ID: nht91-5.18

DATE: August 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: H. George Johannessen, P.E. -- Chairman, Seat Belt Technical Committee, Automotive Occupant Restraints Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-22-91 from H. George Johannessen, P.E. to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5858)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). More specifically, you asked about the meaning of the requirement in S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 that "...the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this provision.

You explained that some have asserted that a safety belt fails to comply with S4.1(b) if it actually moves off an occupant's pelvis during a crash. To reach such a conclusion, one must ignore the words "be designed to" and treat the requirement as though it read "...the pelvic restraint shall remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." Such a reading is plainly incorrect, because it reads the phrase "be designed to" out of the regulation.

You explained that you believe S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory phrase that is essentially meaningless. According to your letter, this language first appeared in a standard developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and was subsequently adopted verbatim in the safety belt standard issued by the Department of Commerce and in Standard No. 209. You asserted that the SAE committee that developed this language included it as a design goal only, since the committee members "were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal," and "were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field."

We cannot agree with your suggestion that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory design goal. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires each safety standard to meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that the standard be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. When NHTSA adopted Standard No. 209 as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency concluded that Standard No. 209, including S4.1(b), met all applicable statutory criteria.

It is true that there is no compliance test procedure specifically for S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. However, the meaning of that provision becomes clear when it is viewed in the context of the occupant protection requirements in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No.

210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and the rest of Standard No. 209. Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that vehicles be equipped with safety belts and that the lap belt portions of those belts adjust to fit persons ranging in size from a 6-year-old child to a 95th percentile adult male (See S7.1.1). Standard No. 209 requires that safety belts meet specified strength, durability, and other performance requirements. Standard No. 210 requires that the anchorage holding the safety belt in the vehicle meet stringent strength requirements, so that the belt will remain attached to the vehicle in a crash, and lap belt location requirements (S4.3.1), including a minimum lap belt mounting angle, to reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining, i.e., having the lap belt move off the pelvis. See the detailed discussion of the minimum lap belt mounting angle at 55 FR 17970, at 17974; April 30, 1990.

Viewed in this context, we believe that the requirement of S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 means that safety belts must be designed to be capable of being properly adjusted and positioned on the pelvis of occupants ranging from 6-year-old children to 95th percentile adult males. The belts must also be capable of remaining on the pelvis of such occupant during collision or roll-over. A belt system that was not capable of being positioned on the pelvis and remaining there during crashes would not comply with S4.1(b).

Given this meaning and purpose, we offer the following observations. First, the fact that a lap belt moved off the occupant's pelvis during a collision would NOT of itself show that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. Compliance with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is determined by the design of the safety belt system, not the performance of individual safety belts while in service. Second, the actual performance of a safety belt in a vehicle (e.g., a lap belt moving off the occupant's pelvis during a crash) COULD indicate that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. If the agency had information indicating that a particular belt design was not capable of being properly positioned on the pelvis or not capable of remaining on the occupant's pelvis when installed in particular vehicles in particular crash modes, the agency might well investigate whether that safety belt design complied with S4.1(b). However, NHTSA has no such information about any safety belt systems at this time.

ID: nht91-5.19

DATE: August 9, 1991

FROM: Alonzo Bendolph

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Alonzo Bendolph (A38; Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing in regards to a business endeavor I plan to persue.

On August 08, 1991, your vehicle safety department was contacted regarding any possible regulations governing the placement of personalized stickers in the upper portion of the front and rear windsheilds of a vehicle. I was told that to get the proper interpretation of this matter that your department should be contact.

Essentially my business idea is this: I'd like to offer personalized stickers for the front and rear windsheild that would extend to both sides of car (frame to frame). The same sticker would be no greater than 6 inches in length. These same stickers would contains some of the following phrases listed below:

"My wife is #1" "young and single and I love to mingle" "Can't touch this"

These signs would be clear and containing no additional tint. Only the lettering would be visble.

In an efforts to get a definite answer as to the legality of these stickers, NY State dept of motor vehicles was contacted. I was told that all signs placed in the front and rear windshield other than inspection and registration are illegal. Inspite of this, many motorist proudly display such signs as Toyota, Honda, Chevy Blazer, and so on. Is this supposed law in New York a law that is enforced? Or is it just a law on the books - like jay walking and improper parking distance from the curves.

please supply written correspondence as to the NHTSA position relative to this issue. Hoping to hear from your office soon.

ID: nht91-5.2

DATE: July 19, 1991

FROM: John D. Hayes -- Port Brokers Inc.

TO: Chief Council Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-31-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John D. Hayes (A38; Part 591)

TEXT:

We are anticipating handling in September an imported shipment on a Carnet basis of one DAF tractor and one trailer with a self contained jumbo video screen (27 square yards in area when completely set up) that will be used in a concert tour throughout the United States over a 30 days period of time. At the end of the 30 days period this will be completed exported.

In order to be sure that we are not overlooking any important factors, we would appreciate your legal interpretation in what is necessary for this vehicle and trailer to travel throughout the United States. We understand that your form HS7 would be used and box 7 would be completed.

The DAF cab is 6,900 kilos and the trailer with jumbo video screen is 26 tons.

This screen costs $20,000 per day and it is extremely important that we avoid any delays which may occur regarding problems with Department of Transportation.

We must respond next week to our customer in the Netherlands so that they can start working on this project. Please advise as soon as possible any particulars we need to know.

We would appreciated receiving your response by fax if possible.

If any other details are necessary for your interpretation please let me know.

ID: nht91-5.20

DATE: August 9, 1991

FROM: David L. Kulp -- Manager, Fuel Economy Planning & Compliance, Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company

TO: Orron E. Kee -- NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Deletion of Off-Highway Data from the Pre-Model and Mid-Model Reports

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David L. Kulp (A38; Part 523; Part 537)

TEXT:

Ford requests your concurrence to discontinue the reporting of off-highway data as listed in S537.7(c)(5) for light-duty trucks that otherwise comply to the light-duty truck definition in S523.5(a). Per a telephone conversation between you and Ms. Peg Gutmann of my staff on July 19, 1991, the off-highway data is only required for automobiles that a manufacturer wishes to classify as a light-duty truck per the provisions of S523.5(b).

Please contact Ms. Gutmann at (313) 337-5367 if you have any questions or concerns.

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: nht91-5.22

DATE: August 12, 1991

FROM: John E. Calow -- Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Chassis Division

TO: Taylor Vincon -- Legal Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-18-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John E. Calow (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Quite a while ago I spoke with you about optically combined Brake Lights and Hazard Warning Lights. Per our conversation I understood that the Brake Lights would over-ride the Hazard Warning Lights if both were activated. Recently it was brought to my attention that my interpretation was in error. Thus, I am requesting that you review following questions and submit a written verification.

1) If the Brake Lights and Hazard Warning Lights are optically combined and both are activated (per federal regulations) which of the following will occur? A) The brake lights will over-ride causing a steady light emission. B) The hazard lights will over-ride causing a flashing light emission.

2) If the vehicle has a Center High Mounted Stop Lamp "CHMSL" is it acceptable to have the Hazard Warning Lights over-ride the Brake Lights if the CHMSL has a steady light emitance upon brake application?

Please send the written verification to my attention. Our address is on my enclosed business card.

Thank you for your time and consideration, if you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht91-5.23

DATE: August 12, 1991

FROM: Frank Kenney -- Sporting Tailors Manufacturing Co.

TO: Office of the Chief Councel (Counsel) -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-21-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Frank Kenney (A38; Std. 302); Also attached to copy of 49 CFR 571.302, pages 517-519: Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials; Also attached to letter dated 6-29-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ed McCarron of Western Star Trucks Inc. (Std. 302)

TEXT:

We are planning to manufacture roll bar or "Bikini Tops" for off road Vehicles such as Jeep Wranglers. We are presently clothing manufacturers and this would be a new product line we would becoming involved with. We, therefore, have, some questions for you.

Since this is an "after market product", it is our understanding that the roll bar tops must conform to automotive code #302 which has to do with passing flammability requirements. We have resolved this problem by imparting a flame retardent element between the vinyl roll bar top and the brushed nylon black backing fabric ass per the enclosed sample. (The vinyl top fabric is bonded to the brushed nylon tricot black fabric and the flame retardent is sandwiched between the two fabrics.)

Our question is the following: (Please refer to diagram of the roll bar top and the fabric sample enclosed)

Would the binding fabric strips sewn all around the edges of the roll bar top to lend stability and finished appearance also be required to have a flame retardent element added to the back of the strips as well?

Since the bonded roll bar vinyl top fabric bonded to the brushed nylon tricot fabric with the flame retardent sandwiched between IS ACTUALLY LYING BETWEEN THE STICHED BINDING STRIP, would it be required to make the strip flame retardent as well? Would we not be duplicating our efforts?

We would greatly appreciate your response to this at your very earliest convenience.

We understand that we must conform to 49 CFR Part 566 manufacturer identification and if there would be anything else that would apply to this after market product, please advise us.

The last question we pose to you is the following: If we supply a tote bag to the consumer in order that the roll bar top may be kept clean while not in use, would this tote bag also be required to conform to Automotive code #302:

We thank you in advance for your comments and information.

ID: nht91-5.24

DATE: August 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mickey Hale -- General Sales Manager, Jackie Cooper Olds-GMC

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-91 from Mickey Hale to Steve Kratzke (OCC 6173)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, our Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, asking what type of safety belt must be installed at rear seating positions in conversion vans. You indicated that these conversions would be made to used 1990 Chevrolet full-sized vans. You intend to install lap/shoulder belts at the front two seating positions and lap-only belts at each of the middle and rear seating positions, and asked if this planned installation would conflict with the safety belt installation requirements set forth in NHTSA's safety standards. The answer is that this planned installation would not conflict with Federal requirements, as explained below.

To begin, NHTSA does not classify vehicles as "vans." Instead, cargo vans are generally classified as "trucks," and passenger vans are generally classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles." S4.2.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard and rear forward-facing outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Any of these vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1991 are required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Thus, if your van conversions were new vehicles, your planned safety belt installations would be permissible for van conversions manufactured before September 1, 1991, but impermissible for conversions manufactured after that date.

You stated, however, that the van conversions in question would not be new vehicles, but would instead be used 1990 model year vehicles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, the Safety Act includes a provision that prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This prohibition applies to both new and used vehicles and means that the named commercial entities may not remove safety equipment required by the safety standards, such as seat belts, unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle will not be used during the time its compliance with the safety standards has been

"rendered inoperative." In the case of safety belts, this means that your dealership could remove belts to make repairs or modifications, but must reinstall or replace the belts before returning the vehicle to a customer.

NHTSA does not consider it to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition when a dealer modifies a used vehicle in such a way that the vehicle is equipped with safety belts at every designated seating position and those safety belts are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted to be installed at that seating position in the vehicle when it was new. In this case, your letter states that you would equip the used 1990 conversion vans with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and lap-only belts at all other seating positions. This belt installation was permitted by Standard No. 208 for new 1990 multipurpose passenger vehicles. Therefore, your planned installation would not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act with respect to the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-5.25

DATE: August 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack Garbo -- President/General Counsel, AVM Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-11-91 from Jack Garbo to Mary Versailles (OCC 6224)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1991, requesting clarification of Standard No. 208. Specifically, you asked "whether the three-point seatbelt is required in all middle and rear outboard seating positions in the multipurpose vehicles after September 1, 1991." Specifically, you requested verification of your interpretation that these requirements apply only to forward-facing seating, and not rearward-facing seating. Your interpretation regarding rearward-facing seats is correct.

Beginning September 1, 1991, multipurpose passenger vehicles must have lap/shoulder belts at every forward-facing rear outboard designated seating positions. The term "rear outboard designated seating position" is defined in S4.2.4.1(b) as an "outboard designated seating position" located rearward of the front seat(s). If by the phrase "middle and rear outboard seating positions" you are referring to outboard seating positions in different rows of seats located behind the front seat(s), each such position that is forward-facing must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts after September 1, 1991. If instead the term "middle" is referring to center seating position(s) on bench seats, such positions may be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts. Rearward-facing seats may also be equipped with either lap or lap/shoulder belts.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-5.26

DATE: August 14, 1991

FROM: Elizabeth D. Smith -- Department Head, Community and Special Services, Division of Program Monitoring, State of South Carolina, State Health and Human Services Finance Commission

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-15-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Elizabeth D. Smith (A38; VSA S108(a)(2)(A); Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I spoke with you last week regarding the addition of safety belts to a 1986 Ford Club Wagon which is currently used to transport children between three and five years of age. The vehicle is classified as a bus according to the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards. It and others like it, which are owned by our agency and assigned to child development contractors, are used primarily to transport pre-school age children to and from the child development center and on field trips. The vehicle has seat belts for 15 passengers including the driver. The question has been posed regarding the legality and safety of adding additional seat belts in order for providers to transport up to four additional children. As equipped now, the providers are physically able to belt more than one child per seat belt. However, their compliance with state laws in doing such is questionable.

I have checked with the Legal Division of the South Carolina Highway Department and have been advised by Bill Todd that there is currently no state law that would forbid someone from adding seat belts to a vehicle and transporting more than 14 children on these vans. Mr. Todd advised me to check with you regarding any Federal regulations that would prohibit this. Contact was also made with Robert Green, who represents the Coalition for Safer, Cleaner Vehicles. He saw no problem with doing this. He suggested that the anchor points may be a problem, but since the vehicles are being used to transport children, he didn't see any reason why they would be a problem.

The particular provider who has raised this question would use the local Ford dealership to install the additional belts. She has spoken with the service manager at the dealership and he feels that this can easily be accomplished without adversely affecting the safety of the vehicle. He felt that the additional weight of the extra passengers would not overload the vehicle, but planned to discuss it with his district or regional manager this week. The service manager also spoke to a Highway Patrol Sergeant who stated that the vehicle doesn't specify the seating capacity or the number of persons per seat; therefore, he saw no problem with the installation of additional seat belts. There is nothing in any of the materials regarding this vehicle that states it is a 15 passenger van. The only thing that currently defines that is the number of seat belts. Our main question for your office is whether the addition of seat belts violates the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Act.

Additional information taken from the inside door of the van is:

Date 4/86 GVWR 8000 lbs./391 KG Front GAWR: 3400 lbs. Rear GAWR: 6,084 lbs.

1,542 KG WITH 2,759 KG WITH Type Bus (not school bus) 9M

Any information that you can provide us in the very near future regarding these questions is greatly appreciated. We are certain that other child care provider would be interested in your response as many of them routinely transport more than 14 children on these vans by double belting them. If there are extenuating circumstances that impact your responses, please outline them for us. For example, the person manning your hotline number stated that, if the dealer made the installations and would re-certify the safety compliance, then it may be O.K. for the additional belts to be installed.

We don't want our providers to place their clients and their drivers at risk when riding in a vehicle that has been altered, but we also recognize their dilemmas in meeting clients' needs for transportation and the funding limitations that prevent them from purchasing another vehicle and hiring and training staff to drive it. I understand that the liability question would rest with the state if there was an accident.

Thank you for your assistance in promptly addressing this situation. If you need additional information, please feel free to call me at (803) 253-6154.