ID: 1985-02.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ralph Walker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ralph Walker 5517 Cleon Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

This responds to your letter of April 8, 1985, and follows up on your telephone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning safety regulations applYing to sun roof windows for recreational vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets requirements for the glazing used in motor vehicles, including the glazing for a sun roof in a recreational vehicle. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

You were particularly interested in the certification requirements for sun roofs. Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.3 of Safety Standard No. 205 specify that prime glazing material manufacturers shall certify each piece of glazing for use in motor vehicles. The certification must be in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and with section 6 of the ANS Z-26 standard. These requirements would be applicable to the company from which you buy your glazing, since that company would qualify as a prime glazing material manufacturer.

As a manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing for use in a motor vehicle, your company would be required to certify its product in accordance with paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. S.6.4 requires your company to mark any section of glazing that it cuts with the same AS number, manufacturer model number and manufacturer trademark or designation as the piece of glazing from which it was cut.

S6.5 requires your company to certify your product in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment (including glazing) may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must certify that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, Standard No. 205 in this case.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

RALPH WALKER 5517 CLEON AVE NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91605

Jeff Miller 5219 Room # 400 7TH St. South West Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller;

On this date I talked with Mr. Wood and he told me, I would have to write. So to get infomation on the safety codes for making sun roof windows for R.V.s. I would make them not install them.

I would appreciate the help and I will be awaiting your answer. Thank-You Ralph Walker

ID: 1985-02.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/85

FROM: JOFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: HAYLEY ALEXANDER -- MARKETING CONSULTANT THE LONDONCOACH CO., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES; REDBOOK A34 B; PART 567; PART 568; LETTER DATED 11/16/88 FROM TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMIBES TO CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA; REF 49CFR 567, CERTIFICATION; OCC 2857

TEXT: Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1985, asking for our comments on your planned London Taxi marketing program.

Under the program, products of Carbodies Ltd. of Coventry, England, would be imported "devoid of an engine, transmission, and finished interior." LondonCoach would then install "an [American] engine, transmission and driveshaft, interior seats, coverings and details, and various exterior cosmetic trim items." However, a "representative" vehicle with the modifications mentioned above will have undergone all testing necessitated by the standards, at the Motor Industry Research Association in England. Vehicles would be certified by Carbodies as meeting the standards prior to importation, and LondonCoach Co., Inc., in the role of alterer, would attach the label attesting to continued compliance required by 49 CFR Section 567.7 upon completion of the modifications.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, certification of compliance of a motor vehicle can only be provided by the manufacturer or importer of a completed motor vehicle. Certification of compliance with at least four Federal motor vehicle safety standards is directly dependent upon the manner in which the Carbodies vehicles are completed by LondonCoach: Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems; Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity; and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Therefore, LondonCoach is the only party who can certify compliance of the completed vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As the manufacturer, LondonCoach is also responsible for assigning and affixing the vehicle identification number (VIN) to each vehicle, according to the requirements of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number -- Basic Requirements, and 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number -- Content Requirements.

The Carbodies products are an assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and should be labeled as equipment items for importation into the United States. Carbodies should certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard

complies with such standard. Those items are brake hoses, now pneumatic tires, brake fluid, surface glazing, seat belt assemblies, and lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. This certification should free LondonCoach, as the importer, from the obligation under 19 CFR 12.80 to post a compliance bond upon entry into the United States.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-02.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Charles E. Gillipsie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 1985-02.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert L. Hart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1985, to former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt asking for an interpretation that a combination stop lamp-rear view mirror you have intended would be permissible under paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108.

That paragraph precludes combining a center high-mounted stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. You have concluded that the prohibition applies only to passenger cars manufactured after September 1, 1985, "and does not prohibit application of my device to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of the mandate."

Actually, S4.4.1 does not apply to your device at all. The lamp established by the standard is one that is mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, at or near the rear window with no relationship to the forward left side of the vehicle where your combination lamp-mirror would be located. Standard No. 108 does contain in paragraph S4.1.3 a prohibition against additional lighting devices that impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. But on the basis of the facts as you have presented them to us, we cannot say that impairment would exist. We therefore conclude that your device is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 as either original or replacement equipment on any motor vehicle.

However, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, does relate to your device. Passenger cars are required to be equipped with an outside rear view mirror on the driver's side; under paragraph S5.2.2 ". . . neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1." Some of your designs show the lamp portion at the left end of the device's housing resulting in a wider unit than one incorporating a mirror alone. We recommend that you re-examine these designs with paragraph S5.2.2 in mind, relocating the lamp to the area either above or below that of the mirror surface if you conclude that the combination mounting would not comply with Standard No. 111.

There is no similar mounting requirement for driver's side mirrors on vehicles other than passenger cars, and your designs for mirrors on these vehicles would appear permissible under Standard No. 111.

Sincerely,

February 11, 1985

Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition for Rulemaking

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to request an amendment to FMVSS No. 108: Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment. I reference specifically, S4.4.1 of 571.108, pp243 of the Federal Register, 1984: . . . and no high mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

The purpose of my petition is to obtain clearance to pursue technical and commercial development of my invention - Side Mounted Rear View Mirror with Brake Light/Wide Vue Brake Light - (on which I have a patent pending) for OEM as well as aftermarket merchandising. My interpretation of the new standard is that the high mounted lamp relates specifically to new passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and does not prohibit application of my device to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of the mandate.

Although functional testing of the Wide Vue Brake Light has not been concluded, my instincts and observations, and those of consultants who are assisting me, give rise to the belief that my device will be more effective than (and an auxilliary to) the high mounted lamp in terms of reducing rear end collisions, especially in highway traffic patterns where chain reaction collisions are most likely to occur.

My invention is designed to be applicable to all roadway motorized vehicles, and is, therefore, more effective than the high mounted stop lamp which is applicable only to passenger vehicles. A most important design feature of my device is that the light is recessed and, therefore, is not within view of the primary driver; i.e., it can be seen by trailing drivers only and cannot distract the primary driver.

The attached materials, including technical drawing and illustrations and a narrative research summary by Invention Marketing, Inc., present reasons why the Wide Vue Brake Light is more effective.

I should appreciate your favorable review of my petition and removal/revision of the restriction encompassed in S4.4.1 of 571.108, in order that I may approach vehicle manufacturers relative to possible inclusion of my invention in new vehicles after the 1986 model year.

Please contact me for clarifications or answers to questions regarding my invention.

Rxobert L. Hart

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: 1985-02.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 15, 1985 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This responds to your recent letter to this office seeding an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). Specifically, you asked whether center high-mounted stop lamps are required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. They are not required to do so. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 lists all the components in new vehicles which are required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. They are not required to do so. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 lists all the components in new vehicles which are required to comply with the flammability requirements of the standard. The only item on the list in Section S4.1 which might conceivably apply to center high-mounted stop lamps is "any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash." Assuming that your center high- mounted stop lamps are not designed to absorb energy on contact by an occupant, they would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302. Although interior lights are not required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, the agency has noted that almost all such lights now in production use fire-resistant plastic lenses and fixtures. Liability might be found under State and common law if the newly required center high-mounted stop lamps were to incorporate highly flammable plastic components, while the other interior lights incorporated fire-resistant plastic components. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions in this area. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Carl R. Ball

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1985, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 212 and 219 prohibit the mounting of police spotlights on the door post of a vehicle. None of our standards prohibit such a mounting; however, the mounting must be done in a manner that the vehicle still complies with our safety standards. The following discussion more fully explains the effect of the agency's standards on spotlight mounting.

If the spotlight is mounted on a new vehicle before its first purchase, for purposes other than resale, the person installing the spotlight would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since the A pillar of the vehicle would have to be altered to install the spotlight, the installation could affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 212, Windshield Retention, as well as Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. If the spotlight is mounted away from the windshield, it does not appear that the installation would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

If the alteration is made after a vehicle's first purchase, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair shop may knowingly render inoperative an element of design installed in compliance with our safety standards. Thus, if any of those persons install a spotlight they must ensure that they have not rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance with our standards.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. However, the agency urges owners that alter their vehicles not to defeat safety equipment installed in the vehicle.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

Police Department

February 20, 1985

239

Diane K. Steed Administrator The National Highway Safety Administration Attn: Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Steed:

We have reviewed Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 212-76 and 219, regarding windshield mounting and windshield zone intrusion, respectively and we are requesting you opinion with respect to the application of these standards to police vehicles. Specifically, do one or both of these standards prohibit the mounting of standard police spotlights on the door post of the vehicle on either side?

Carl R. Ball Chief of Police

ID: 1985-02.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Dennis J. Slyman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 15, 1985 Dennis J. Slyman, Esq. 101 N. Main Street Greensburg, PA 15601 Dear Mr. Slyman: Thank you for your letter of March 21, 1985 asking how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act affects one of your clients. I hope the following discussion will explain the provisions of the Act. You explained in your letter and a phone conversation of April 4, 1985, with Stephen Oesch of my staff that your client sold a new 1977 Dodge Van to Mon Valley United Health Services in March 1977. At the time of the sale, the van was converted by Braun Corporation from a passenger van to a wheelchair van. Approximately two years after its purchase, Mon Valley requested your client to install a bench seat in the rear of the van. You stated that Mon Valley asked that the new seat not have safety belts and thus your client did not install them. Subsequently, a passenger sitting in the rear seat was injured in a crash and your client was sued for negligence. I want to emphasize that our comments relate only to our interpretation of the Safety Act from out vantage point as a Federal enforcement agency. The effect of Safety Act provisions in private products liability and negligence actions is a matter for state courts to determine. You asked whether your client violated Section 10B and 125 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1410) by not installing safety belts in a vehicle when it installed the bench seat in the used van. Because the vehicle involved was a used vehicle at the time the rear bench seat was installed, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) against selling or otherwise introducing into interstate commerce a new vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would not apply to your client. This is because Section 108(b)(1) of the Act specifically provides that the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) do not apply after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale. Section 108(a)(2)(A) may have an effect on your client's action. That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) applies whether the vehicle is a new or used vehicle. Thus if the used van had safety belts in it at the position where your client installed the bench seat and your client removed them, there may have been a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). If the used van did not have safety belts at that position, Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not create an affirmative duty under Federal law to install safety belts. However, there may be such a duty under State statutory or common law. The other prohibitions of Section 125 of the Act, which sets forth limitations on the agency's rulemaking authority, does not apply to your client's situation. Other than Section 108(a)(2)(A), there are no other provisions of the Act that apply to your client's installation of a bench seat in a used vehicle. If you have further questions, Stephen Oesch of my staff (202-426-2992) would be glad to assist you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Melvin Krewall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-4599,

Dear Mr. Krewall:

This responds to your March 28, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning NHTSA's safety standards for school buses. You specifically asked, "May an air conditioner be mounted on the outside roof portion of a school bus without violating any FMVSS.?"

The answer to your question depends on the nature of the person making the modification to the school bus and whether the modification of the school bus will negatively affect the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), which authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from rendering inoperative equipment or designs incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. S108(a)(2)(A). A person in the aforementioned categories could install an air conditioner on the roof of a school bus if, in so doing, he or she did not violate S108(a)(2)(A) by rendering inoperative the compliance of equipment or designs incorporated in the school bus. For example, that person could not modify the school bus in such a way as to render inoperative a school bus roof emergency exit installed pursuant to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Please note that the prohibition in S108(a)(2)(A) applies only to motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. It does not apply to an owner, such as a state or a school, which modifies its own vehicles. Thus, an owner may make any modification that it chooses to its buses. Such action does not violate the Vehicle Safety Act or render the owner subject to any penalty under the Act. However, private liability might occur if the modifications took the school bus out of compliance with the safety standards and if a student were subsequently injured in the school bus. The issue of private liability, as well as any state prohibitions against operating a noncomplying school bus, should be discussed with your attorney and insurance company.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

March 28, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is intended to formalize the telephone conversation we had with Mr. David Soule of your staff.

The question has been raised in our state, may an air conditioner be mounted on the outside roof portion of a school bus without violating any FMVSS?"

We appreciate your efforts in responding to our concerns. If you need additional information, please contact me at (405) 521-3472.

Sincerely,

Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division

MK:bam

ID: 1985-02.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/23/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Barbara Zirpoli -- Director, Jelly Bean Nursery School

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Barbara Zirpoli Director Jelly Bean Nursery School 96 Westside Avenue Bergenfield, New Jersey 07621

This responds to your January 24, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Technical Reference Division asking about the school bus regulations issued by our agency. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

I would like to explain that our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that affect school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The standards we issued apply to all new school vehicles designed to carry 11 or more persons. Under the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations, manufacturers who sell such vehicles to schools must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including the safety standards specifically issued for school buses.

In a February 28, 1985, telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you said that the new school bus you purchased was certified as meeting all applicable safety standards. If the bus actually meets those standards, the manufacturer and dealer who sold you the bus have met their responsibilities under our regulations . Of course, as you are aware, there may be additional State requirements that school buses must meet in order to be properly licensed in New Jersey.

The second set of regulations issued by this agency was promulgated under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. These regulations, which are " actually more in the nature of guidelines, are called Highway Safety Program Standards, and apply to state highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, applies to school buses, and contains specifications on the color, identification, maintenance, and operation of school vehicles. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of our guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Since HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if New Jersey has adopted it, you should check to see what State requirements are set for the operation of your school vehicles.

Mr . Barry Skokowski, Director of the Division of Local Government Services in Trenton, should be able to provide you with more information about New Jersey's requirements. He can be contacted at the following address:

Mr. Barry Skokowski Director, Division of Local Government Services Department of Community Affairs CN 803 363 West Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (609) 292-6613

Enclosed you will find copies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217, 220, 221, and 222, and HSPS No. 17, as you requested. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures January 24, 1985

Technical Reference Div. 900 7th. Street SW Room 5109 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Horace Jones from the Division of Youth and Family Services in Trenton, told me to write to you to request from this office, cost free, the rules and requirements for a 16 children passenger school bus to transport nursery school children. Not one person, in Trenton, Dept. of Human Services, Div. of Youth & Family Services, Dept. of Motor Vehicles, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, salesman and school bus dealer can give me a straight answer. They all differ on many details and no one seems to be able to agree on the regulations.

I have a nursery school, only transport my own children and have S2 School busses. I just purchased a new 1985 Chevy Sturdivan, 16 children passenger school bus, Model S-O-16 to meet all N.J. Regulations. Now the inspectors at Motor Vehicle do not agree with Sturdivan Bus Co. on the regulations and requirements in New Jersey. Everybody seems to have their own set of rules.

Does anybody know?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

Barbara Zirpoli DIRECTOR JELLY BEAN SCHOOL

ID: 1985-02.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: George L. Simonton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 28, 1985 George L. Simonton, Esq. Simonton & Simonton 1092 Sheridan Avenue Cody, Wyoming 82414-3594 Dear Mr. Simonton: Thank you for your letter on behalf of the Park County School District #6. You asked whether the school district could obtain an exemption from this agency in order to operate the used American Eagle bus that it purchased to transport school children to extracurricular activities. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. We are familiar with the issues facing the Park County School District. Mr. B. Bruce Bennion, the Assistant Superintendent of Schools, asked Senator Alan Simpson to look into he matter, and Senator Simpson wrote to us on December 5, 1984. We have informed Senator Simpson that there is nothing under Federal law which would prohibit the school district from operating the used bus that they purchased. Since Park County is not prohibited from operating its used school bus, your request for an exemption from the Federal regulations is unnecessary. Secretary Dole has also recently written Senators Simpson and Wallop and Representative Cheney clarifying the Department's regulations pertaining to the use by school districts of commercial-type buses as activity buses. A copy of the Secretary's letter is enclosed. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss with you NHTSA's regulations on school buses. To begin, there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect a school district's choice of school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, and windows and windshields. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date. If Park County bought a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer had to certify that the bus complied with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. An American Eagle type bus is not manufactured to comply with these standards, and could therefore not be sold for use as a new school bus. Since Park County bought a used bus, however, the Vehicle Safety Act standards do not apply. There is nothing under that Act to prevent the school district from buying a used American Eagle bus for school use. There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if Wyoming has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked "School Bus." We have ruled that the States should apply these specifications to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation. We have also issued instructions under HSPS 17 that any bus manufactured after April 1, 1977, the effective date of the motor vehicle safety standards on school buses, should comply with those standards. I want to stress that HSPS 17 has no direct effect on the purchase of used buses by local school districts. HSPS 17 will affect Park County only if Wyoming has adopted it and if Wyoming accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. If Wyoming chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would no insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us the discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. Having said this, I will conclude by restating the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of the inter-city buses, but it has safety features that the inter-city buses lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. We urge schools and school districts to consider these features when they decide to buy a used school bus. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Diane K. Steed Enclosure