ID: nht92-1.19

DATE: 12/16/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SHAFI J. KEISLER -- PRESIDENT, ONE MORE RUN, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-24-92 FROM SHAFI J. KEISLER TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 8069)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 24, 1992, with respect to the manufacture of a replacement taillamp lens for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger. You ask for "all safety standards information pertinent to the manufacture of this replacement lens", and inform us that you "will use only "current DOT and SAE safety approved material to build this item."

As Taylor Vinson explained to you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment was amended effective January 1, 1972, to apply to replacement lighting equipment for motor vehicles manufactured on and after that date (the standard had previously applied only to original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after January 1, 1969). This means that replacement taillamps designed specifically for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger have never been covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 does require that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, May 1970, with certain exceptions. Although this could be construed as requiring compliance of plastics used in any replacement taillamp lens, we do not interpret this as mandating compliance of plastic materials for a lens in a replacement lamp that is itself not subject to Standard No. 108. However, S5.1.2 is the Federal requirement that you would be obliged to meet were you manufacturing new or replacement taillamp lenses for contemporary motor vehicles. I enclose a copy of S5.1.2 and J576c for your information.

We appreciate your desire to meet current safety requirements.

(ATTACHMENTS OMITTED)

ID: nht95-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1995

FROM: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Dpt., Rines De Acero K-H, S.A. De C.V.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ISAIAS RIOS (A43; PART 566; STD. 110; STD. 120)

TEXT: DEAR MR. SHAW:

CURRENTLY RINES DE ACERO K-H. S.A. DE C.V. IS THE PRINCIPAL SUPPLIER OF PASSENGER CAR STEEL WHEELS FOR THE MAJOROTY OF THE AUTOMAKERS THAT ARE ASSEMBLING VEHICLES IN MEXICO (FORD MOTOR Co., GENERAL MOTORS, VOLKSWAGEN, NISSAN AND CHRYSLER).

TO EXPORT PASSENGER CAR STEEL WHEELS FROM MEXICO TO U.S.A., [Illegible Words] IS REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE WHICH DEMONSTRATES TOTAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD No. 110 No. 120 OR OTHER FMVSS S TANDARDS OF INTERNATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT. OF 1966.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO REQUEST THE [Illegible Words] INFORMATION AND PROCEDURE NECESSARY FOR US TO [Illegible Words] CERTIFICATION, AND ENABLE US TO SHIP WHEELS TO NISSAN FOR [Illegible Words] TO THE U.S.

IF A FORM IS NECESSARY, PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF [Illegible Words] FORM OR A LIST OF THE DATA REQUIRED. PLEASE ALSO [Illegible Words] OTHER AGENCIES OR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS [Illegible Words] INCLUDING CONTACT PERSON AND THE NAME AND [Illegible Word s] THE APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR WHEELS (BOTH STEEL AND ALUMINUM).

IF WE NEED TO HAVE WHEELS TESTED BY APPROVED LABS IN THE U.S. COULD YOU ALSO PROVIDE US WITH A LIST OF SUCH LABS, NAME, ADDRESS, AND CONTACT PERSON. OUR FAX NUMBER IS 011-525-572-74-70, AND THE PRODUCT ENGINEERING TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 011-625-562-73-0 0.

I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP ON THIS MATTER. PLEASE CALL ME IF YOU REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EXPLANATION.

ID: nht94-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: Fred Benford -- 100+ Motoring Accessories

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/16/94 From John Womack To Fred Benford (A42; Std. 211)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womac:

The Chief Counsel of the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association (SEMA) reviewed all regulations covering wheel covers and suggested that we contact Mr. Truman Vincent. We explained our situation to Mr. Vincent who in turn, suggested that we addre ss our request to your attention.

We are a manufacturer of Aluminum Wheel Covers. They are a standard type and do not have any protrusions (e.g., spinners, etc.). With the assistance of the Chief Counsel at SEMA, the current regulations were reviewed and it was determined that our Alum inum Wheel Covers are similar in design to the Steel and ABS plastic type and are not covered by any regulations, except for # 211 which prohibits protruding objects such as spinners, etc. Our wheel covers do not have any protruding objects.

At the current time, we are the only manufacturers of Aluminum Wheel Covers. Because they are made of a different material from the current steel and ABS models, a major retailer has asked us to confirm that aluminum, like the ABS and Steel wheel covers, do not violate any federal safety standards. Considering information from our SEMA counsel, and Mr. Truman Vincent, we do indeed not violate any federal safety standards. However, the major retailer (and possibly others) has requested a confirmation i n writing from the Department of Transportation. We would appreciate a statement from you with wording to this effect to present to the retailer.

Thank you for your assistance. We would appreciate hearing from you quickly. If desired, you may fax your response to the phone listed below.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1995

FROM: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Dept., Rines De Acero K-H, S.A. DE C.V.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/14/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ISAIAS RIOS (REDBOOK 6; A43; STD. 110; STD. 120; PART 566)

TEXT: DEAR MR. SHAW:

CURRENTLY RINES DE ACERO K-H, S.A.DE C.V. IS THE PRINCIPAL SUPPLIER OF PASSENGER CAR STEEL WHEELS FOR THE MAJOROTY OF THE AUTOMAKERS THAT ARE ASSEMBLING VEHICLES IN MEXICO (FORD MOTOR Co., GENERAL MOTORS, VOLKSWAGEN, NISSAN AND CHRYSLER).

TO EXPORT PASSENGER CAR STEEL WHEELS FROM MEXICO TO U.S.A., NISSAN MEXICANA IS REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE WHICH DEMONSTRATES TOTAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD No. 110 No. 120 OR OTHER FMVSS STA NDARD OF THE NATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO REQUEST THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND PROCEDURE NECESSARY FOR US TO OBTAIN SUCH A CERTIFICATION, AND ENABLE US TO SHIP WHEELS TO NISSAN FOR SUBSEQUENT SHIPMENT TO THE U.S.

IF A FORM IS NECESSARY, PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF THE REQUIRED FORM OR A LIST OF THE DATA REQUIRED. PLEASE ALSO ADVISE US OF THE OTHER AGENCIES OR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS OR STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING CONTACT PERSON AND THE NAME AND NUMBER OF TH E APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR WHEELS (BOTH STEEL AND ALUMINUM).

IF WE NEED TO HAVE WHEELS TESTED BY APPROVED LABS IN THE U.S., COULD YOU ALSO PROVIDE US WITH A LIST OF SUCH LABS, NAME, ADDRESS, AND CONTACT PERSON. OUR FAX NUMBER IS 011-525-572-74-70, AND THE PRODUCT ENGINEERING TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 011-525-562-73- 00.

I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP ON THIS MATTER. PLEASE CALL ME IF YOU REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EXPLANATION.

ID: nht91-4.44

DATE: July 9, 1991

FROM: William J. Lewandowski -- National Accounts Manager, Wheels/RV Products, Kelsey-Hayes

TO: Robert Helluth (Hellmuth) -- Director of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

COPYEE: M. McGrath; E. Kowalski

TITLE: Stop Lamp Activation - Tekonsha Electric Brake Controllers

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter 5-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Bill Lewandoski; Also attached to letter dated 4-30-91 from Bill Lewandowski to Taylor Vinson; Also attached to letter dated 11-22-91 Paul Jackson Rice to William J. Lewandoski (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Since receiving the May 23, 1991 letter from Paul Jackson Rice regarding trailer stop lamp activation, we have received a CHP (California Highway Patrol) Management Memorandum # 91-80 on the legality of the Tekonsha electric brake controllers and compliance with stop lamps. Evidently, NHTSA has issued more than one ruling on brake controller compliance to regulations regarding trailer stop lamp activation.

We are enclosing the NHTSA letter dated 5-23-91 and the CHP memo dated 5-30-91.

Please provide clarification regarding compliance and/or non-compliance. We will supply any information you require and look forward to your response to this subject.

ATTACHMENT

Management Memorandum No. 91-80 (Expires 11-29-91

To: All Commanders

"TEKONSHA COMMANDER" ELECTRIC TRAILER BRAKES

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a ruling regarding the legality of the "Tekonsha Commander" electric trailer brake. Under NHTSA preemption authority in Title 15, Section 1395(D) U.S. Code, the device and its use are legal.

Department personnel are to consider the Tekonsha Commander electric trailer brake and all similarity designed electric brakes to be in compliance with 24603 VC (stop lamps) and 26458(D) VC (single control exemption) provided that the devices are properly installed and all components are functioning correctly.

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER

ID: 1985-04.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. -- Arent, Fox, Kintner, Platkin and Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1985, concerning the applicability of the requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for the installation of center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's) to passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. You also asked about the applicability of the CHMSL performance requirements to CHMSL's sold as aftermarket equipment for cars manufactured before that date. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You are correct in stating that there is no requirement in Standard No. 108 for installing CHMSL's on new cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. The installation requirement applies only to cars manufactured on or after that date. (48 FR 48235, October 13, 1984.) The only requirements regarding CHMSL's and pre-September 1, 1985 cars are that if a manufacturer voluntarily installs a CHMSL on a car manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and before September 1, 1985, the installation must be performed in accordance with criteria concerning the location of the CHMSL, and reflections from it. (49 FR 34488, August 31, 1984.)

As to aftermarket CHMSL's for cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, the applicability depends on whether or not the CHMSL is intended to be installed as a replacement for an original equipment CHMSL that was voluntarily installed on a car that was manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but before September 1, 1985. If the aftermarket CHMSL is intended to be installed in the interior of such a car, then the manufacturer of the CHMSL must comply with the requirement in S3.1.8.4 concerning minimization of reflections. If the CHMSL is intended to be installed on other pre-September 1, 1985 cars, its manufacturer is not subject to any Standard No. 108 requirements for CHMSL's. However, the agency encourages manufacturers of any aftermarket CHMSL to conform as closely as possible to all criteria in the standard for original equipment CHMSL's. We believe that standardization of rear signals minimizes the possibility of creating confusion to following drivers in situations where immediate action is essential to avoid a rear end collision. Further, aftermarket CHMSL's for those other pre-September 1, 1985 cars would be regulated by the applicable law of the State in which they are operated.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel (202) 857-6087

September 16, 1985 Jeffrey R. Miller, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Request for Interpretation; FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller:

As we discussed by telephone, I am requesting that you confirm that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, as it relates to the requirement for installation of a single center, high-mounted stoplamp on passenger cars, does not apply to passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985, and therefore does not apply to aftermarket center high-mounted stoplamps produced for applications on passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985.

An expedited response will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely, Lawrence F. Henneberger

ID: nht70-2.52

DATE: 02/03/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Bloom and Drobner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 22, 1969, to the National Commission on Product Safety, which was referred to this Bureau for further reply. We have noted the Commission's response to you of December 29, 1969.

A review of our files has failed to produce any specific data relevant to the exact nature of the case you have cited. This is attributable to the fact that the accident investigation methodology on which we depend does not break out data in that particular category.

We would like to advise, however, that Federal rule making sections do address door latch releases, or handles, in a different aspect. We are particularly concerned over configurations of door handles which incorporate sharp features or which tend to protrade excessively, as those types of handles increases the likelihood of the door opening as a result of contact by the body of an occupant during a crash situation. Moreover, if they contain sharp features, they can contribute to increased injury levels resulting from occupant impact when the door remains closed.

I regret we are unable to be more responsive to your inquiry. Thank you for writing.

BLOOM AND DROBNER

DECEMBER 22, 1969

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON PRODUCTS SAFETY

I represent Mrs. Sarah Glover who was a passenger in a 1966 Pontiac. As she lifted up her purse, preparatory to disembark, the purse handle caught on the door handle and the door flew open.

I would appreciate learning if there have been any other cases similar to this in which design negligence concerning the operation of the door handle was the issue.

Thank you in advance for this courtesy.

December 29, 1969

SHERWIN DROBNER

We are in receipt of your letter of December 22, 1969.

As you may know, Congress created this Commission to develop the means to protect the consumer from unreasonably hazardous products used in and around the American household. The scope of inquiry is limited, however, to those products not now the subject of regulations prescribed under existing Federal statutes. These laws are enumerated in Section 6 of Public Law 90-146 (81 Stat. 466).

As your correspondence concerns motor vehicles, it would best be considered by the Department of Transportation. That agency is responsible for the administration of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Accordingly, I am directing your correspondence to the Department of Transportation and have asked that they reply directly to you with a copy to this Commission.

Thank you for your interest in the Commission and its work.

LARRY A. SCHOTT CHIEF, INVESTIGATION UNIT

cc: DR. ROBERT BRENNER -- DOT

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON PRODUCT SAFETY

DECEMBER 29, 1969

TO: DR. ROBERT BRENNER -- DOT

We would appreciate your handling the attached correspondence as indicated below:

COMMENT

FOR DIRECT REPLY

FOR BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON WHICH TO BASE REPLY FROM THIS OFFICE

FOR SUITABLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE HANDLING

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

Please furnish this office with a copy of your reply. YES

Your cooperation is very much appreciated.

ID: nht75-4.21

DATE: 10/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Tiffin Metal Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for an opinion on the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 to a road grader intended for use in highway construction.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." Therefore, our regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

Tracked and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. aircraft runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of his customers actually would use them on the highway.

Just as clearly, vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work performing nature and as such their manufacturer comtemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, drill rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers are examples in this area. Even if the equipment uses highways infrequently, it is considered a motor vehicle. An exception to this is that occasional use of the highway in the immediate periphery of the work site, as is the case with some farm and construction equipment, would not by itself case a finding that the vehicle is a motor vehicle. The motor vehicles described above generally qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to several of the motor vehicle safety standards, and the manufacturer must comply with other regulations in Chapter V of Title 49, code of Federal Regulations.

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use of the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. This would appear to include road graders whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour, if intended for use in highway construction.

From these guidelines you should be able to determine whether a piece of equipment qualifies as a motor vehicle. Please write again if you are unable to make this determination.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Tiffin METAL PRODUCTS

August 11, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Commission Mr. Hunter

Dear Mr. Hunter:

Per our telephone conversation of August 11, 1975, please forward to me in writing the ruling stating that the Huber Cab for road construction does not have to meet STD 205.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Joe Steininger -- Inventory Control Manager

cc: W. Heddles; M. Smith

ID: 1982-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rogers Ferraro & Cody, P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 2, 1981, to Dr. Robert L. Henderson of this agency asking for an opinion regarding the legality of a warning system devised by your client, David Stepkin.

Mr. Stepkin's system "flashes the rear brake lights continuously when either brake is applied on a motorcycle." With respect to Federal regulation of motorcycle lighting systems, I refer you to 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, a copy of which is enclosed. Paragraph S4.6(b) in essence requires that brake lamps (or stop lamps as we call them) be steady burning. This requirement would appear to preclude use of your system.

In addition, the substitution of a flashing signal for the steady one to which the public is accustomed might create confusion, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamp. You will note also that paragraph S4.1.3 prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs effectiveness of required lighting equipment.

ENC.

ROGERS FERRARO & CODY, P. C.

December 2, 1981

Dr. Robert L. Henderson c/o NHTSA Driver and Pedestrian Research Department of Transportation

Re: Motorcycle-Pulsating and/or Modulating Rear Lights

Dear Dr. Henderson:

I am an attorney who practices in the State of New York and I represent the interests of one, David Stepkin. Mr. Stepkin has devised a warning system which basically flashes the rear brake lights continuously when either brake is applied on a motorcycle. Of course, the purpose of the item is to create rear visability and therefore to prevent the driver of another vehicle travelling behind a motorcycle, from striking the motorcycle due to poor visability.

I am sure you are aware of the fact that motorcyclists are one of the highest prospective candidates for injuries on our roads. Mr. Stepkin, and I as his attorney, feel that this particular item would certainly help to reduce that statistic.

The item in question is a small unit which is attached by splicing the wire between the brake light switch and the rear brake light. The unit is then attached and is ready for operation. Mr. Stepkin, of course, considered attaching the unit to the rear of the bike but has found that this approach is impractical since many bikes will not accommodate an additional auxilliary light. Experience has shown that this is the most effective and practical method. It also, of course, saves energy because no additional lights are needed.

It has come to our attention that there may be certain restrictions in the use of these particular lights. However, we feel that this particular mechanism should not be in conflict with any such regulations because the filament of the bulb is always on.

I am not aware of any specific regulation outlawing such items on the Federal level and certainly, we have been able to ascertain that no such regulation outlawing such lights exists on the State level.

Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to drop us a short letter advising us whether any regulations concerning this particular item exist and, if you have a copy of those regulations, we would appreicate receiving same. If you feel that the matter should be handled by another department, please advise and we will forward it promptly.

I wish to thank you in advance for your time and courtesy in this matter.

THOMAS J. CODY

ID: 19416.drn

Mr. Ronald P. Jones
Director of Transportation and Maintenance
Highlands Christian Academy
501 N.E. 48^th Street
Pompano Beach, FL 33064-9854

Dear Mr. Jones:

This responds to your January 7, 1999, letter requesting an interpretation regarding the use of your 15-passenger van to transport, for school-related activities, students in kindergarten through the twelfth grade. Your letter states: "In speaking with your office, I was told that private schools fall under federal government rules, not state." For purposes of the regulations that govern the use of your vehicles, this statement is incorrect. In general, State law, not laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regulates vehicle usage.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

In general, NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. You should check Florida law to see if State law may prohibit your private school from using the van to transport students. For information on Florida's requirements, you may contact Florida's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Mr. Charles Hood, Director, School Transportation
Florida Department of Education
325 W. Gaines St. #824
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Telephone: (850) 487-8608

In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.3/25/99