Could a Maryland county school board require school buses to meet safety specifications stricter than the state's minimum standards?

Plain-English summary

The Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review asked the Attorney General whether a county board of education could legally include product specifications in a school bus transportation contract that exceeded the minimum safety standards set by the Motor Vehicle Administration, prompted by concern over an Anne Arundel County Board of Education specification requiring school bus wheel rims to be of one-piece construction. The opinion explained that the Maryland Vehicle Law gave MVA exclusive regulatory authority over school bus design, construction, and equipment standards, preempting any county or other agency from regulating in that field, a conclusion the opinion also found consistent with an internal Attorney General's office letter of advice (appended to the opinion) that had already led the State Board of Education to rescind its own competing school bus safety regulations. But the opinion distinguished a county board acting as a regulator from a county board acting as a purchaser of transportation services under contract: when contracting for bus service, a board could require additional or superior equipment beyond MVA's stated minimum standards, just as any private purchaser could specify preferred features, so long as the specifications did not conflict with or fall below any MVA requirement. Applying this framework, the opinion concluded that Anne Arundel County's one-piece wheel rim requirement was a valid contract specification because MVA's own regulations were silent on rim design (and its then-proposed regulation would explicitly permit either single-piece or multi-piece rims), so the county's choice did not conflict with any actual MVA standard.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The opinion relied on Motor Vehicle Administration regulations that were, at the time, only "proposed emergency regulations" not yet finalized, and on a division-of-authority dispute between MVA and the State Board of Education that had just been resolved by an internal legal opinion months earlier. Maryland's school bus safety regulations, the statutes dividing authority between MVA and the State Board of Education, and county contracting practices have likely changed since 1983; verify the current Transportation Article, Education Article, and COMAR provisions before relying on any specific standard or preemption rule described here.

Common questions

Could a Maryland county require its school buses to have safety features the state didn't require, like semaphore arms or CB radios?
Yes, according to this opinion, as long as the county board was acting as a purchaser contracting for transportation services rather than attempting to regulate school buses generally, and as long as the added features did not conflict with any Motor Vehicle Administration standard. The opinion noted several counties already did exactly this for reasons like terrain, climate, and pupil safety.

Could a county school board impose its own safety rules on buses used by private schools or church groups?
No. The opinion made clear that MVA's regulatory authority over school bus safety design and construction was exclusive and preempted local regulation in that field, so a county board's contract specifications bound only the vehicles it contracted for, not private or parochial school buses or other users of school-type vehicles.

Why was Anne Arundel County's one-piece wheel rim requirement allowed if MVA hadn't addressed wheel rims at all?
The opinion found that because MVA's regulations were silent on rim design at the time, and MVA's own then-proposed regulation would expressly permit either single-piece or multi-piece rims, the county's choice to require single-piece rims in its purchasing specifications did not conflict with any actual MVA standard, so it fell within the board's authority as a purchaser rather than intruding on MVA's exclusive regulatory turf.

Did a school bus contractor have to follow a county's extra safety specifications?
Not by force of law, according to the opinion. A contractor that did not meet a county board's contract specifications simply became ineligible for that county's transportation contract, but remained free to provide bus service to other customers, since the specifications were contractual requirements tied to the county's purchasing decision, not generally applicable safety regulations.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion grounded MVA's exclusive authority in Tr §25-110(a), which directed MVA, with the advice of the State Department of Education, to adopt regulations governing the safe operation of all school vehicles, and in Tr §25-101.1(c), which expressly stated that Maryland Vehicle Law provisions "prevail over all local legislation and regulation on any subject with which the Maryland Vehicle Law deals" and repealed any inconsistent local law. The opinion treated MVA's own regulations, such as COMAR 11.19.02.01, as themselves "provisions of the Maryland Vehicle Law" for preemption purposes, citing 65 Opinions of the Attorney General 483 (1980) and Court of Appeals decisions on state preemption of local regulation, including County Council for Montgomery County v. Montgomery Association and Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Sitnick.

Notably, the opinion found MVA's authority undiminished even by a seemingly overlapping grant of authority to the State Board of Education in Ed §5-203(c) to regulate the safety of "the student transportation system of each county board of education." It incorporated, and endorsed, an appended letter of advice from Assistant Attorney General Ellen M. Heller applying the canon that a specific statute (Tr §25-110(a), governing "all school vehicles") controls over a more general, later-enacted statute (Ed §5-203(c)) absent a clear legislative intent to displace the earlier law, citing City of Baltimore v. Clerk of the Superior Court, Gannon & Son v. Emerson, and Maguire v. State, a conclusion that had already led the State Board to rescind its own competing regulations.

Having settled that MVA alone regulates school bus safety design, the opinion then distinguished regulation from contracting: a county board buying transportation services was acting like any other purchaser under Ed §5-110(b)(2)'s authority to specify a particular make, kind, or brand in bids and contracts, citing Mitchell Business Equipment Co. v. Board of Education for St. Mary's County. Because MVA's regulations were explicitly described as "minimum standards," and Tr §22-101(b) confirmed that additional parts and accessories not inconsistent with the vehicle equipment title were permitted, the opinion concluded that a board's contract specifications could exceed, but never conflict with or fall short of, MVA's minimum requirements. Applying that rule to Anne Arundel County's wheel rim specification, the opinion found no conflict because MVA's regulations at the time were silent on rim design and its forthcoming regulation would explicitly allow either single-piece or multi-piece rims.

Citations

Statutes:

• Tr §25-110(a) (MVA authority to regulate safe operation of all school vehicles)
• Tr §25-110(a)(2) (persons and entities subject to MVA school bus regulations)
• Tr §25-101.1(c) (Maryland Vehicle Law preemption of local legislation and regulation)
• Tr §12-104(b) (regulations have force and effect of law)
• Tr §11-173 (referenced alongside MVA's minimum standards regulation)
• Tr §22-101(b) (additional parts and accessories not prohibited if not inconsistent)
• Ed §5-203(c) (State Board of Education authority over student transportation safety)
• Ed §5-110(b)(2) (authority to specify particular make, kind, or brand in bids for equipment)
• Ed §4-107 (referenced re: educational policy-setting capacity)
• COMAR 11.19.02.01 (MVA minimum school vehicle design, construction, and equipment standards)
• COMAR 11.19.02.02 (school bus titling/registration certification requirement)
• COMAR 11.10.02.04B (minimum standards for buses manufactured after December 31, 1972)
• COMAR 11.19.02.07B and 11.19.02.10B (referenced alongside minimum-standards language)
• 49 C.F.R. §§571.101 through 572.302 (federal school bus safety standards)

Cases:

• County Council for Montgomery County v. Montgomery Association, 274 Md. 52, 59 (1975)
• Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Sitnick, 254 Md. 303, 311, 317 (1969)
• Wolfe v. Warfield, 266 Md. 621 (1972)
• Kandalis v. Paul Pet Construction Co., 210 Md. 319, 323 (1955)
• City of Frederick v. Brosius Homes Corp., 247 Md. 88, 92 (1966)
• Rittenhouse v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 25 Md. 336, 346 (1866)
• Mitchell Business Equipment Co. v. Board of Education for St. Mary's County, 251 Md. 150 (1967)
• City of Baltimore v. Clerk of the Superior Court, 270 Md. 316, 319 (1973)
• Gannon & Son v. Emerson, 291 Md. 443, 455 (1981)
• Equitable Trust Co. v. State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations, 42 Md. App. 53, 65 (1979)
• Dept. of Natural Resources v. France, 277 Md. 432, 461 (1976)
• Maguire v. State, 192 Md. 615, 623 (1949)
• Criminal Injuries Comp. Bd. v. Gould, 273 Md. 486, 495 (1975)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1983/Volume68_1983.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative. The addressee's name is corrected here from an OCR misread ("Amide") to "Arnick," confirmed against the same legislator's name appearing correctly elsewhere in this volume.

Education—Vehicle Laws—School Boards—Preemption—School Bus Safety Standards—Contract Specifications—County Boards of Education May Contract for Product Specifications that Exceed Minimum Standards Set By Maryland Vehicle Law.

June 15, 1983

The Honorable John S. Arnick, Chairman
The Honorable Catherine I. Riley, Vice-Chairman
Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review

On behalf of the Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review, you have requested our opinion on whether a county board of education has the legal authority to include product specifications in a transportation service contract for public school buses that exceed the requirements for such vehicles set by the Motor Vehicle Administration. You have expressed particular concern over a specification involving wheel rim construction, contained in the transportation service contract specifications of the Anne Arundel County Board of Education.

For the reasons given below, we have concluded that a county board of education has authority to meet its perceived needs by including, in its transportation service contract, product specifications that exceed the standards for school vehicles contained in regulations adopted by the Motor Vehicle Administration. However, such county contract specifications may not conflict with, or fall short of, any applicable standard. It is our opinion that the Anne Arundel County Board of Education acted within its authority in adopting its contract specification for wheel rims.

I
Legal Framework

Section 25-110(a) of the Transportation Article ("Tr" Article) specifically authorizes the Motor Vehicle Administration ("MVA") to adopt regulations concerning the safe operation of all school vehicles. In accordance with this grant of authority, MVA, with the advice of the State Department of Education, has adopted a series of regulations "intended to provide minimum standards for the design, construction, and equipment" of school vehicles with a seating capacity of 16 or more passengers. COMAR 11.19.02.01. See Tr §11-173. These regulations have the force and effect of law. See Tr §12-104(b).1 Indeed, Tr §25-110(a)(2) expressly subjects all users of school buses to these regulations: "The following shall be subject to the rules and regulations adopted under this section [Tr §25-110]: (1) Every school or school district and its officers and employees; (ii) Every person employed under contract by a school or school district; and (iii) Every person that owns or operates a school vehicle."

By delegating to MVA the responsibility for drafting minimum design and construction standards for school buses, the General Assembly has preempted comparable local legislation and regulation in the field. Tr §25-101.1(c) expressly states: "(1) The provisions of the Maryland Vehicle Law prevail over all local legislation and regulation on any subject with which the Maryland Vehicle Law deals; [and] (2) All public local laws, ordinances, and regulations that are inconsistent or identical with or equivalent to any provision in the Maryland Vehicle Law are repealed."2 See 65 Opinions of the Attorney General 483 (1980). See also County Council for Montgomery County v. Montgomery Association, 274 Md. 52, 59 (1975); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Sitnick, 254 Md. 303, 311, 317 (1969).

1 Additional federal regulations governing the safe operation of motor vehicles appear at 49 C.F.R. §§571.101 through 572.302. All school buses must comply with these federal standards as well as MVA's standards.
2 In our view, MVA regulations promulgated in accordance with the Maryland Vehicle Law are, for purposes of the express preemption stated in Tr §25-101.1(c), "provisions of the Maryland Vehicle Law".

To the extent that any political subdivision or State agency other than MVA purports in any way to regulate design, construction, or equipment standards related to the safe operation of school buses, that regulation is invalid. For example, a county council may not enact legislation requiring the county board of education to contract for or purchase only school vehicles meeting safety specifications adopted by the council. Nor may a county council or board of education impose its own safety requirements on school buses used by private parties such as private schools, churches, or social groups.

Indeed, MVA's exclusive regulatory authority over safety requirements for school buses is unaffected even by an apparently similar grant of authority to the State Board of Education in §5-203(c) of the Education Article ("Ed" Article): "The State Board shall adopt rules and regulations that provide for the safe operation of the student transportation system of each county board of education."

In a recent letter of advice to the State Superintendent of Schools, Assistant Attorney General Ellen M. Heller concluded that MVA, not the State Board, has the legal authority to promulgate the rules and regulations concerning safety requirements for public school vehicles in Maryland. Letter of Advice from Ellen M. Heller, Assistant Attorney General, to Dr. David W. Hornbeck, State Superintendent of Schools (March 10, 1983) (copy appended). After receiving this advice, the State Board of Education promptly rescinded its regulations. We have reviewed the authorities and discussion in that letter, and we concur with the views there expressed.3

3 Many of the Board's regulations have since been incorporated in proposed MVA regulations. See Proposed Emergency Regulations, COMAR 11.19.02 (May 12, 1983). On a local level, the Anne Arundel County Board of Education incorporated certain of the State Board specifications into its contracts for public school bus transportation service. For the reasons stated in Part III below, we believe that this action does not encroach on MVA's exclusive regulatory authority in this area.

II
Anne Arundel County Contract Specifications

On March 31, 1983, the transportation supervisor for the Anne Arundel County public school system published a document titled "School Bus Specifications". These specifications for new school bus equipment were "in addition to or [in] support [of]" MVA standards for school vehicles. Transportation Office, Anne Arundel County Public Schools, School Bus Specifications, Introduction (March, 1983). Any school bus contractor seeking to provide transportation service to the county's public schools must ensure that its school vehicles manufactured after July 1, 1982 meet these specifications.

One of the Anne Arundel County public school bus specifications requires that a vehicle's wheel rims "be of one-piece construction". Bus Specifications at 5.4

4 We understand that there is an ongoing controversy as to the safety of single piece wheel rims as compared to multi-piece wheel rims. See School Bus Rim Task Force, Final Report (January, 1983), as presented to D. W. Hornbeck, State Superintendent of Schools.

III
Analysis

In our view, a county school board has authority to require certain safety-related features on school buses if (i) the county board requires these features in its capacity as a purchaser of transportation services and does not attempt to impose such requirements on private parties as a matter of regulation, and (ii) the safety-related features that the county board desires to be on its school buses do not conflict with MVA's requirements. The Anne Arundel County Board's contract specifications, including its specification on wheel rim construction, meet these criteria and are thus valid exercises of the Board's authority.

A. Board Activity as a Purchaser of Services

When a school board states its willingness to enter into a contract for the transportation of students to the public schools, the board is not engaged in activity in its regulatory capacity, as an agency setting educational policies in furtherance of State law. Cf. Ed §4-107. Rather, it is proposing a contractual arrangement containing certain plans and specifications, just as a private citizen or corporation might do. See generally Wolfe v. Warfield, 266 Md. 621 (1972); Kandalis v. Paul Pet Construction Co., 210 Md. 319, 323 (1955). See also City of Frederick v. Brosius Homes Corp., 247 Md. 88, 92 (1966); Rittenhouse v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 25 Md. 336, 346 (1866).

If a county board of education were to buy school vehicles for its own use, it has the express authority to "name in the specifications and advertisements for bids the particular make, kind, or brand of article to be contracted for or purchased". Ed §5-110(b)(2) (applicable to "equipment"). See Mitchell Business Equipment Co. v. Board of Education for St. Mary's County, 251 Md. 150 (1967). In contracting for transportation service, a board has similar flexibility to prescribe contract specifications that fulfill its own perceived needs, subject, of course, to the requirements that comprise the MVA school vehicle standards.

In this regard, we note that a county board's transportation contract affects only service to that county's public schools. It imposes no restriction on the vehicles used by private or parochial schools or on the use of school buses for alternative purposes, such as charter trips, the transportation of elderly or handicapped citizens, and so on. Moreover, a school bus contractor is under no legal obligation to comply with a county board's specifications. The only consequence of its failure to do so is that it would be ineligible for the county board's contract. But it would remain entirely free to provide service to other customers.

B. Compliance with MVA Standards

When a school board prescribes school bus specifications in a transportation service contract, its specifications must comply with MVA's standards. As we have discussed in Part I above, MVA is responsible for determining the necessary safety components of school buses.

Essentially, compliance with MVA standards means that a county board may not purchase or contract for the use of a school bus that fails to meet MVA standards. But in its role as a purchaser of transportation services, a county board's specifications may properly exceed MVA standards, if the county board believes that its needs are better served by additional equipment or superior components.5 Thus, for example, a county board may require a quieter exhaust system than that specified in Table 1 in COMAR 11.14.05.

5 Of course, if an MVA regulation specifies that only a given piece of equipment, and no other, be used, a county board may not set a different contract specification. A school bus may not be titled or registered with MVA unless the manufacturer certifies that the vehicle is in full compliance with applicable MVA regulations. COMAR 11.19.02.02. If a school board were to insist on components that in fact did not meet MVA standards, the vehicle could not lawfully be used.

Indeed, the MVA regulations emphasize that: "The following is intended to provide minimum standards for the design, construction, and equipment of school buses manufactured after December 31, 1972" (emphasis added). COMAR 11.10.02.04B. See also COMAR 11.19.02.07B and 11.19.02.10B. Cf. Tr §22-101(b) ("Nothing contained in this title [Equipment of Vehicles] shall be construed to prohibit the use of additional parts and accessories on any vehicle not inconsistent with the provisions of this title"). Thus, although MVA has exclusive regulatory authority to determine the safety requirements for school buses, nothing in the statute or MVA regulations prevents a purchaser of a school bus, or, as here, a school board that contracts for the use of school buses, from requiring school vehicle equipment that exceeds these MVA "minimum standards".

In practice, county boards throughout the State incorporate additional specifications into their transportation service contracts, in order to meet perceived local needs. For example, the Kent County Board of Education requires its buses to be equipped with semaphore arms. In Washington County, sanders are mandatory, due to hazardous road conditions. Certain of the more mountainous western counties require CB radios. In Baltimore City, special polycarbonate shatter-resistant glass is installed on school buses. Other counties, for pupil safety purposes, require crossover mirrors on both sides of the bus, although current State and federal regulations only mandate a crossover mirror on the left side.

In sum, if MVA regulations allow optional features, a county board may properly insist on specifications that exceed the minimum requirements of MVA regulations when it purchases, or contracts for the use of, school buses. Its decision might be based on any one of a number of reasons, including the county terrain, climate conditions, traffic regulations, pupil composition, convenience, and the like.

C. Anne Arundel County Board's Wheel Rim Specification

The Anne Arundel County Board of Education requires, as part of its transportation service contract specifications, that a bus's wheel rims be of single piece construction. At present, federal and State regulations are silent as to the standards applicable to rim designs. However, MVA's proposed emergency regulation will provide: "The use of single piece rims or multi-piece rims or any other rim design that meets the applicable [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] and the tire and wheel rim association [criteria] is permitted." Proposed Regulation 11.19.02.06B(9)(a) (May 12, 1983).

Clearly, if MVA were to authorize only single piece rims or multi-piece rims, but not both, every school vehicle in Maryland would have to comply with the specified rim design. But because MVA regulations are now silent, and in future will explicitly permit a choice, a county board may exercise its prerogative as a purchaser of contract services to specify the particular kind of wheel rim it desires.6

6 We understand that the major manufacturers of school vehicles are now producing models with single piece wheel rims as a matter of course. Thus, any order for a new school bus that specifies multi-piece rims will entail additional expense.

In our view, the Anne Arundel County Board of Education's decision to specify single piece wheel rims on the public school buses for which it contracts does not encroach on the MVA's regulatory authority to adopt construction and design standards for all school vehicles.

IV
Conclusion

In summary, we conclude that a county board of education has authority to include in its transportation service contract for public school buses product specifications that exceed the minimum safety standards for school vehicles adopted by the Motor Vehicle Administration. However, such county contract specifications may not conflict with, or fall short of, any applicable standard. We conclude that the Anne Arundel County Board of Education acted within its authority in adopting its contract specification for wheel rims.

Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General
Avery Aisenstark,
Principal Counsel
Opinions and Advice
Lynette M. Phillips, Staff Attorney
Opinions and Advice

APPENDIX

March 10, 1983

Dr. David W. Hornbeck
State Superintendent of Schools
Maryland State Department of Education
200 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201

Dear Dr. Hornbeck:

This letter is in response to your recent inquiry as to whether the Motor Vehicle Administration ("MVA") has the authority to promulgate school bus regulations pursuant to §25-110(a) of the Transportation Article, or whether such authority rests with the State Board of Education pursuant to §5-203(c) of the Education Article. For the reasons stated below, I have concluded that MVA has the authority to promulgate regulations governing the safe operation of school vehicles.

Section 25-110(a)(1) of the Transportation Article ("Tr" Article) reads: "With the advice of the State Department of Education, the Motor Vehicle Administration shall adopt and enforce rules and regulations not inconsistent with the Maryland Vehicle Law to govern the safe operation of all school vehicles."

Section 5-203(c) of the Education Article ("Ed" Article) reads: "The State Board shall adopt rules and regulations that provide for the safe operation of the student transportation system of each county board of education."

It is well established in Maryland that when two statutes appear to overlap or conflict, they should be construed so as to give as full an effect as possible to both. City of Baltimore v. Clerk of the Superior Court, 270 Md. 316, 319 (1973). However, a second statute will not be held to alter or limit an earlier statute unless the Legislature has clearly manifested that intention. Gannon & Son v. Emerson, 291 Md. 443, 455 (1981). This is especially true where the second statute is more general than the earlier statute. Equitable Trust Co. v. State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations, 42 Md. App. 53, 65 (1979). In Maryland, when two statutes appear to conflict, the specific statute governs over the more general. Dept. of Natural Resources v. France, 277 Md. 432, 461 (1976). Thus: "Where there is a specific enactment and a general enactment, which, in the most comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment." Maguire v. State, 192 Md. 615, 623 (1949), quoted in Criminal Injuries Comp. Bd. v. Gould, 273 Md. 486, 495 (1975).

Here, Ed §5-203(c) is the more general statute. Enacted after Tr §25-110,* it gives the State Board general authority to adopt regulations concerning the safety of the "student transportation system of each county board of education". Tr §25-110(a), on the other hand, gives MVA the specific authority to promulgate regulations concerning the safe operation of "all school vehicles".

These two statutes can be harmonized by applying the canons for statute constructions discussed above: The latter, more general provision, Ed §5-203(c), covers those parts of the student transportation system not covered by the earlier, more specific provision, Tr §25-110(a). In a similar situation, in Equitable Trust Co. v. State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations, 42 Md. App. 53, 65 (1979), a later, more general statute was held to give the Maryland Commission on Human Relations the authority to investigate only those cases not included in the specific provisions of an earlier statute.

For these reasons therefore, it is my opinion that MVA has the authority to promulgate the rules and regulations concerning public school vehicles in Maryland.

Very truly yours,
Ellen M. Heller
Assistant Attorney General

• Ed §5-203(c) was enacted in 1981; Tr §25-110(a) was enacted in 1943 as Article 66½A, §200A.