ID: nht91-2.34

DATE: March 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George Smyth -- Municipal/Refuse Fleet Sales, Palm Peterbilt-GMC Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-30-75 from Richard B. Dyson (signed by Z. Taylor Vinson) to Byron A. Crampton; Also attached to letter dated 8-27-68 from Eugene B. Laskin to Barry G. Seitz (Std. 203; Std. 204); Also attached to letter dated 3-4-68 from George C. Nield to Earl Allgaier; Also attached to letter from Joseph R. O'Gorman to Nathan Darby

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an opinion on the legality of modifying left-hand drive trucks by adding right-hand drive. I apologize for the delay in our response.

We assume that your question is directed towards municipal refuse trucks. Because of budget constraints, we understand that refuse trucks with dual controls are increasing in popularity because they allow one-man trash collection, rather than the two or three man crews on older trucks, and that 3,000 to 4,000 such trucks are manufactured annually. We also understand that about 80% of these trucks are equipped with a fold-down seat at the auxiliary driving position, and that the right hand driving position is used in start-stop slow speed operation in residential neighborhoods, while the left hand position is used in driving to and from work sites.

According to your letter, the trucks are manufactured with left-hand drive only, and are then modified by body companies for the end user. The modification, as we understand it, is to add a steering wheel to the right-hand side, along with an accelerator, brake pedal, horn, hazard warning, and turn signals. This indicates that the vehicle may be operated from both sides. You commented that "the unsafe part of the conversion, as we see it, is that the windshield wiper controls, parking brake, start and stop switch, along with all gauges are on the lefthand side out of reach when the driver is in the drivers position." The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, specifies requirements in relation to the driver. It requires that if certain controls are furnished, they must be operable by the driver, and that if certain displays are furnished, they must be visible to the driver. See section S5.1. (Since your letter concerns trucks, it should be noted that Standard No. 101's display requirements do not apply to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or higher.) However, Standard No. 101 does not require that the driver's position be on a particular side of a vehicle. Thus, it permits a vehicle to be either left-hand or right-hand drive. The issue raised by your letter is how our standards apply when a vehicle is both left-hand drive and right-hand drive, i.e., the vehicle has two driver positions.

The term "driver" is defined as "the occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system." See section 571.3. It is our opinion that the providing of a steering control system is ordinarily sufficient to create a driver's position, but that for vehicles with two driver's positions, the requirements specified in relation to the driver need be met only from the position intended by the original manufacturer as the primary driving position. However, if that manufacturer, or a subsequent converter, intends the driving positions to be used interchangeably under similar driving conditions so that neither driving position could be considered as primary over the other, then all Federal requirements would have to be met, e.g., the requirement in Standard No. 207 Seating Systems that a seat be provided for the driver.

We addressed this issue previously in a letter sent July 30, 1975 to Byron A. Crampton of the Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., in which the agency informed Mr. Crampton that a dual-control garbage truck that contained an auxiliary driver's position on the right side of the vehicle, with a separate set of controls, need not have a seat at the auxiliary position, and that access to such controls as the heater, wipers, and lights from this position was not required. Earlier, in an interpretation issued in 1968, with respect to driver education cars with dual controls, the agency considered the "driver, of such a vehicle to be the person seated behind the primary controls.

We appreciate your concern with safety that occasioned your letter. You may be reassured to know that the National Truck Equipment Association has had no reports of accidents or injuries due to the dual control feature of refuse trucks. However, it is possible that the agency could institute rulemaking in the future that would require a full set of controls and seats in dual control vehicles.

Your second question relates to noise standards. The in-cab noise standard is administered by the Department's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). We have forwarded a copy of your letter to that agency's Office of Motor Carrier Safety so that they can respond to your question.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

ID: aiam5201

Dear Ms. Erwin: This responds to your May 15, 1993, letter to forme Secretary Card. Because your letter concerns motor vehicle safety, it has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response. You are concerned with vehicles used by the State of Texas to transport prisoners because these vehicles have metal seats and no occupant restraints for the prisoners and asked who you should contact to voice your complaint. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish a standard 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 GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which you were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. In addition, your concerns about the State of Texas' use of the vehicle are not addressed by Federal law, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their subsequent use. Because your questions concern the safety of the State of Texas' vehicles used to transport prisoners, 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. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: nht92-5.17

DATE: July 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Josefina McCarty

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation which you made in telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke of my staff. Specifically, you asked if there are requirements for seat belts or any other occupant protection requirements, to protect persons who ride in the cargo beds of pick-up trucks. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our occupant protection requirements for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 sets forth occupant crash protection requirements for occupants in vehicles ranging from small cars all the way up to the largest trucks.

In every case, however, the occupant crash protection requirements are directed toward occupants of "designated seating positions." Pickup trucks, for example, are required to be equipped with a seat belt at each and every "designated seating position." The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR S571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

There are instances where a vehicle manufacturer installs seats in the cargo bed of a pickup truck. For instance, Subaru once made a pickup it called the "Brat," that had two rearward-facing seats installed in the cargo bed of the truck, just behind the passenger compartment. Since these were actually seats, and their design was such that the position was likely to be used as seating while the vehicle was in motion, Subaru was required to install seat belts and comply with other occupant crash protection requirements at such seating positions.

However, the overwhelming majority of pickup trucks do not have any seats installed in the cargo bed. When there are no seats installed in the cargo bed, there are no designated seating positions in the cargo bed. As noted above, the occupant crash protection requirements in Standard No. 208 apply only to seating positions that are "designated seating positions." Since there are no "designated seating positions" in the cargo bed of pickups that do not have any seats installed in the cargo bed, persons that ride in the cargo bed of those pick-ups would not be protected by any of the occupant crash protection features.

ID: 3274yy

Mr. Takashi Odaira
Chief Representative
Emission & Safety
Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.
46401 Commerce Center Drive
Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Odaira:

This responds to your letter asking about the new dynamic requirements of Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You noted that the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the Part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedure. You asked whether a test dummy should nonetheless be placed on the rear seat of such vehicles when conducting the specified dynamic test. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.

Section S3 of Standard No. 214 includes the following language concerning the dynamic side impact requirements:

Part 572, subpart F test dummies are placed in the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car. However, the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars with a wheelbase greater than 130 inches, or to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7.

Reading these two sentences together, it is our interpretation that a test dummy should not be placed in the rear outboard seating position of passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7. While the first sentence states that the test dummies should be placed in both the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car, that provision is limited by the sentence which immediately follows. That second sentence makes it clear that the rear seat requirements do not apply to certain vehicles with small rear seating areas. Since the sole purpose for placing a test dummy in the rear outboard seating position is to measure compliance with the dynamic side impact requirements, a test dummy should not be placed in the rear seating position of a passenger car for which the rear seat requirements do not apply.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref: 214 d:1/14/92

ID: nht92-9.52

DATE: January 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emission & Safety, Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/7/91 from Takashi Odaira to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6643)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the new dynamic requirements of Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You noted that the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the Part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedure. You asked whether a test dummy should nonetheless be placed on the rear seat of such vehicles when conducting the specified dynamic test. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.

Section S3 of Standard No. 214 includes the following language concerning the dynamic side impact requirements:

Part 572, subpart F test dummies are placed in the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car. However, the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars with a wheelbase greater than 130 inches, or to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7.

Reading these two sentences together, it is our interpretation that a test dummy should not be placed in the rear outboard seating position of passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7. While the first sentence states that the test dummies should be placed in both the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car, that provision is limited by the sentence which immediately follows. That second sentence makes it clear that the rear seat requirements do not apply to certain vehicles with small rear seating areas. Since the sole purpose for placing a test dummy in the rear outboard seating position is to measure compliance with the dynamic side impact requirements, a test dummy should not be placed in the rear seating position of a passenger car for which the rear seat requirements do not apply.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 14280.jeg

Mr. Bob Van Hazelen
Fleet and Building Manager
Public Works Department
City of Burbank
124 South Lake Street
P.O. Box 6459
Burbank, CA 91510-6459

Dear Mr. Van Hazelen:

This responds to your letter, on behalf of the Police Department of the City of Burbank, requesting a "formal written passenger air bag deactivation waiver." The Department requested deactivation of the passenger side air bag and the removal of the passenger side seat in two Ford Crown Victoria police patrol vehicles. According to your letter, computers will be mounted in the deployment area of the passenger air bag, and the front passenger seats will be removed. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law. Therefore, you do not need an "air bag deactivation waiver."

Some background information about our agency may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle.

If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7). Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there.

Federal law also limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new.

Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the make inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position.

However, the make inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy.

I note that the "make inoperative" prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards.

I also note that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only.

As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "make inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#207#208
d:5/29/97

ID: nht89-3.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1989

FROM: Jonathan P. Reynolds -- Corporate Attorney, Cosco

TO: Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Councel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Cosco Dream Ride-Convertible Infant Restraint/Car Bed

ATTACHMT: Attached to Cosco restraint system labels and instruction sheets (graphics and text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to J.P. Reynolds (A36; Std. 213)

TEXT:

On October 6, 1989, we sent a prototype of the Dream Ride-Convertible infant restraint/car bed to George Chiang with Cosco's proposed labels and instruction sheet. We requested that NHTSA review the product and the written material regarding compliance with FMVSS 213 and advise us of any suggestions or recommendations.

In a later conversation with Richard Jasinski, it was suggested that Cosco should submit its analysis of the FMVSS 213 and how it applies to this product when used in the car bed position. Following are our comments in this regard. These comments do no t include any mention of the product as used in the rear-facing infant position, as such use requires no clarification in terms of compliance with the standard.

S4. Definitions. The following three definitions appear to be the most relevant concerning the car bed.

"Car bed" means a child restraint system, designed to restrain or position a child in the supine, or prone position, on a continuous flat surface.

The Dream Ride meets this definition, as shown in the enclosed copies of the labels and instruction sheet. Based upon our analysis, testing and input from our outside consultants, we have determined that the most favorable position for the car bed is th e right rear seat. The car bed is designed so that it can only be installed in that seating location with the child's head toward the center of the vehicle.

"Contactable surface" means any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment) that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is te sted in accordance with S6.1.

When tested in accordance with S6.1, the "contactable surface" of the Dream Ride is that side of the restraint to the infants left when the infant is properly positioned face-up in the unit.

"Torso" means the portion of the body of a seated anthropomorphic test dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies between the top of the restraint system seating surface and the top of the shoulders of the test dummy.

This definition refers to traditional forward-facing or rear-facing restraints. Cosco and its outside consultants have concluded that the "torso" of the test dummy applicable to the traditional rear-facing restraint is also applicable to the Dream Ride c ar bed, and the harness

system of the Dream Ride and the dynamic test criteria for the Dream Ride in the car bed position rely on this definition of "torso" which is generally from the crotch to the top of the shoulders of the test dummy.

S5.1.1 Child-restraint system integrity. The Dream Ride complies with sub-part (a) and (b) as the Dream Ride exhibits no separation and remains in the initial adjustment position when tested in accordance with S6.1.

S5.1.2. Injury criteria, is not applicable, as the Dream Ride is recommended for use by children weighing 17 pounds or less.

S5.1.3.3 Occupant excursion-car beds. "In the case of car beds, all portions of the test dummy's head and torso shall be retained within the confines of the car bed."

Cosco interpreted the phrase "confines of the car bed" to mean the horizontal plane formed by the top edge of the entire shell of the Dream Ride, when installed in conformance with Cosco's instructions. When tested in accordance with S6.1, all portions of the test dummy's head and torso are retained within this horizontal plane.

S5.2.3.2 Head impact protection. All surfaces which are contactable by the test dummy in any direction are covered with slow-recovery, energy-absorbing material with the required characteristics.

S5.2.4 Protrusion limitation. The Dream Ride complies with the protrusion limitations of this section.

S5.3 Installation.

S5.3.1 The Dream Ride car bed complies with the attachment limitations. The vehicle belt is intended to be threaded through two car bed belt loops when installed in accordance with Cosco's labels and instructions.

S5.3.3 Car beds. "Each car bed shall be designed to be installed on a vehicle seat so that the car beds longitudinal axis is perpendicular to a vertical longitudinal plane through the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

The Dream Ride car bed complies with this requirement, as shown on the enclosed labels and instruction sheet.

S5.4 Belts, belt buckle, and belt webbing. The Dream Ride complies with each of the requirements of this section.

S5.5 Labeling. The enclosed labels for the Dream Ride reflect an exhaustive effort on the part of Cosco to not only meet the specific requirements of this section, but to also impart to the consumer the information necessary to properly use this child-r estraint as a car bed and a conventional, rear-facing infant restraint.

The large label contains the information required in S5.5.2 (a) through (f). The warning language of S5.5.2 (g) is found on both labels.

The required language of of S5.5.2 (h) is identified as statement # 2 on

the large label.

The language required by S5.5.2 (k), concerning use in the rear-facing position, required certain modification. In order not to confuse the consumer, Cosco determined that it was necessary to expand on the required language of this section, as shown on the section denoted as number 3 on the large label, which states as follows:

Place this infant restraint in a rear-facing position when using it in the vehicle as a car seat. This infant restraint must face sideways when used as a car bed; see label inside shell.

Throughout the instruction sheet and labels, Cosco has elected to refer to the two positions that this restraint may be used in as the car seat position (traditional rear-facing position) and the car bed position. Cosco believes that this provides the cl earest guidelines to the consumer concerning the proper use of the restraint in each position.

S5.5.2 (1) requires installation diagrams showing the child restraint in the right-front and center-rear seating positions. For the traditional rear-facing restraint, Cosco has provided these diagrams on the large label. Cosco's research and testing of the child-restraint in the car bed position resulted in the determination that the center-rear seating positions is not recommended for the car bed position and may be potentially unsafe. In testing the performance of the car bed in a simu- lated side- impact on the drivers side of a vehicle, it was determined that a car bed, when properly installed in the center seating position may move in the direction of the impact to the extent that the "head" of the car bed (that area of the car bed where the chi ld's head would be positioned) may strike the interior of the left-rear door or body panel of many newer vehicles with small rear seats. While Cosco has engineered the Dream Ride to provide the best possible protection for the child from this type of im pact by the use of energy absorbing foam and by introducing a flexible grid at the head of the shell, intrusion from a severe side-impact could result in serious head and neck injuries to infants if the car bed was installed in the center seating positio n. Cosco has thus warned through-out its labeling and instructions that the car bed should only be installed in the right-rear seat, or the right-front seat. Cosco and its consultants believe that this provides the best possible protection for the crit ical head and neck area of an infant.

The large label contains the required language of S5.5.2 (m).

S5.6 Printed instructions for proper use. Cosco complies with each of the applicable sub parts of this section, specifically S5.6.1.4, which requires that instructions for each car bed shall explain that the car bed should be positioned in such a way th at the child's head is near the center of the vehicle. The above explanation concerning the installation diagrams is applicable to Cosco's instructions that the car bed be installed only in the right-rear and right-front seating positions.

The specific language concerning the installation of the car bed so that the baby's head is toward the center of the vehicle is found on page 5 of the instruction sheets under the warning section at the top, paragraph number two.

Cosco has sled-tested the Dream Ride in the car bed position not only as required in S6.1, but also to simulate side-impacts and various misuse configurations. The reports and films of these tests are available for your review upon request.

Cosco looks forward to your comments regarding the Dream Ride.

(Attached are copies of Cosco restraint system labels and instruction sheets (graphics and text omitted).)

ID: 77-5.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

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

TO: Mrs. Edward Foster

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your recent letter to President Carter concerning the installation of a bench seat in a cargo van was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for reply. You were apparently told by your local Ford dealer that Federal law prohibits the installation of a seat in the cargo area of a van vehicle.

The Ford dealer's representation to you was incorrect. There is no Federal law that precludes installation of a seat such as your letter describes; although, depending on the time and manner of the installation, the seat might be subject to Federal safety standards.

If the vehicle manufacturer (Ford) or your dealer installs the seat prior to the time you take possession of the vehicle, either will have to certify that the vehicle, including the seat, is in compliance with all applicable safety standards, as provided in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Specifically, the installation of the seat would require compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages. If done by your dealer, he would be required to attach a label or tag to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle was in compliance with all safety standards, including the three just mentioned (49 CFR 567.7).

If you first take possession of the vehicle, you or your dealer may then install an additional seat without certifying compliance with Federal safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). Your dealer would, however, be subject to section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which 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. This means that the dealer would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's conformity to any safety standard by his installation of the additional seat. We do strongly recommend that, for the safety of your child, you assure the seat and safety belts conform to the minimum performance requirements of our safety standards.

Perhaps it is the policy of Ford Motor Company and its dealers not to install additional seats in cargo vans because of the responsibilities mentioned above. The policy is not, however, a Federal law. I suggest you show this letter to your local dealer.

SINCERELY,

President Jimmy Carter

Dear Mr. President:

My husband will be starting a new independent business within the next several weeks that requires him to use a cargo van. We have ordered a 1978 Ford van and need a standard back seat directly behind the driver area. We were told it was a newly passed Federal law that prohibits the installation of a seat in the cargo area. Having exhausted our efforts locally and within our area, we are now in a position to seek assistance from the only person left to aid us in acquiring a seat for our van.

We are the parents of a severely retarded child twelve years of age who is unable to sit normally in a regular seat. We therefore are left to improvise by seat-belting him into a standard seat for transporting him from the various places in the reclinger position.

As I am employed in a part-time position in Delivery, ten miles from our home, it is necessary to use the van on those days for his father to bring him home while I work.

We are therefore requesting your assistance in acquiring a seat for our van by authorizing the Ford Motor Company to install a seat behind the driver equipped with seat belts for the convenience of a handicapped child Please consider this special privilege we are requesting and it is our hope that placing yourself in the same position you will be able to understand the plight.

Your simple attention to this request will be greatly appreciated as our order has not been processed as of this date and we need your authorization to complete our order.

Thanking you in advance.

Mary Edwards Foster

P.S Our order was placed with the Reavis Ford, Inc.

January 21, 1975

To Whom It May Concern:

Christopher Lee Foster, son of Mr. & Mrs. Edward L. Foster is severly physically and mentally retarded with I Q definitely under 40.

Hilda H. Bailey, M. D.

ID: 24439Suzuki_tether_anchor_zone

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway
P.O. Box 1100
Brea, CA92822-1100

Dear Mr. Bush:




This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225).I regret the delay in responding.You ask whether a certain user-ready tether anchorage location would meet the location requirements of S6.2.1 of the standard. Our answer is yes.

S6.2.1 of Standard No. 225 states: " the part of each tether anchorage that attaches to a tether hook must be located within the shaded zone shown in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard."Figure 3 shows the front edge of the zone as extending along the torso line reference plane under the seat and then following the contour of the vehicle seat bottom and seat back up to a point on the seat back.You ask about locating an anchorage in a recessed area of the seat back.You do not believe that the standard intended to disallow locating the tether anchorage in that area.

With one exception, a recessed area in the seat back is acceptable for locating the tether anchorage. Figures 3 to 7 do not provide dimensions as to the location of the front edge of the shaded zone, except with regard to the "strap wrap-around area" at the top of a vehicle seat back.The agency did not intend to exclude part of the seat back from the shaded zone; thus, a tether anchorage that is recessed in the seat back is permitted.However, the shaded zone does not include the strap wrap-around area at the top of the vehicle seat back.Thus, the anchorage must not be located in that wrap-around area. We will be issuing a technical amendment to include in the shaded zone the part of the seat back that is below the strap wrap-around area.

You also ask for confirmation that, for the area under the vehicle seat, the forwardmost edge of the shaded zone is defined by the torso line reference plane.Your understanding is correct.

Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.11/8/02

ID: aiam5621

Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your letter asking about seat bel requirements for a step van with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. You asked whether lap belts versus lap/shoulder belts are needed for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As discussed below, either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts may be used for this type of vehicle. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I note that this standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208. That section provides vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, dealing with automatic crash protection, is not relevant to your inquiry. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to install Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) belts at every seating position. Thus, either lap or lap/shoulder belts may be used to meet S4.3.2. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;