ID: 19891.drn

Mr. Dennis Seavey
Plus Time New Hampshire
160 Dover Road, Suite One
Chichester, NH 93234

Dear Mr. Seavey:

This responds to your letter asking about our August 8, 1998, interpretation to Mr. Terry L. Voy, School Transportation Consultant for the Iowa Department of Education, concerning our school bus regulations.

In the letter to Mr. Voy, we explained that persons selling a new bus to a daycare facility must sell a "school bus" if the bus will be significantly used to transport school children to or from school or related events. As to whether a bus is "used significantly" for such use, we told Mr. Voy that regular use of a bus to pick up students from school five days a week would constitute "significant use" as a school bus. We also stated in that letter that "regular use on alternate days would be 'significant.'"

You ask about the latter statement, as to whether transporting school-aged children to and/or from a child care facility and school three days a week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) constitutes "significant use" as a school bus. You also ask if we would consider the bus to be "significantly" used for school transportation if it were used to take children to and/or from school on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Our answer is that regular use of the vehicle to transport school children to or from school on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, or on Tuesdays and Thursdays, is "significant use" of the vehicle for school transportation. We would also consider transportation provided to or from school on any two days during a week to be regular use and therefore "significant."

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) 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 use of motor vehicles, including school buses. Please check with the appropriate New Hampshire officials to see if any State law regulates how New Hampshire school children must be transported between their school and after school programs. For information on New Hampshire's requirements, you may contact New Hampshire's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Ms. Bethia LaMarca, Pupil Transportation Supervisor
New Hampshire Department of Safety
10 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305
Telephone: (603) 271-1999

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. I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children" that describes the safety features of a school bus. I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." 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
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.5/20/99

ID: 23499.ztv

Mr. Galen Chen
Marketing Department
Maxzone Vehicle Lighting Corp.
5100 Walnut Grove Avenue
San Gabriel, CA 91776





Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reply to your email of August 6, 2001. You wrote:

Some of the performance type corner lamps installed on cars are not street legal because of the white and clear color on them. Another word, they are lacking the amber color reflector. If these corner lamps are packaged with a reflector to be installed on the 2 side of the front bumper, can they be sold as street legal lamps?

We are uncertain what you mean by a "corner lamp;" no such lighting device is required or defined by Federal law. We surmise that the lamp to which you refer is one that is intended to replace a lamp that is original equipment on a motor vehicle, and that the original lamp incorporated an amber reflex reflector intended as a side reflex reflector mounted at the front side of a motor vehicle. The replacement lamp you refer to would not incorporate an amber reflex reflector but the package would include a separate amber reflector.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, establishes requirements for motor vehicle lighting and for replacement lighting equipment. All motor vehicles are required to be equipped with an amber reflex reflector located on the front side of a vehicle. For purposes of this interpretation, we shall assume that the reflex reflector pictured in the attachment to your email is one that is certified as conforming to Standard No. 108. The question your letter presents, then, is whether, whether a replacement lamp must incorporate all the functions of the original equipment lamp it is intended to replace..

Paragraph S5.8 of Standard No. 108, Replacement equipment, requires that "each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which [Standard No. 108] applies, shall be designed to conform to [Standard No. 108]. (S5.8.1).

We do not read this requirement as allowing a package containing a lamp and a separate conforming reflector, when the original equipment lamp and reflector comprised an integrated unit. If the original equipment lamp incorporated a reflex reflector designed to conform to Standard No. 108, then the replacement lamp must also incorporate a conforming reflex reflector in order to satisfy S5.8.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.12/14/01

ID: nht94-2.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 20, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Name Not Disclosed

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 29, 1993, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to your lighting device. You have requested confidential treatment of the matter but, in a telephone conversation of M arch 16, 1994, with Taylor Vinson of this office, you agreed to our practice in these matters to delete from the publicly available copy of this letter all information that would identify you, while disclosing the information necessary to render you an o pinion.

You plan to create "signs, logos, emblems, accents, etc." which will be constructed of "sheet metal cut-outs of logos/company names," which "would be applied to large trucks and trailers." The color of the LEDs would "correspond to the safety color assi gned to the panel of attachment (rear/ red, side/amber-yellow)." You note that LEDs provide a low level of illumination, for example, "100 LEDs would produce only 15 candelas of light." You believe the ideal height is 2 feet to 3 feet. You have asked for an interpretation that this would not be prohibited under S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S5.1.3 allows the installation on a new motor vehicle (i.e., one that has not been delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale) of motor vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting eq uipment required by Standard No. 108. For trailers or trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or more, the required side lighting equipment consists of amber and red side marker lamps; trailers of this width are also required to have conspicuity stripin g of red/white segments (which is not required for narrower trailers) applied near the lower horizontal edge. We interpret impairment as something that interferes with the function of the required equipment. The function of marker lamps and conspicuity taping is to alert drivers of other vehicles to the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. We believe your device would not detract from this function since it also serves to call attention to the presence of a large vehicle.

When equipment of this nature is not prohibited under Federal law, its permissibility must be determined under the laws of the States where the vehicle is operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion t he American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht71-5.49

DATE: 07/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Modrall, Seymour, Sperling, Roehl & Harris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: GIGLER V. VOLKSWAGEN

In your letter of June 16 to Roman Brooks of this agency you ask for background information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and Fuel Tank Connections, effective January 1, 1968.

Section 103(h) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 required that the initial safety standards be "based upon existing safety standards." Standard No. 301 was based upon General Services Agency Standard No. 515/26, Fuel Tanks and Tank Filler Pipes, effective October 13, 1967. As you know, the GSA standards were applicable only to vehicles purchased by the Federal Government. The two standards, however, are not identical; as an example, Standard No. 301 includes fuel tank connections, while GSA Standard No. 515/26 included a rear end collision test at 20 miles per hour and a side collision test at 15 miles per hour. Perhaps GSA can provide you with background information on their standard if you deem it essential to your case.

MODRALL, SEYMOUR, SPERLING, ROEHL & HARRIS

June 16, 1971

Roman Brooks U. S. Department of Transportation

Re: Volkswagen Gas Caps Our File: Gigler v. Volkswagen

As I mentioned to you when we discussed this matter on the telephone sometime ago, one of the issues in this case will be the applicability of safety standard 301. It is my understanding that on November 30, 1966, the department issued public notice that it was proposing to adopt standard 301, together with the other initial 22 standards. This notice was published on December 3, 1966, in Volume 31 of the Federal Register, pages 15212 through 15221. The publication gave notice that standard 301 was anticipated to become effective on September 1, 1967, and invited interested parties to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. On January 31, 1967, the order establishing the standard was entered and the same was published on February 3, 1967, in Volume 32 of the Federal Register, pages 2408 through 2416. Standard 301 was adopted, but was to become effective January 1, 1968, rather than September 1, 1967, as originally proposed.

I recognize that safety standard 301 was not technically applicable to the 1966 VW and that it did not go into effect until after our accident (September 20, 1967) had occurred. It is my contention, however, that standard 301 was nothing more than a codification of a pre-existing standard or general custom commonly recognized in the automotive industry. What I need to find out is whether or not this is true and exactly where the standard came from. If you have any committee reports or other data which you could send me concerning the history and background of safety standard 301, I would be most appreciative. If you are not the proper party to handle this for me would you please see to it that this letter reaches the proper destination.

2

This issue is one which the court wants to resolve before trial and in a very short period of time. Consequently, I need this information as soon as possible. In the event that you have such reports and perhaps transcripts of hearings, etc., but the same would be bulky and rather expensive for me to purchase, please let me know since my clients have already built up enormous expenses in this case and we are going to have to start economizing.

Thank you for your very kind cooperation.

Kenneth L. Harrigan

ID: nht94-6.19

DATE: April 20, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Name Not Disclosed

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 29, 1993, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to your lighting device. You have requested confidential treatment of the matter but, in a telephone conversation of March 16, 1994, with Taylor Vinson of this office, you agreed to our practice in these matters to delete from the publicly available copy of this letter all information that would identify you, while disclosing the information necessary to render you an opinion.

You plan to create "signs, logos, emblems, accents, etc." which will be constructed of "sheet metal cut-outs of logos/company names," which "would be applied to large trucks and trailers." The color of the LEDs would "correspond to the safety color assigned to the panel of attachment (rear/ red, side/amber-yellow)." You note that LEDs provide a low level of illumination, for example, "100 LEDs would produce only 15 candelas of light." You believe the ideal height is 2 feet to 3 feet. You have asked for an interpretation that this would not be prohibited under S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S5.1.3 allows the installation on a new motor vehicle (i.e., one that has not been delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale) of motor vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. For trailers or trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or more, the required side lighting equipment consists of amber and red side marker lamps; trailers of this width are also required to have conspicuity striping of red/white segments (which is not required for narrower trailers) applied near the lower horizontal edge. We interpret impairment as something that interferes with the function of the required equipment. The function of marker lamps and conspicuity taping is to alert drivers of other vehicles to the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. We believe your device would not detract from this function since it also serves to call attention to the presence of a large vehicle.

When equipment of this nature is not prohibited under Federal law, its permissibility must be determined under the laws of the States where the vehicle is operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: 1984-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lufkin Industries, Inc. -- LaVan Watts, Chief Engineer, Trailer Div.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1984, concerning the permissibility of additional lighting equipment to the fronts of closed van and flat bed-type trailers, specifically the "additional amber reflectors" shown on the sheet you enclosed.

You have asked whether you may manufacture trailers with "additional lamps or reflectors . . . in the manner shown . . . and a customer not be cited in violation of present standards." As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires wide trailers to be equipped with two clearance lamps at the front, but does not require them either to have identification lamps, as are required on the other wide motor vehicle, or front amber reflex reflectors, which are not required on any motor vehicle. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 precludes the addition of non-required motor vehicle equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Your addition of these reflectors would not appear to impair the effectiveness of other lamps and reflectors and therefore would be permitted by Standard No. 108.

Although your drawing does not indicate it, your question indicates that you are considering supplementary front amber clearance lamps, instead of the reflectors depicted. Thus, the question is whether they would impair the effectiveness of the required clearance lamps, or front side marker lamps and reflectors. We assume that these additional lamps would have the same or less candela as the required front clearance lamps, and in that event they too would appear not to impair the other lighting equipment mentioned.

You have expressed concern that customers not be cited for violation of "the standard." Local enforcement officers, of course have no authority to interpret Federal lighting requirements. Those who add supplementary lighting equipment risk running afoul of State prohibitions. The preemptive provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibit a State from having safety standards that differ from Federal ones covering "the same aspect of performance." Thus, a State could not require four front clearance lamps when Standard No. 108 requires only two. Whether it could prohibit four front clearance lamps or two front reflectors is another question. Because of the possibility that a court could narrowly construe the preemption provisions of the Act in favor of a State prohibition against front reflex reflectors or supplementary clearance lamps, even if permitted by Standard No. 108, we suggest that you contact local officials in the areas where your trailers will be operated to obtain their views.

Sincerely,

OCC-1513 November 12, 1984

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Low Mounted Reflectors On The Front Of Highway Type Trailers

Dear Mr. Berndt:

A question has arisen to which an opinion is needed regarding the placing of amber reflex reflectors on the lower front corners of all highway-type trailers regardless of whether there is clearance lamps present or not. Particularly on a closed van trailer where the clearance lamps are required to be placed "as near the top as practicable." These lamps can be as high as 13' from the ground. So the question: can additional lamps or reflectors be placed in the manner shown on the attached drawing and a customer not be cited in violation of present standards?

Your earliest response is certainly appreciated.

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC. Trailer Division

LaVan Watts Chief Engineer

BY ELW DATE 11/12/84 SUBJECT FMVSS 108 ADDITIONAL REFLECTORS

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1985-04.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo, 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of September 19, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This paragraph forbids the installation of lamps and reflective devices other than those specified by the standard, as well as other types of motor vehicle equipment, if such will impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. You have asked if this prohibits the installation of any lamp that is not specified by the standard, and if there are any restrictions for the color, mounting location, or luminous intensity. You ask this with reference to "a decorative extra lighting device".

Paragraph S4.1.3 does not prohibit the installation of lighting devices not required by the standard. There are no restrictions covering the areas that interest you. Whether a "decorative extra lighting device" would be prohibited by S4.1.3 would, of course, be determined by its size, shape, luminous intensity, proximity to required lighting equipment, etc. but in the absence of a description of your device we cannot offer an opinion as to whether it would conflict with S4.1.3.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 19, 1985

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

Re: Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No.l08

Dear Mr. Berndt,

We are thinking of producing a decorative extra lighting device, which will be mounted on the rear side of motor vehicle. FMVSS mentions about such lighting device, as below.

FMVSS N0.108, Paragraph 4.1.3 -

No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.

Does this paragraph mean that any lamp which is not specified in Regulation, shall not be mounted on the motor vehicle? If there is any restriction for the color, mounting location, luminous intensity for the decorative extra lighting device, including reflex reflective device, please let us know.

We are looking forward to your quick reply.

Very truly yours, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

ID: 01931.ztv

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 2002, with respect to the flash rate of hazard warning signal system flashers. You have invented a flasher "which is designed to produce a hazard signal consisting of repeating cycles of a number of short flashes followed by a longer pause." Your question, in essence, is whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires "a uniform flash rate" for hazard warning signal system flashers or permits a varying one. It is your opinion that the standard does not require a "uniform flash rate."

Standard No. 108 requires that hazard warning signal flashers be designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966. Paragraph 3 of J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash rate and percent Current On" Time" measurements." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. SAE J945 also requires that "flashing rate and percent current on time . . . be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles."

We have examined the diagram in your letter relating to your flasher invention.It shows that this design would not comply with Standard No. 108. We calculate that its flash rate would be 136.8 flashes per minute, exceeding the maximum permissible 120 flashes per minute. Specifically, the diagram shows two consecutive cycles of 160ms "on" followed by 200ms "off." These cycles are followed by a third cycle of 160ms "on followed by 620ms "off." The first two cycles equate to 166.7 flashes per minute, while the third cycle equates to 76.9 flashes per minute. The average of the three cycles is 136.8 flashes a minute.

While you might be able to modify your invention to reflect a complying flash rate for three specific cycles, we interpret the standard as requiring compliance over any three cycles chosen at random. The drastic change that would appear required for you to comply at three specific cycles would sharply reduce (and possibly eliminate entirely) the ability to comply at another three cycles chosen at random. Further such a change in your design would, we believe, affect the ability of the flasher to meet the percent on-time requirements. The need to fulfill both flash rate and percent on-time requirements may explain why industry has always chosen a uniform rate for flashers. Thus, while you are correct that SAE J945 does not specify that all cycles of flash be of the same duration, it is likely that the only way to meet the specification is to provide a "uniform flash rate."

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/14/02

ID: nht90-3.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1990

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Department, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 3-16-90 to B. A. Kurtz from B. Gill with enclosure

TEXT:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 Honda Acura NS-X car line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting o f a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Acura NS-X vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Acura NS-X car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Honda showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts ma rking. This exemption was issued on February 5, 1990, and appeared in the Federal Register on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4746).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6 (a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durabili ty of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Honda plans improvements in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Acura NS-X in two ways: First, the new antitheft system would be armed by using the auto door lock system contr ol to lock either door. Honda states that in the system that was the subject of the exemption from the theft prevention system, it was necessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. According to the attachment provided in your letter, this change would make it possible to arm the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked. Second, the radio would now be included in the alarm system. Thus, the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal or the coupler is disconnected, or if the radio's wiring is cut.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspec ts of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of

performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Honda to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Honda does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Honda notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in a May 16, 1990, telephone conversation between Brian Tinkler of Honda and Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Tinkler confirmed that Honda was not requesting confidential treatment of any information pro vided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

ID: nht93-2.4

DATE: 03/03/93

FROM: BARRY FRELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TO: RON MARION -- SALES ENGINEER, THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-4-92 FROM RON MARION TO BARRY FELRICE (OCC 8073)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether there has been any consideration given to excluding "non-route-type" school buses from Standard No. 131's requirement that school buses be equipped with a stop signal arm. You stated that, as a manufacturer of school bus bodies, you are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service. According to your letter, a number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. You stated that these buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload, and do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic. You stated that the purchasers of these school buses are concerned about paying for stop arms which are never used.

As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, is a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard which requires all new school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the bus.

To answer your specific question, this agency has not considered whether "non-route-type" school buses should be excluded from Standard No. 131's requirement for a stop signal arm. I note that this issue was not raised in the comments on our notice of proposed rulemaking.

We do appreciate the concern of a purchaser about paying for safety equipment that he or she believes will never be used. However, the limited information provided in your letter does not provide a basis for concluding that we should consider changing the standard.

We do not know how many school buses are used exclusively or primarily for "non-route-type" service, although we assume the number is small. Further, it would appear that there would be occasion to use signal arms for some school buses used for such service. For example, these safety devices might be used while loading and unloading students when the school bus is parked on a school driveway or a road near a school, if the school bus is used to transport students to activities at locations other than schools, or if the school bus is sometimes used as a replacement for out-of-service regular route school buses. T also note that, assuming that there is occasion to use stop signal arms or some school buses which are primarily used for non-route service, it is not clear how the agency would distinguish, for purposes of a regulation, which school buses should be excluded from the requirement for stop arms.

I hope this information is helpful.