ID: GF002230

Mr. Greg Adams
6099 Eastwood Place
Boise ID 83716

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your letter concerning tire safety. You stated that you have a 2002 truck which has a label stating that 10 ply tires should be used.You asked, "If a tire dealer installed 6 ply tires without owners knowledge, would they be the one responsible if something happened, or would the owner?"

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including tires.Our tire standards specify tire dimensions; test requirements for strength, endurance, and high speed performance; labeling requirements; and tire load ratings.However, our regulations do not address the legal responsibilities of tire retailers vis--vis vehicle owners.

We note that our regulations require that the maximum load rating be labeled on the tire sidewalls.The maximum load rating is the best guide for determining the load carrying capability of a tire.Therefore, the replacement tires for your vehicle should have had at least the equal maximum load rating as the tires originally on the vehicle.

If you have further questions concerning our regulations, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.5/17/05

ID: nht73-5.34

DATE: 10/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Worcester Polytechnical Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 10, 1973, and your inquiry concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, and enforcement actions concerning this standard.

Standard No. 301, Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and Fuel Tank Connections - Passenger Cars, was effective January 1, 1968, and defined the amount of fuel leakage permissible incidental to a 30 mile-per-hour, fixed barrier collision. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information.

Historically, this standard has not been the basis of any fines, penalties, or recalls as far as the industry is concerned; however, it has been the basis for two relatively minor, voluntary design changes within the industry.

Recently, actions have been taken to substantially upgrade Standard No. 301. An amendment to the standard published August 20, 1973 (38 F.R. 22397) expanded the standard to include all motor vehicles under 10,000 pounds, except motorcycles, cover the entire fuel system and provide a rollover provision. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making, also published August 20, 1973 (38 F.R. 22417) provided(Illegible Words) and rear impact requirements, as well as a dynamic rollover provision. Copies of these two actions are also enclosed for your information.

(Illegible Word) trust your inquiry has been satisfactorily answered. If we can(Illegible Word) of any further assisunce, pld.^&>> 8!>080>>`#S,{@0xe@ q"(td8Ev? yhRqsU89<.zq1[d`??~?~?~ <>ODY>

ID: 8045

Air Mail
Mr. Guy Boudreault
340 7th Avenue, #1
Ile Perrot, P.Q. J7V 4T6
CANADA

Dear Mr. Boudreault:

This responds to your letter expressing concerns about certain working conditions that you have experienced as a driver of a commercial vehicle, and asking about rules and regulations that apply to the adjustment of brakes on commercial vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to you.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have issued a number of safety standards that apply to heavy vehicles, including ones on brakes and lighting. This agency does not have the authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles.

Your letter concerns in-service safety requirements for commercial vehicles and drivers, rather than safety requirements that apply to new motor vehicles. Within the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carriers, has the authority to issue motor carrier safety regulations for interstate motor carriers and drivers. Ordinarily I would refer your letter to that agency; however, your letter indicates that you sent the same letter to the Office of Motor Carriers as you sent to this agency.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:105#121 d.1/13/93

ID: nht93-1.6

DATE: January 13, 1993 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Guy Boudreault

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/01/92 (EST) from Guy Boudreault to U.S. Dept. of Transportation; U.S. Senate Committee on Science, Commerce & Transportation; U.S. NHTSA; National Transportation Safety Board; U.S. Office of Motor Carriers

TEXT:

This responds to your letter expressing concerns about certain working conditions that you have experienced as a driver of a commercial vehicle, and asking about rules and regulations that apply to the adjustment of brakes on commercial vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to you.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have issued a number of safety standards that apply to heavy vehicles, including ones on brakes and lighting. This agency does not have the authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles.

Your letter concerns in-service safety requirements for commercial vehicles and drivers, rather than safety requirements that apply to new motor vehicles. Within the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carriers, has the authority to issue motor carrier safety regulations for interstate motor carriers and drivers. Ordinarily I would refer your letter to that agency; however, your letter indicates that you sent the same letter to the Office of Motor Carriers as you sent to this agency.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht79-3.29

DATE: 04/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 5, 1979

Mr. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety and Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 13767 Freeway Drive Santa Fe Springs, California 90670

Dear Mr. Petler:

This is in response to your request of March 22, 1979, for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. First, I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your request of September 14, 1978. As was explained to you in a telephone conversation on March 22, your letter and the response thereto was apparently lost when the Chief Counsel's offices were moved. Although we took great care to ensure that something like this would not happen, it seemingly did in this case. I regret this and hope that it has not caused any undue inconvenience for your company.

You asked whether it was permissible under Standard 109 for a manufacturer to stamp the maximum permissible inflation pressure of a tire and its maximum load rating on the tire in both English units (pounds and psi) and metric units (kilograms and kPa). S4.3(b) and (c) of the standard specify that each tire shall have permanently molded onto the sidewalls the maximum permissible inflation pressure and the maximum load rating for the tire. This agency has interpreted this requirement to mean that the information must appear on the sidewalls in the English units, since this is the system of measurement which will be used and understood by most consumers. However, so long as the information appears in English units, there is no reason that it could not also be expressed in equivalent metric units, if the presentation of the additional information does not cause confusion about the required information. By stating not only the pressure and rating values, but also the units of value, your company would avoid causing any such confusion. Therefore, the expression of inflation pressure and load rating in English and metric units as shown in your illustration is permissible under Standard 109.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

March 22, 1979

Steven Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5213 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C., 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

As per our telephone conversation of this date, as requested I have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 14, 1978, to Mr. Levin regarding our request for interpretation of FMVSS No. 109.

If you are in need of any additional information please feel free to contact us.

Thank you for your interest and assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety and Legislation Department

FMP/ks Enc.

September 14, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adminisiration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for interpretation, FMVSS #109, New Pneumatic Tires- Passenger Cars

Dear Mr. Levin:

We have been requested by our parent company, Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. to request from your agency, an interpretation of Section S4.3 of this standard, as to the permissibility of molding specific information on the sidewall of a 6.00-16 passenger car tire in both U.S. and Metric (SI) units. We note that in Section S.4.3.4. (a) and (b) that dual markings have been allowed for tires if the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280 or 300 KPa.

Our company would like to know whether FMVSS #109 would permit the information required in S4.3 (b) and (c) to be molded onto the 6.00-16 tire sidewall in the following manner by our tire supplier.

That information is:

MAX LOAD 1400 LBS (635 KG) AT 32PSI (221KPA) MAX PRESS

For your convenience we have attached a copy of a drawing that shows the various required markings that would appear on this tire as required in S4.3 of the standard. The letter height would be 4mm, and the letters would be raised 0.4mm for items (b) and (c) of S4.3.

If you are in need of any additional information please feel free to contact us.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Department

attachments (1)

FMP/vw

ID: nht87-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Gary Harris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary Harris Division Quality Control Manager LSI Safelite 801 South Wichita Wichita, KS 67201

Dear Mr. Harris:

This responds to your letter of February 17, 1987, concerning the use of a DOT code number on glazing material by someone other than the prime manufacturer. I regret the delay in our response. You indicate in your letter that a customer has requested tha t you, as the prime manufacturer of the glazing material, include in your trademark on each piece of glazing material the DOT code number issued to you. You refer to the particular glazing material in question as "stock glass", since a customer purchases sheets of glazing material from you and then cuts the glazing into pieces for various unknown applications. You object to this request, because you have no control over the use to which the glazing material will be put. You request our opinion and we of fer the following.

The marking and certification requirements for glazing materials are contained in S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and include different marking requirements for a prime manufacturer and other types of manufacturers . (A prime glazing material manufacturer is defined in S6.1 as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.) The only glazing material which must carry the DOT code mark is that produced by a prime manufacturer and designed as a compon ent of a specific motor vehicle or camper. Since you specifically indicate that you do not know the use to which the glazing material will be put, there is no requirement that this glazing material carry your manufacturer's code.

The purpose of the manufacturer's code is to help the agency identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. The difference in the marking requirements was designed to help the agency distinguish between glazing in a motor vehicle that had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation. In a July 13, 1976, letter to "Luci te" Acrylic Sheet Products, we stated that the certification requirements had become widely understood and uniformly practiced throughout the glazing industry, which has aided the traceability of glazing for enforcement purposes. We went on to say that, for these reasons, we were no longer prohibiting the use of the prime glazing manufacturer's code number by the distributor or manufacturer who cuts the glazing, if the prime glazing manufacturer grants permission for such use of the code number to the d istributor or manufacturer.

In summary, you may include, if you wish, your DOT code number on glazing material not designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, but sold by you to others. There is no obligation to do so, however. If you have further questions please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Room 5219-NCC01 400 Seventh Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Erika:

Lear Siegler Incorporated - Safelite Division is a manufacturer of laminated and tempered safety glazing for use in automotive applications. Safelite manufactures safety glazing for specific locations in motor vehicles as well as laminated products that Safelite's customers will cut into parts for use in motor vehicles at their locations. This particular type of laminated glass, that will be cut by Safelite's customers into various parts for various unknown applications, is called "stock glass Stock gla ss is the subject of this letter.

LSI-Safelite has a customer who is requesting Safelite to include in it's trademark on each piece of stock glass, the Department of Transportations number. Safelite has a strong conviction that Safelite should not put it's Department of Transportation nu mber in the trademark of stock glass.

Safelite's man reason for having this conviction is that Safelite has no control over how it's customers use this glass after the customer(s) cut down into various parts for automotive glazing usage. The customer may very well use the AS-2 glass for a wi ndshield application which, in accordance to the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. is incorrect usage of this particular type of glazing.

This letter is a request for a written interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's legal council of the Motor Vehicle Codes and/or Safety Standards views of using the prime manufacturers of safety glazing materials Department of Transportation code number on glazing that their customers will be cutting into various parts for usage unknown to the prime glazing material manufacturers.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Your timely response to this request would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your assistance.

Respectfully,

Gary Harris Division Quality Control Manager

ID: 1983-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 5, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. K. Inoue National Technical Service Manager Toyo Tire Corporation Compton, California 90221

Dear Mr. Inoue:

This responds to your February 16, 1983, letter to Joseph Innes of this agency regarding permissible methods for displaying Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information on the sidewall of tires. Your first proposed alternative would delete the treadwear grade number, but not the word "TREADWEAR" itself, from the format established in Option 3 of Figure 1, 49 CFR 575.104. The second proposed alternative would delete both the word "TREADWEAR" and the numerical grade from the format specified in Option 3, Figure 1. Your proposed alternatives would be used only on tires produced in molds manufactured before August 8, 1983.

In the agency's February 7, 1983, notice suspending the treadwear portion of the UTQGS, tires produced in molds manufactured prior to August 8 were required to display UTQG information on tire sidewalls in one of the formats specified in Figure 1 or in Figure 6 of 49 CFR 575.104. Your first proposed alternative is clearly different from each of the permitted formats. The permitted formats require either that the word "TREADWEAR" must appear next to the treadwear grade on the tire, or neither the word nor the numerical grade must appear. Your first alternative could confuse tire purchasers, since the display format could be interpreted as attributing the grade which appears after the word "TRACTION" to both the treadwear and traction performance of the tire. Therefore, your first proposed alternative would not be permitted under 49 CFR 575.104.

Your second proposed alternative is quite similar to one permitted format, Option 3 in Figure 6. The only difference between your second alternative and Option 3 is that the traction information is centered in the format in Option 3, while it is slightly off-center in your alternative. Your second alternative should in no way be misleading to tire purchasers, however. Further, nothing in our regulations specifies precise centering of the traction information.

Any inconsistency between your proposed format and the permitted one is so small that the agency would, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, make no attempt to enforce the UTQGS format requirement when your second alternative is used.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 16, 1983

Mr. Joseph Innes Office of Market Incentives National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Innes:

Regarding our telephone conversation to you on February 16, this is the official written question. We would appreciate your prompt reply. We have the following questions regarding the amendment of UTQG regulation:

Can we modify the molding grading information on the sidewall of the tire produced in the mold manufactured before August 7, 1983 from Figure 1 the following way?:

1). If we take off the grading number of the treadwear from Figure 1, (PLEASE SEE EXAMPLE) is it acceptable?

**INSERT**

2). If we take off the letters of TREADWEAR and the grading number of the treadwear from Figure 1. (PLEASE SEE EXAMPLE) is it acceptable?

**INSERT**

In case we change the tread compound of the tire as the grading of treadwear is changeable, we need this kind of modification. According to your purpose of the amendment, we think this modification shall be allowed.

Sincerely yours,

K. Inoue National Technical Service Manager

KI/lg

ID: nht69-2.13

DATE: 07/17/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1969, in which you ask whether a form that you enclose satisfies the requirements of Consumer Information section S75.106, Acceleration and Pusint Ability.

Your placement of the words "not capable" in the figure conforms to the requirements of the section. It is not necessary to include the words in the diagram also. In reference to your question concerning line spacing: In presenting the information "in essentially the form illustrated in Figure 1" (section 375.106(c)), it is not necessary that the manufacturer's presentation be an exact copy of the figure in respect to type face, line spacing, and so forth. The presentation in your enclosure would be adequate in those respects.

In answer to your question about teduction of the figure. The regulation did not specify a type size, but the information is required to be exactly legible. The size in which the figure appeared in the Federal Register would appear to approximate the minimum in this regard.

Finally, I should note that the "Description of Vehicles to which this Table Applies" is required by section 375.106(c)(1) to be "in the(Illegible Word) by which they are described to the public by the manufacturer". This would normally be in terms of the model designation,(Illegible Word) equipment, or other common description, not the regulatory type of "motor-driven(Illegible Word) as you indicate (unless, of course, this is your company(Illegible Word) designation of this type).

I am pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht89-1.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/05/89

FROM: DANIEL F. WIECHMANN

TO: ROBERT A. DETERMAN -- IOWA OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN FRED GRANDY

TITLE: THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/05/89 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO FRED GRANDY, REDBOOK A33 (3); STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/09/89 FROM FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/23/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RUTH SKLUZACEEK, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA; LETTER DATED 10/10/88 FROM JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA DOT TO DANIEL F. WIECHMANN, REF NO 911.2; LETTER DATED 10/14/88 F ROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA

TEXT: Dear Bob:

I believe I had spoken to you earlier about the problem that had arisen concerning the headlight covers on a vehicle of Barry Lynn Speich from Hampton.

A question had arisen as to whether or not this type of lighting device was legal in the State of Iowa. I wrote to Ruth Skluzaceek, Director of Vehicle Registration Office, Lucas State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa, concerning the same, a copy of my letter of September 23, 1988, being enclosed. In response, on October 11, 1988, I received a letter from Jody Johnson, Administrative Officer, Vehicle Registration, Motor Vehicle Division, Iowa Department of Transportation, to the effect that the St ate of Iowa did not have the authority to approve the headlamp covers, as Iowa Administrative Rule Chapter 450,761 -- 450.1(321) adopted Federal Standards and Equipment Approval, a copy of said letter being enclosed.

As a result of Jody Johnson's letter of October 10, 1988, I followed her advice and wrote to Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Administration Standards, Washington, D.C., setting forth the same information and the same request, a copy which letter is enclosed.

I am sure the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standards has better things to do, than to answer my letter of October 14, 1988; unfortunately, in a case pending in the District Court of the State of Iowa in and For Franklin County (Magis trat Division) Criminal Division, is important to my client and the answer which we seek is the crucial question in this case as to whether or not the headlamp covers in question are in fact illegal, or are in fact approved.

My logic tells me that these type of covers are in fact approved as I have seen them on numerous vehicles not only in the state of Iowa, but in other states as I have traveled. I am sure that the companies who sell these items would not be selling th em, if they were not in fact approved items.

I am also enclosing some information concerning these headlamp covers which may be helpful in the search that is done.

Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

Yours very truly,

ENCLOSURES

ID: 20398.drn

Ms. Sarah Swartzendruber
Law Clerk
Phelan, Tucker, Mullen, Walker
Tucker, Gelman, LLP
321 East Market
Iowa City, IA 52244

Dear Ms. Swartzendruber:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of a child care facility's responsibilities when it is considering purchasing a 15-person van to transport children. Our answer is provided below.

Your letter states that your firm's client operates a before- and after-school care program. The program is physically located at a school. The client would not use the van to transport children to or from school, and would use the van only "during summer vacation, when school is not in session." You ask us to determine whether the program constitutes a "school," and how we have defined "significant" use of a vehicle.

Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) 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."

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit child care facilities from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses, so you should also check Iowa law to see if there are regulations about how the client must transport school children.

Responding to your question whether the before- and after-school care program is a "school," NHTSA distinguishes between facilities that provide educational programs and those that are strictly custodial. We do not consider child care programs that are custodial in nature to be "schools." However, in recent interpretations (see the attached July 23, 1998 letter to Mr. Don Cote) we have stressed that it is the purpose for which the bus is used, not the identity of the purchaser, that determines whether a dealer must sell a school bus or may sell another type of bus. Thus, if a custodial center were purchasing the bus to use significantly to transport students to or from school or school-related events, a dealer knowing of this purpose is required to sell a school bus.

You also ask for a definition of "significant" use. Your letter stated that the client would use the van only during the summer, when school is not in session. If no "significant" to or from school transportation would be provided by the client, a dealer would not be required to sell a school bus. In a letter of May 20, 1999 to Mr. Dennis Seavey (copy enclosed), we stated that we consider transportation to or from school "on any two days during a week to be regular use and therefore 'significant.'"

In fully addressing the type of vehicle that should be used to transport children, your client should take the following into consideration. At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating in 1998 and 1999, four crashes in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

In conclusion, 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. In addition, using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

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." 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 about NHTSA's programs please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Information about NTSB's nonconforming bus report is available from the NTSB's Public Affairs Office at (202) 314-6100.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:571.3#VSA
d.8/24/99