ID: nht91-5.42

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: None (Confidential)

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation-FMVSS 101 "Controls and Displays and FMVSS 208, "Occupant Crash Protection"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-27-91 from Paul Jackson Rice (A38; Std. 208; Std. 101)

TEXT:

A major automobile manufacturer (hereafter referred to as "The Company") is seeking an interpretation relating to the applicability of a seat belt pretensioner system indicator display with respect to the requirements of FMVSS No. 101; "Controls and Displays" FMVSS No.208; "Occupant Crash Protection".

The Company is planning to incorporate a seat belt "pretensioning" system for active seat belt systems for the front outboard seating positions in some of its future models. The pretensioner system is a device that is designed to retract the belt webbing into the retractor when the vehicle experiences certain frontal area impacts. It is The Company's intention to provide an on board diagnostic system including a malfunction display that will allow the vehicle operator to assess the functional status of the seat belt pretensioner system.

The Company has proposed three alternatives to provide a visual display to illustrate the operational status for the seat belt pretensioner system Those proposals are set forth below.

Proposal #1

The Company proposes to utilize the existing seat belt telltale display field location. Presently, the seat belt telltale illuminates for a period of six seconds following ignition "key on", regardless of whether the seat belt is fastened prior to or following ignition actuation and, in conjunction with a six second audible warning accomplished by either chime or buzzer, signals the occupant to fasten the lap belt webbing of the seat belt. In the event of a pretensioner system failure, a five second period of lamp non-illumination will follow the "fasten belt message, followed by a one second illumination /0.5 second non-illumination cycle which will continue until the ignition key in the lock cylinder is moved to the "off" position. If there is no malfunction in pretensioner system, the only message displayed in the seat belt telltale field will be the "fasten seat belt" message.

Case I - No malfunction in the seat belt pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case II - Malfunction in the seat belt pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 1

Proposal # 7

The second proposal also involves combining the "fasten belt" message and the "pretensioner malfunction", thus creating a condition of "non-discrete" messages for cases where a malfunction in the pretensioner system occurs. In the case of no pretensioner malfunction, two conditions exist: one in which the seat belt is fastened prior to ignition on, and one in which the seat belt is fastened following ignition, In the case where the seat belt is fastened prior to ignition, the fasten belt message will illuminate for seven seconds and then be extinguished. In the case where the ignition is activated prior to belt fastening, the "fasten belt" message is displayed until the belt is fastened. The Company believes that this complies with S4.5.3.3 of FMVSS 208.

Case IA - No malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened prior to ignition on.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case IB - No malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened after ignition on.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 2

Proposal # 2 (Continued)

In the case of a pretensioner system malfunction, two conditions will also exist: one in which the belts are fastened after the ignition is activated. In the case where the belts are fastened prior to ignition, the display will illuminate continuously for a seven second period, followed by a non-illuminated period that will last from zero to 28 seconds. A pretensioner system diagnostic period will begin with ignition key on and will be completed within a seven to 35 second time period Following the diagnostic period, the malfunction in the pretensioner will be identified by a 0.5 on / 0,5 off illumination cycle. In the case where the belts are fastened after ignition, a 7 to 35 second illuminated period of diagnostics will occur, followed by a cycle that includes a 0.5 second period of non-illumination, 0.5 period of illumination, 0.5 second period of non-illumination, and a three second period of illumination. This cycle will continue until the seat belt is fastened, or the ignition is turned to the "key-off" position.

Case IIA - Malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened prior to ignition.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case IIB - Malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened after ignition.

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 2

Proposal # 3

The third proposal involves the use of the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) telltale field that is required under the provisions set forth in FMVSS No. 208, Section 4.5.2, "Readiness Indicator" for devices that deploy upon impact. If there is no malfunction in the pretensioner system and/or the air bag system, the SRS telltale will illuminate for 7 seconds and then extinguish. In the event of a pretensioner system malfunction, the SRS telltale will illuminate for seven seconds, experience a non-illuminated zero to 28 second diagnostic assessment period, and then provide a malfunction message by completing a 0.5 second on / 0.5 second off illumination pattern that will be defeated by moving the ignition key to the "off" position. It should be noted that, in the event of an air bag malfunction, the SRS telltale will also provide the identical message, which will not be distinguishable from a malfunction message for the pretensioner system by the customer. However, the malfunction message will be distinguishable to a trained service technician using diagnostic tools.

Case I - No malfunction in the air bag and / or pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case II - Malfunction in the air bag and / or pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

SRS Readiness Indicator Illumination Schematic for proposal # 3

The Company requests that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide interpretation regarding the proposals as follows:

Proposals # 1 and # 2

1) Does Proposal # 1 and / or Proposal # 2 comply with the requirements of FMVSS 101, S5.4 for use of common space to display messages?

2) Does Proposal # 1 comply with FMVSS 208, 57.3?

3) Does Proposal # 2 comply with FMVSS 208, S4.5.3.3(b)?

4) Is the pretensioner system malfunction message applicable to the "Readiness Indicator" requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.5.2?

5) If the seat belt pretensioner malfunction is interpreted as a "Readiness Indicator" as defined in FMVSS 208, S4.5.2 as a device that deploys upon impact, can its telltale be displayed in a common telltale display field that is required pursuant to FMVSS 101?

Proposal # 3

1) Is it necessary to provide two distinctive messages to indicate an air bag system malfunction and a seat belt pretensioner system malfunction, or is the general message indicating a malfunction in the air bag system and / or belt pretensioner system acceptable?

2) If the pretensioner system malfunction message is interpreted to be a readiness indicator, is it subject to FMVSS 101, S5.4.2. (Are readiness indicators also subject to FMVSS 101 requirements.)?

3) If the seat belt pretensioner malfunction is interpreted as a "Readiness Indicator" as defined as a device that deploys upon impact, can its telltale be displayed in a common telltale display field that is required pursuant to FMVSS 101?

General

Will The Company be required to furnish a separate display field for the pretensioner system operational status if all three proposals are interpreted as not complying with FMVSS 101 or FMVSS 208?

ID: nht94-2.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Luis Carricaburu -- South Steering Specialists

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter dated 1/1/94 EST From Luis Carricaburu to Mary Versailles (OCC-9613)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Carricaburu:

This responds to your letter asking whether it is legal to buy or sell a salvaged air bag which would be used to repair an automobile with a deployed air bag. Your letter explained that the salvaged air bag would be taken from an automobile sent to a re cycling yard with its air bag intact.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explain ed in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. Howev er, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or re pair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a salvaged air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letters, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not reg ulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced.

I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the cras h

2

sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on in strument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air b ag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

While great care must be taken in any air bag replacement, the use of a salvaged air bag raises additional safety issues. An air bag may have been rendered inoperable, for example, by damage in a low-speed crash, even if it has not been deployed. We wo uld urge you to contact the vehicle or air bag manufacturer to determine whether and how a salvaged air bag could be inspected and/or tested to ensure that it is fully operable.

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using salvaged air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability.

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,

Enclosures

ID: nht93-4.41

DATE: June 22, 1993

FROM: Alan Niedzwiecki -- Director of Business Development, EDO Corporation, Government Systems Division

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: DOT NHTSA position on CNG cylinder standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/13/93 from John Womack to Alan Niedzwiecki (A41; Part 303)

TEXT:

EDO Corporation is a seventy year old Aerospace/Defense contractor headquartered in College Point, New York with several operating divisions across the USA and one in Canada. One of the products that EDO Corporation has developed and is currently manufacturing is an all-composite cylinder for compressed natural gas vehicle on-board motor fuel storage. The cylinder has been certified to the Canadian Government CNG cylinder standard which has the highest safety factor of any other existing CNG cylinder standard (SF 3.33). Our cylinder was actually tested to a safety factor of 3.5. It is EDO's intention to begin a large US fleet conversion program using these cylinders, commencing July 15, 1993. If this program is successful, vehicle may be equipped at the OEM level with these cylinders.

At this time, there is no applicable U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) cylinder standard for compressed natural gas on-board motor vehicle storage cylinders. To quote the NFPA 52 (1992 Edition) Section 2-4.2: "Note 1: Current DOT and TC specifications, exemptions, and specific permits do not address the use of cylinders as vehicle fuel containers."

We are aware of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), entitled: "NHTSA 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Compressed Natural Gas Fuel System and Fuel Tank Integrity." This new CNG cylinder standard is to be adopted by law on September 1, 1994. It is our understanding that the NHTSA NPRM is a self certification standard which places full responsibility on both the cylinder manufacturer and automobile manufacturer for liability issues. In addition, manufacturers are subject to the U.S. re-call laws under the U.S. Automobile Vehicles Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381.

It is important to note that the existing EDO LiteRider cylinder meets the requirements of the "New" DOT NHTSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 49 CFR Part 571 FMVSS in its current form which calls for a 3.5 safety factor.

In the interim, the AGA NGV2 has been adopted by ANSI as a voluntary industry standard for CNG motor fuel storage cylinders.

Based on numerous discussions with Department of Transportation and American Gas Association Laboratory personnel, please note that:

. The EDO LiteRider cylinder has been certified to the Canadian Government CAN/CSA B51-M91 Appendix G, Boiler, Pressure Vessel, and Pressure Piping Code.

. EDO has commenced ANSI/AGA NGV2 Certification. Anticipated approval - July 1, 1993.

. EDO will comply with the US Automobile Vehicle Safety Act, U.S.C. 1381.

. EDO has sold LiteRider cylinders for demonstration programs, in USA.

. EDO is aggressively promoting the sale of LiteRider cylinders throughout the USA.

It is EDO's position that given the above certifications there are no additional DOT regulations to which we are required to comply, prior to starting the conversion program.

We request that you review our position and let us know if there are any other measures required, prior to our proceeding.

Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me at (718) 321-4503 or Fax: (718) 321-4540. My mailing address is as follows:

EDO Energy Corporation 14-04 111 Street College Point, New York 11356-1434 Attn: A. Niedzwiecki, Director of Business Development

ID: aiam0406

Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1971, enclosing a copy o Mr. Shrake's memorandum 'Seat Belts Required by July 1, 1971', copy attached.; We concur in your conclusion that the seat belt requirement does no apply to chassis-cabs, cabs, and vans, manufactured before July 1, 1971, and that, on or subsequent to that date, are completed as, or modified to become, motor homes. We concur also with the other points set out in the memorandum.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4888

Dear Mr. McCormick: This responds to your letter to Stephen Wood, ou Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking information about any provisions of Federal law that might apply to a belt positioning device for children. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that this device attaches to the seat back of the rear seat and includes an adjustable cushioned head support and an adjustable 'convenience center,' which serves to reroute the belt to offer a better belt fit for a child occupant of the position. For your information, I have enclosed two letters in which we have provided a general description of how Federal requirements might apply to belt positioning devices. The first is a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin and the other is a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These letters explain the applicable Federal requirements and the letter to Mr. Boutin sets forth some safety concerns applicable to that particular design. In addition, I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that explains how to obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5433

"Dear Ms. Thomas: This responds to your letter asking about safet regulations for a device you call a 'CarMobile.' The CarMobile is a type of strap to which three rings are sewn. The CarMobile attaches by 'velcro' straps to the handrails located at the top of the interior rear car doors. You state that 'Toys would be hung from the rings, so that babies and toddlers can play with them as they dangle in front of their carseats.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. However, 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. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the 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 CarMobile would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation 'makes inoperative' compliance with any safety standard. NHTSA's safety standard for built-in child restraint systems (Standard 213) specifies requirements that ensure that the area surrounding a child in a built-in restraint is free from objects that could injure a child's head in a crash. If the CarMobile's cord and rings cause the vehicle with the built-in restraint to no longer comply with Standard 213, any of the aforementioned parties installing the CarMobile may have violated 30122. The prohibition of 30122 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 standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles, and would discourage them from hanging toys or other objects in front of a seated child that could injure the child in a crash. We also wish to point out that any kind of ribbon or line that can wrap around the neck of a child in a crash poses a potential risk of strangulation in a crash. You should consider these and any other relevant safety concerns when designing the CarMobile and when instructing consumers how to use the device. I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 77-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your oral request of February 17, 1977, for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, as they apply to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. In particular, you ask how much force must be used when testing school bus seat belt anchorages for compliance with the standards.

As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, initially proposed that seat belt anchorages be installed in all school buses. At that time, we also proposed that each seat belt assembly be tested under a force of 1,500 pounds. A seat containing three seating positions would have had the three seat belt assemblies tested simultaneously with a possible resulting load upon the seat of 4,500 pounds. The requirement of seat belt anchorages in larger buses was dropped from the proposal based upon comments from school bus operators and as a result of our compartmentalization approach to passenger seating safety in school buses.

The present Standard No. 222 requires seat belts and anchorages in small buses and mandates testing of the anchorages as outlined in Standard No. 210. Standard No. 210 requires in S4.2.1 that each seat belt assembly sustain a force application of 5,000 pounds. Where two adjacent seating positions have a common seat belt anchorage mounted on a seat frame, the two seat belt assemblies must simultaneously sustain a 5,000 pound force for a maximum load on the seat of 10,000 pounds.

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, requires the simultaneous testing of all seat-mounted seat belt assemblies, whether or not they have common anchorages. However, Standard No. 207 is not applicable to school bus seats constructed in accordance with Standard No. 222, and it is not necessary to test simultaneously all seat belt assemblies attached to anchorages mounted on a school bus seat frame.

ID: aiam2899

Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your September 6, 1978, letter asking for clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. In particular you ask whether paragraph S5.3.3 which requires that, 'a continuous warning sound shall be audible at the driver's seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency exit door having the unclosed mechanism' means that there must be a separate warning alarm at each emergency door and a warning alarm in the driver's seating area.; In your letter you recite the early history of this standard whic addresses the alarm system requirement. At the time of the final rule's adoption, commenters questioned the requirement in the same manner that you have questioned it in your letter. The agency stated in the preamble to the final rule (41 FR 3871) that the requirement mandated the use of audible alarms at each door and in the driver's seating location. The rationale for that requirement was outlined in the preamble and referenced in your letter. Since this interpretation of paragraph S5.3.3 was part of the initial rulemaking with respect to this standard, it is not necessary for the agency to undertake further rulemaking at this time to make this requirement binding upon manufacturers. The multiple alarm system requirement has been the agency's interpretation of paragraph S5.3.3 since its issuance, and manufacturers are required to comply with the safety standards as they are interpreted by the agency.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4603

"Dear Mr. Blumberg: This responds to your letter asking whether you company qualifies as a 'remanufacturer.' You explained that your company acquires the chassis (without the body) of right hand drive jeep-type vehicles that have been used by the United States Postal Service. You further explained that your company undertakes extensive operations to repair, restore, and replace parts of the used chassis and to add to the chassis a new body, hood, seats, and interior. There is no 'remanufacturer' category in any of this agency's laws or regulations. However, based on the facts presented in your letter, your company would appear to be a 'manufacturer.' Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines a 'manufacturer' as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' (emphasis supplied) Since your company plans to assemble vehicles, it would appear to be a 'manufacturer' under this definition and subject to the responsibilities imposed on a manufacturer by the Safety Act and our regulations issued thereunder. Among these responsibilities are: 1. Registration. 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires a 'manufacturer' of motor vehicles to submit identifying information and a description of items produced. 2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Certification: Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each 'manufacturer' to certify that every one of its new vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. The agency's longstanding position with respect to vehicles assembled by adding new bodies to the chassis of vehicles previously registered for use on the public roads is that such vehicles are themselves considered used motor vehicles. This agency position means that manufacturers such as your company would not be required to certify that such vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards as of the date the vehicle is assembled. The only exception to this general rule arises under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. We have interpreted this provision of the law as requiring any person (other than the vehicle owner) that has removed an old body in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly assembled vehicle meets the standard that the vehicle originally did (e.g., a vehicle comprised of a body manufactured in 1989 mounted on a used 1976 chassis must meet all standards that applied to vehicles manufactured in 1976). Your company would be responsible for any violations of this requirement for all of its vehicles from which your company itself has removed the old body from the used chassis and for all vehicles from which the old body was removed from the used chassis at the behest of your company. 3. Notification and Remedy. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to notify owners and remedy without charge to the owners any safety-related defect discovered in the assembled vehicle. For your information, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that summarizes the provisions of our law and regulations and tells how to get copies of our regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4265

Dear Mr. Vander Jagt: Thank you for your November 3, 1986, letter on behalf of you constituent, Miss Reva Darling of Ludington, Michigan, who asked about requirements for safety belts on buses used for school transportation and other purposes. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.; Miss Darling is interested in extending the applicability of Michigan' safety belt use law to belts on 'public' buses. She believes that safety belts should be installed on school buses used by transit and charter companies, and suggests that funding be made available to encourage the installation of belts on those vehicles.; I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. By way o background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to develop motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses and charter and transit buses. Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle, for example, different requirements apply to passenger cars than to buses. For buses generally, our requirements only specify that a safety belt must be installed for the bus driver. They do not require safety belts for passengers on large buses used for pupil transportation and other purposes.; We have not required large buses to have safety belts for passenger because we have not found sufficient justification for such a requirement, given that buses have excellent safety records. This safety record arises impart from the fact that, in crashes with other vehicles, buses tend to be substantially heavier than the other vehicle while cars tend to weigh approximately the same as the vehicle with which they crash. As a result, the crash forces experienced by bus occupants tend to be less than those experienced by car occupants. Also, because of the elevated seating positions in large buses, bus occupants sit above the area typically damaged in a collision with another vehicle. Further, we require large school buses to provide passenger crash protection with higher and stronger seats, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. That approach, together with the other attributes of large school buses, provides adequate levels of crash protection in school buses without safety belts. I have enclosed a copy of a NHTSA publication, 'Safety Belts in School Buses,' which addresses in more detail the issue of whether safety belts should be required on school buses.; NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish t order safety belts on their own large buses from doing so. Although large buses are not required by Federal law to have passenger safety belts, bus owners are free to purchase their buses with safety belts installed if they believe their particular circumstances warrant such installation. However, we have no reason at this time to believe that such an installation is necessary as a Federal requirement applicable to all transit buses.; Miss Darling asked whether there have been any proposals to appl Michigan's safety belt use law to public buses. Safety belt use requirements are a matter of State rather than Federal law. Therefore, Michigan state officials would be able to answer Miss Darling's particular question concerning the state law.; On a final matter, Miss Darling suggested that funding be mad available to equip buses with safety belts. For your information, while the Administration has not proposed any legislation effecting school buses, H.R. 749 (introduced in the 99th Congress) proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. H.R. 749, however, was not enacted.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we ca be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel