ID: 21236.drf

The Honorable Scott McInnis
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
225 North 5^th Street
Suite 702
Grand Junction, CO 81501

Dear Congressman McInnis:

Thank you for your letter concerning Federal school bus safety regulations. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for school buses.

You have contacted us on behalf of a public school official who asks about a regulation that requires transportation of students to sporting events by school bus. Your constituent is concerned that such a regulation would be financially burdensome on schools with small enrollments. The official would prefer using private vehicles and vans supplied by automobile dealers on a temporary basis. You ask three questions: (1) Do such regulations exist? (2) Do the regulations apply regardless of the size of the school or team? (3) Can private vehicles or dealership-supplied vehicles that have required restraint systems, adequate seating, be used instead of school buses? Each of these questions is addressed below.

Some background information may be helpful in answering your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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. Persons selling or leasing new "buses" for such use must sell or lease a "school bus."

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." Persons selling or leasing new 15-person vans for such use must sell or lease a van that meets our school bus standards.

You first ask whether our regulations require students to be transported to sporting events by school buses. We require persons selling new "buses" (e.g., 15-passenger vans) for use as school vehicles to sell buses that meet our school bus safety standards. However, we do not require schools to use school buses nor do we prohibit schools from using non-school buses to transport school children. Matters concerning the use of vehicles are set by each State. Thus, Colorado law would determine whether the students must be transported by school buses.

We believe, however, that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. Thus, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting our school bus safety standards.

Your second question asks whether school or team size makes a difference in the application of our school bus regulations. Our school bus regulations apply to any person selling a new "bus" that is likely to be used significantly to transport students to or from school or related events. Our regulations do not distinguish between buses sold to large or small schools or between buses sold to carry large or small teams. However, our school bus regulations only apply to transactions involving buses and school buses that are likely to be significantly used for pupil transportation. We permit dealers to sell or lease vehicles other than "buses" for pupil transportation, e.g., passenger cars or vans that carry fewer than 11 persons.

Your third question asks whether schools may use private vehicles or dealership-supplied vehicles instead of school buses. As stated above, requirements concerning which vehicles schools may use are set by each State, and not NHTSA. In addition, our school bus regulations do not prohibit a rental of a bus on an occasional basis. Such a vehicle would not be used significantly to carry school children and thus would not be a "school bus" under our regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. For your information, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571
d.2/29/2000

ID: 77-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: COBEC Brazilian Trading & Warehousing Corp. of the U.S.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1977, to Mr. Armstrong of this agency regarding the Puma kit car import program. Although your letter is not clear, you appear to be seeking an interpretation as to the applicability of our regulations to the Puma and its proper classification for import into the United States.

FACTS

Our opinion is based upon the factual representations made in your letter, in the advertising brochure issued by Puma Kit Cars, Inc., and an article "Brazilian Puma" by Thos. L. Bryant which appeared in the October 1977 issue of Road & Track (pp. 112-13). As we understand it, Pumas are shipped to the United States both as complete vehicles and in kit form. The completed vehicles are imported and sold by a Kansas firm. The kit vehicles on the other hand are imported by COBEC and sold to Puma Kit Cars, Inc. for further sale to individual purchasers.

The manufacturing operations that occur to the Puma kit car before it is exported are reported by Road & Track as:

"For normal production, Puma [Brazil] buys the [new VW] floorplan assemblies from the factory and removes 10 in. from its length . . . . All cables and fluid lines are removed and replaced with shorter versions. The modified chassis is then fed into the assembly line and if the final unit is to be sold locally, a finished car emerges from the other end. For those slated for export to the U.S. a few steps are left out. These consist of the installation of the front and rear ends and the engine. Aside from these omissions the completed cars are identical."

The completeness of the initial manufacturing process is highlighted in the Puma Kit Car Inc., brochure:

The Puma kit car is complete in every sense of the word: body, special floor pan, wiring, gas tank, rear torsion, steering wheel, tinted safety glass, roll up windows and plush upholstery. All you require in addition to the Puma kit is a VW ball joint front end, swing axle transmission, VW or Porsche engine, wheels, tires, and a battery."

The missing components are available from Puma Kit Car according to the brochure:

"In addition to the basic Puma Kit, complete factory engines, front end assemblies including disc brakes and brand new transaxle assemblies are available. You can assemble a new Puma car from off the shelf factory parts." CLASSIFICATION OF THE PUMA KIT CAR FOR IMPORTATION

COBEC commercial invoices of July 1977 show that Puma kit cars have been identified as "Replacement Body GTE for Volkswagen 1966" and "Replacement Chassis for Volkswagen 1966." The merchandise appears invariably identified as replacement equipment for 1966 Volkswagens.

As the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not apply to passenger cars and equipment until January 1, 1968, it appears that COBEC is attempting to argue that the merchandise is not subject to Federal regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. But generally Federal standards covering replacement equipment apply as of the date the equipment is manufactured. Therefore, any item of motor vehicle equipment supplied in the Puma kit that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (e.g. headlamps, glazing) must comply with it.

RESPONSIBILITY OF COBEC AS IMPORTER OF THE PUMA KIT CARS

If an equipment item does not comply, Pumas must be entered pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(iii) as nonconforming motor vehicle equipment that will be brought into compliance before being offered for sale, and COBEC is responsible for submission of compliance documentation under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(iii).

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

September 20, 1977.

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: PUMA KIT CAR IMPORT PROGRAM

With reference to the above-mentioned program we would like to express our opinion that these kits are in every way incomplete cars and, therefore, we so classified them on your Special Customs Invoice.

As per your request and for your own evaluation we enclose pictures as well as the following pertinent technical data about our kit car.

1. Our kit car consists of:

- fiber glass body shell,

- metal floor pan,

- AS1 safety glass (U.S. approved windshield),

- AS2 tempered glass, side and rear windows, - full set of dash control instruments,

- one set of seal beam headlights, (General Electric), U.S. made,

- one set of tale lights (U.S. approved).

2. Optional items:

- Seats and safety steering wheel.

3. Our vehicles do not include the following items:

- wheels,

- tires,

- front and rear axle,

- differential,

- transmission,

- motor,

- suspension components,

- steering components,

- break components,

- gas system,

- heating system.

These kits are intended to the sale to "DO IT YOURSELF MECHANIC" who in turn might have an old Volkswagen. By using components of the vehicle and the kit car it is possible to assemble. Within a time frame of 80 hrs., a small personal 2 (two) passenger car.

Please note that all of the service is accomplished by the owner himself. We feel that this explanation is sufficient for all your requirements, however, in case you need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, since as of this moment we have ceased all current shipments into the U.S. until your final decision has been reached.

COBEC BRAZILIAN TRADING & WAREHOUSING CORP. OF THE U.S.

Egon Poisl Assistant Treasurer

(Graphics omitted) (Graphics omitted)

ID: 1985-03.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steven W. Crowell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 13, 1985 Mr. Steven W. Crowell 29 Mansfield Street Allston, MA 02134 Dear Mr. Crowell: Thank you for your March 8, 1985 letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch of this office asking several questions concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency. I sincerely regret the delay in responding to your letter; however, I hope the following discussion will be of assistance to you. You first asked whether our safety standards apply to auxiliary interior equipment installed in motor vehicles. The answer is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment (103), prohibits the sale or manufacture of new vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for non-complying vehicles and equipment (109(a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (154(a)). A copy of the Act is enclosed for your information. In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (114). This requirement applies to manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment, and to vehicle manufacturers, with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to first sale, the equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the entire vehicle (including items of equipment) complies with all applicable standards. You also asked specifically about the applicability of certain safety standards to interior partitions: Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (dashboards and seatbacks), No. 205, Glazing Materials (windows), and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (safety belts and other restraint systems). Only Standard No. 205 directly applies to interior partitions. However a vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicles comply with applicable safety standards, even if an interior partition or other auxiliary equipment is installed. For example, Standard No. 111 requires that a rearview mirror provide a minimum field of view for a driver. If the rearview mirror does not provide that field of view (due to an interior partition or any other reason), the Standard requires an outside rearview mirror. Each safety standard describes the types of vehicles and equipment systems to which it applies; copies of Standards N. 107, 111, 201, 205 and 208 are also enclosed for your information. The safety standards apply to new motor vehicles ad new items of motor vehicle equipment, and the responsibility for assuring compliance rests with the manufacturer. However, the Act also includes some restrictions on vehicle modifications after the first sale to a consumer. Under 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not "render inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, modification of a vehicle by such a person must not render any safety feature inoperative. The owner or other user of a motor vehicle, however, may modify the vehicle without concern about possibly violating a Federal safety standard because the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to such users. State law should always be considered before modification, however, because it may limit the alteration of a vehicle by its owner or other users. You also ask whether the Act and our safety standards apply to various types of vehicles and ownerships. The Federal safety standards apply to all new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that are introduced into commerce in the United States. All the types of vehicles you mention, such as taxicabs, police cruisers, and utility vans, are within the Act's definition of "motor vehicle" (102(3)), so they are subject to all forth the types of vehicles to which it applies. There is no exception for the manufacture of vehicles for government or commercial use, Also, as discussed above, the user of a vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, may personally modify his or her vehicle without violating Federal law, but users should check State law. You also inquired, in cases whether the Act and safety standards do not apply, as to who might be liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of interior partitions. As noted above, the Act applies to all new motor vehicles, so each new vehicle is required to comply with all applicable safety standards. However, the Act does not govern liability questions, regardless of whether a safety standard does or does not apply to a given vehicle or item of equipment. Liability issues are governed by State tort law; you may wish to consult with a local attorney to discuss the liability laws in your State. In addition, you asked how the pre-emption provision of the Act, (103(d)) would affect a State motor vehicle inspection law requiring safety belt retention for passenger cars, but not for commercial vehicles. That pre-emption provision prohibits any state safety standards for vehicles or items of vehicle equipment which are not identical to Federal safety standards covering the same aspect of performance. While that provision would not apply to the situation you describe -- since there is no Federal safety standard requiring the retention of safety belts -- the restrictions in the Act on subsequent vehicle modifications (108(a)(2)(A), discusses above) would apply. Since safety belts are required items of motor vehicle equipment under Standard No. 208, the statutory provision would prohibit certain commercial enterprises from removing those belts, whether from passenger cars or from commercial vehicles. Thus, no State law could legalize the removal by such businesses of federally required safety belts, since such a law would conflict with 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Of course, State law may require the retention of safety belts for any or all classes of motor vehicles. Finally, you asked whether prohibiting motor vehicles from interstate commerce would effectively avoid the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act. Such prohibition would not affect a manufacturer's obligation under the Act to certify the vehicle and assure compliance with all applicable safety standards. The Act is not limited to vehicles which are actually used in interstate commerce (i.e., those that cross State lines). Instead, it requires compliance with safety standards for all new vehicles and items of vehicle equipment which are manufactured, sold or introduced in interstate commerce (108(a)(1)(A)). In our view, that provision indicates Congress' intent to cover all new motor vehicles. As a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any vehicle would never be in interstate commerce at some time during its lifetime. For example, the delivery of the vehicle from its place of manufacture to its original place of sale will generally involve movement in interstate commerce. Also, a manufacturer has no way of knowing where its vehicles may subsequently be used. In addition, whether or not the vehicles are actually used in interstate commerce, their subsequent use on public roads substantially affects interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law. I hope these answers are helpful. We appreciate your interest in State safety belt use legislation, and again I apologize for the delay in responding. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Oesch of my office (202-426-2992). Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: RIBILL23454

Mr. Charles F. Dolan
Administration
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Division of Motor Vehicles
286 Main Street
Pawtucket, RI 02860

Dear Mr. Dolan:

This responds to your letter, and to telephone calls from John DiTomasso of your staff, asking whether a Rhode Island state law would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205. Your correspondence attached a copy of the law, and expressed concern regarding a subsection that allows the ownership and operation of motor vehicles with a light transmittance of less than 70 percent by persons with a physical condition that "makes it necessary to equip the vehicle with a sunscreening device." Based on our understanding of your correspondence, we believe that the legislation would not be preempted.

BACKGROUND

According to your correspondence, Section 31-23.3-2 of the Rhode Island General Laws prohibits persons from owning and operating any motor vehicle with nontransparent or sunscreen material to cover the front windshield, the side windows immediately adjacent to the right and left of the driver's seat, and other windows in a vehicle, unless the material has a total visible light transmittance of not less than seventy percent. ⁽¹⁾

Subsection (7) of Section 31-23.3-4 exempts from the 70 percent light transmittance for tinting material requirement "a motor vehicle registered in this state in the name of a person, or the person's legal guardian, who has an affidavit signed by a physician or an optometrist licensed to practice in this state indicating that the person has a physical condition that makes it necessary to equip the motor vehicle with a sunscreening device which may exceed federal standards."

The State law pertains to the light transmittance of glazing in motor vehicles, which is an aspect of performance regulated by FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). The standard incorporates by reference an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26), and specifies performance requirements and permissible locations for the types of glazing that may be installed in motor vehicles. The standard requires some glazing to allow at least 70 percent of the incident light to pass through. For passenger cars, the standard specifies the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for all glazing at levels requisite for driving visibility. For buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), the standard specifies the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for glazing installed in the windshield, the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility.

ANALYSIS

The provision of our statute referring to Federal preemption is section 30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, which states in part:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30112.) Thus, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), State laws that apply to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, and to the same aspect of performance, must be identical to the FMVSS. Thus, if the Rhode Island provision applied to the sale of vehicles in Rhode Island, it would be preempted since it would purport to allow the sale of vehicles with light transmittance below that required by FMVSS No. 205.

However, NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Section 30103(b) does not require Rhode Island to set operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on State operational requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State. The proposed Rhode Island law appears to be less stringent than the FMVSS, in that it would allow a light transmittance of less than 70 percent in certain areas of glazing where the Federal requirement is 70 percent. As such, the proposed State law would not preclude the use of vehicles certified to FMVSS No. 205, and thus would not be invalid under general principles of preemption. This conclusion is consistent with a 1996 letter to Betsy Dittmore, in which we stated that Iowa legislation allowing drivers with "light-sensitive disorders permits" to have darkened windows generally would not conflict with Federal laws. (See enclosed letter, dated November 18, 1996.)

Note, however, that a State law could not permit a modification that is prohibited by Federal law. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. A State law that purported to permit the installation of dark tinting material by entities listed in 30122 where the tinting material results in a light transmittance through the glazing of less than 70 percent would not undermine the validity and enforceability of section 30122. ⁽²⁾ Nonetheless, in situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. In situations qualifying for exemption under your statute, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that applies the tinting material to the vehicle to accommodate the condition warranting the exemption.

In closing, we understand your safety concerns about decreased visibility through dark tinting material and concur with them. We ask States to limit use of the tint material to the extent necessary and to ensure that their operational requirements are commensurate with the safe operation of vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205#VSA
d.2/14/02





---

¹ As we read Section 31-23.3-4(3), it allows the "use" of tinting material that has at least 70 percent light transmittance. Therefore, when this material is placed on an original equipment manufacturer window that is already at 70 percent light transmittance, the combined transmittance of the glazing and tinting material could be down to 49 percent. This ambiguity, however, does not affect the outcome of our analysis.

² The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

ID: 1983-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harper; Robinson & Co. -- Betty Thain

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Betty Thain Harper, Robinson & Co. 9620 N.E. Colfax Portland, Oregon 97220

Dear Ms. Thain:

This responds to your recent letter to this office, asking whether a client of yours may import used tires from Japan for resale. You noted that the tires met the requirements of Japanese Industrial Standards, but do not have a DOT symbol marked on the sidewall. Such tires may not be imported into this country, except under very limited circumstances.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that "no person shall...import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title, unless it is in conformity with such standard." You stated that your client wants to import used truck tires.

Section S6.5(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119) also requires tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars to have a DOT symbol permanently labeled on the sidewall, as a certification by the manufacturer that the tire fully complies with the standard. Without such a certification, the tires are not in conformity with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the law expressly prohibits importing such tires.

There are three very narrow exceptions to this principle. First, tires which are not in compliance with applicable safety standards may be imported if the importer posts a bond with the Customs Service, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3), to insure that any nonconforming tires would be brought into conformity with the applicable standards (in terms of meeting performance and certification requirements). This would be very difficult for the importer, because the used tires would have to conform to new tire standards. To my knowledge, no importer has ever been able to do this with used tires.

The second exception which allows tires without a DOT symbol to be imported occurs when the importer can furnish proof that the tires were manufactured before the applicable safety standard came into effect. For tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 119 became effective March 1, 1975. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, it appears that the tires your client wishes to import are more recently manufactured than this date, and so this exception will not prove useful.

The third exception involves three conditions, all of which must be satisfied for the tires to be imported. Tires without a DOT symbol on the sidewall may be imported if:

(a) they are used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars;

(b) they have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining on the tire; and

(c) the tires are imported solely for the purpose of retreading.

When these three conditions are met, the agency has interpreted the tires not to be "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the law. However, your client's tires appear to meet only the first condition.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by phone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 8, 1983

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: CONFORMANCE STANDARDS & REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTATION OF USED JAPANESE TIRES FOR U.S. RESALE

DEAR SIR:

OUR CUSTOMER, CALCO MARKETING SERVICE, INC. HAS REQUESTED US TO CONTACT YOU FOR A RULING CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF USED JAPANESE TRUCK TIRES WITH 60% - 90% TREAD FOR RESALE IN THE U.S. MARKET. THE TIRES MEET JAPANESE INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS (J.I.S.), BUT WERE NOT ORIGINALLY MANUFACTURED FOR THE U.S. MARKET AND THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE A D.O.T. NUMBER. I HAVE CONTACTED YOUR SEATTLE OFFICE AND WAS ADVISED THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY NO SPECIFIC RULING ADDRESSING THIS SITUATION AND SHOULD CONTACT YOU ON IT.

ATTACHED PLEASE FIND A COPY OF THE LETTER FROM OUR CUSTOMER REQUESTING US TO CONTACT YOU. IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT ME.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR PROMPT GUIDANCE AND ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER AND LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU.

VERY TRULY YOURS, HARPER, ROBINSON & CO.

BETTY THAIN

encl-

Miss Betty Thain Mgr. Harper Robinson & CO. 9620 N.E. Colfax Portland, Oregon 97220

Dear Betty,

I would appreciate your getting me a ruling on imported Japanese used tires.

I have been importing casings from Japan for recap purposes for many years and they prove to be better in quality than our own U.S. made tires. The Japanese tires made for their own domestic use is built stronger to with stand the rough dirt and gravel roads in Japan. Japan does not have as many surfaced road and freeways as the U.S. Since the Japanese casings that we import are used for off roads logging operations we find that they hold up better as recaps than do U.S. tires that have been recapped. After the tires have been buffed they still have about 1/2 inch remaining under rubber which is ideal for recapping. The U. S Tires do not have the remaining under rubber so they do not hold the retread as well as the Japanese casing.

The people that export the Japanese casings to me have offered me some used tires with from 60% to 90% tread remaining a and at attractive prices. I would like you to get me a ruling immediately from the Dept. of transportation as to the legality of importing this shipment of used tires. I have ordered a container load of the used tires and they should be shipped within the next week or two. That is why it is imperative that we get a ruling immediately. I understand that all new tires from Japan must have a Dept. of Transportion number stamped on them but I have been told that used tires from immediate use do not fall under this ruling. Please telephone me just as soon as you have an answer to my request.

I hope to hear from you very soon.

Very truly yours

ID: nht69-2.40

DATE: 06/30/69

FROM: C.A. BAKER -- OFFICE OF STANDARDS ON ACCIDENT AVOIDANCE, MOTOR VEH. PERFORMANCE SERV., CONCURRENCE OF OFFICE OF ASST CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TO: Renault, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 18, 1969, to the U.S. Department of Transportation, concerning your request for clarification of the visibility requirements of back up lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The visibility requirements for backup lamps on station wagons or similar type motor vehicles will be predicated on the normal driving, or closed tailgate, position. These lamps may therefore be mounted on the tailgate.

ID: 3114yy

David R. Stepp, Esq.
Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara, P.C.
Suite 807
1620 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5605

Re: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. Reimportation of Volkswagens

Dear Mr. Stepp:

This responds to your letter of July 1, l99l, on behalf of your client, Escargot Motorcars of Canada, with respect to its plan to export Volkswagen Beetles to Mexico for refurbishment, with subsequent reentry into the United States. You have asked for an interpretation that such vehicles may be allowed reentry without further certification.

As you have explained it, Escargot Motorcars plans to purchase Beetles that were initially imported into the United States by Volkswagen of America, and certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts "and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture." Some of the old Beetles will retain their manufacturer's original certification of compliance located on the door post, while others, if the bodies are worn or damaged, "the entire bodies may be replaced and/or painted and this manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed." If the bodies are extensively damaged, Escargot may ship only the chassis to Mexico.

You state that "(w)here the manufacturer's certification on the doorpost is preserved after restoration in Mexico, the vehicles clearly should be allowed to enter the United States without further certification." You also state that further certification is also unnecessary for vehicles no longer bearing the certification label, or whose door post condition is such that it must be removed during restoration, because that vehicle's VIN will indicate that it was originally imported into the United States as a certified and complying car. Similarly, those vehicles which are stripped of their bodies prior to shipment should be allowed entry without further certification "since the chassis will be preserved and registered."

The appropriate statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act, l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), which provides the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571), and the vehicle importation regulation (49 CFR Part 591). You suggest that the refurbished Beetles may be admitted without further certification since they were originally manufactured to conform to the Federal safety standards. Thus, it appears that Escargot would seek entry under section 591.5(b), the declaration that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards "and bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently attached by the original manufacturer of the vehicle."

The first issue raised by the factual situation described in your letter is whether the "refurbished" vehicles would be considered to be new or "used" vehicles. If the refurbishing involves sufficient manufacturing operations for the vehicles to be considered to be new, the vehicles would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of the new manufacturing operations (refurbishing), including the requirements for automatic restraints. However, if the refurbishing involves more minor operations, the vehicles would be considered to be used. As discussed below, only if the vehicles would be considered to be used could they be reimported into the United States based on the original manufacturer's certification label.

The range of potential manufacturing operations described by your letter is so broad as to include ones where a vehicle would be considered to be used and ones where a vehicle would be considered to be new. As indicated above, you state the following:

After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts "and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture." (Emphasis added.)

If the operations only involved replacement of the engine and minor restoration/repair of other parts, the vehicle would be considered to be used. If, however, in addition to replacing the engine, the other operations involved replacement or "re-manufacturing" of the other parts mentioned in your letter, it would be considered a new passenger car and subject to all current safety standards, notwithstanding the fact that the old frame was retained. A new certification would also be required.

I note that information that this agency has on Escargot's operations in Canada suggests that the latter category of operations may be more what that company has in mind. We have seen an advertising circular issued by The Beetles of Toronto, "a registered tradename of Escargot Motorcars, Inc.", that boasts "Every single piece of your Beetle is factory brand new, except one, and that's the frame." The circular states that The Beetles places around the pan, "all new components: engine, suspension, braking, steering, etc. The entire body is also new, as are the bucket seats, dashboard, gauges, dials, everything. Even down to the last nut and bolt." We regard this as the manufacture of a new motor vehicle to which contemporary safety standards apply, and which must be certified by Escargot as conforming to those standards.

To the extent that Escargot performed operations that are sufficiently minor that a vehicle would be considered used, it could be reimported into the United States under section 591.5(b), based on the original manufacturer's certification label. Under that section, an importer declares that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards and "bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle."

In the case of a used vehicle which is being reimported, we interpret the phrase "conforms to all applicable safety standards" to refer to the vehicle at the time of its original manufacture prior to its first sale. We recognize that, because of age and use, a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, and did not intend that phrase to prevent reimportation of used vehicles that originally complied with all safety standards.

While a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, the original certification label ordinarily lasts for the life of the vehicle. The certification label is the primary evidence that the vehicle was originally manufactured to meet applicable safety standards, and, in order for a used vehicle to reimported under section 591.5(b), we would ordinarily expect the certification label to present at the time of the reimportation. We recognize, however, that a certification label may be defaced or destroyed and would not, in such instance, consider absence of the certification label to an absolute bar to reimporting a vehicle under section 591.5(b). However, we would need to very carefully evaluate each factual situation on a case-by-case basis.

If you have any further questions of a legal nature, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263), and if they are of a technical nature, to Clive Van Orden of the Office of Enforcement (202-366-2830).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:59l#VSA d:8/l2/9l

ID: nht91-5.21

DATE: August 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David R. Stepp -- Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara, P.C.

TITLE: Re: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. Reimportation of Volkswagens

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-1-91 from David R. Stepp to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6180)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 1, 1991, on behalf of your client, Escargot Motorcars of Canada, with respect to its plan to export Volkswagen Beetles to Mexico for refurbishment, with subsequent reentry into the United States. You have asked for an interpretation that such vehicles may be allowed reentry without further certification.

As you have explained it, Escargot Motorcars plans to purchase Beetles that were initially imported into the United States by Volkswagen of America, and certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts "and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture." Some of the old Beetles will retain their manufacturer's original certification of compliance located on the door post, while others, if the bodies are worn or damaged, "the entire bodies may be replaced and/or painted and this manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed." If the bodies are extensively damaged, Escargot may ship only the chassis to Mexico.

You state that "(w)here the manufacturer's certification on the doorpost is preserved after restoration in Mexico, the vehicles clearly should be allowed to enter the United States without further certification." You also state that further certification is also unnecessary for vehicles no longer bearing the certification label, or whose door post condition is such that it must be removed during restoration, because that vehicle's VIN will indicate that it was originally imported into the United States as a certified and complying car. Similarly, those vehicles which are stripped of their bodies prior to shipment should be allowed entry without further certification "since the chassis will be preserved and registered."

The appropriate statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), which provides the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571), and the vehicle importation regulation (49 CFR Part 591). You suggest that the refurbished Beetles may be admitted without further certification since they were originally manufactured to conform to the Federal safety standards. Thus, it appears that Escargot would seek entry under section 591.5(b), the declaration that the vehicle conforms to all applicable

Federal motor vehicle safety standards "and bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently attached by the original manufacturer of the vehicle."

The first issue raised by the factual situation described in your letter is whether the "refurbished" vehicles would be considered to be new or "used" vehicles. If the refurbishing involves sufficient manufacturing operations for the vehicles to be considered to be new, the vehicles would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of the new manufacturing operations (refurbishing), including the requirements for automatic restraints. However, if the refurbishing involves more minor operations, the vehicles would be considered to be used. As discussed below ONLY if the vehicles would be considered to be used could they be reimported the United States based on the original manufacturer's certification label.

The range of potential manufacturing operations described by your letter is so broad as to include ones where a vehicle would be considered to be used and ones where a vehicle would be considered to be new. As indicated above, you state the following:

After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be RESTORED OR REPLACED with replacement parts "and will be exactly as those to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture." (Emphasis added.)

If the operations ONLY involved replacement of the engine and minor restoration/repair parts, the vehicle would be considered to be used. If, however, in addition to replacing the engine, the other operations involved replacement or "re-manufacturing" of the other parts mentioned in your letter, it would be considered a new passenger car and subject to all current safety standards, notwithstanding the fact that the old frame was retained. A new certification would also be required.

I note that information that this agency has on Escargot's operations in Canada suggests that the latter category of operations may be more what that company has in mind. We have seen an advertising circular issued by The Beetles of Toronto, "a registered tradename of Escargot Motorcars, Inc.", that boasts "Every single piece of your Beetle is factory brand new, except one, and that's the frame." The circular states that The Beetles places around the pan, "ALL NEW COMPONENTS: engine, suspension, braking, steering, etc. The entire body is also new, as are the bucket seats, dashboard, gauges, dials, everything. Even down to the last nut and bolt." We regard this as the manufacture of a new motor vehicle to which contemporary safety standards apply, and which must be certified by Escargot as conforming to those standards.

To the extent that Escargot performed operations that are sufficiently minor that a vehicle would be considered used, it could be reimported into the United States under section 591.5(b), based on the original manufacturer's certification label. Under that section, an importer

declares that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards and "bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle."

In the case of a used vehicle which is being reimported, we interpret the phrase "conforms to all applicable safety standards" to refer to the vehicle at the time of its original manufacture prior to its first sale. We recognize that, because of age and use, a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, and did not intend that phrase to prevent reimportation of used vehicles that originally complied with all safety standards.

While a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, the original certification label ordinarily lasts for the life of the vehicle. The certification label is the primary evidence that the vehicle was originally manufactured to meet applicable safety standards, and, in order for a used vehicle to reimported under section 591.5(b), we would ordinarily expect the certification label to present at the time of the reimportation. We recognize, however, that a certification label may be defaced or destroyed and would not, in such instance, consider absence of the certification label to an absolute bar to reimporting a vehicle under section 591.5(b). However, we would need to very carefully evaluate each factual situation on a case-by-case basis.

If you have any further questions of a legal nature, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263), and if they are of a technical nature, to Clive Van Orden of the Office of Enforcement (202-366-2830).

ID: 21095b

Mr. James P. Liesenfelt
Transit Director
Space Coast Area Transit
401 South Varr Avenue
Cocoa, FL 32922

Dear Mr. Liesenfelt:

This responds to your letter asking how our school bus regulations apply to your vanpool program. I appreciate this opportunity to respond. You explain that Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT), a public transit agency, purchases 7- to 15-passenger vans and then leases the vans to a contractor, VPSI, Inc. (VPSI). VPSI in turn leases the vans to commuter groups or agencies, some of which use the vans to take students to school.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that when SCAT purchases a passenger van, it does not do so with the intent to transport only or primarily a particular group of passengers (i.e., retired people, churchgoers, school children). SCAT's expectation is that each van is available for lease to nonprofit organizations to transport any group of passengers. Market demand determines which group of passengers is transported at any particular time. You also explained that SCAT relies on grants from the Federal Transit Administration to purchase the vans. Since SCAT also purchases large buses (seating upwards of 40 persons) designed for travel on fixed routes, the 7- to 15-passenger vans are not used on fixed routes, or as part of a common carrier route.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle (leasing a new vehicle that was not previously sold) 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 (49 CFR 571.3(b)) For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." Persons selling or leasing new 15-person vans for such use must sell or lease a van that meets our school bus standards. Persons selling or leasing a 7- to 10-person van for school bus are not subject to our school bus regulations, since the van is not a "school bus" under our definition.

In the situation you describe, SCAT purchases (presumably new) vans, then leases them to VPSI, which leases the vans to various non-profit groups or agencies, some of which may provide school transportation. Your situation is analogous to that of the taxi service described in the enclosed February 19, 1998 letter to Mr. Bob Presley of Harreld Chevrolet. In that situation, Mr. Presley (a vehicle dealer) asked whether new buses he sold to a taxi service to be used in part to take children to and from school must meet Federal school bus safety standards. Our answer to Mr. Presley was he did not have to sell only new school buses: "In view of the small percentage of time that any vehicle in the taxi fleet will be used to transport students, I have concluded that the vehicles in the taxi fleet are not 'significantly' used to transport students from school."

Similarly, in the situation you describe, because there are various transportation customers and specific vehicles are not reserved for school transportation, we believe vehicles in the fleet will be used only a small percentage of time (and not "significantly" used) to transport school children to or from school or school activities. Therefore, a dealer is not obligated to sell new school buses to SCAT.

Our safety standards do not apply to vehicles after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, e.g., after SCAT purchases the vans. Further, because we do not regulate the use of vehicles, we do not prohibit schools or other transportation providers from using non-school buses to transport school children. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, Florida law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children must be transported.

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 vehicles that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses such as 15-passenger vans.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 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.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures

ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/21/2000

ID: 1985-03.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. D. Leeds Pickering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 22, 1985 Mr. D. Leeds Pickering Traffic Safety/Pupil Transportation Department of Education State of Wyoming Hathaway Building Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 Dear Mr. Pickering: Thank you for your letter concerning our regulations on school buses. You asked what problems school districts might encounter if they lease or charter "Greyhound" type buses from a company or individual for use on activity trips. I would like to explain that there are two Federal laws that have bearing on your situation. The first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, under which our agency issues safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. The second law is the Highway Safety Act of 1966, under which we have issued highway safety program standards applicable to State highway safety grant programs. As you know from our letter to Mr. Terry Brown, Pupil Transportation Safety Specialist for the State of Montana, the parties directly affected by the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers of school buses and dealers or distributors selling new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits those parties from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. New Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing so, and therefore, cannot be sold as school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit the occasional rental of a Greyhound bus, however, and school districts that want to occasionally lease or charter such a vehicle for a special school activity may do so. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a "school bus" is defined as "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools..." (Emphasis added.) The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits dealers or distributors from selling new Greyhound-type buses to leasing companies if the dealer or distributor has reason to know that the bus would be "significantly" used to transport school children to and from school or related events. One example of "significant" usage would be a long-term relationship between a leasing company and a school to provide pupil transportation. If the leasing company is seeking a bus to use in this manner, then a dealer or distributor who has knowledge of the intended use of the vehicle would be required to sell a bus which meets the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Conversely, if a bus would be only very occasionally chartered for school service, its use for school service is not "significant." Accordingly, since such a bus is not a "school bus" under Federal law, the dealer or distributor would not be required to sell to the leasing company a school bus that is certified to the school bus safety standards. You asked about a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033; December 31, 1975) which amended NHTSA's regulatory definition of a "school bus" to conform to the Congressional mandate of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974. The notice explained that the definition refers to "introduction in interstate commerce" in order to account for those situations where buses are leased to schools for transporting students. You were concerned as to whether this discussion prohibited leasing companies from leasing buses to schools for activity trips. The term "introduction in interstate commerce" and its reference in the Federal Register notice to leasing arrangements addressed those situations where a new bus is leased by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer directly to a school or school district. In those situations, there is no sales transaction to a leasing company. When a new bus is leased to a school or school district directly from its manufacturer, distributor or dealer, the Vehicle Safety Act requires that the bus must comply with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. State regulations might also affect your use of Greyhound-type buses for activity trips. This agency administers a set of guidelines for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, has recommendations for the color, identification, operation and maintenance of school vehicles. For a State that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation. HSPS No. 17 sets out recommendations for "Type I" and "Type II" school vehicles and defines those vehicle types in the definitions section of the standard. A Type I school vehicle is defined as: any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. This definition includes vehicles that are at any time used to carry school-children and school personnel exclusively, and does not include vehicles that only carry schoolchildren along with other passengers as part of the operations of a common carrier. HSPS No. 17 has different specifications for Type I school vehicles that are operated by a local transit system, and used for common carrier transit route service as well as special route service. The standard itself makes no distinction between vehicles carrying school children that are leased by a school from leasing companies, and vehicles that are owned by a school. However, since a state has the discretion to adopt Standard 17 as it determines to be necessary for its highway safety program, it is up to the state to decide whether the specifications of the standard should apply to leased school vehicles. I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will apply to activity buses operated or leased by your school districts only if Wyoming has adopted it and if Wyoming accepts our view that the specifications should apply. If your State chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with that decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS No. 17. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety program standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of HSPS No. 17, that was photocopied from Volume 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations 1204.4 (1984). Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure