the oldest and largest volunteer

child advocacy organization in the United States. For more than 100 years, this not-forprofit organization of parents, educators, students, and others has been a leading force in

promoting the education, health, and safety of children and their families. The PTA has
Existing Regulations & Guidelines 23 Highway Special Investigation

had a major role in promoting school bus safety, producing a bus driver guide, a parental

tip card, and a children’s film, “Be Cool, Follow the Rules,” which demonstrates safe

conduct on and around the school bus and includes instruction on emergency evacuation.

The National Association of Child Care Professionals (NACCP), with almost

10,000 members, is the leading association serving child care owners, directors, and

administrators in the United States. A goal of the NACCP is to improve, enhance, and

strengthen the skills and management competencies of its members. 

The National Child Care Association (NCCA) is a professional trade association

with a membership of over 6,000 licensed private child care centers and preschools, more

than 60,000 child development staff members, and 24 State-affiliated associations. The

NCCA represents the interests of the licensed, private childhood care and education

community, frequently testifying before Congress on policies affecting child care services. 

The National Head Start Association (NHSA) is a private not-for-profit

membership organization representing the 750,000 children in and the 139,000 staff

members of the 2,051 Head Start programs in America. The NHSA provides a national

forum for the continued enhancement of Head Start services for poor children from

infancy to age 5 and their families. 

The Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) and the Young Women’s

Christian Association (YWCA), are the largest nonprofit community service organizations

in America. Together, the YMCA and the YWCA are the nation’s largest providers of

child care. They have thousands of centers throughout the United States serving the health

and social service needs of 16 million men, women, and children.

Churches and other religious organizations that sponsor youth activities,

particularly after-school day care, also can take an active role in ensuring the

transportation safety of children. 

The Safety Board believes that the associations listed above and the headquarters

of major churches should inform their members about the circumstances of the accidents

discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use buses built to Federal

school bus structural standards or the equivalent to transport children. 
24 Highway Special Investigation

Adequacy of Laws Governing the Use of Restraint 

Systems in Vehicles Transporting School Children

The Safety Board recognizes that, although safety-conscious schools and

organizations are increasingly replacing nonconforming buses with school buses, vehicles

not meeting the occupant crash protection standards of school buses will continue to be

used for pupil transport until Federal or State laws stipulate otherwise. The Board is

therefore convinced that children being transported in nonconforming vehicles to or from

school or school-related activities should be provided the protection of occupant restraints.

Table 6 summarizes the seat belt requirements for three of the States featured in this

investigation report.28 A review of current State laws, particularly allowable exclusions

pertaining to seat belt use in nonconforming buses for pupil transportation, raises some

concerns. The following discussion reviews past Safety Board actions and the use of

restraint devices in the Sweetwater, East Dublin, and Bennettsville accidents.

Past Safety Board Actions

In 1994, the Safety Board reiterated Safety Recommendation H-83-39 asking that

the Governors of the 50 States “review State laws and regulations and take any necessary

legislative action to ensure that passengers in small school buses and school vans are

required to use available restraint systems whenever the vehicle is in motion.”29 In 1996,

the Safety Board performed a safety study, The Performance and Use of Child Restraint

Systems, Seat belts, and Air Bags for Children in Passenger Vehicles, which resulted in the

Board recommending that the Governors of all the States conduct a review and enact

legislation, if needed, to “ensure that children up to 8 years old are required by the State’s

mandatory child restraint use law to use child restraint systems and booster seats”

28 Under Federal law, vans are required to be equipped with seat belts. Specialty buses such as the type

involved in the Lenoir City accident are not required to be equipped with seat belts, and the accident vehicle

was not. The Lenoir City accident will therefore not be discussed in this section.

Table 6. Seat Belt Laws for the Subject States

State Law

Florida • All passengers under the age of 16 must be restrained by a safety belt or 

child restraint device.

• A bus used to transport persons for compensation is excluded.

Georgia • Each minor over 4 years of age in a passenger vehicle shall be restrained by 

a seat safety belt.

• Every child under 4 years of age shall use a child passenger restraining 

system; if the child is 3 or 4 years of age, the seat belt shall be sufficient to 

meet the requirements of this subsection.

South Carolina • Every driver and occupant must wear a safety belt. (This requirement does 

not apply to school, church, or day care buses.)

29 Safety Recommendation H-83-39 was reiterated in the Snyder, Oklahoma, accident report.
Laws Governing Restraint Systems 25 Highway Special Investigation

(H-96-14), “eliminate exemption for children to substitute seat belts in place of child

restraint systems” (H-96-15), and “require children 8 years or older to use seat belts in all

vehicle seating positions” (H-96-16).

The Board is still awaiting response from Florida and South Carolina regarding

Safety Recommendations H-96-14 through -16. Based on information received from

Georgia, the Safety Board classified Safety Recommendation H-96-16 “ClosedAcceptable Action” and is awaiting response to Safety Recommendations H-96-14

and -15.30

Use of Restraints in the Subject Accidents

The 15-passenger vans in the Sweetwater, East Dublin, and Bennettsville accidents

were equipped with two front bucket seats and four rows of bench seats. Each front bucket

seat was equipped with a continuous loop three-point lap-shoulder belt restraint. The first,

second, and third row bench seats were equipped with continuous loop three-point lapshoulder belt restraints in the left seating positions and two-point lap belt restraints in the

center. The vans in the Bennettsville and Sweetwater accidents had two-point lap belts in

the right positions. The van in the East Dublin accident was equipped with continuous

loop three-point lap-shoulder belts in the right seating positions. In all vans, the fourth row

bench seat was equipped with a continuous loop three-point lap-shoulder belt for each of

the two outboard positions and two-point lap belts for each of the two center positions. 

The owner of the nonconforming bus in the Sweetwater accident provided

transportation to school children on a weekly “for-hire” basis. The parents opted to pay for

the service because the school bus stop was several blocks from their houses and they

were concerned for their children’s safety. Because the for-hire van was not contracted by

the school system, the driver was exempt from requiring the children to wear the seat belts

with which the van was equipped.31 The children on the Sweetwater van were, therefore,

not afforded the level of safety that is provided to children riding in other than for-hire

passenger vehicles or in district school buses, which require the use of available occupant

protection. The Safety Board concludes that had the passengers been wearing their seat

belts during the Sweetwater accident sequence, the three children probably would not

have been ejected and the fourth child probably would not have sustained such extensive

injuries from striking the van’s interior surfaces.

In the East Dublin accident, investigators found one child safety seat in the van.

According to the MGCAA, the aide on the nonconforming bus was responsible for

ensuring that all children were properly secured in the vehicle. Based on Georgia law,32

every child in the passenger van should have been secured in a child restraint system or a

seat belt. The aide cannot remember where the children were seated or whether they were

wearing restraints. Because one child was ejected from the vehicle during the accident

30 The disposition of these safety recommendations for the remaining States appears in appendix F.

31 Florida State Traffic Laws, Chapter 316.614(4).

32 Georgia Code 40-8-76.1(3).
Laws Governing Restraint Systems 26 Highway Special Investigation

sequence, the Safety Board is convinced that this child was either unrestrained or not

properly restrained in a child restraint or seat belt. The other children who remained in the

van sustained minor injuries; therefore, they probably were restrained. The Safety Board

concludes that had the fatally injured 4-year-old child in the East Dublin accident been

properly secured in a child safety restraint system or seat belt, he probably would not have

been ejected and would not have sustained fatal injuries.

In the Bennettsville collision, none of the children on the nonconforming bus were

wearing seat belts, nor were they required to be.33 While the van’s right side was crushed

so badly that the children seated on that side had little survivable space, the van’s left side

sustained little crush damage. One child on the left side of the bus struck her head on the

roof of the van before she was ejected. The Safety Board concludes that the Bennettsville

accident was so severe that the child passengers probably would have been injured and

perhaps killed regardless of the safety measures taken. However, had the three children

seated on the left side of the passenger van been wearing their seat belts, they probably

would not have been ejected, which would have increased their chances of survival.

The Safety Board therefore believes that the Governors of the States and the

Mayor of the District of Columbia should review their State and local laws and, if

applicable, revise them to eliminate any exclusions or exemptions pertaining to the use of

age-appropriate restraints in all seat belt-equipped vehicles carrying more than 10

passengers (buses) and transporting school children. 

33 South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 56-5-6530(3).
27 Highway Special Investigation

Conclusions

1. Had the unrestrained children in the Sweetwater, Florida, and East Dublin, Georgia,

accidents been in a school bus or a vehicle built to comparable seating standards, the

compartmentalization of the vehicle may have contained them within their seating

areas and prevented them from striking multiple interior surfaces or from being

ejected. 

2. Had the children in the Bennettsville, South Carolina, accident been riding in a school

bus instead of a passenger van, the striking tow truck probably would not have

intruded as much, and the children in the impact area probably would have had more

survivable space because of the school bus’ greater structural strength.

3. In the Lenoir City, Tennessee, accident, the passenger probably would not have been

ejected and the specialty bus probably would have sustained less damage had the

vehicle met Federal school bus or equivalent structural standards because it would

have had greater floor and joint strength.

4. Given their better crashworthiness and occupant protection, had school buses or buses

providing equivalent occupant crash protection been used in the four accidents that are

the subject of this special investigation, the vehicles probably would have sustained

less damage and the passengers may have suffered fewer and less severe injuries.

5. State laws regarding student transportation do not provide uniform safety. Further, the

lack of Federal and State legislation regarding Head Start and day care transportation

allows for situations in which students may be transported in a vehicle that does not

provide the maximum available protection during accidents.

6. Had the passengers been wearing their seat belts during the Sweetwater, Florida,

accident sequence, the three children probably would not have been ejected and the

fourth child probably would not have sustained such extensive injuries from striking

the van’s interior surfaces.

7. Had the fatally injured 4-year-old child in the East Dublin, Georgia, accident been

properly secured in a child safety restraint system or seat belt, he probably would not

have been ejected and would not have sustained fatal injuries.

8. The Bennettsville, South Carolina, accident was so severe that the child passengers

probably would have been injured and perhaps killed regardless of the safety measures

taken. However, had the three children seated on the left side of the passenger van

been wearing their seat belts, they probably would not have been ejected, which would

have increased their chances of survival.
28 Highway Special Investigation

Recommendations

As a result of its investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the

following Safety Recommendations:

To the Department of Health and Human Services:

Require that Head Start children be transported in vehicles built to Federal

school bus structural standards or the equivalent. (H-99-20)

Incorporate and mandate the use of the guidelines from the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Guideline for the Safe

Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses into the rules

for the transportation of Head Start children. (H-99-21)

To the Governors of the 50 States and the Mayor of the District of Columbia:

Require that all vehicles carrying more than 10 passengers (buses) and

transporting children to and from school and school related activities,

including, but not limited to, Head Start programs and day care centers,

meet the school bus structural standards or the equivalent as set forth in 49

Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. Enact regulatory measures to

enforce compliance with the revised statutes. (H-99-22)

Review your State and local laws and, if applicable, revise them to

eliminate any exclusions or exemptions pertaining to the use of ageappropriate restraints in all seat belt-equipped vehicles carrying more than

10 passengers (buses) and transporting school children. (H-99-23)

Adopt the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Guideline for

the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses,

distribute the guideline to all school bus operators transporting preschoolage children to and from school or school-related activities, and encourage

those operators to implement the guideline. (H-99-24)

To the National School Boards Association; the National Association of Independent

Schools; the National Conference on School Transportation; the National Parent

Teacher Association; the National Association of Child Care Professionals; the

National Child Care Association; the National Head Start Association; the Young

Men's Christian Association; the Young Women's Christian Association; the American Baptist Churches in the USA; the National Baptist Convention of America; the

Southern Baptist Convention; the Church of the Brethren; the Catholic Bishops; the

Christian Reformed Church; the Christian Schools International; the Episcopal
Recommendations 29 Highway Special Investigation

Church, USA; the First Church of Christ, Scientist; the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter Day Saints; the American Lutheran Church; the Lutheran Church in America; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the United Methodist Church; the

United Methodist Church Communications; the African Methodist Episcopal

Churches; the Church of the Nazarene; the Presbyterian Church in America; the

National Office of the Presbyterian Church, USA; the Seventh Day Adventist

Church; the United Pentecostal Church International; the National Association of

Evangelicals; the Foundation for Evangelism; the Unitarian Universalist Association, the National Association of Church Business Administration; the Union of

American Hebrew Congregations; the United Jewish Communities; the Messianic

Jewish Alliance of America; the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations; the

National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States; the American Buddhist Congress; the Nation of Islam; the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha America; the American Atheists; and the American Ethical Union:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed

in this special investigation report and urge that they use buses built to

Federal school bus structural standards or the equivalent to transport

children. (H-99-25)

To the Community Transportation Association of America:

Inform your members of the circumstances of the East Dublin, Georgia,

accident and of the added safety benefits of transporting children by school

bus, and encourage them to use buses built to Federal school bus structural

standards or equivalent to transport children. (H-99-26)

BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

JAMES E. HALL

Chairman

JOHN A. HAMMERSCHMIDT

Member

ROBERT T. FRANCIS II

Vice Chairman

JOHN J. GOGLIA

Member

GEORGE W. BLACK, JR.

Member

June 8, 1999

31 Highway Special Investigation

Appendix A

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

for Buses34

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Affecting Buses (Precrash)

Small Bus 

Onlya

a. Includes small school buses (GVWR ≤ 10,000 pounds)

School Bus 

Onlyb

b. Includes both large and small school buses

Number Standard

101 Control Location, Identification and Illumination

102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence

103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging

104 Windshield Wiping and Washing System

105 Hydraulic Brake Systems

106 Brake Hoses

108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Equipment

111 Rearview Mirrors

113 Hood Latches

116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids

119 New Pneumatic Tires

120 Tire Selection and Rims

121 Air Brake Systems

124 Accelerator Control Systems

X 131 School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices

34 All FMVSS are from 49 CFR Part 571.
Appendix A 32 Highway Special Investigation

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Affecting Buses (Crash and Postcrash)

Small Bus 

Onlya

a. Includes small school buses (GVWR ≤ 10,000 pounds).

School Bus 

Onlyb

b. Includes large and small school buses.

Number Standard

X 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

X 202 Head Restraints

X 203 Impact Protection for the Driver

X 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement

205 Glazing Materials

207 Seating Systems (Driver)

208 Occupant Crash Protection (Driver)

209 Seat Belt Assemblies

210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

X 212 Windshield Mounting

X 214 Side Impact Protection

217 Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release

X 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion

X 220 School Bus Rollover Protection

X 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength

X 222 School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection

X 301 Fuel System Integrity

302 Flammability of Interior Materials

X 303 Fuel System Integrity of Compressed NG Vehicles

304 Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Applicable to School Busesa

a. Standards 212, 214, 219, 301, and 303 are dynamically tested. 

GVWR ≤ 10,000 lb. GVWR > 10,000 lb.

Occupant Protection 

Standards

201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 

208, 209, 210, 212, 214, 217, 

219, 220, 221, 222

205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 217, 220, 

221, 222

Precrash Standards

101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 

108, 111, 113, 116, 119, 120, 

121, 124, 131

101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 

111, 113, 116, 119, 120, 121, 124, 

131

Postcrash Standards 301, 302, 303, 304 301, 302, 303, 304
Appendix A 33 Highway Special Investigation

 Summaries of Crash and Postcrash Standards

FMVSS 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact--This standard specifies requirements to afford impact protection for occupants.

It applies to passenger cars and to multipurpose

vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4,536

kilograms or less, except that the requirements

for upper interior components do not apply to

buses with a GVWR of 3, 860 kilograms.

FMVSS 202 Head Restraints--This standard specifies requirements for head restraints to

reduce the frequency and severity of neck injury

in rear-end and other collisions. This standard

applies to passenger cars, and to multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a

GVWR of 10,000 or less. For school buses, this

standard only applies to the driver’s seating position.

FMVSS 203 Impact Protection for the

Driver--This standard specifies requirements for

steering control systems that will minimize chest,

neck and facial injuries to the driver as a result of

impact. This standard applies to passenger cars

and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks

and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or

less. However, it does not apply to vehicle that

conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements

of Standard no. 208 by means of other than seat

belt assemblies. It also does not apply to walk-in

vans.

FMVSS 204 Steering Control Rearward

Displacement--This standard specifies requirements limiting the rearward displacement of the

steering control into the passenger compartment

to reduce the likelihood of chest, neck, or head

injury. This standard applies to passenger cars

and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks,

and buses. However, it does not apply to walk-in

vans. 

FMVSS 205 Glazing Materials--The purpose of this standard is to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a

necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize

the possibility of occupants being thrown through

the vehicle windows in collisions. This standard

applies to glazing materials for use in passenger

cars, multipurpose vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, slide-in campers, and pickup covers

designed to carry persons while in motion.

FMVSS 207 Seating System--The purpose

of this standard is to establish requirements for

vehicle seats, their attachment and installation in

order to minimize injury to occupants during a

crash. This standard applies to passenger cars,

multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks and

buses. The applicability of this safety standard

for buses applies only to the driver seat position.

The seat must be able to withstand a force 20

times the weight of the seat, applied both forward

and rearward. Also, the seat must be able to withstand this force when the seat is adjusted to any

position. If the seat has seat belt assemblies

attached directly to the seat, the seat must be able

to withstand the additional forces imposed by

FMVSS 210 for seat belt anchorage’s simultaneous with the forces required for FMVSS 207. In

addition, the seat must also be able to withstand a

rotational moment of 3,300 inch-pounds with the

seat in the rearmost travel position.

FMVSS 208 Occupant Crash Protection--

The purpose of this standard is to reduce the

number of vehicle occupant deaths and the severity of injuries through specifying vehicle crashworthiness requirements. These requirements

limit the forces and accelerations measured on

anthropomorphic dummies in crash tests. The

standard also specifies equipment requirements

for active (manual) and passive (automatic)

restraint systems.

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

Buses with a 10,000 pound GVWR or less are

required to have a lap and shoulder belt at the

driver’s position and all outboard seating positions and a lap belt at all inboard seating positions. School buses with a 10,000 pound GVWR

or less must have a lap and shoulder belt at the

driver’s position and either a lap belt or a lap

shoulder belt at all rear passenger positions. This

standard does not provide protection for bus

occupants in buses over 10,000 pounds GVWR.

For buses over 10,000 pounds GVWR the

requirement of FMVSS 208 is met through the

installation of an FMVSS 209 approved seat belt

assembly (or other automatic crash protection

device) for the driver seat position. The pelvic

portion of such a belt assembly shall include
Appendix A 34 Highway Special Investigation

either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor.

FMVSS 209 Seat belt Assemblies--The

purpose of this standard is to specify requirements for all seat belt assemblies in passenger

cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks,

and buses. 

The initial requirement is that a designated seat

belt assembly is to be designed for use by one,

and only one, person at any one time. The seat

belt shall provide pelvic and/or upper torso

restraint. The hardware and webbing shall be free

from burrs and sharp edges. The seat belt assembly buckles shall be readily accessible and easily

released, while minimizing the possibility of

inadvertent release. Each belt assembly shall be

marked as to the manufacturing source and the

date of manufacture. The belt assembly webbing

shall a minimum of 1.8 inches width, and have a

minimum breaking strength of 6,000 pounds for a

lap belt only, 5,000 pounds for a lap belt used in

conjunction with a shoulder belt, and 4,000

pounds for shoulder belt used in conjunction with

a lap belt. The elongation shall not exceed 20 percent at a 2,500 pound force for a lap belt used singularly, or 30 percent at 2,500 pounds for a lap

belt and 40 percent at 2,500 pounds for a shoulder belt used in conjunction. The belt webbing

shall not significantly degrade due to exposure to

sunlight, micro-organisms, or from abrasion. The

belt hardware shall also be temperature and corrosion resistant.

FMVSS 210 Seat belt Assembly Anchorages--The purpose of this standard is to establish

requirements for the seat belt assembly

anchorages to ensure their proper location for

effective occupant restraint and establishes minimum strength requirement to reduce the likelihood of their failure.

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. As

the seat belt installation requirement for buses

over 10,000 pounds GVWR applies only to the

driver seat position this standard is not relevant

to, or applicable for, passenger seat positions on

buses. 

The seat belt anchorage point, either to the seat

frame or floor of the vehicle, has various dimensional requirements designed to provide suitable

belt geometry to allow occupants to sustain crash

forces properly distributed to the skeletal portion

of the body. For a manual lap or lap and shoulder

belt these anchorage points must be able to withstand a pull of 5,000 pounds, applied between 5

and 15 degrees from the horizontal. The tensile

load must be applied in a period less than 30 seconds and be able to maintain such a load for at

least 10 seconds.

FMVSS 212 Windshield Mounting--This

standard establishes windshield retention

requirements for motor vehicles during crashes.

The purpose of this standard is to reduce crash

injuries and fatalities by providing for retention

of the vehicle windshield during a crash, thereby

utilizing fully the penetration-resistance and

injury-avoidance properties of the windshield

glazing material and preventing the ejection of

the occupants form the vehicle. This standard

applies to passenger cars, and to multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a

GVWR of 4536 kilograms or less. However, it

down not apply to forward control vehicles,

walk-in van-type vehicles, or to open-body type

vehicles with fold-down or removable windshields.

FMVSS 214 Side Impact Protection--This

standard specifies performance requirements for

protection of occupants in side impact crashes.

The purpose of this standard is to reduce the risk

of serious and fatal injury to occupants of passenger cars in side impact crashes by specifying

vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of

accelerations measured on anthropomorphic

dummies in test crashes, by specifying strength

requirements for side doors and by other means.

This standard applies to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses

with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, except

for walk-in vans.

FMVSS 216 Roof Crush Resistance--The

purpose of this standard is to reduce injuries and

deaths due to crushing of the roof into the passenger compartment in rollover accidents.

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses

with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. This standard does not apply to convertible passenger cars,

school buses, or buses with a GVWR of 6,000

pounds or more.

A rigid, unyielding block test device, with a contact surface measuring 2.5 feet by 6 feet, is

pressed against the edge of the vehicle roof at a
Appendix A 35 Highway Special Investigation

shallow angle. The block is loaded to provide a

downward force of 1.5 times the unloaded weight

of the vehicle. The crush of the roof shall not

exceed 5 inches as measured by the contact surface of the test device.

FMVSS 217 Bus Emergency Exits and

Window Retention and Release--The purpose

of this standard is to minimize the likelihood of

occupants being thrown from the bus and to provide a means of readily accessible emergency

egress. This standard establishes requirements for

the retention of windows other than windshields

in buses, and establishes operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for bus emergency

exits.

FMVSS 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion--

This standard specifies limits for the displacement into the windshield area of motor vehicle

components during a crash. The purpose of this

standard is to reduce crash injuries and fatalities

that result from occupants contacting vehicle

components displaced near or through the windshield. This standard applies to passenger cars

and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and

buses, of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, it does not apply to forward control vehicles, walk-in van-type vehicles, or to open-bodytype vehicles with fold-down or removable windshields.

FMVSS 220 School Bus Rollover Protection--The purpose of this standard is to reduce

the number deaths and severity of injuries resulting from failure of the school bus body structure

to withstand forces encountered in rollover

crashes. This standard applies to school buses.

This standard does not apply to other buses or to

other vehicle categories.

A force is applied to the roof of the bus. The

force is applied through a rigid, unyielding rectangular block test device called a force application plate. For buses with a GVWR of more than

10,000 pounds the plate measures 36 inches wide

and is 12 inches shorter than the vehicle roof. The

plate is pressed against the roof of the bus with a

force equal to 1.5 times the unloaded weight of

the vehicle. With the force application plate vertical movement not exceeding 5.125 inches, the

bus windows shall be operable per the process

described in FMVSS 217.

FMVSS 221 School Bus Body Joint

Strength--This standard establishes requirements

for the strength of the body panel joints in school

bus bodies. This standard originally applied to

school buses with a GVWR exceeding 10,000

pounds. A recent final rule extends the requirement to all small school buses manufactured on

or after May 5, 2000. Each body panel joint,

where the various body panels are connected,

must be able to withstand a load of at least 60

percent of the strength of the inherent body panel.

FMVSS 222 School Bus Passenger Seating

and Crash Protection--This standard establishes

occupant protection requirements for school bus

passenger seating and restraining barriers. The

purpose of this standard is to reduce the number

of deaths and the severity of injuries that result

from the impact of school bus occupants against

structures within the vehicle during crashes and

sudden driving maneuvers. This standard applies

to school buses.

FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity--The

purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths and

injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel

spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes,

and resulting from ingestion of fuels during

siphoning. 

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses

with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and

school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000

pounds. The applicable fuel for these vehicles

shall have a boiling point above 32 degrees F.

School buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000

pounds are tested by being struck by a moving

barrier which approximates a 4,000-pound automobile. The bus test condition replicates a full

load of fuel, operational fuel pump, and normal

load condition of 120 pounds per occupant seat

position. The moving barrier test device strikes

the bus body, at speeds up to and including 30

mph, in a lateral and rear configuration per test

procedure in FMVSS 208. The bus body is then

rolled in quarter turn sequences. Fuel leakage

must not exceed a rate of one ounce per minute.

FMVSS 302 Flammability of Interior

Materials--This standard specifies burn

resistance requirements for materials used in the

occupant compartment of motor vehicles. The

purpose of this standard is to reduce the deaths

and injuries to motor vehicle occupants caused by

vehicle fires, especially those originating in the

interior of the vehicle from sources such as
Appendix A 36 Highway Special Investigation

matches and cigarettes. This standard applies to

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks and buses.

FMVSS 303 Fuel System Integrity of

Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles--This standard specifies requirements for the integrity of

motor vehicle fuel systems using compressed natural gas (CNG), including the CNG fuel systems

of bi-fuel, dedicated, and dual fuel CNG vehicles.

The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths

and injuries occurring from fires that result from

fuel leakage during and after motor vehicle

crashes. This standard applies to passenger cars,

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and

buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or

less and use CNG as fuel. This standard also

applies to school buses regardless of weight that

use CNG as motor fuel.

FMVSS 304 Compressed Natural Gas

Fuel Container Integrity--This standard specifies requirements for the integrity of compressed

natural gas (CNG), motor vehicle fuel containers.

The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths

and injuries occurring from fires that result form

fuel leakage during and after motor vehicle

crashes. This standard applies to containers

designed to store CNG as motor fuel on-board

any vehicles.
37 Highway Special Investigation

Appendix B

History of Safety Recommendations on School Bus 

Crashworthiness and Operations

Recommendation No.: H-68-009

Issue Date: 9/18/68

Recipient: Federal Highway Administration

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Consider the need for requirements for structural strength of school bus bodies in connection

with its study of desirable standards for protection of school bus occupants. In particular, the

Board recommends that Program A.1.1.4 of the National Highway Safety Bureau, titled

“Design, Fabrication, and Test of a Safe School Bus Interior,” be expanded to include

consideration of structural integrity and intrusion into the school bus interior.

Recommendation No.: H-70-014

Issue Date: 8/27/70

Recipient: National Education Association

Status: Closed—No Longer Applicable

Adopt a policy of using fastening methods that inhibit the raising of sharp edges and that

provide much greater efficiency of joints to prevent the disintegration of school bus bodies.

This policy might well be implemented by voluntary specifications and adopted by the

National Education Association and used by school bus purchasers and manufacturers.

Recommendation No.: H-70-015

Issue Date: 8/27/70

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Include in its accident research investigations and studies, a search for evidence of the nature

of school bus disintegration and the significance of the disintegration phenomena in injury

causation.

Recommendation No.: H-71-033

Issue Date: 4/22/71

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

The Board has discussed its special study Inadequate Structure Assembly of Schoolbus Bodies

with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC), officers and members of the

Schoolbus Manufacturing Institute and of the Ward Company. The VESC will issue standards;

Ward Schoolbus Manufacturing Company indicated it would welcome a NHTSA standard
Appendix B 38 Highway Special Investigation

specifying joint strength and school bus body strength. The Board urges NHTSA to move

expeditiously in this field.

Recommendation No.: H-72-030

Issue Date: 9/22/72

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Expeditiously adopt a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard to control the strength of

structural joints of school buses. In this connection, careful consideration should be given to

Requirement 5.6, “Body Structure,” of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission. This

standard should apply to the strengthening of the window columns of school buses.

Recommendation No.: H-73-014

Issue Date: 6/21/73

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Assess the human factors involved in seat belt usage in school buses through a demonstration

project. The project should include pupil transportation buses that are equipped with seat belts

and highback, padded seats. 

Recommendation No.: H-73-016

Issue Date: 5/22/73

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Establish separate vehicle-type classes for transit buses, interstate buses, and school buses,

based upon exact definitions of the intended use and performance of the buses in defined

highway environments. Consider, at the least, the following factors: the number and classes of

passengers carried, the maximum intended speed of operation, the classes of highways over

which operation is intended, the luggage-carrying capability of the vehicle, the duration of

trips, and the intent to provide for standing or seated passengers.

Recommendation No.: H-73-019

Issue Date: 5/22/73

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Alternate Action

Require, for the school bus category, the cushioning performance called for in the first

performance option along with the seat strength performance and seat belt anchorages at each

seat location proposed in the second performance option. A warning system should not be

required. Consider establishing a separate school bus category for intermittent higher-speed or

interstate-highway operation that would require seat belts to be installed.
Appendix B 39 Highway Special Investigation

Recommendation No.: H-75-022

Issue Date: 9/18/75

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Initiate a program of dynamic rollover testing of school buses to provide data, in combination

with data already obtained from static testing, to be used to develop a performance

requirement that will ensure reasonable structural integrity in rollover environments.

Recommendation No.:H-78-011

Issue Date: 3/8/78

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—No Longer Applicable

Review available accident statistics involving 1975 and later model school buses equipped

with seating arrangements that comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222 to

determine if the specific seating, restraining barrier, and impact zone requirements for school

buses have reduced the injuries sustained by occupants on these school buses when involved

in collisions and rollovers. A report of the findings should be submitted to the National

Transportation Safety Board at the earliest opportunity.

Recommendation No.: H-79-011

Issue Date: 3/22/79

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Request that each State identifies individuals or groups that transport people on a not-for-hire

basis in vehicles that seat 10 or more people and disseminates information about the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Schoolbus Driver Instructional Program and the

National Safety Council’s Defensive Driving Course to these individuals and groups.

Recommendation No.: H-83-039

Issue Date: 9/28/83

Recipients: 50 States and the District of Columbia

Status: See Table Below

Review State laws and regulations, and take any necessary legislative action to ensure that

passengers in small school buses (designed to carry more than 10 passengers and weighing

less than 10,000 pounds GVWR) and school vans are required to use available restraint

systems whenever the vehicle is in motion; ensure that all users of such vehicles are aware of

and comply with these provisions.
Appendix B 40 Highway Special Investigation

Recommendation No.: H-83-040

Issue Date: 9/28/83

Recipient: 50 States and the District of Columbia

Status: See Table Below

Review State laws and regulations, and take any necessary legislative action, to ensure that

vehicles designed to carry more than 10 passengers and weighing less than 10,000 pounds

GVWR, used to transport children to and from school, school-related events, camps, centers,

or similar purposes meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to small

school buses.

Closed—

Acceptable Action

Closed—

Unacceptable Action Open—Await Response

Guam

Hawaii

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Montana

New Mexico

Oregon

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Illinois

Missouri

Ohio

Vermont

Alabama

Alaska

American Samoa

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of 

 Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Maine

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virgin Islands

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Closed—

Acceptable 

Action

Closed—

Unacceptable 

Action

Open—

Acceptable Response Open—Await Response

Alaska

 (Alternate)

California

Connecticut

Florida

Guam

Louisiana

New Mexico

New York

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Virginia

Vermont Alabama

Colorado

Georgia

Illinois

Indiana

Montana

New Jersey

Ohio

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

American Samoa

Arizona

Arkansas

Delaware

District of 

 Columbia

Hawaii

Idaho

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Carolina

Oregon

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Virgin Islands
Appendix B 41 Highway Special Investigation

Recommendation No.: H-83-067

Issue Date: 12/14/83

Recipient: California, Department of Education

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Recipient: Washington, State Board of Education

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Initiate a program to retrofit (except where the design makes retrofitting economically

prohibitive) all transit type school buses within your fleet that are not equipped with Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222 approved seats with FMVSS 222 approved seat

and restraining barriers if these school buses are refurbished during their normal service life.

Recommendation No.: H-84-008

Issue Date: 4/13/84

Recipients: 50 States and the District of Columbia

Status: See Table Below

When purchasing buses of the types designed to meet the Federal standards for school buses

built after April 1977, which are intended for special-purpose uses in which the standards are

not mandatory, conduct an evaluation of any proposed modifications for their possible adverse

effects on the safety of the intended passengers.

Closed—Acceptable 

Action

Open Acceptable 

Response Open—Await Response

California

Connecticut

Maryland

Alabama

Arizona

Colorado

Idaho

Iowa

Kentucky

Michigan

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

South Dakota

Texas

Washington

Alaska

Arkansas

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Illinois

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Mexico

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming
Appendix B 42 Highway Special Investigation

Recommendation No.: H-85-009

Issue Date: 6/4/85

Recipient: Florida Department of Highway Safety

Status: Open—Acceptable Response

Adopt regulations to require the owner of a private bus to declare annually when the vehicle is

registered if the bus is to be used for pupil transportation, and institute procedures to use the

data to identify all privately owned and privately operated school buses that are subject to the

vehicle inspection and driver certification requirements in Florida State Statute 316.615.

Recommendation No.: H-85-010

Issue Date: 6/4/85

Recipient: Florida Department of Highway Safety

Status: Open—Acceptable Response

Contact private school bus owners who have not had their buses inspected, and advise them

that they are in violation of Florida State Statute 316.615.

Recommendation No.: H-85-011

Issue Date: 6/4/85

Recipient: Florida Department of Highway Safety

Status: Open—Acceptable Response

Instruct law enforcement officers to verify compliance with the requirement contained in

Florida State Statute 316.615 for annual inspection of privately owned school buses by

conducting a systematic program of roadside vehicle checks and on each occasion a private

school bus is stopped for a driver violation on a specific vehicle safety violation.

Recommendation No.: H-85-051

Issue Date: 2/6/86

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Unacceptable Action

Revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 221, “School Bus Body Joint Strength,” to

require that the joints of interior body maintenance access panels within a defined occupant

contactable zone meet the joint strength performance requirement of other body panel joints.

Recommendation No.: H-86-054

Issue Date: 10/2/86

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed--Superseded

Amend or clarify Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 221 to require that body panel joints

for school bus body structures be tested in tension or peel, unless they can only be tested in

shear.
Appendix B 43 Highway Special Investigation

Recommendation No.: H-86-056

Issue Date: 10/2/86

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed--Superseded

Resume testing of school bus floor joints to ensure compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard 221.

Recommendation No.: H-86-057

Issue Date: 10/2/86

Recipient: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Strengthen the floor panel joints of all newly manufactured school buses to ensure that they

comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 221.

Recommendation No.: H-87-011

Issue Date: 5/1/87

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 221, “School Bus Body Joint Strength,” to

include interior maintenance access panels in the standard's performance requirements.

Recommendation No.: H-87-012

Issue Date: 5/1/87

Recipients: School Bus Manufacturers

Status: Closed—No Longer Applicable

Apply the performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 221 to floor

panels and interior maintenance access panels.

Recommendation No.: H-89-001

Issue Date: 5/25/89

Recipient: 50 States and District of Columbia

Status: See Below 

Propose legislation establishing a date by which school buses manufactured before April 1977

will be phased out of use for transportation of passengers.

This safety recommendation is classified “Open—Acceptable Response” for the 14 States that

still operate prestandard buses, including California, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska,

New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington,

and Wyoming.
Appendix B 44 Highway Special Investigation

Recommendation No.: H-89-003

Issue Date: 5/25/89

Recipients: Various Church Associations and Special Activity Groups

Status: Closed—No Longer Applicable

Purchase only school bus type vehicles which meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards set for school buses in April 1977.

Recommendation No.: H-89-006

Issue Date: 6/5/89

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 to provide additional protection for school

buses in severe crash situations based on an evaluation of the merits of relocating fuel tanks,

providing additional structure to protect fuel system components, and frangible valves in

critical locations.

Recommendation No.: H-89-046

Issue Date: 3/19/90

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Alternate Action

Determine the feasibility of requiring lap-shoulder belts or other restraint systems that provide

upper torso restraint at front seat passenger seating positions on type A school buses (10,000

pounds or less GVWR). Amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222,

“School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,” and FMVSS 210, “Seat belt Assembly

Anchorages,” or any other standards, as needed, should standards prove incompatible.

Recommendation No.: H-89-047

Issue Date: 3/19/90

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Alternate Action

Conduct research, including computer simulation and sled crash tests using Hybrid III

dummies if needed, to determine the relationship between restraining barrier design and

injuries to unrestrained and lap belted passengers of different sizes on small school buses

(10,000 pounds or less GVWR). Research should focus on the height, width, padding,

location, and anchorage strength of the barrier and the spacing between the barrier and front

seats. Amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, “School Bus Passenger Seating and

Crash Protection,” as needed.
Appendix B 45 Highway Special Investigation

Recommendation No.: H-89-049

Issue Date: 3/19/90

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Collect and evaluate accident data on the crash performance of the roof and emergency exits

on small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) in rollovers. Data should not be limited

to van based buses. Based on analysis, ascertain whether it is appropriate to amend Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 220, “School Bus Rollover Protection,” to make roof

performance tests for small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) be identical in all

aspects to those now required of large school buses (more than 10,000 pounds GVWR). If

such tests are not appropriate, modify the test for small school buses to stress the roof more

than the present force application plate test does.

Recommendation No.: H-89-050

Issue Date: 3/19/90

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Collect and evaluate accident data involving small school buses to ascertain whether school

buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less should be required to meet

joint strength requirements Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 221, “School Bus Body

Joint Strength.”

Recommendation No.: H-89-051

Issue Date: 3/19/90

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Alternate Action

Specify in new rulemaking or in an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

206, “Door Locks and Door Retention Components,” a requirement for a positive latch

locking mechanism on the passenger loading doors of small school buses (10,000 pounds or

less GVWR) to eliminate the possibility of inadvertent door opening during a frontal crash or

roll over. Work with school bus and school van manufacturers to develop the performance

standards.

Recommendation No.: H-89-052

Issue Date: 3/19/90

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Alternate Action

Urge manufacturers to provide means to retrofit positive latch locking mechanisms on existing

door controls of small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR).
Appendix B 46 Highway Special Investigation

Recommendation No.: H-89-053

Issue Date: 3/19/90

Recipient: School Bus and Van Conversion Manufacturers

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Work with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop performance standards

for a locking mechanism for the boarding doors of school buses with a gross vehicle weight

rating of 10,000 pounds or less to eliminate the possibility of inadvertent door opening during

frontal or rollover crash.

Recommendation No.: H-89-054

Issue Date: 3/19/90

Recipient: School Bus and Van Conversion Manufacturers

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Provide retrofit kits for small school buses (gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or

less) currently without positive latch door control locking mechanisms.

Recommendation No.: H-89-055

Issue Date: 3/19/90

Recipient: National Association of State Directors of Pupil

Transportation

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Recipient: National School Transportation Association

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Alert your members to the dangers inherent in improper installation of seat belts or restraint

systems not meeting Federal standards or guidelines in school buses and urge them to correct

such installations. Also alert your members of the need to instruct students to wear lap belts

properly.

Recommendation No.: H-94-010

Issue Date: 12/13/94

Recipient: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Status: Open—Acceptable Response

Evaluate occupant restraint systems, including those presently required, for small school

buses. Based on the results of this evaluation, require the installation of those systems that

prove to be effective in reducing occupant deaths, injuries, and ejections.

Recommendation No.: H-97-026

Issue Date: 10/27/97

Recipient: U.S. Department of Transportation

Status: Open—Acceptable Response

Collect accident data involving school children riding on transit buses, including pedestrian

accidents, to assist the development of appropriate means to ensure that school children riding
Appendix B 47 Highway Special Investigation

on transit buses are afforded an equivalent level of operational safety as school children riding

on school buses.

Recommendation No.: H-97-027

Issue Date: 10/27/97

Recipient: U.S. Department of Transportation

Status: Open—Acceptable Response

Work with the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, the

American Public Transit Association, and the Community Transportation Association of

America to determine the most appropriate means to ensure that school children riding on

transit buses in tripper service are afforded an equivalent level of operational safety as school

children riding on school buses.

Recommendation No.: H-97-028

Issue Date: 10/27/97

Recipient: National Association of State Directors of Pupil

Transportation

Status: Open—Acceptable Response

Work with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the American Public Transit Association,

and the Community Transportation Association of America to collect accident data involving

school children riding on transit buses and determine the most appropriate means to ensure

that school children riding on transit buses in tripper service are afforded an equivalent level

of operational safety as school children riding on school buses.

Recommendation No.: H-97-029

Issue Date: 10/27/97

Recipient: American Public Transit Association

Status: Open—Acceptable Response

Work with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Association of State Directors

of Pupil Transportation Services, and the Community Transportation Association of America

to collect accident data involving school children riding on transit buses and determine the

most appropriate means to ensure that school children riding on transit buses in tripper service

are afforded an equivalent level of operational safety as school children riding on school

buses.

Recommendation No.: H-97-030

Issue Date: 10/27/97

Recipient: Community Transportation Association of America

Status: Open—Acceptable Response

Work with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Association of State Directors

of Pupil Transportation Services, and the American Public Transit Association to collect

accident data involving school children riding on transit buses and determine the most

appropriate means to ensure that school children riding on transit buses in tripper service are

afforded an equivalent level of operational safety as school children riding on school buses.
48 Highway Special Investigation

Appendix C

Injuries

The following table is based on the injury criteria of the International Civil

Aviation Organization, which the Safety Board uses in accident reports for all

transportation modes.

Injuries Sustained by Nonconforming Bus Occupants in the Accidents

Injury Type Driver Passengers Total

Sweetwater, Florida (15-passenger van)

Fatal 0 0 0

Serious 1 1 2

Minor 0 4 4

None 0 5 0

Total 1 10 11

Lenoir City, Tennessee (tour bus)

Fatal 0 2 2

Serious 0 1 1

Minor 0 16 16

None 1 5 6

Total 1 24 25

East Dublin, Georgia (15-passenger van)

Fatal 0 1 1

Serious 1 0 1

Minor 0 5 5

None 0 0 0

Total 1 6 7

Bennettsville, South Carolina (15-passenger van)

Fatal 0 6 6

Serious 1 0 1

Minor 0 0 0

None 0 0 0

Total 1 6 7

Title 49 CFR 830.2 defines fatal injury as “Any injury which results in death within 30 days of the accident.” It

defines serious injury as an injury that: “(1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7

days from the date the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers,

toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or

(5) involves second or third degree burns, or any burn affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.”
49 Highway Special Investigation

Appendix D

Guideline for the Safe Transportation of 

Pre-school Age Children in School Buses

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

February 1999

Introduction

School age children transported in school buses are safer than children transported in

motor vehicles of any other type. Large school buses provide protection because of their

size and weight. Further, they must meet minimum FMVSSs mandating

compartmentalized seating, improved emergency exits, stronger roof structures and fuel

systems, and better bus body joint strength.

As more pre-school age children are transported to school programs, often in school

buses, the public is increasingly asking the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) about how to safely transport them. To help answer these

questions, NHTSA conducted crash testing of pre-school age size dummies in school bus

seats. The test results showed that pre-school age children in school buses are safest when

transported in child safety restraint systems (CSRSs) that meets FMVSS 213, “Child

Restraint Systems,” and are correctly attached to the seats.

Based on its research, NHTSA recommends pre-school age children transported in school

buses always be transported in properly secured CSRSs. In partial response to questions

from school (and child care) transportation offices, this Guideline seeks to assist school

and other transportation managers in developing and implementing policies and

procedures for the transportation of pre-school age children in school buses. 

Note: The proper installation of CSRSs necessitates that a school bus seat have safety

belts or other means of securing the CSRS to the seat. NHTSA recommends that lap belts

or anchorages designed to meet FMVSS 225, “Tether Anchorages and Child Restraint

Anchorage Systems,” be voluntarily installed to secure CSRSs in large school buses.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PRE-SCHOOL AGE

CHILDREN IN SCHOOL BUSES 

When pre-school age children are transported in a school bus, NHTSA recommends these

guidelines be followed: 
Appendix D 50 Highway Special Investigation

(1) Each child should be transported in a Child Safety Restraint System (suitable

for the child’s weight and age) that meets applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards (FMVSSs). 

(2) Each child should be properly secured in the Child Safety Restraint System.

(3) The Child Safety Restraint System should be properly secured to the school

bus seat, using anchorages that meet FMVSSs.

Child Safety Restraint System Defined

A Child Safety Restraint System is any device (except a passenger system lap seat belt or

lap/shoulder seat belt), designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position a

child who weighs less than 50 pounds.

Child Safety Restraint Systems Guideline

1. Child Safety Restraint System Specifications 

The provider of the CSRS should ensure: 

Each pre-school age child to be transported has a CSRS appropriate for

the child’s weight, height, and age.

Each CSRS meets all applicable FMVSSs (look for the manufacturer's

certification on the label attached to the system).

Each CSRS has been registered with the CSRS’s manufacturer to

facilitate any recalls the manufacturer might conduct.

If the CSRS is the subject of a recall, any necessary repairs or

modifications have been made to the manufacturer's specifications.

Each CSRS is maintained as recommended by its manufacturer,

including disposal of any CSRS that has been involved in a crash.

2. Proper Securement 

The transportation provider should ensure: 

The CSRS is used and secured correctly in the school bus.

Each child is secured in CSRSs according to manufacturer's

instructions.

All CSRS attachment hardware and anchorage systems meet FMVSS

210, “Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages” or FMVSS 225, “Tether

Anchorages and Child Restraint Anchorage Systems.”

School bus seats designated for CSRSs meet FMVSS 225, or include

lap belts that meet FMVSS 209, “Seat Belt Assemblies,” and anchors

that meet FMVSS 210 (designed to secure adult passengers or CSRS). 

Personnel responsible for securing CSRSs onto school bus seats and

children into CSRSs are properly trained and all personnel involved
Appendix D 51 Highway Special Investigation

with CSRSs are provided up-to-date information and training.

When transported in the school bus, pre-school age children are

supervised according to their developmental and functioning level.

3. School Bus Seats Designated for Child Safety Restraint Systems 

The transportation provider should ensure: 

School-bus seats designated for CSRSs are located starting at the front

of the vehicle to provide drivers with quick access to and a clear view of

the CSRS occupants.

CSRS anchorages on school bus seats should meet all applicable

FMVSSs.

When ordering new school buses, the maximum spacing specified under

FMVSS No. 222, “School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash

Protection,” (within 24 inches from the seating reference point) is

recommended for seats designated for CSRSs to provide adequate space

for the CSRSs.

The combined width of CSRS and/or other passengers on a single seat

does not exceed the width of the seat.

If other students share seats with the CSRSs, the CSRSs are placed in

window seating position. 

4. Retrofitting School Buses 

The transportation provider should ensure: 

Existing school bus seats should only be retrofitted with lap belts or

child restraint anchorages as instructed by the school bus manufacturer.

When a school bus is retrofitted with a seat to allow for proper

securement of a CSRS, instructions obtained from the school bus or seat

manufacturer on how to install the seat and restraint systems should be

followed.

When a school bus is retrofitted, the bus owner should ensure that seat

spacing is sufficient for the CSRS to be used.

5. Evacuation 

The transportation provider should ensure: 

The establishment of a written plan on evacuating pre-school age

children and other passengers in CSRSs in the event of an emergency.

This written plan should be provided to drivers, monitors, and

emergency response personnel. The plan should explicitly state how

children (both in and out of the CSRS) should be evacuated from the

school bus. 

Evacuation drills are practiced on a scheduled basis, at least as often as

that required for the school systems school-aged children. 
Appendix D 52 Highway Special Investigation

All personnel involved in transporting children are trained in evacuation

and emergency procedures, including those in the written school bus

evacuation plan.

All school buses carrying children in CSRSs carry safety belt cutters

that are accessible only to the driver and any monitors.

CSRSs are not placed in school bus seats adjacent to emergency exits. 

Local emergency response teams are provided copies of the written

school bus evacuation plan, including evacuation of pre-school age

children. Emergency response personnel should be invited to participate

in evacuation drills.

6. Other Recommendations 

The school transportation provider should establish a policy on whether they or the

child's guardian must supply a CSRS to be used on a school bus. School bus

purchases should be based on the needs of a projected student population, taking

into consideration projected ages, sizes, and other characteristics of the students,

including any special needs, and whether pre-school age children or medically

fragile students will be transported. 

Specified procedures should be established for loading and unloading children in

CSRSs.

Procedures should be established for the periodic maintenance, cleaning, and

inspection for damage of CSRSs. Procedures should be established to train

personnel involved in direct service delivery of infants, toddlers, and pre-school

children on the physical day-to-day handling of these young children and means to

handle potential exposure to contagious and communicable diseases. 

When school bus procedures are established, it should be noted that some children

in CSRSs may have special needs, including medical fragility, that must be

addressed on a child-by-child basis.
53 Highway Special Investigation

Appendix E

Head Start Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

Transportation

As published in the Federal Register, June 15,

1995 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES 

Administration for Children and Families 

45 CFR Part 1310, Part VI 

HEAD START PROGRAM 

AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth

and Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Administration for Children

and Families is issuing this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking to implement the statutory provision

for establishing requirements for the safety features, and the safe operation, of vehicles used by

Head Start agencies to transport children participating in Head Start programs. 

DATES: In order to be considered, comments on

this proposed rule must be received on or before

August 14, 1995. 

ADDRESSES: Please address comments to the

Associate Commissioner, Head Start Bureau,

Administration for Children, Youth and Families,

P.O. Box 1182, Washington, D.C. 20013.

Beginning 14 days after close of the comment

period, comments will be available for public

inspection in Room 2217, 330 C Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. 20201, Monday through Friday,

between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bill Wilson, Head Start Bureau, (202) 205-8913. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Program Purpose 

The Head Start program is authorized under

the Head Start Act (the Act), section 635 of Pub.

L. 97-35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.). It is a

national program providing comprehensive child

development services primarily to low-income

children, predominantly age three to the age of

compulsory school attendance, and their families.

To help enrolled children achieve their full

potential, Head Start provides comprehensive

health, nutritional, educational, social and other

services. In addition, Head Start programs are

required to provide for the direct participation of

the parents of enrolled children. Parents receive

training and education that fosters their

understanding of and involvement in the

development of their children. They also become

involved in the development, conduct, and

direction of local programs. Also, the Head Start

program provides services to children below the

age of three and their families. These services are

designed to promote the development of the

children and to enable their parents to fulfill their

roles as parents and move toward self

sufficiency. 

In fiscal year 1993, Head Start served

713,903 children through a network of 1,395

grantees and 575 delegate agencies. Delegate

agencies have approved written agreements with

grantees to operate Head Start programs. 

While Head Start is intended to serve primarily children from low-income families, Head

Start's regulations permit up to 10 percent of the

children to be from families who are not lowincome. The Head Start regulations also require

that a minimum of 10 percent of enrollment

opportunities in each grantee be made available

to children with disabilities. Such children are

expected to participate in the full range of Head

Start activities with their non-disabled peers, and

to receive needed special education and related

services. 

The Head Start Improvement Act of 1992

contains a new provision which authorizes the
Appendix E 54 Highway Special Investigation

Head Start Bureau to develop regulations for the

safe transportation of Head Start children. In

addition, the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion

includes in its recommendations the development

of “regulations to assure that safe and effective

transportation services are available.” The development of these “Performance Standards” for

Head Start transportation support the goal of

ensuring that children and families receive high

quality Head Start services. 

II. Background 

The authority of this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is sections 640(i) and 644 (a) and (c)

of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.).

Section 640(i) directs the Secretary to issue regulations establishing requirements for the safety

features and the safe operation of vehicles used

by Head Start agencies to transport children participating in Head Start programs. Section 644 (a)

and (c) requires the issuance of regulations setting standards for organization, management, and

administration of Head Start programs. 

Since the inception of the program, most

Head Start agencies have routinely provided

transportation for Head Start children to and from

the classroom when needed, although there has

never been a requirement to do so. To date, information on transportation provided to Head Start

programs has been limited to a series of Information Memoranda which provided guidance to programs on issues around transportation safety, but

which did not require any action on the part of

Head Start agencies. The following is a summary

of that information: 

* ACYF-IM-82-01, “Transportation Safety,”

issued on January 19, 1982. This Information

Memorandum provided the first notification to

Head Start programs with a Highway Accident

Report prepared by the National Transportation

Safety Board (NTSB) of an accident involving a

Head Start vehicle. As a result of their investigation of this accident, the NTSB recommended

that ACYF advise all Head Start programs of the

circumstances of the accident in hopes that the

report would draw attention to the importance of

transportation safety. The Information Memorandum also notified programs of the NTSB's

recommendation that ACYF adopt and

emphasize the need for adherence to the policies

and guidelines provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA)

Pupil Transportation Safety Standards, Highway

Safety Program Standard Number 17 (now

Guideline 17). A copy of Standard 17 was

included and programs were “urged” to use the

Standard to assess the adequacy of their transportation systems. 

* ACYF-IM-93-10. “Transportation,” issued

on March 18, 1993. This Information Memorandum replaced ACYF-IM-82-01 and ACYF-IM83-06, since both the FMVSS and NHTSA's

Pupil Transportation Safety Standards had been

revised. The Information Memorandum provided Head Start programs with a copy of the

new Guideline 17 and again encouraged programs to purchase only vehicles which meet the

FMVSS. The Information Memorandum also

provided Head Start programs with new information regarding the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety

Act and the Commercial Driver's License (CDL)

program. 

As these issuances have been advisory and

not legally binding, there have been differing

degrees of implementation. Not all Head Start

agencies offer transportation services and, among

the agencies that do provide transportation, there

are varying degrees of quality and safety. 

Because of its impact on the quality of services provided to children and families, we

strongly believe that the transportation "component" of Head Start should be on a par with the

other components of education, health, social

services and parent involvement in terms of budgeting, training and overall integration of the

transportation services into the day-to-day activities of the program. For example, in a typical

rural Head Start program where children are

transported over long distances, it is possible for

children to spend from 1/4 to 1/3 of their day en

route to and from the classroom. It is imperative,

therefore, that the time children spend on the

vehicle is treated with the same level of importance as the time the children spend in the classroom and in other program activities. 

We know from experience that significant

variation exists among the States in terms of

whether or not Head Start vehicles and Head

Start drivers are included under the purview of

State school bus requirements. 

In preparing for this NPRM, a survey was

conducted of the States to determine whether and
Appendix E 55 Highway Special Investigation

the extent to which, the requirements in the

State's pupil transportation safety plan applied to

Head Start programs. Of the 48 States that

responded to the survey, 14 of them stated that

their Head Start programs are covered by the regulations governing pupil transportation, 22 States

responded that their Head Start programs are not

covered, 10 States gave a conditional response

and 1 State did not know. The survey also indicated significant variation among the States

themselves in the amount of training required for

school busdrivers. Of the 45 States that

responded to this question, 39 have some mandated training requirements for school busdrivers, 3 States reported that driver training was

handled at the local level, and 3 States reported

no mandated training requirements for school

busdrivers. More significantly perhaps, only 13

States reported mandated driver training for Head

Start busdrivers. 

This variation, both in the way Head Start

programs are viewed by the States as well as the

differing requirements among the States, precluded reliance on the States as the sole source

for transportation safety standards for Head Start

programs and was one of the primary determinants in our decision to develop minimum standards which would apply to all Head Start

programs, regardless of the State in which they

operate. 

In the development of this proposed rule, we

have with only minor variations, adopted the recommendations contained in Guideline 17. As

such, this proposed rule was developed through

ongoing consultation with the Federal Highway

Administration, specifically with NHTSA's

Safety Counter Measures Division, on the application of the FMVSS and Guideline 17 to Head

Start programs. It should be noted that we do not

wish to place Head Start programs in conflict

with State requirements.

 On the contrary, it is our intention to continue

to work with the States beyond the implementation of the rule to enhance the relationship

between Head Start programs and the State agencies responsible for pupil transportation safety.

Toward that end, we have consulted with the

National Association of State Directors of Pupil

Transportation throughout the development of

this proposed rule and we welcome the

identification of any actual or potential problems

that may be identified during the review of this

NPRM. 

Where Guideline 17 lacked specificity or was

silent on some aspect that was considered important, we have relied on other resources, such as

the National Standards for School Bus Operations, in determining, for example, the minimum

hours of pre-service and in-service training for

drivers, the content requirements for driver training and the rules for trip routing. The NTSB's

Special Report 222 provided valuable information regarding the use of seat belts on school

buses, other special equipment, such as crossing

control arms, the need for strict rules for trip routing, and the need to train children in safe riding

practices both on and off the bus. 

The NTSB's examination of the use of seat

belts on school buses in Special Report 222,

along with NHTSA's recommendation in Guideline 17 that passengers in vehicles with a gross

vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds

(which is the class of vehicle most in use by Head

Start programs) use occupant restraints, raises an

issue of special importance to the safe transportation of Head Start children. The use of standard

Type I and Type II seat belts is inappropriate for

children who weigh 50 pounds or less, because of

the potential for injury from the seat belt itself.

Children weighing 50 pounds or less should be

seated in child restraint systems designed in

accordance with FMVSS No. 213, "Child

Restraint Systems." Since almost all Head Start

children fall into this lower weight category, we

have included such a requirement in the proposed

rule. Our decision to include this requirement is

based on consultation with such organizations as

the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's National Medical Center in Washington,

DC and the Riley Hospital for Children, Automotive Safety for Children Program in Indianapolis,

Indiana. We are particularly interested in comments addressing age mixes of children with

respect to child restraints (infants and toddlers). 

III. Summary of the Proposed Regulation 

The proposed rule: 

* Applies to all Head Start grantees and delegate agencies that provide transportation services

to and from the classroom and to special events,

such as field trips and other group events, which

take place away from the classroom but are an

integral part of the scheduled activities for

children. 
Appendix E 56 Highway Special Investigation

* Requires that Head Start vehicles meet the

FMVSS for school buses and prohibits the use of

small vans in the transporting of Head Start children; 

* Describes the minimum qualifications for

operators of Head Start vehicles; 

* Describes the pre-service and in-service

training requirements for operators of Head Start

vehicles; 

* Describes the training requirements for parents and children in vehicle and pedestrian safety; 

* Describes the requirements for transportation of children with disabilities; and 

* Defines the role of Head Start agencies in

local efforts to plan and implement coordinated

transportation systems in order to achieve greater

cost effectiveness in the overall cost of providing

transportation. 

The contents of this proposed rule are adopted

from the following sources of information: 

* 23 CFR, part 1204--Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, “Pupil Transportation

Safety,” referred to in this text as Guideline 17; 

* 49 CFR, part 383--Commercial Driver's

License Standards: Requirements and Penalties; 

* 49 CFR, part 391--Qualifications of Drivers; 

* 1990 National Standards for School Buses

and School Bus Operations, National Safety

Council; and 

* Special Report 222, “Improving School Bus

Safety,” Transportation Research Board, National

Research Council, 1989. 

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of the NPRM 

Subpart A--General 

Section 1310.1--Purpose 

 This section describes the purpose of the regulation and references the section of the Head

Start Act upon which the regulation is based. 

Section 1310.2--Applicability 

 This section states that the new rule applies

to all Head Start grantees and delegate agencies

that provide transportation services. It also

includes a phase in period of three years from the

effective date of the rule with certain exceptions.

This phase-in period should not become a disincentive to agencies to implement requirements as

early as possible but rather be a means by which

agencies can carry out their implementation

responsibilities with time for careful planning.

We considered allowing waivers but decided

against this approach given the many waiver

requests this provision would have precipitated

and the fact that we envision all affected Head

Start agencies fully meeting all of the requirements no later than 3 years from its effective date.

We welcome comments on whether the phase-in

period provides enough time (or gives too much

time) for a Head Start agency to fully comply

with part 1310. Also we welcome comments on

whether we should provide for waivers on certain

requirements which are believed to be too difficult for all affected agencies to meet in the three

year period and which do not compromise the

safety of Head Start children. 

Section 1310.3--Definitions 

This section provides the definition of terms

used throughout the proposed rule. Key words

and phrases defined include "transportation"

(which is defined as the regular transporting of

children to and from the classroom, on field trips

or other events which are an integral part of the

daily activities for children), “vehicle” (which is

a “school bus” as defined in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)

Guideline 17), “trip routing” (which means the

process for determining the fixed routes to be

traveled on a daily basis), “child restraint system”

(which means a device designed to restrain children weighing 50 pounds or less); certain school

bus equipment, including “stop signal arm”

(which is a traffic control device) and “crossing

control arm” (which is a device to keep children

within the line of sight of the driver when crossing in front of the bus), and such terms as “training,” “driver qualifications,” “Transportation

Supervisor” and “Bus Monitor,” which define the

staffing requirements for the transportation component. 

Subpart B--Transportation Requirements 

Section 1310.10--General 

This section contains the general requirements for the provision of transportation services

for Head Start families. 

Paragraph (a) of this section requires that all

Head Start agencies that provide transportation

services either directly, through agency owned or
Appendix E 57 Highway Special Investigation

leased vehicles, or through contract with a public

or private provider must meet the requirements of

this part. (Please note that the definition of

“transportation” deliberately excludes the transporting of small groups of children to and from

medical appointments or other program services,

and other “incidental” transportation, such as

transporting a sick child home, which are outside

of the scope of this regulation.)

Paragraph (b) requires Head Start agencies to

document their decision not to provide transportation to all or a portion of their enrollment. It

also requires that such a decision must be

reviewed and updated annually. This documentation is needed in order to have on file evidence of compliance. We expect that the regular

oversight of the Policy Council in matters relating to the proper functioning of a Head Start program will serve as a review of the agency's

decision not to provide transportation. Since the

work of the Policy Council is already a part of the

operation of each Head Start Program, we did not

reference the Policy Council in this rule. 

We realize the difficulties some programs,

especially rural programs, will face in making the

decision of whether or not to provide transportation. There are cases where a single child needs

transportation for a long distance or where several children's homes are widely scattered. These

cases raise issues both about the cost of providing

transportation and about the desire not to keep a

Head Start eligible child out of the program for

lack of transportation. We are particularly interested in comments on these problems and potential solutions. For example, should there be a

``reasonableness exception clause'' for individual

cases such as the single child a living long distance from the center? And if there is a reasonableness clause, what transportation requirements

should be in effect (e.g., age-appropriate

restraints and placement in the vehicle)? 

Paragraph (c) requires Head Start agencies

which do not offer transportation to offer assistance in arranging for transportation services to

Head Start families. 

Paragraph (d) requires each Head Start program to have a Transportation Supervisor. In

most Head Start programs, this responsibility is

currently with the Head Start Director who, in

some cases, lacks the expertise and the time to

deal with the many facets of transportation.

Therefore, we believe it is essential to have a staff

person assigned specifically to this function so

that funds are set aside in each program's budget

for hiring such a person, if necessary. 

Paragraph (e) requires that every Head Start

vehicle have a bus monitor (more, if necessary

for disabled children), either a paid staff member

or a volunteer, on the vehicle at all times when

children are on board. A bus monitor is essential

to assuring the safe transport of this age group of

children and will assist with the seating and

unseating of children in the child restraint systems, managing the behavior of the children

while the bus is in motion and for assisting the

driver in case of emergency. In some instances it

may be necessary to have more than one monitor.

While we did not specifically regulate in this

area, we invite comment on the appropriate ratio

of monitor to child. 

Paragraph (f) requires Head Start agencies to

report all accidents involving Head Start vehicles

with or without children on board in accordance

with State procedures. Accident reporting is a

critical part of improving school bus safety, both

in terms of vehicle safety and vehicle operations. 

Paragraph (g) requires that Head Start vehicles be equipped with communications equipment, such as a citizen band radio, to call for

assistance in case of an emergency. 

Paragraph (h) requires that Head Start vehicles which operate in areas with extreme heat or

cold be equipped with air conditioning, "winter

packs" or other specialized equipment as appropriate to ensure the safety and comfort of the passengers. 

Paragraph (i) provides the requirements for

release of the children at the end of the day, either

from the classroom or at the vehicle stop, to a

duly authorized adult. Since the Head Start program is responsible for the care and safety of the

children from the time they first enter the custody

of the Head Start staff until they are returned to

the custody of the parent or guardian, this provision is included to ensure that children are

released only to duly authorized persons. This

provision is extended to the non-transported child

because it does not appear anywhere else in the

Head Start regulations. 

Section 1310.11--Vehicles 

This section specifies the minimum requirements for all Head Start vehicles used to transport
Appendix E 58 Highway Special Investigation

groups of children to and from the classroom, to

home-based socializations, to group health

screening and on field trips or other group activities scheduled by the Head Start staff. 

The requirements in this provision come from

three sources. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards (FMVSS) (49 CFR part 571), set

performance standards applicable to motor vehicles as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) and

include standards specifically applicable to

school buses. These regulations are binding on

Head Start grantees operating transportation programs by virtue of their issuance by the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA). 

Head Start vehicles seating more than 10 persons are considered school buses by NHTSA for

purposes of compliance with the FMVSS. It is a

violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112 for a vendor to sell a

vehicle which does not comply with the FMVSS.

Another source is Highway Safety Guideline 17

(23 CFR Part 1204) issued by NHTSA and the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This

document is a set of recommendations to States

concerning their policies on the operation of

school buses. The proposed regulations would

make these recommendations binding on Head

Start grantees, except for certain requirements

which are only binding “to the extent allowable

under State law.” Finally, there are also requirements in the regulations on the design and operation of vehicles which are imposed by ACF and

are in addition to the requirements in Highway

Safety Guideline 17 and the FMVSS. 

Paragraph (a) requires that all Head Start

vehicles comply with recommendations regarding “school buses,” as contained in Guideline 17,

except as provided otherwise in this regulation.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has implemented the statutory

definition of “school bus” which reads in part “a

passenger motor vehicle which is designed to

carry more than 10 passengers * * *” (Motor

Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of

1974, Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470). 

We have included this requirement for two

reasons. First, experts agree that school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation of school-age children. According to the

National Safety Council's Accident Facts (1991),

in 1989, fatality rates per hundred million

passenger miles were 1.12 for passenger cars and

0.04 for school buses. Also in 1989, passenger

cars were involved in 72.3 percent of all traffic

crashes and 61.2 percent of all fatal crashes;

whereas school buses were involved in only .2

percent of all traffic crashes and in .2 percent of

all fatal crashes. Therefore, in addition to the

requirement regarding the use of school buses,

we have explicitly prohibited the use of small

vans and the use of passenger cars in transporting

Head Start children. 

Secondly, NHTSA, in its interpretation of

Guideline 17, has consistently maintained, from

the inception of the FMVSS's for school buses,

that Head Start programs are “schools” under the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

and that Head Start children should only be transported on school buses that meet the FMVSS. 

Paragraph (b) reiterates the requirement under

49 CFR part 571 as interpreted by NHTSA that

Head Start vehicles seating more than 10 persons

be constructed in compliance with the Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to school buses. It also establishes minimum requirements for equipment on these

vehicles, including emergency equipment and

supplies, and requirements on the arrangement of

exterior mirrors and specialized equipment

including equipment for persons with disabilities

as necessary. The latter requirements are imposed

by ACF and are in addition to the recommendations in Highway Safety Guideline 17 and

requirements in the FMVSS. 

Paragraph (c) contains additional requirements for vehicle marking (such as color and lettering) and equipment (such as a stop signal arm

and signal lamps) which were taken from

Guideline 17 and are applicable, if permissible

within State law. It is our intent to have every

Head Start vehicle qualify to operate as a school

bus, which means being marked and equipped as

a school bus and having all the rights and privileges of a school bus on the streets and highways,

including stopping traffic to load and unload

children. However, we are aware that some States

do not permit Head Start programs to operate

school bus-like buses since they are not “schools”

by State definition. This potential for variation

among the States is, therefore, taken into account

in the separate requirements contained in

paragraphs (a) and (b). To assist Head Start programs in this regard, the Head Start Bureau has

written to each of the State Directors of Pupil
Appendix E 59 Highway Special Investigation

Transportation requesting information about their

State pupil transportation requirements, and this

information is being analyzed to determine where

barriers to this goal exist and to develop plans,

State by State, for overcoming these barriers. 

Paragraph (d) contains a process for grantees

to follow to assure that manufacturers and vendors of vehicles comply with the FMVSS, including a clear statement of the intended use of the

vehicle in the bid announcement and a prescribed

procedure for examining the vehicle at the time

of delivery. Therefore, it is a violation of Federal

law for a vendor to knowingly sell a vehicle seating more than 10 persons to a Head Start program

that does not meet the FMVSS when the intended

use of that vehicle is made clear at the beginning

of the transaction. (49 U.S.C. 30112) 

Paragraph (e) specifies that vehicles in use

which do not comply with the FMVSS must be

replaced as soon as possible. We believe this can

be accomplished within the three year phase-in

period (Sec. 1310.2) now that, in accordance with

42 U.S.C. 9839(g)(2)(C), Head Start funds may

be used for capital expenditures (including paying the cost of amortizing the principal and paying interest on loans) to purchase vehicles used

for programs at Head Start facilities. This new

authorization makes it possible for Head Start

programs to plan more effectively and spread out

their expenses over several funding periods. It

also substantially reduces the amount of funds

necessary to be allocated to transportation in the

fiscal year in which these regulations become a

Final Rule. 

Paragraphs (f) through (j) prescribe specific

passenger safety requirements while the vehicle

is in motion. They require that all persons be

seated while the vehicle is in motion, that baggage and other transported items be properly

stored, and prohibit the use of auxiliary seating

of any kind. Most importantly, paragraph (h)

requires the use of seat belts by drivers and bus

attendants and paragraph (i) requires the use of

child restraints for all children. These requirements are being imposed by ACF. 

The Highway Safety Program Guideline No.

17 recommends that “Passengers in school buses

and school-chartered buses with a gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less

should be required to wear occupant restraints

(where provided) while the vehicle is in motion.”

(Citation: Guideline 17, Section C.2.e.(5)) We

believe that properly installed and properly used

child restraints provide the maximum safety for

Head Start children. It is our understanding that

the bus manufacturers have recently begun to test

new designs specifically for transporting preschool children. Therefore, going beyond the recommendations of Guideline 17, we are requiring

the use of child restraint systems on all Head

Start vehicles and that they meet the performance

standards in the FMVSS, 49 CFR 571.213.

Paragraph (k) contains the requirements for

safety inspection and routine maintenance of

vehicles. They require the establishment of procedures for routine preventive maintenance, daily

pre-trip inspections by the driver, and third party

inspections at least once a year. These requirements are adapted from the recommendations in

the National Standards for School Buses and

School Bus Operations. 

Section 1310.12--Driver Qualifications 

Paragraph (a) of this section prescribes the

minimum qualifications for drivers of Head Start

vehicles, which include a minimum age of 21, a

Commercial Driver's License (CDL), and all

other screening requirements (e.g. physical, mental, moral, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.) established by their respective State. All drivers who

operate a vehicle designed to carry 16 or more

passengers were required by the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Commercial

Driver License Standards to have a valid commercial driver license by April 1962, and most

Head Start drivers fall into this category. However, it is possible that some Head Start programs

may operate vehicles that carry less than 16 passengers, since the definition of a bus includes

smaller vehicles that carry 10 or more passengers. We believe that the screening procedures

and the knowledge and skills tests required for

obtaining a CDL are an important step in assuring

that only the most qualified people are employed

as Head Start drivers. Therefore, we are including

the CDL as a requirement here in order to extend

the requirement to all Head Start drivers, regardless of the size of the vehicle. 

Paragraph (b) requires programs to establish

their own applicant screening procedures. Paragraph (c) (1)-(4) provides a list of the elements

which should be included in each agency's

screening process, such as an application with

educational background, employment history and

personal references, an interview procedure, a
Appendix E 60 Highway Special Investigation

check of the applicant's driving record through

the National Driver Registry and the State

Department of Motor Vehicles, a physical examination, and a test of visual acuity. 

Under the CDL program, drivers of vehicles

involved in purely intrastate commerce (as is the

case for almost all Head Start drivers): 

(1) Are only required to pass the knowledge and

skills test for the particular vehicle they will be

operating; and (2) are exempt from the age and

physical qualifications requirements contained in

49 CFR part 391, "Qualifications of Drivers."

This means that drivers of Head Start vehicles

need only comply with their respective State

standards in these two areas, which vary considerably from State to State. In some States the

minimum age to drive a school bus is 16. We

have chosen to adopt the minimum age requirement (21) contained in 49 CFR part 391 as the

minimum age for drivers of Head Start vehicles.

Some States have minimal or no physical qualifications standards for school busdrivers. Therefore, we are proposing to require that a physical

examination, performed by a licensed doctor of

medicine or osteopathy, be included in the

screening procedures. We believe this is necessary to assure that Head Start vehicles are operated by mature and physically able individuals. 

Section 1310.13--Driver Training 

This section contains the pre-service and inservice training requirements for Head Start

drivers. 

The number of hours of training are the same

as those recommended in the National Standards

for School Buses and School Bus Operations. It

specifies that Head Start drivers must have a minimum of 40 hours of skills training (a combination of classroom and behind-the-wheel

instruction) prior to transporting children. The

content areas include safe operation of the vehicle, how to run a fixed route, first aid, handling

emergencies, operating special equipment, conducting routine maintenance and keeping accurate records. In addition to the skills training

requirements, drivers must receive an orientation

to the goals and objectives of Head Start, instruction on the role of the Head Start driver as part of

the Head Start team, and specific instruction on

the Head Start Performance Standards for Children with Disabilities as they relate to the provision of transportation services. 

The proposed rule also requires a minimum of

8 hours of in-service training annually to maintain driver skills, enhance the driver's ability to

perform daily tasks, and assist the transportation

staff in staying abreast of information and/or

developments in transportation technology. 

The proposed rule requires Head Start agencies to be knowledgeable of driver training

requirements in their respective State and to take

whatever steps are necessary for their drivers to

qualify to operate Head Start vehicles as school

buses. The requirement in this section, along with

Sec. 1310.11 (b) and (c), reflect our belief that the

ability to operate Head Start vehicles as school

buses, from the standpoint of the driver as well as

the vehicle, adds significantly to the level of

safety. 

As with the driver qualifications requirements

discussed in the previous section, we know that

there is significant variation among the States in

their driver training requirements. Some States,

in fact, have no training requirements, while

other States have comprehensive training programs which reflect the recommendations in

Guideline 17 and the National Standards for

School Bus Operations. Paragraph (e) of this section, therefore, requires Head Start agencies, in

the absence of an appropriate State or local training program, to obtain the necessary training

from other sources or develop their own training

programs using the National Standards for

School Bus Operations and/or the NHSTA driver

training curriculum as a guide. We are aware of

the difficulties this may present for some programs in the short term and believe the phase in

period will be helpful. We are also aware of the

need to assist Head Start programs in this area,

and will be providing technical assistance, as

needed, and further guidance in the future. 

The remaining paragraphs of this section

require current drivers of Head Start vehicles to

meet the same training requirements as new

drivers within three months of the effective date

of this rule, require drivers to be evaluated

annually by the Transportation Supervisor, and

require bus monitors to receive the same

classroom training as drivers. 

Subpart C--Special Requirements 

Section 1310.20--Trip Routing 

This section prescribes the minimum

requirements for determining and traveling the
Appendix E 61 Highway Special Investigation

fixed routes to be used on a daily basis to transport children to and from the classroom. In its

Special Report 222, “Improving School Bus

Safety,” the Transportation Research Board,

National Research Council stated: “The principles of school bus routing are well known. They

should be consciously applied and should not be

sacrificed for operational efficiency, student convenience, or political expediency.” Paragraph (a)

of this proposed section requires that the primary

consideration in the determination of the fixed

routes be the safety of the children. The basic

principles included in paragraph (a)(2)-(6) are

adopted from the National Standards for School

Bus Operations and Special Report 222. They

include such requirements as locating stops to

minimize traffic disruptions and to minimize the

need for children to cross in front of the bus.

Where children are required to cross the street to

board or exit the bus, there are strict procedures

for escorting children across the street or highway. Loading of vehicles beyond their capacity is

prohibited, as is arrangement of routes such that

vehicles would be required to back up or

negotiate “U” turns. 

 Finally, paragraph (a)(1) of this section limits the amount of time children may be in transit

to and from the classroom to one hour in each

direction. Anything beyond one hour is considered in terms of "best practice" to be detrimental

to the quality of the pre-school experience for the

children. 

Section 1310.21--Safety Education 

According to Special Report 222, most child

deaths in school bus-related accidents occur off

the bus in school bus loading zones, resulting in

the need for safety education programs that specifically address appropriate behavior in school

bus loading zones. Likewise, Guideline 17

includes the recommendation that “All children

should be instructed in safe transportation practices for walking to and from school.” 

This section prescribes the safety training to

be provided to children and their parents in both

pedestrian safety and safe riding practices. It

requires that the initial transportation and pedestrian safety training for children and parents

occur within the first five days of the program

year. It requires Head Start agencies to teach the

parents what is being taught to the children so

that safe pedestrian behavior can be reinforced in

the home and during non-school hours. 

This section also requires Head Start agencies

to instruct children in safe riding practices

(including the use of the child restraint system),

safety procedures for boarding and leaving the

bus and in crossing the street in front of the bus,

and in recognizing the danger zones around the

bus. Children must be instructed in emergency

evacuation procedures and participate in at least

three emergency evacuation drills over the course

of the year. 

Finally, this section requires classroom teachers to develop activities to remind children of the

safety procedures prior to departing the classroom at the end of the day. 

Section 1310.22--Children With Disabilities

This section cross-references the proposed

rules for transportation with the Head Start Program Performance Standards on Services for

Children with Disabilities. It places joint responsibility for compliance on the Disabilities Coordinator and the Transportation Supervisor and

requires that any special transportation requirements for children with disabilities, such as special pickup and drop-off locations, special seating

requirements, special equipment, etc., be specified in the Individual Education Plan for the

child. 

Section 1310.23--Coordinated Transportation

The Administration for Children and Families

is a participant in the Joint Department of Health

and Human Services/Department of Transportation Coordinating Council on Human Services

Transportation, which was formed in October

1986 through a Memorandum of Understanding

between the Department of Health and Human

Services and the Department of Transportation.

One of the goals of the Council is to achieve the

most cost effective use of Federal, State and local

resources for specialized and human services

transportation. The requirements in this section

are designed to promote this goal. 

This section requires Head Start agencies,

whenever possible and to the extent feasible, to

coordinate transportation resources with other

human services transportation agencies in the

community in order to control costs and to maximize the quality and extent of transportation services provided to Head Start families. 

This section also requires Head Start agencies

to determine the true cost of providing
Appendix E 62 Highway Special Investigation

transportation services in their locality so that

they can make knowledgeable choices between

transportation options. Additionally, it requires

Head Start agencies to be proactive in serving on

local transportation councils, or in forming a

local council where none exists, in order to promote the concept of coordinated transportation. 

We acknowledge that the degree and manner

to which Head Start programs participate in

coordinated systems may, to some extent, depend

upon whether or not the services provided by the

coordinated system comply with these standards.

As drafted, this proposed rule requires that if a

Head Start agency is using a coordinated system,

they have to be sure that the system is operating

the way the rule proposes. We want to continue to

support coordination as much as possible without

undermining concerns for the safety of Head

Start children. However, we are concerned that

there are now children, especially geographically

isolated children, being served through coordinated systems which may not meet the safety

standards contained in this proposed rule. Therefore, we are especially interested in soliciting

comments on this issue. For example, should

there be a ``reasonableness exception clause'' for

individual cases in which a child might otherwise

remain unserved by Head Start? If so, what rules

should apply? 

V. Impact Analysis 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to ensure that they are consistent

with the priorities and principles set forth in this

Executive Order. The Department has determined

that this rule is consistent with these priorities

and principles. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking implements the statutory authority to promulgate regulations for the safe transportation of

Head Start children. Congress made no additional

appropriation to fund this new authority, however, and so any money spent toward the purchase of vehicles, additional personnel, training

or other purposes related to this regulation is

money that would have been spent otherwise by

the program or other programs from the same

appropriation amount. We believe that we have

focused these proposed rules in ways that encourage maximum cost-effectiveness in transportation spending decisions. We request comments on

possible improvements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Ch.

6) requires the Federal government to anticipate

and reduce the impact of rules and paperwork

requirements on small businesses. For each rule

with a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities'' an analysis

must be prepared describing the rule's impact on

small entities. 

Small entities are defined by the Act to

include small businesses, small non-profit organizations and small governmental entities. These

regulations would affect small entities. However,

it should be noted that many grantees already

provide transportation services in accordance

with State and local requirements. We believe

meeting these proposed requirements would not

be burdensome to them because we are providing

a three year phase-in period for compliance with

one exception pertaining to training for current

Head Start drivers, for which we propose a 90

day compliance period. The financial burden on

grantees who acquire vehicles that meet the standards in these proposed regulations will be eased

by a new provision in the Head Start Act which

authorizes the Secretary to allow Head Start

grantees to use grant funds to pay the cost of

amortizing the principal and the interest on loans

to finance the purchase of vehicles (42 U.S.C

9839(g)(2)(C)). We also believe that as grantees

become more familiar with these requirements,

there will be no ongoing burden. For these reasons, the Secretary certifies that these rules will

not have a significant impact on substantial numbers of small entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

Pub. L. 96-511, all Departments are required to

submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval any reporting or

record-keeping requirement inherent in a proposed or final rule. This NPRM contains new

information collection requirements at Sec.

1310.10(b). We will submit this section to OMB

for review and approval. 

Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on this NPRM's compliance with

the Paperwork Reduction Act should direct them

to the agency official designated for this purpose,

whose name appears in this preamble, and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Appendix E 63 Highway Special Investigation

OMB, New Executive Office Building (Room

3002), Washington, DC. 20503, Attention: Desk

Officer for the Administration for Children and

Families, HHS. 

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1310 

Driver qualifications, Driver training, Head

Start, Safety education, Transportation, Vehicles. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 93.600, Project Head Start)

Dated: June 9, 1995. 

Mary Jo Bane, 

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. 

=============================

 For the reasons set forth in the preamble, a

new part 1310 is proposed to be added to 45 CFR

chapter XIII to read as follows: 

PART 1310--HEAD START TRANSPORTION 

Subpart A--General 

Sec. 

1310.1 Purpose. 

1310.2 Applicability. 

1310.3 Definitions. 

Subpart B--Transportation Requirements 

1310.10 General 

1310.11 Vehicles. 

1310.12 Driver qualifications. 

1310.13 Driver training. 

Subpart C--Special Requirements 

1310.20 Trip routing. 

1310.21 Safety education. 

1310.22 Children with disabilities. 

1310.23 Coordinated transportation. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq. 

Subpart A--General 

Sec. 1310.1 Purpose. 

This part prescribes regulations implementing

section 640(i) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.

9801 et seq.) as it applies to grantees and delegate

agencies operating Head Start programs under

the Act. It prescribes new requirements for the

transportation of Head Start children to and from

the classroom and to special events, such as field

trips and other group events, which take place

away from the classroom but are an integral part

of the scheduled activities for children. It

describes the safety standards for vehicles used in

the regular transportation of Head Start children,

as well as the qualifications and training requirements for operators of those vehicles. It includes

general training requirements for drivers in their

overall responsibilities regarding children and

parents in the daily operation of the program. It

also defines the role of Head Start agencies in

achieving greater cost effectiveness in the overall

cost of providing transportation through participation in local efforts to develop coordinated

transportation systems under the authority provided by section 644 (a) and (c). 

Sec. 1310.2 Applicability. 

(a) This rule applies to all Head Start grantees

and delegate agencies that provide transportation

services to enrolled children. 

(b) Except for Sec. 1310.13(f) which becomes

effective 90 days from final publication, Head

Start grantees and delegate agencies have up to

three years from the effective date of this part to

comply with all of the requirements of this part. 

Sec. 1310.3 Definitions. 

Crossing control arm means a device installed

in the right side of the front bumper of the bus

such that, when the door of the bus is opened to

admit or discharge passengers, the control arm

swings out for a distance of several feet and

becomes an obstacle that children must walk

around in crossing in front of the bus. 

Stop signal arm means a device installed in

the left side of the bus, octagonal in shape with

white letters and border and a red background,

and with a flashing lamp which is connected to

the alternately flashing signal lamp circuits. 

Reverse beeper means a device which automatically sounds an intermittent alarm whenever

the bus is engaged in reverse. 

Type I seat belt means a lap belt for pelvic

restraint. 

Type II seat belt means a combination of belts

for pelvic and upper torso restraint. 
Appendix E 64 Highway Special Investigation

Driver means a person authorized by the

responsible Head Start program official to operate a school bus, including a paid employee, a

volunteer or a substitute for the person regularly

assigned to operate the vehicle. 

Guideline 17 means the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)/Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway

Safety Program Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (23 CFR Part 1204). 

Commercial Driver's License (CDL) means a

license issued by a State or other jurisdiction, in

accordance with the standards contained in 49

CFR part 383, to an individual which authorized

the individual to operate a class of a commercial

motor vehicle. 

Bus monitor means a person with specific

responsibilities for assisting the driver in insuring

the safety of the children on and off the bus and

for assisting the driver during emergencies. 

National Standards for School Buses and

School Bus Operations means the recommendations resulting from the Eleventh National Conference on School Transportation, May 1990,

published by the National Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois. The conference reconvenes every

five years to update the standards. 

Winter packs are devices that are available

from vehicle manufacturers as extra equipment

on vehicles that operate in areas of extreme cold

temperatures. These devices help maintain the

ambient temperature of the engine compartment

in order to protect the engine oil and coolant from

the effects of extreme cold and to facilitate starting of the vehicle. 

Driver qualifications means the minimum

health, education, code of conduct and other similar requirements that must be demonstrated in

order to be eligible for employment as a Head

Start driver. 

National Driver Register, also called the

Problem Driver Pointer System, means the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's automated system for assisting State driver

license officials in obtaining information regarding the driving records of certain individuals.

Participation by the States is voluntary. 

Fixed route means the established routes to be

traveled on a daily basis by Head Start vehicles to

transport children to and from the Head Start

classroom, and which include specifically designated stops for loading and unloading children. 

Trip routing means the determination of the

fixed routes to be traveled on a daily basis for the

purpose of transporting children to and from the

classroom. 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

(FMVSS) means the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration's standards for motor

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment established

under section 103 of the Motor,Vehicle Safety

Act of 1966 (49 CFR Part 571) as they apply to

school buses. 

Transportation Supervisor means a staff person who has overall responsibility for the safe

and efficient operation of the transportation component as outlined in these requirements.

Child restraint system means any device

except Type I and Type II seat belts designed to

restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50

pounds or less as described in the FMVSS, 49

CFR 571.213. 

Training means a prescribed course of

instruction for drivers of vehicles provided by

persons certified to provide such instruction and

which includes a combination of classroom

instruction and behind-the-wheel instruction on a

vehicle of the same type and same size the driver

will be operating. It also means instruction by

qualified professionals in the areas of vehicle

maintenance, first aid and emergency procedures. 

Transportation means the transporting of children to and from the classroom and to homebased socialization where children are picked up

and discharged at pre-arranged locations and at

regularly scheduled times. It also means the

transporting of children on field trips, health

screening, or other activities scheduled by the

Head Start staff. Incidental transportation, such

as might be required to transport small groups of

children to and from services or to transport a

sick child home before the end of the day, is

excluded from these regulations. 

Coordinated transportation means the consolidation of transportation resources within a community in order to eliminate duplication, while

providing the same, or increasing, the level of

transportation services or reducing unnecessary

spending on transportation services. 
Appendix E 65 Highway Special Investigation

Vehicle means a school bus as defined in

Guideline 17. 

School bus loading zone means the designated pick and drop off location at the Head Start

center and any stop along the fixed route. 

Subpart B--Transportation Requirements 

Sec. 1310.10 General. 

(a) All Head Start grantees and delegate agencies that provide transportation services regardless of whether such transportation is provided

directly on agency owned or leased vehicles or

through contract with a private or public provider

must meet the requirements of this part. 

(b) Head Start agencies that do not provide

transportation services, or that provide such services to only a portion of their enrolled children,

must document the reasons why they have

decided not to provide transportation, or to provide transportation to some children and not to

others. In addition agencies must review and

update this documentation annually. 

(c) When the Head Start agency has decided

not to provide transportation services, either for

all or part of the children, the Head Start agency

must provide whatever assistance is reasonable to

help families arrange transportation for their children to and from the classroom. The specific

types of assistance being offered must be made

clear to all prospective families in the program's

recruitment announcements. 

(d) Each Head Start program must have either

a full-time or part-time Transportation Supervisor, or a staff person (with the time and expertise to devote to this area) designated as the

Transportation Supervisor who is responsible for

ensuring compliance with regulations in this part. 

(e) In addition to the vehicle's driver, each

Head Start vehicle must have a Bus Monitor on

board at all times when transporting Head Start

children on a regular basis. Additional Bus Monitors also must be provided as necessary to accommodate the needs of children with disabilities. 

(f) All accidents involving Head Start vehicles, with or without children on board, must be

reported in accordance with the State procedures

for reporting school bus accidents. 

(g) Head Start vehicles must be equipped with

a citizen band radio or similar communication

system to call for assistance in case of an

emergency. 

(h) Head Start vehicles that operate in areas of

extreme climatic conditions should include such

equipment as is necessary, such as air conditioning, winter packs, or other specialized equipment

as appropriate to ensure the safe operation of the

vehicle and the safety and comfort of the

passengers. 

(i) At the end of the day, either at the classroom or at the vehicle stop, children may only be

released to the parent or legal guardian, or other

individual identified in writing by the parent or

legal guardian. Head Start programs should

advise parents accordingly at the time of enrollment, and maintain the names of authorized persons, including alternates in case of emergency,

in the case record for the family. Child rosters

must be maintained at all times to ensure that no

child is left behind, either at the classroom or on

the bus at the end of the route. 

Sec. 1310.11 Vehicles. 

(a) All vehicles used for the purpose of transporting Head Start children (as defined in Sec.

1310.3 of this part) must comply with recommendations regarding "school buses," as contained in

Guideline 17, except where provided otherwise

in this regulation. (23 CFR part 1204, Highway

Safety Guideline 17.) The use of small vans

designed to carry ten or fewer persons, including

the driver, and the use of passenger cars for the

purpose of transporting children are prohibited by

this regulation. 

(b) At a minimum, all vehicles used to transport Head Start children to and from the classroom, to home-based socialization, to group

health screening, and on field trips or other activities scheduled by the Head Start staff must: 

(1) Comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to school

buses; 

(2) Be equipped with safety equipment for

use in an emergency, including a charged fire

extinguisher that is properly mounted near the

driver's seat, and a first aid kit with signs indicating the location of such equipment; 

(3) Have a system of mirrors that conforms to

the school bus requirements of FMVSS No. 111

(49 CFR 571.111) and provides the seated driver

with a view to the rear along both sides of the bus
Appendix E 66 Highway Special Investigation

and a view of the front bumper and the area in

front of the bus; 

(4) Be equipped with a lower step panel at the

primary point of access to enable small children

to step on and off the bus safely and unassisted; 

(5) Be equipped with reverse beepers; and 

(6) Have specialized equipment, such as

wheel chair lifts or other assistance devices as

necessary to guarantee equal access to disabled

children. 

(c) To the extent allowable within State

requirements, vehicles owned, leased, or operated by Head Start must comply with the following additional recommendations for identification

and equipment of a school bus contained in

Guideline 17, as follows: 

(1) Be identified with the words "School Bus"

printed in letters not less than eight inches high,

located between the warning signal lamps as high

as possible without impairing visibility of the lettering from both front and rear, and have no other

lettering on the front or rear of the vehicle except

as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards (FMVSS), 49 CFR part 571; 

(2) Be painted National School Bus Glossy

Yellow, in accordance with the colorimetric specification of National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) Federal Standard No. 595a,

Color 13432, except that the hood should be

either that color or lusterless black, matching

NIST Federal Standard No. 595a, Color 37038; 

(3) Have bumpers of glossy black, matching

NIST Federal Standard No. 595a., Color 17038,

unless, for increased visibility, they are covered

with a reflective material; 

(4) Be equipped with a stop signal arm as

specified in FMVSS No. 131(49 CFR 571.131)

and a crossing control arm; and 

(5) Be equipped with a system of signal lamps

that conforms to the performance requirements of

FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108). 

(d) In order to insure that the manufacturers

of Head Start vehicles comply with the applicable

FMVSS standards, Head Start agencies must: 

(1) Assure that bid announcements contain

the correct specifications for the vehicle(s) to be

purchased, including a clear statement of the

intended use of the vehicle; and 

(2) Have a prescribed procedure for examining new vehicles at the time of delivery to assure

that they are equipped in accordance with the bid

specifications and that the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the FMVSS is in place. 

(e) Head Start vehicles in use which do not

comply with the FMVSS and the minimum

capacity requirement must be replaced or retired

within the three year period authorized by this

regulation. (In accordance with 42 U.S.C.

9839(g)(2)(C), with the permission of the Secretary, Head Start funds may be used for capital

expenditures (including paying the cost of amortizing the principal and paying interest on loans)

to purchase vehicles used for programs conducted at Head Start facilities.) 

(f) All passengers on a Head Start vehicle

must be seated while the vehicle is in motion. 

(g) Auxiliary seating, such as temporary or

folding jump seats, is prohibited. 

(h) Drivers of Head Start vehicles, Bus Monitors, and other passengers must wear seat belts

while the vehicle is in motion. 

(i) While the vehicle is in motion, all children

must be seated in a child restraint system appropriate to the height and weight of the child as set

forth in the performance requirements in FMVSS

(49 CFR 571.213). 

(j) Baggage and other items transported in the

passenger compartment must be properly stored

and secured so that the aisles remain clear and the

doors and emergency exits remain unobstructed

at all times. 

(k) Head Start vehicles must be maintained in

safe operating condition at all times. Procedures

must be established for: 

(l) A thorough safety inspection of each vehicle on at least an annual basis through an inspection program licensed or operated by the State; 

(2) Performing systematic preventive maintenance on Head Start vehicles; and 

(3) Daily pre-trip inspection of the vehicle by

the Head Start driver. 

Sec. 1310.12 Driver qualifications. 

(a) In order to qualify to drive a Head Start

vehicle, a person must, at a minimum: 

(1) Be at least 21 years old; 
Appendix E 67 Highway Special Investigation

(2) Have a Commercial Driver's License

(CDL) as granted by a State pursuant to FHWA's

Commercial Driver's License Standards (49 CFR

part 383); and 

(3) Meet all the physical, mental, moral and

other requirements established by Federal and

State regulations, including requirements regarding drug and/or alcohol misuse or abuse. 

(b) Each Head Start program must establish

its own applicant screening procedure. Applicants must be advised of the specific background

checks required at the time application is made,

and Head Start agencies must have established

criteria for the rejection of unacceptable applicants. 

(c) At a minimum, applicant screening procedures must include: 

(1) An application which provides employment history, educational background and personal references; 

(2) An interview and screening procedure

which, among other things, is designed to determine that the person is of good moral character,

does not use intoxicating beverages to excess and

does not use narcotic and other illegal drugs; 

(3) A check of the applicant’s driving record

through the State Department of Motor Vehicles,

including a check of the applicant's record

through the National Driver Register, if available

in the State; and 

(4) A physical examination, performed by a

licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy, to

determine that the person possesses the physical

ability to operate a school bus based on the

requirements in their respective State. 

Sec. 1310.13 Driver training. 

(a) Driver training plans must include both

pre-service and annual in-service training programs. 

(b) Pre-service training. 

(1) All Head Start drivers must receive a minimum of 40 hours of skills training prior to transporting children. Skills training should

encompass a combination of classroom instruction and behind-the-wheel instruction sufficient

to enable the driver to: 

(i) Operate the vehicle in a safe and efficient

manner; 

(ii) Safely run a fixed route, including loading

and unloading children, stopping at railroad

crossings and other specialized driving requirements; 

(iii) Administer basic first aid in case of

injury; 

(iv) Handle emergency situations, including

school bus evacuation procedures; 

(v) Operate any special equipment, such as

wheel chair lifts, assistance devices or special

occupant restraints; 

(vi) Conduct routine maintenance and safety

checks of the vehicle; and 

(vii) Maintain accurate records. 

(2) In addition to the skills training, pre-service training should include: 

(i) An orientation to the goals and objectives

of Head Start with an emphasis on the educational and developmental needs of children; 

(ii) The role of the Head Start Driver in providing a supportive social and emotional climate

for children and in supporting the role of parents

in the Head Start program; and 

(iii) An overview of the Head Start Program

Performance Standards for Children with Disabilities as they relate to the provision of transportation services for disabled children. 

(c) In-service training. 

(1) Head Start drivers should receive a minimum of 8 hours of in-service training per year. 

(2) In-service training plans should be

designed to maintain driver skills, enhance the

driver's ability to perform day-to-day duties and,

generally, assist the transportation staff in keeping abreast of new information and/or new developments in transportation technology. 

(d) Head Start programs must be knowledgeable about the driver training requirements in

their respective State and must take whatever

steps are necessary in order for Head Start drivers

to qualify to operate Head Start vehicles as

school buses on the streets and highways in their

respective State. 

(e) In those States with driver training

requirements that do not meet the minimum

requirement set forth in Sec. 1310.13 (b) and (c)

of this part, Head Start programs must obtain the
Appendix E 68 Highway Special Investigation

additional training from other sources or establish

their own training programs. In such cases, it is

recommended that the National Standards for

School Buses and School Bus Operations be used

as a guide in the selection and/or development of

driver training programs. 

(f) Drivers of Head Start vehicles who are

employed at the effective date of this regulation

are required to meet the same pre-service training

requirements as new drivers, within three months

of the effective date of this regulation. 

(g) Head Start drivers must be evaluated on

an annual basis by the Transportation Supervisor,

including an on-board observation of road performance. 

(h) Bus Monitors should receive the same

pre-service and in-service training as busdrivers,

with the exception of the behind the wheel

instruction. 

Subpart C--Special Requirements 

Sec. 1310.20 Trip routing. 

(a) In planning routes for the transporting of

children to and from the classroom, maximum

safety of the children must be the primary consideration. Safety principles may not be sacrificed

for operational efficiency. 

(b) At a minimum, the following basic principles of trip routing must be adhered to at all

times: 

(1) The time a child is in transit to and from

the Head Start classroom may not exceed one

hour each way, unless specifically approved in

writing by the respective Regional Office. 

(2) The number of children to be picked up or

discharged on a given route may not exceed the

capacity of the vehicle. Vehicles may not be

loaded beyond their capacity at any time. 

(3) Vehicles should not be required to back up

on their routes or to negotiate "U" turns. 

(4) Stops should be located to minimize traffic disruptions and to afford the driver a good

field of view in front of and behind the vehicle. 

(5) Stops should be located to minimize the

need for children to cross the street or highway to

board or leave the vehicle. 

(6) If children must cross the street or highway to board the bus or after exiting the vehicle,

they must be escorted across the street by the

driver, bus monitor or another adult. Before

escorting children across the street, the driver

must turn on the flashing lights, set the emergency brake, turn the engine off, and remove the

key from the ignition. Under no circumstances

may bus stops be located such that children must

cross the street or highway unless the vehicle is

properly equipped to stop traffic as described in

Sec. 1310.11(c)(1)- (5) of this Part. 

(7) Specific procedures must be established

for use of alternate routes in the case of hazardous weather conditions or other situations which

may arise that could effect the safety of the children en route. 

Sec. 1310.21 Safety education. 

(a) In walk-in areas, the parent or other designated individual is ultimately responsible for the

safety of their own child en route to and from the

classroom. However, Head Start programs must

provide training for parents and children in

pedestrian safety. All Head Start children should

be taught, by explanation and by example, the

proper procedure for street crossing and the use

of traffic and pedestrian signal lights, except that,

under no circumstances, should such training

encourage pre-school children to cross the street

alone. 

(b) Each child transported from home to the

classroom in a school bus must receive instruction in: 

(1) Safe riding practices; 

(2) Safety procedures for boarding and leaving the bus; 

(3) Safety procedures in crossing the street to

and from the bus at bus stops; 

(4) Recognizing the danger zones around the

bus; and 

(5) Emergency evacuation procedures,

including an emergency evacuation drill conducted on the bus the child will be riding. 

(c) Training for parents must emphasize the

importance of escorting their child(ren) to the bus

stop and the importance of reinforcing the training provided to children regarding school bus

safety. 

(d) The training provided to parents must

compliment the training provided to children so
Appendix E 69 Highway Special Investigation

that safety practices can be reinforced both in the

classroom and at home by the parent. 

(e) Initial transportation and pedestrian safety

education for both children and parents must

occur within the first five days of the program

year. 

(f) At least two additional bus evacuation

drills must be conducted during the program year. 

(g) Activities should be developed by the

classroom teachers to remind children of the

safety procedures prior to departing the classroom at the end of each day. 

Sec. 1310.22 Children with disabilities. 

(a) The Transportation Supervisor, in conjunction with the Disabilities Coordinator, must

ensure compliance with the Head Start Program

Performance Standards on Services for Children

with Disabilities (45 CFR part 1308) as they

relate to transportation services. 

(b) Any special transportation requirements

for children with disabilities must be specified in

the Individual Education Plan (IEP), including: 

(1) Special pickup and drop-off requirements; 

(2) Special seating requirements; 

(3) Special equipment needs; 

(4) Any special assistance that may be

required; and 

(5) Any special training for busdrivers and

monitors. 

Sec. 1310.23 Coordinated transportation. 

(a) Whenever possible and to the extent feasible, Head Start agencies and their delegates must

coordinate transportation resources with other

human services agencies in the community in

order to control costs and to maximize the quality

and extent of the transportation services provided

to Head Start families. At a minimum, Head Start

agencies must coordinate transportation services

as follows: 

(1) Identify the true costs of providing transportation in order to knowledgeably compare the

costs of providing transportation directly versus

contracting for the service; 

(2) Where a coordinated public or private

transportation system(s) exists in the community,

serve on the local transportation council or committee and fully explore coordination as a viable

transportation option; 

(3) Where no coordinated public or private

non-profit transportation system exists in the

community, make every effort to identify other

human services agencies also providing transportation services and, where feasible, to provide

the impetus for establishing a local transportation

coordinating council; and 

(4) Maintain such records as are necessary to

document compliance with the coordination

requirements and efforts to address transportation

needs in the community. 

[Reserved]
70 Highway Special Investigation

Appendix F

Status of Safety Recommendations H-96-14 

Through -16 on Child Restraint Systems

Safety Recommendation H-96-14

Safety Recommendation H-96-15

Open—

Unacceptable 

Action

Open—

Acceptable 

Response Open—Await Response

Open—Initial 

Response

Maryland

Utah

Alabama

Hawaii

Indiana

New York

Texas

Virginia

Alaska

American Samoa

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

District of 

Columbia

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Guam

Idaho

Illinois

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota

Northern Mariana

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Vermont

Virgin Islands

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

New Hampshire

Open—

Unacceptable 

Action

Open—

Acceptable 

Response Open—Await Response

Open—Initial 

Response

Virginia

Utah

Alabama

Hawaii

Indiana

New York

Texas

Alaska

American Samoa

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

District of 

Columbia

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Guam

Idaho

Illinois

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota

Northern Mariana

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Vermont

Virgin Islands

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

New Hampshire
Appendix F 71 Highway Special Investigation

Safety Recommendation H-96-16

Closed—

Acceptable 

Action

Open—

Unacceptable 

Action

Open—

Acceptable 

Response Open—Await Response

Open—Initial 

Response

Georgia

Maryland

Virginia

Utah Alabama

Indiana

New York

Texas

Alaska

American

 Samoa

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

District of

 Columbia

Delaware

Florida

Guam

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Iowa 

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota

Northern Mariana

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Vermont

Virgin Islands

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

New Hampshire
72 Highway Special Investigation

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSRS child safety restraint systems

CTAA Community Transportation Association of America

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

MGCAA Middle Georgia Community Action Agency, Inc. 

MTA Miami Transit Authority

NACCP National Association of Child Care Professionals

NAIS National Association of Independent Schools

NASDPTS National Association of State Directors of Pupil 

Transportation Services

NAPT National Association for Pupil Transportation

NCCA National Child Care Association

NHSA National Head Start Association

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NSBA National School Boards Association

PTA Parent Teacher Association

YMCA Young Men’s Christian Association

YWCA Young Women’s Christian Association