ID: nht94-6.10

DATE: April 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael E. Klima -- Managing Engineer, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from Michael E. Klima to Edward Jettner (OCC-9832)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 29, 1994, to Mr. Edward Jettner of this agency concerning the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions concern the application of this standard to a pickup truck manufactured in April 1988 with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,400 pounds. You asked whether the injury criteria in S6 apply to this truck, whether a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test is required, and which sections of Standard No. 208 apply to this truck.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208. Section S4.2.1 of standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 1, 1976 and before September 1, 1991. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts.

According to your letter, the manufacturer installed Type 2 seat belt assemblies at the front outboard seating positions. This suggests that the manufacturer chose to comply with Option 3. Under this option, the only requirements in Standard No. 208 that those belts were required to comply with were S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3. The belts were also required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The manufacturer was not required to certify that the vehicle complied with the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208. The injury criteria in S6 of the standard are applicable only to vehicles which must comply with the dynamic testing requirements.

Standards No. 208 does not include a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test requirement. The dynamic crash test in Standard No. 208 is barrier crash test at any speed up to 30 mph. NHTSA does perform some 35 mph barrier

crash tests as part of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is a consumer information program, not a safety compliance test. NHTSA does not test every vehicle under this program. In the 1993 model year program, NHTSA tested 37 new vehicles and released results on 68 additional vehicles which had been tested previously and had not changed significantly in model year 1993.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-3.15

DATE: 09/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bing Johnson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1976, in which you ask about our regulations concerning the modification of "vans" to make them suitable for camping. The modifications you propose to make include the installation of plumbing, water, electricity, and additional seating.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @@ 1381, et seq.) prohibits the manufacture, offer for sale, sale, introduction in interstate commerce or importation of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. This prohibition does not apply (except for importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Under these provisions, you are responsible for the compliance of any vehicle that you modify up to and including the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale.

The manufacturer must comply with all applicable safety standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). His certification appears on a completed vehicle. It would be your responsibility to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards after your modifications. Under Part 567 of our regulations, you must attach a label to the vehicle that states that, as altered, the vehicle continued to conform to the standards.

From the description of the modifications you describe, it appears that you might affect the compliance of the vehicle with the following standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. It should be noted that any additional weight created by your modifications or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.

We also would point out that if you modify a Ford "Econoline" in all probability you would change the vehicle classification from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle. This should be noted on the certification label that you attach to the vehicle.

I have enclosed an information sheet that explains where you may obtain copies of these regulations.

Sincerely,

Aug. 16, 1976

Dear Sir, I am interested in your policies and regulation for camping, vans. I am planning to do modifications of standard manufactured vans (e.g: Ford "Econoline") which would involve plumbing, water, electrical (no (Illegible Lines)) seating.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention.

Bing Johnson

ID: nht90-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DIANA L. D. REGAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-14-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD, NHTSA, FROM DIANA L. REGAN ATTACHED; OCC 4152

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of how our laws and regulations would apply to a product you have invented. Your product is designed to alter the alignment of the webbing of a lap/shoulder safety belt to improve the fit of the saf ety belt on children weighing between 40 and 85 pounds. According to your letter, the product is designed to be firmly attached to the webbing of both the lap belt portion and the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt. When the product is attached, it pulls down the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt so that it will pass across the child's chest and shoulder, instead of the neck. You asked whether this product would be considered a safety belt or a child restraint system for the purposes of our safety standards. The answer is that your product would not be considered to be either for the purposes of our standards, as explained below.

Section S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209) defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including al l necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added). Your device is not itself designed to secure a child in a motor vehicle. Instead, your device is designed t o alter the alignment of the existing safety belt in the vehicle, so that the existing safety belt system in the vehicle can be adjusted to better fit a child occupant. Therefore, your device would not be a "seat belt assembly" within the meaning of Sta ndard No. 209.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR @ 571.213) defines a "child restraint system" as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (Emphasis added). As explained above, your device is not a Type I or Type II seat belt. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, your device is not itself designed to restrain, seat, or position children. The restraining of the child would be a ccomplished entirely by the safety belt system already installed in the vehicle. Your device would simply alter the alignment

of that safety belt system for the child. Therefore, your device would not be a "child restraint system" within the meaning of Standard No. 213.

You also asked for information regarding your responsibilities as the manufacturer and seller of this product. I have enclosed an information sheet we have prepared for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed copies of a Febr uary 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick A. Boutin and a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These two letters describe how products intended to enhance the comfort of safety belt wearers could be affected by our laws and regulations. The informa tion sheet explains how to obtain copies of our laws and regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLS.

ID: 2284y

Mr. Diana L.D. Regan
43 Rockwood Drive
Larchmont, NY 10538

Dear Ms. Regan:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of how our laws and regulations would apply to a product you have invented. Your product is designed to alter the alignment of the webbing of a lap/shoulder safety belt to improve the fit of the safety belt on children weighing between 40 and 85 pounds. According to your letter, the product is designed to be firmly attached to the webbing of both the lap belt portion and the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt. When the product is attached, it pulls down the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt so that it will pass across the child's chest and shoulder, instead of the neck. You asked whether this product would be considered a safety belt or a child restraint system for the purposes of our safety standards. The answer is that your product would not be considered to be either for the purposes of our standards, as explained below.

Section S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209) defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added). Your device is not itself designed to secure a child in a motor vehicle. Instead, your device is designed to alter the alignment of the existing safety belt in the vehicle, so that the existing safety belt system in the vehicle can be adjusted to better fit a child occupant. Therefore, your device would not be a "seat belt assembly" within the meaning of Standard No. 209.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213) defines a "child restraint system" as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (Emphasis added). As explained above, your device is not a Type I or Type II seat belt. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, your device is not itself designed to restrain, seat, or position children. The restraining of the child would be accomplished entirely by the safety belt system already installed in the vehicle. Your device would simply alter the alignment of that safety belt system for the child. Therefore, your device would not be a "child restraint system" within the meaning of Standard No. 213.

You also asked for information regarding your responsibilities as the manufacturer and seller of this product. I have enclosed an information sheet we have prepared for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed copies of a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick A. Boutin and a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These two letters describe how products intended to enhance the comfort of safety belt wearers could be affected by our laws and regulations. The information sheet explains how to obtain copies of our laws and regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:208#209#213 d:2/l4/90

ID: aiam5455

Dear Ms. Platt: This responds to your letter of August 29, 1994, i which you inquire whether a child 'partially sitting on a bus seat is provided crash protection of Standard 222.' You explain that you were referring to a third child sitting on the edge of a bus seat nearest the aisle. The child can only face the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward, because the bench seat is overcrowded. Some background information would be helpful in responding to your question. 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966) provides this agency the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each new vehicle or item of equipment that is sold to the consumer must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on its date of manufacture. However, once the vehicle or equipment is sold, the use of that product becomes a matter of State jurisdiction. NHTSA has no authority to regulate the operation of used vehicles or items of equipment. With respect to school buses, it has been shown that school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in America (see enclosed School Bus Safety Report, May 1993). Every year, approximately 380,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.8 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school related activities. Occupant deaths per vehicle mile travelled in school buses are about one-fourth those in passenger cars. Crash protection in large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds and which typically seat 16 or more, is provided by 'compartmentalization.' That concept requires strong, well- padded, well-anchored, high-backed and evenly-spaced seats for school bus occupant protection. Compartmentalization has been shown to be effective by independent studies of the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences. Small school buses, on the other hand, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and which typically seat fewer than 16 occupants, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions. Turning to your inquiry, this agency agrees it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, facing the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward. To get the full benefit of compartmentalization, the child occupant should face forward to be cushioned and contained between the strong, well-padded seat backs on the school bus. Thus, Standard 222 requires school bus passenger seats to be forward-facing (paragraph S5.1). When a child is sitting on the edge of the bus seat, as you described, it would seem that either the school bus is overloaded or the passengers are seating themselves improperly, indicating a possible lack of adequate supervision. This agency is seriously concerned about such conditions, but as pointed out above, once a vehicle is sold to the first retail customer, the use of that vehicle becomes the responsibility of the State. Since the States regulate the use of school buses, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Governor's highway safety representative for Florida is: Mr. Frank Carlile Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy 605 Suwanne St., MS-57 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Telephone: (904) 922-5820 I am also enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued jointly by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration and provides recommendations to the states on the operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Although these recommendations are not mandatory, they might be helpful in your discussions with school officials. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures;

ID: nht94-2.60

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael E. Klima -- Managing Engineer, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from Michael E. Klima to Edward Jettner (OCC-9832)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 29, 1994, to Mr. Edward Jettner of this agency concerning the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions concern the application of this standard to a pickup truck ma nufactured in April 1988 with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,400 pounds. You asked whether the injury criteria in S6 apply to this truck, whether a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test is required, and which sections of Standard No. 208 apply to t his truck.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208. Section S4.2.1 of standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks and multipurpos e passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 1, 1976 and before September 1, 1991. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seati ng positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protectio n requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic prot ection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system f or those belts.

According to your letter, the manufacturer installed Type 2 seat belt assemblies at the front outboard seating positions. This suggests that the manufacturer chose to comply with Option 3. Under this option, the only requirements in Standard No. 208 th at those belts were required to comply with were S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3. The belts were also required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The manufacturer was not required to certify that the vehicle complied with t he dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208. The injury criteria in S6 of the standard are applicable only to vehicles which must comply with the dynamic testing requirements.

Standards No. 208 does not include a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test requirement. The dynamic crash test in Standard No. 208 is barrier crash test at any speed up to 30 mph. NHTSA does perform some 35 mph barrier

crash tests as part of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is a consumer information program, not a safety compliance test. NHTSA does not test every vehicle under this program. In the 1993 model year program, NHTSA tested 37 new vehicles and released results on 68 additional vehicles which had been tested previously and had not changed significantly in model year 1993.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Barbara Pietra -- Dabble, Inc. (Los Angeles, CA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/5/94 from Barbara Pietra to John Womack (OCC 10166)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you call a "Cair Bag." You describe the Cair Bag as a "comfort pillow" for children to rest or sleep on while seated in their vehicle seat belt. You explain that the Cair Bag is an "under-stuffed styrene pellet bag" that attaches to the lap portion of the vehicle's Type II seat belt with a reinforced velcro and nylon strap. You state that you will recommend the product for children over 50 pounds "to prevent it from being used as a child restraint system."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, appro ve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment.

You state in your letter that everyone you spoke to at NHTSA "felt this was a great product." To avoid any possible misunderstanding about what agency personnel said about your product, I wish to clarify that NHTSA and agency personnel can not and do no t endorse any product, or make commendations about products. If you understood them to say NHTSA approves of or believes your product is "great," that is incorrect, and we apologize for any confusion.

Turning now to your questions, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the Cair Bag. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weight 50 pounds or less." (S4 of FMVSS 213) We do not consider the Cair Bag to "position children" in a manner that a child seat positions children to better u se a vehicle's belt system. Rather, the Cair Bag is simply a cushion that a child may lean on. Since your product does not "restrain, seat, or position" children as a child restraint system, the product is not subject to Standard 213 regardless of the w eight of the children for whom you recommend the product.

However, we share your concern that the Cair Bag must not be used in place of a child restraint system. We recommend that the product be clearly labeled with information to the consumer that the product is not a child restraint system and must not be us ed as one.

While no FMVSS applies to the Cair Bag, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. SS30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. (1) In t he event you or NHTSA determines that your product

contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the Cair Bag would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. S30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Our FMVSS's require specific levels of performance for the belt system in a vehicle. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the cr ash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The FMVSS also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract, ensuring there is no excessive slack in the belt system. Since the Cair Bag attaches to the lap belt, any person liste d in S30122 must ensure that compliance of the belt system with these requirements is not degraded. Also, FMVSS 302 specifies flammability resistance requirements for vehicle interiors. Any person listed in S30122 who installs a Cair Bag must ensure th at the product does not vitiate the vehicle's compliance with those flammability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of S30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety s tandards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

I would like to make a further note in closing. The advertising literature you enclosed with your letter described the Cair Bag as "The Portable 'Air Bag'." We believe this description could be misleading, because the term "air bag" is widely recognized as describing an inflatable device that provides substantial occupant protection in frontal impacts. We are concerned that calling your device a "portable air bag" could mislead some consumers into believing your device offers occupant protection simil ar to that of a vehicle air bag, which of course, is incorrect. To avoid this potential for confusion, please refrain from describing your device as an "air bag."

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

---------------

(1) Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: aiam1041

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in response to your letter of January 9, 1973, concerning th application of Standard 209 to emergency locking mechanisms that Toyota intends to use in its 1974 models. Mr. Suzuki of your staff presented Toyota's problem at greater length in a meeting with NHTSA on March 2, 1973, and the following response serves to confirm the opinion given him at that time.; Both the central G-sensing device (with its computer) and th individual solenoids on the retractors are considered to be seat belt assembly hardware for purposes of Standard 209. We do not find that the central position of the G-sensor is a sufficient reason to exclude it from the requirements of the standard applicable to hardware, including the corrosion requirements. However, any corrosion testing of the G-sensor would be performed with the sensor's covering in place. If the covering is impervious to water, as Mr. Suzuki stated, there should be little difficulty in passing the test.; A second question was raised by Mr. Suzuki concerning the testing o the upper torso retractor. It is our opinion that the retractor should be subjected to the environmental tests in its installed condition, with its cover in place.; A final question presented by Mr. Suzuki concerns the allowable widt for that portion of the upper torso belt that does not contact the occupant. As we informed him the August 1972 petition by JAMA on this subject is still open and we anticipate that the agency's action will be favorable.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 9061

Ms. Carolyn H. McDaniel
2614 Briar Ridge
Suite 493
Houston, TX 77057

Dear Ms. McDaniel:

This responds to your September 1, 1993, letter to Mary Versailles of my staff. You are concerned with vehicles used by a company called Extradition Services, Inc. (ESI), to transport prisoners, one of which was involved in an accident in Texas. You describe the vehicle involved in the accident as follows:

...an extended Dodge van, bars over the windows, handles off the doors, one bench in a wire cage, two more bench seats and a bench seat across the back of the van. The aisle ran along the passenger side of the van. The seats appeared to be the original seats and seat belts apparently had been removed because none were present.

You also expressed concerns related to the way these vehicles were operated.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. The regulations administered by this agency only address the way in which the vehicle is manufactured, not the use of the vehicle.

Based on your description of the vehicle, there may be a question as to whether the vehicle was required to have seat belts. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. In addition, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which the prisoners were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and GVWR of the vehicle.

Your letter states that you believe the seat belts were removed from the vehicle after manufacture. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from removing seat belts from a vehicle. Please note, however, that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications owners make to their own vehicles.

Your concerns about ESI's use of the vehicle are not addressed by the Federal law administered by this agency, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their use. It is possible that there may be an issue associated with commercial driver regulations, and we have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration. In addition, because your questions concern the safety of vehicles used to transport prisoners and an accident in Texas, you may wish to contact the Governor's Office, the head of the Texas prison system, or your state representative.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Federal Highway Administration ref:208 d:9/27/93

ID: aiam1021

Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1973, in which yo asked a question concerning the relationship of the seat belt interlock and warning system required by Standard No. 208.; You asked whether the informative warning system, required by S7.3.5. to operate when the driver turned the ignition to 'start' position and 'the operation of the seatbelt systems required by S7.4.1 to start the engine has not been performed', is required to operate when the driver turns the ignition to start under the 'free start' provisions of S7.4.3.; The answer is no. The 'start' warning of S7.3.5.4 is only required t operate when a seatbelt operation 'required to start the engine' has not been performed. When the engine is free to start under S7.4.3, the warning is not required. Of course, if the driver puts the vehicle in gear, the warning must sound under the provisions of S7.3.1 if the required seatbelt operations have not been performed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel