ID: 7768

Mr. C. Morris Adams
1201 Rockford Road
High Point, NC 27260

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your FAX of September 24, 1992, requesting a ruling regarding the legality of lap belts at the passenger seats on school buses. As explained below, Federal law has long required lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at every passenger seating position on small school buses. Federal law has also long permitted, but not required, lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at passenger seating positions on large school buses, provided that those belts do not adversely affect the large school bus's compliance with the applicable safety standards. This is still the agency's position.

As you know, in 1977, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum levels of crash protection that must be provided for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] of more than 10,000 pounds), the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Small school buses (those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

Ever since 1977, NHTSA has indicated that Federal law permits lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions on large school buses as long as the vehicle would still comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 222. NHTSA has no information to indicate that installation of seat belts at the passenger seating positions on a large school bus would affect the bus's compliance with any safety standard. The allegations in your FAX that using seat belts in large school buses will result in crash forces producing concentrated loading on the head, instead of being spread evenly over the upper torso as is the case without a seat belt, are nearly identical with the explanations included in a 1985 Transport Canada report on school bus safety. NHTSA carefully evaluated and considered the Canadian report and these explanations in connection with its rulemaking action considering whether to specify requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts on large school buses. 54 FR 11765; March 22, 1989. After fully considering the Canadian report, the agency stated at 54 FR 11770:

NHTSA shares commenters' concerns about any implications that safety belts negatively affect the protection provided to passengers on large school buses. However, the agency is not aware of accident data showing an injury caused or made more serious by the presence of safety belts on a school bus. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot conclude from the Canadian report's findings that belts actually degrade the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system renders inoperative the safety of large school buses, but the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur.

The agency then identified some possible safety benefits that could result from seat belts in large school buses, benefits that were not considered in the Canadian tests. The agency concluded that, "Although these benefits are not significant enough to justify a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts on all large school buses, they are enough to provide a basis upon which the agency will decline to prohibit the installation of belts on large school buses." 54 FR 11765, at 11770; March 22, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of this notice for your information.

As you can see, NHTSA has carefully considered the subject raised in your FAX and reviewed all available information in this area. After that review, the agency concluded that there was no justification for changing its longstanding position that persons that wish to do so should be permitted to install seat belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Your letter did not provide any data that NHTSA had not already considered. Hence, there is no basis for the agency to change its longstanding position in this area.

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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:222 d:10/9/92

ID: 7774

Donald G. McGuigan, Esq.
Ford Motor Company
Office of the General Counsel
Suite 728 - Parklane Towers East
One Parklane Boulevard
Dearborn, MI 48126-2493

Dear Mr. McGuigan:

This responds to your letter of September 29, 1992 concerning certain new requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which became effective on September 1, 1992.

Your questions relate to S4.2.1 of the standard, which states:

S4.2.1 Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

You argued that this provision should be interpreted to prevent key removal only when the transmission shift lever is in one of the available gear selector positioning detents other than "park," i.e., reverse, neutral, drive, first, second, and not when the lever is at various points between those detents. You stated that a compliance test involving positioning of the shift lever between gear positions would be "inappropriate," because you believe that it would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the amendment is to prevent shifting errors. You therefore argue that vehicles in which the key can be removed while the shift lever is between gear positions would not fail to comply with the amended standard.

We cannot agree with your suggested interpretation, as it is inconsistent with the express language of S4.2.1. That section states that, with certain exceptions not at issue, the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. Stated more simply, key removal must be prevented in all circumstances save those specified in S4.2.1. Neither the transmission nor the transmission shift lever is locked in "park" when the lever is between the gear selector positioning detents. Therefore, under section S4.2.1, key removal must be prevented in that situation, unless the transmission/ transmission shift lever becomes locked in "park" as a direct result of removing the key.

Our interpretation is consistent with the agency's intent in promulgating S4.2.1. As discussed in several rulemaking notices, NHTSA amended Standard No. 114 to prevent vehicle rollaway caused by unattended children shifting the transmission lever in automatic transmission vehicles. If a driver were able to remove the key while the transmission or transmission shift lever was not locked in park, and if the transmission or transmission shift lever did not become locked in "park" as a result of removing the key, a child might later shift the transmission lever, thereby causing a vehicle rollaway. For this reason, we continue to believe that this amendment to Standard No. 114 meets the need for motor vehicle safety. I note that while it may be true that NHTSA would not commence a rulemaking proceeding focused solely on preventing inadvertent vehicle movement arising out of transmission shift lever mispositioning, as reflected in the agency's June 1990 denial of the Barr petition, this does not mean that Standard No. 114, as construed above, does not achieve a valid and appropriate safety benefit.

You asked about Standard No. 114 in connection with the key- locking systems of 1993 Escorts and Tracers. You stated that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents, the key-locking systems of these vehicles prevent removal of the key except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the "park" detent. You also stated, however, that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever at various points between reverse and park, the key can be removed, for at least a large proportion of these vehicles, at certain points where the selector lever is "held short of engaging the Park positioning detent."

We recognize that you believe that the chances of a vehicle rollaway occurring with your system would be very small. While you have made a number of arguments to support your contention, we note that we cannot consider that type of argument in interpreting Standard No. 114. As you know, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is required to issue safety standards that provide objective criteria. In interpreting a standard, we must follow those objective requirements, notwithstanding arguments regarding the safety significance of a particular vehicle design. If you believe that those arguments have merit, you may present them to the agency in other contexts, such as in a petition for determination of inconsequential noncompliance.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:114 d:11/20/92

ID: 7782

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S House of Representatives
Room 2125, Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6115

Dear Chairman Dingell:

Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1992, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Aaron Gordon concerning seat belts on school buses. You requested comments on Mr. Gordon's letter and on H.R. 896, a bill referred to in Mr. Gordon's letter.

The issue of safety belts on school buses is an important topic which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has thoroughly studied for many years. School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Every year, approximately 370,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.5 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since NHTSA began tracking traffic fatalities in 1975, an average of 16 school bus occupants per year have sustained fatal injuries. While each of these fatalities is tragic, the number of school bus occupant fatalities is small compared to the number of occupant fatalities to children in other types of vehicles. For example, in 1989 there were 5,287 deaths among children aged five to 18 in vehicles other than school buses.

In 1977, NHTSA issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum crash protection levels for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well- padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. The effectiveness of "compartmentalization" has been confirmed by independent studies by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under the current requirements of Standard No. 222, small school buses, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

In 1987, the NTSB completed a study of the crashworthiness of large school buses, and concluded that most school bus occupant fatalities and serious injuries were "attributable to the occupants' seating position being in direct line with the crash forces. It is unlikely that the availability of any type of restraint would have improved their injury outcome."

In 1989, NAS completed a study of means to improve school bus safety and concluded that "the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. The funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries." The NAS pointed out that since children are at greater risk of being killed in school bus loading zones (i.e., boarding and leaving the bus) than on board school buses, "a larger share of the school bus safety effort should be directed to improving the safety of bus loading zones." A summary of the NAS report is enclosed.

In response to the recommendations from the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several rulemaking actions, such as improvements to school bus visibility by the driver and requiring stop signal arms on school buses, designed to improve the safety of students in school bus loading zones. Besides the actions taken in response to the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several other rulemaking activities to improve further the safety of school buses, e.g., increasing the number of emergency exits, establishing wheelchair securement/occupant restraint requirements, and improving the body joint strength requirements.

While there are no Federal requirements for safety belts on large school buses, states are free to install them if they feel it is in the best interest in their state. However, as noted in the NAS report, if the safety belts are to be beneficial, "states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly."

In summary, the safety record of school buses is outstanding. As such, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that safety belts would provide even higher levels of occupant crash protection. Also, the agency agrees with the conclusion from the NAS report, that there is insufficient reason for a Federal mandate for safety belts on large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Marion C. Blakey Enclosure

cc: Mr. Aaron Gordon

ref:222 d:11/9/92

ID: 7808

The Honorable Dave Durenberger
United States Senate
1020 Plymouth Building
12 S. 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402

Dear Senator Durenberger:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Mark Gassert, regarding the installation of the Drivemaster One-Arm-Drive hand control system in a van. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you the following information.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an "alterer" and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration.

Based upon the information in Mr. Gassert's letter, it appears that requirements for new light trucks and vans in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which were upgraded as of September 1, 1991, may be preventing him from purchasing a new van with a hand control system. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from van converters and individuals, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency has also received a petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requesting an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, the agency granted the RVIA petition. On August 5, 1992, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the requirements of Standard No. 208 to give manufacturers of certain light trucks and vans the option of installing non-dynamically tested manual safety belts instead of complying with the dynamic testing requirements. I have enclosed a copy of the NPRM with this letter. Because of the importance of this subject, the agency has decided it is more appropriate to address it comprehensively, in the context of a rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to letters presenting individual cases and individual aspects of the subject. By addressing this subject comprehensively, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection.

However, the agency is aware that Mr. Gassert and others who need to purchase a new vehicle need more immediate relief than a rulemaking can offer. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the agency has stated that it will not conduct any dynamic testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. This should allow Mr. Gassert and others to purchase a new vehicle while this decision is pending.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Washington Office ref:208 NCC-20:MVersailles:mar:62992:10/07/92 U:\NCC20\INTERP\208\7808.MLV cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 MV, NRM-01, NEF-01 Interps:208, Redbook (2)

ID: 7809

Mark W. Stevens
Chairman
SeatMore
1091 Industrial Rd.
Suite 240
San Carlos, CA 94070

Dear Mr. Stevens:

This responds to your letter of October 2, 1992 requesting information on standards applicable to an "after market 3rd rear facing seat for the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable station wagons 1986-1993." During an October 20, 1992 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that in most instances these seats are sold for installation in used vehicles, by either the owner or by a dealer or repair business. You also stated that the seat might be installed by a dealer prior to the vehicle's sale. Your three questions and the answer to each follows.

Before I address the substance of your letter, I note that your letter requested that the product information enclosed with your letter be treated as confidential. Your request for confidentiality was denied in an October 27, 1992 letter signed by Kathleen DeMeter, our Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law. Accordingly, the product information enclosed with your letter has been placed in NHTSA's public docket, along with your letter and this reply.

1. Does the aftermarket 3rd rear facing station wagon system have to be tested in compliance with FMVSS 207, 209, & 210?

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be applicable to a 3rd rear facing vehicle seat: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Hence, any seat belts installed on the 3rd rear facing seat have to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209.

The remaining four standards apply only to new vehicles. If the 3rd rear facing seat were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including these four, with the 3rd rear facing seat installed. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Finally, Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, specifically including seat cushions, seat backs, and seat belts.

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

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

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not require manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to certify that vehicles continue to comply with the safety standards after any aftermarket modifications are made. Instead, "render inoperative" prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards.

Please note also that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your company's 3rd seat in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

2. The seat belt anchorages are Ford factory anchorages built into the car at the factory and designed for the Ford factory 3rd seat and seat belts. We will be using the same anchorages with aftermarket seat belts already in compliance. Is a test required for this system?

As noted above, if these 3rd seats are installed in a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale for purposes other than resale, the vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards with the 3rd seat installed. NHTSA's position on what steps manufacturers must take before certifying that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards has been often stated and applies with equal force in your situation. The compliance test procedures set forth in the safety standards must be followed by this agency during our compliance testing. With respect to your company's 3rd seats, this means that NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle would be conducted using the test procedures set forth in the relevant safety standard or standards.

Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers are not required to conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply with applicable safety standards. However, to avoid liability for civil penalties if the vehicle were determined not to comply with a safety standard, the Safety Act requires the certifying manufacturer to exercise "due care" to assure compliance and in making its certification. It may be simplest for the manufacturer to establish that it exercised "due care" if the manufacturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, "due care" might also be shown by using modified test procedures, engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like. Thus, the entity that installs your company's 3rd seat in a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale will have to decide for itself, in the first instance, what information it needs to make its certification in the exercise of "due care."

If the 3rd seat were installed after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, no certification would be required. Instead, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop that performed the installation would have to ensure that the installation did not "render inoperative" compliance with any applicable safety standard. Actual testing is not required to avoid violating the "render inoperative" prohibition. Instead, your company could carefully examine your product and the proposed installation instructions and compare those with the requirements of the safety standards, to determine if installing your product in accordance with your instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the standards.

3. If testing is required, must they be specifically Static Tested or Dynamic Crash Tested?

Testing is required only in agency compliance testing, as explained above. Agency testing must be conducted in accordance with the test procedures specified in the applicable standard. I note, however, that the dynamic crash testing requirement in Standard No. 208 applies only to the front outboard seating positions.

For your information, I have enclosed a sheet for new manufacturers that identifies the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, as well as how to get copies of those standards and regulations. 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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA#207#208#209#210#302 d:11/13/92

ID: 7810

Mrs. Edna Sutlief
Project Concern
504 Kansas Ave.
Atchison, KS 66002

Dear Mrs. Sutlief:

This responds to your request to the NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline for information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and tiedowns for vans used for transporting disabled and senior citizens. Your specific concerns relate to whether Federal law mandates safety belt use in these vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

Federal laws administered by this agency regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. It leaves the individual States free to address questions about the registration and operation of vehicles within their borders. Questions about whether persons are required to use their safety belts while riding in a motor vehicle relate to the operation of a vehicle, and are thus addressed by the individual States, not the Federal government. Accordingly, your question about whether passengers riding in your vans must use their safety belts is one that should be addressed to the State of Kansas. I note, however, that while the Federal government leaves these questions of requirements in this area to the individual States, this agency strongly encourages the use of safety belts by all persons in a vehicle every time they ride in a vehicle.

In addition, if your organization is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, regulations implementing that Act require installation of wheelchair securement devices and passenger seat belts and shoulder harnesses. For further information concerning the regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act you should contact: Robert C. Ashby, C-50, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590.

It might be helpful for me to set out the Federal requirements for new motor vehicles. A provision of Federal law, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires safety belts to be installed at "designated seating positions." The specified requirements for belt installation vary, depending on the particular vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. However, Standard No. 208 would not require installation of a safety belt at a wheelchair securement location, because such a location would not be a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Furthermore, none of the other Federal motor vehicle safety standards require installation of, or set forth performance requirements for, wheelchair securement devices.

If a safety belt is installed at a wheelchair securement location, either voluntarilly or pursuant to another state or federal requirement, the safety belt must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act also requires that manufacturers of "motor vehicle equipment" notify purchasers and repair at no cost to the purchasers equipment that is determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Wheelchair securement devices are items of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Hence, manufacturers of wheelchair securement devices are obliged to notify and remedy without charge any defects related to motor vehicle safety that occur in their products. You may also be interested to learn that this agency currently has a rulemaking pending to set forth performance requirements for wheelchair securement devices. While this proposal relates only to wheelchair securement devices installed in school buses, I am enclosing a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking for your information.

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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#209 d:11/13/92

ID: 7812

Mr. Thomas Price
ABAS Marketing, Inc.
P.O. Box 5644
Norman, OK 73070

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements for a device you call a "noncomputerized antilock braking assist system," for brakes installed on trucks and trailers. You stated that your device can be installed on vehicles equipped with air brake, electric brake, air over hydraulic brake, and vacuum/hydraulic brake systems. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

You asked what the agency's policy is regarding the approval, disapproval, or certification of any particular antilock brake system product. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

You also asked for a listing of the various standards and regulations with which you should be conversant, given your product, and an explanation of the responsibilities under the Safety Act of three types of parties: an original equipment manufacturer, an alterer of a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, and an installer of an ABS device on a used motor vehicle.

NHTSA has issued two standards about brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The agency does not have a regulation specifically covering a device such as a "noncomputerized antilock braking assist system" which is added to a brake system. However, since your device would be tied into a vehicle's brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121.

If one of your devices is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, 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.)

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).)

You should also be aware of the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. That standard applies to new motor vehicle equipment as well as to new motor vehicles. You should check to see if any parts of your devices are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106.

I also note that manufacturers of aftermarket equipment are subject to the Safety Act's defect provisions. Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required to notify purchasers and dealers and provide a cost-free remedy for the defect.

Enclosed is a copy of an information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which further explains a manufacturer's responsibilities under NHTSA's regulations. You may also wish to review the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which set forth requirements for commercial motor vehicles. The address of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards is included in the enclosed information sheet.

Finally, you asked how you could secure or have access to the complete Docket No. 92-29-01. This docket includes responses to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in which NHTSA announced that it is considering proposing additional requirements that might require medium and heavy duty vehicles to be equipped with antilock brake systems. The complete docket, including all the responses to the ANPRM, can be reviewed at the agency's Docket Section, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590. Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A complete copy of the docket is also available for a fee to cover search and copying costs by contacting the agency's technical reference division at (202) 366-4949.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 121 d:11/25/92

ID: 7813

Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.
674 Lake Road
Webster, N.Y. 14580

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This responds to your FAX of September 22, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with reference to your request to become a Registered Importer ("RI"). We interpret your letter as seeking an opinion on your eligibility to submit an application to become an RI under 49 CFR 592.

Because of your representation of RIs, you are familiar with the record keeping mechanisms and other regulatory requirements of this agency. Your intent is to perform modifications on those Canadian vehicles which require only minor modifications, and you have a 3-car garage, tools including pneumatics, and storage space. You would have in your employ several people qualified to perform the modifications required. You are aware that, in promulgating Part 592, NHTSA specificaly rejected a proposal to allow RIs to designate agents to perform conformance work, thus you would not accept vehicles requiring major modifications, but would refer those to the other RIs.

Section 592.5 sets forth the requirements for registration as an RI. According to paragraph 592.5(a), "any person" may file an application. An application must contain the information specified by the subparagraphs of paragraph (a). We note no restrictions upon who is eligible to apply for RI status. We therefore see no legal impediment to your submitting an application under section 592.5.

The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) has the authority to grant or deny applications for RI status. Your application must, therefore, contain arguments sufficient to convince OVSC of your ability to perform the limited modifications that you contemplate. We advise you, therefore, to set out with specificity in your application the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which you have the capability to conform vehicles, and the standards for which you have not. We would like to make clear that, in the event a vehicle requires major modifications, our regulations would not allow you to bring the vehicle into partial conformance before transfering the vehicle to another RI for to complete the conformance process. An RI must certify the conformance work to NHTSA, and paragraph 592.6(e) requires the RI's certification to state that "it is the person legally responsible for bringing the vehicle into conformity." We interpret that as meaning that the certifier itself performed all the conformance work and did not resort to an agent.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:592 d:11/24/92

ID: 7822

Jess R. Thurman
13112 Old State Road
Evansville, IN 47711

Dear Mr. Thurman:

This responds to your letter of October 1, 1992 requesting information on whether certain modifications can be made to a van to make room for a wheelchair to enter the vehicle. You explained that you currently own a 1983 Ford van with a lift. The passenger seats behind the front seats were moved back in your 1983 van to make room for the wheelchair lift. You are currently trying to purchase a new Ford van with the same modifications but have been told that federal law no longer permits moving seats or safety belts. As explained below, there is no federal requirement that expressly prohibits moving seats or safety belts, provided that the relocated seats and belts continue to comply with the applicable safety standards.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if a vehicle were originally manufactured in the manner you have described, the manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. If some party were to modify a vehicle along the lines described in your letter before the vehicle's first sale to a consumer like yourself, that party would be required to leave the original manufacturer's certification in place and add its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards.

Moving the rear seats and the seat belts for those seats could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Based upon the information in your letter, it appears that the vehicle you wish to have modified would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) for purposes of NHTSA's regulations. Standard No. 208 requires an MPV to have a lap/shoulder belt at every rear outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other rear seating position. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages.

Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that modifies a van for you along the lines described in your letter after you have purchased the van would be subject to the requirement of the Safety Act (at 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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.

Since the rear seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design installed in the van in compliance with applicable safety standards, this section prohibits any of the named commercial entities from making any modification or repair to the rear seats and/or their accompanying safety belts if such modification or repair would cause the vehicle no longer to comply with an applicable safety standard.

As you can see, there is nothing in Federal law that prohibits persons from moving rear seats and their accompanying safety belts. Instead, Federal law requires that modifications to a van that include moving the rear seats and the safety belts be done in such a way that the repositioned seats and safety belts continue to provide the safety protection mandated by the safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:207#208#209#210 NCC-20:MVersailles:amb:62992:10/22/92 U:\NCC20\INTERP\208\7822.MLV cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 MV, NRM-01, NEF-01 Interps: 207, 208, 209, 210, Redbook (8)

ID: 7823

Michael J. Vacanti
7533 W. 112th Street
Bloomington, MN 55438

Dear Mr. Vacanti:

This responds to your letter seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you have designed. According to your letter, this device is an aftermarket accessory. The accessory is a polyurethane device that latches onto the lap/shoulder belt and changes the angle at which the shoulder belt crosses a child's torso. The device is intended to improve shoulder belt fit for children that have outgrown child safety seats. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). This standard requires new motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts and requires that those belts meet specified fit and comfort requirements, as set forth in S7 of the standard. However, Standard No. 208 does not apply to aftermarket items that seek to alter belt fit and/or comfort. Hence, you are not required to certify that this device complies with Standard No. 208 before offering the device for sale.

In addition, you are not required to get some sort of "approval" from this agency before offering this device for sale. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As stated above, this device is not subject to any safety standard, so you do not have to make any certification.

Although none of our safety standards directly apply to this device, there are several provisions in the Safety Act that are relevant. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your belt positioning device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturer, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. There are two elements of design in a vehicle that might be "rendered inoperative" by the use of your belt positioning device. One is the occupant protection afforded by belts that meet the specified fit and comfort requirements. The other element of design that could be rendered inoperative by the use of your belt positioning device is the burn resistance required by Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). The materials used in the interior of vehicles, including the seat belts, seat backs and cushions, trim panels, and headliner must comply with the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 to reduce deaths and injuries in the event of a fire in the vehicle's interior. If your belt positioning device renders inoperative the belt fit and comfort requirements specified in Standard No. 208 or does not comply with burn resistance requirements, it could not be installed in a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop.

I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of NHTSA's regulations and provides information on how to obtain copies of those regulations.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#208 d:11/16/92