ID: 7763

Ms. Mindy Lang
Division Manager
Huntleigh Transportation Services Inc.
#12 Millpark Court
Maryland Heights, MO 63043

Dear Ms. Lang:

This responds to your letter of September 12, 1992, requesting information on regulations concerning bus conversions. Your company converts the interior of buses by installing such materials as carpets, wall coverings, and blinds. In particular you asked for information on regulations concerning the attachment of seats to vehicles and the material used for the construction of seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

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 one safety standard relevant to seating, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. There is one other safety standard that could be affected by the work your company performs. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, including buses.

If your company converts previously certified buses, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as:

A person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified ... other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale ....

If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. The label must also state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

Your company would not be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7 if the modifications involve only readily attachable components. However, the modifications would still be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. 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.

I hope you find this information helpful. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. 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:#207,#301 d:10/20/92

ID: 7764

Mr. G. Thomas Owens
Senior Engineering Representative
Aetna
Post Office Box 26283
Richmond, VA 23260-6283

Dear Mr. Owens:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards. Specifically, you requested a book or pamphlet containing the requested information.

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to promulgate Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. In 1974 Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which, by amending section 121 of the Safety Act, directed the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, applicable to all school buses. Those standards became effective on April 1, 1977 and are included, along with the rest of the agency's safety standards, in 49 CFR Part 571.

The Safety Act defines a school bus as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA further defines a school bus as a motor vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more persons, including the driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR 571.3.

It is a violation of Federal law for any person knowingly to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. On the other hand, once a vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, it may be used to transport school children without violating Federal law, even though it may not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. That is because individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. Therefore, to ascertain whether one may use noncomplying vehicles to transport school children, one must look to state law. It is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children.

Please find enclosed a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Specifically, the following standards include requirements for school buses:

Standards 101 through 104; Standard 105 (school buses with hydraulic brakes) Standards 106 through 108; Standards 111 through 113; Standard 115; Standard 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brakes); Standards 119 and 120; Standard 121 (school buses with air brakes); Standard 124; Standard 131 (effective September 1, 1992); Standards 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 205; Standards 207 through 210; Standard 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 217; Standard 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 220; Standard 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); Standard 222; Standards 301 and 302.

Some of the above-listed standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, such as Standards 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard 131 was promulgated on May 3, 1991 and may be found at 56 Federal Register 20370. It requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992, to be equipped with stop signal arms. Standard 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard 221 establishes strength requirements for school bus body panel joints. Standard 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants of school buses. Under the provisions of Standard 222, small school buses, that is those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must be equipped with lap belts. For large school buses, those with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through "compartmentalization," a concept which calls for strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats.

Should you wish copies of our safety standards, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet prepared by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ref:571 d:11/3/92

ID: 7765

Mr. Tim Bohn
Portec, Inc.
Construction Equipment Division
West 21st Street
P.O. Box 20
Yankton, SD 57078

Dear Mr. Bohn:

This responds to your inquiry about whether portable construction equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly those standards related to brakes. You explained that your construction equipment is transported over public roads, but only between job sites and from the factory. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you further described your equipment as a portable conveyor belt that typically spends extended periods of time at a single construction site but is occasionally towed over the public roads to other construction sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the above considerations, it appears that your portable conveyer belt is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This conclusion is based on your statements that your equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your portable conveyor belt on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose.

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

Ref: VSA d:11/10/92

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