ID: 8998

`

Mr. Joe de Sousa President Safety Pro's International, Inc. 34126 State Road 54 West Zephyrhills, FL 33543

Dear Mr. de Sousa:

We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, as well as your letter to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency and its enclosures.

You are interested in marketing an accessory daytime running lamp (DRL) system, and have asked for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to this product. There appear to be two versions of this system. In both systems, the DRLs are the lower beam headlamps, automatically activated at 77% intensity when the ignition is turned on. The taillamps and side marker lamps are not activated. The systems are deactivated when the ignition is turned off. The systems differ in that one automatically activates the headlamps to full intensity (while activating the taillamps and side marker lamps as well) at a pre- determined lower ambient light level.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, aftermarket lighting equipment may be installed provided that it does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The system you describe is congruent with the DRL systems permitted by Standard No. 108, which allows DRLs to be lower beam headlamps operated at less than full intensity, without activation of the taillamps and side marker lamps. Therefore, the installation of either of your DRL systems would not affect a vehicle's pre-existing compliance with Standard No. 108 or any other standard, and is permissible under our regulations.

We note that the reduced intensity is achieved by a "pulse with modulation" which cycle the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect." S5.5.10(d) of Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning for uses other than flashing. While a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam, as appears to be the case here.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/10/94

ID: 8999

Mr. Toshi Tanaka
General Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept.
Sensor Technology Co., Ltd.
1-3-3 Yaesu, Chuo-ku
Tokyo, 103, JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tanaka:

This responds to your FAX of August 4, 1991, to Ms. Delmas Johnson of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

Is it true that the belt fastening law now goes into a part of the federal law?

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Federal requirements do not, however, regulate the use of vehicles. While there is no Federal requirement mandating safety belt use, a recent final rule will impose penalties on states which do not have both a safety belt and a motorcycle helmet use law by 1994. Currently, all the states and territories have some type of mandatory belt use law except Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Is it true that the cars with airbag do not need to perform "Roll Over Test"?

Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection systems are required to comply with certain injury criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. In addition, the automatic crash protection must either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements or have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly. A passenger car equipped with an air bag does not have to comply with the rollover test if it has a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at that position. To our knowledge, all vehicles currently being manufactured are certified to the automatic crash protection requirement by installing Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies.

A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags and Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. I am enclosing a copy of the recently published final rule implementing these requirements. These requirements will make the option of complying with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements moot.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d:11/5/93

ID: 9016a

Mr. Richard Horian
President
Woodleaf Corporation

FAX 310-326-6965

Dear Mr. Horian:

This is in response to your FAX of August 12, 1993, to Michael Perel of this agency regarding your "sudden brake indicator hazard light."

You were informed on December 7, 1992, by Paul Jackson Rice, then the Chief Counsel, that this auxiliary item of lighting equipment would be permissible as original equipment since it did not appear that it would impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You now ask "[w]hat is the fastest flash rate or range of flash rates expressed in 'flashes per minute' that are allowed by Federal law."

Standard No. 108 does not specify any range of flash rates for items of supplementary lighting equipment, thus, the choice is that of the manufacturer. The standard does specify a flash rate for turn sign and hazard warning signal lamps which are required by the standard. The flash rate for these lamps is 60 to 120 flashes per minute. In addition, S5.6 of the standard specifies a motorcycle headlamp modulation rate of 240 cycles per minute, plus or minus 40 cycles per minute.

The cycling and modulation rates of lighting systems are very important to motor vehicle safety because of a phenomenon known as "photic driving." This issue concerns potential adverse reactions in some people similar to epileptic seizures. The condition is brought on by certain regularly flashing lights, even in some persons not otherwise susceptible to epilepsy. From available studies, it appears that people are most likely to be affected if the flash rate is about ten flashes per second (600 flashes per minute) and/or when the background is very dark.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:9/28/93

ID: 9017

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems. S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard No. 213 specifies a minimum thickness for materials of a certain compression-deflection resistance. You ask whether more than one piece of material may be used to meet the thickness requirement.

The answer is yes. S5.2.3.2(b) does not require the material to be of a single piece, and the final rule that incorporated the requirement into Standard No. 213 did not address the issue. 44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979. Accordingly, more than one piece of material may be used.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:10/7/93

ID: 9019

Mr. Richard A. Wennerberg
Vice President, Marketing Services
American Gas Association
1515 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209

Dear Mr. Wennerberg:

This responds to your request for a letter explaining the status of Federal regulations applicable to compressed natural gas (CNG) containers for motor vehicles and CNG fueled motor vehicles. As you stated, representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the United States Department of Transportation, met with the American Gas Association (AGA) on August 16, 1993 to clarify your understanding of this agency's statutory authority with respect to the notice of proposed rulemaking for CNG fuel containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993) This letter, which you plan to forward to State officials interested in CNG fueled motor vehicles, summarizes this information.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA does not have the statutory authority to issue a standard for CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. Therefore, if the Federal government were to issue a standard applicable to the manufacture of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle, NHTSA is the only Federal agency authorized to do so.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG containers, CNG fueled vehicles or any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such containers. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, a manufacturer is not required to comply with any NHTSA or Department of Transportation safety standard related to CNG fuel systems.

Nevertheless, manufacturers of CNG containers and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the container or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done. I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR 567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's "render inoperative" provision (108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed ... in compliance" with any FMVSS. If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the "render inoperative" issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG containers, all containers manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

In addition to these current regulatory provisions, as mentioned above, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. As we explained at the August 16, 1993 meeting, the agency is currently reviewing the comments to the proposal for CNG containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. As we explained, the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule, assuming that a rule is issued.

If a Standard is issued, each manufacturer would be responsible for certifying that its products meet with the requirements of that standard. This is so because 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 does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

You should also be aware that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:303 d:10/22/93

ID: 9043

Mr. Tom DeLapp
Executive Coach Builders, Inc.
One Executive Blvd.
Springfield, MO 65802

Dear Mr. DeLapp:

This responds to your letter of August 18, 1993, concerning a modification you wish to make on limousines manufactured by your company. You wish to modify the hinge assembly controlling forward and reclining movement of the front seat to provide access to the area between the front of the privacy panel and the back of the front seat. (The area contains auxiliary fuse panels and relays.) The modification would involve removal of a metal pin in the hinge assembly, allowing the seat to articulate forward to a greater degree. You asked whether Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, prohibits the removal of a limiting pin or limits forward movement of a seat back.

Standard No. 207 specifies strength and other performance requirements for seats in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Section S4.3 of Standard No. 207 contains requirements for hinged or folding seat backs, except for passenger seats in buses or a seat adjustable only for its occupants. Section S4.3(a) requires a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat back. Section S4.3.2 contains performance requirements for this restraining device.

Section S4.3 does not limit the degree of movement of a hinged or folding seat back. Thus, you may remove the limiting pin if removing it only increases the degree of movement of the seat. However, the seat must still meet the requirements of S4.3 with the pin removed. Accordingly, the seat must have a self-locking device that can withstand the force applications specified in S4.3.2.1 and acceleration specified in S4.3.2.2.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:207 d:10/25/93

ID: 9045

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your questions about a December 2, 1992, rule that amended Standard No. 111, Rear-view mirrors, by establishing field-of-view requirements around school buses (57 FR 57000). The rule amended Standard No. 111 to require a bus driver to be able to see, either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of and along both sides of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your first question asks: Are we required to certify that the mirror system has the ability to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system has been adjusted?

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each new vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicle complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). NHTSA evaluates a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards using the test procedures and conditions specified in the FMVSS's. Standard 111 requires that specified areas must be visible when viewed from the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female (S9, S13). The test procedures of S13 state that, when testing a school bus, NHTSA will adjust an adjustable mirror to the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female before the test, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations (S13.3). Of course, to comply with Standard 111, the mirror will have to be able to be adjusted to the required location at the time NHTSA tests the vehicle.

Your second question asks: Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area straight down from the mirrors and 200 feet rearward?

In an October 21, 1993, telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you ask whether S9.2 of Standard 111 requires measurement beginning at the ground below the System A mirror (and extending at least 200 feet behind that plane).

The answer is yes, the mirror must provide a view of the area straight down from that mirror and extending 200 feet rearward. Section S9.2 states that each school bus must have two outside rearview mirror systems: A System A driving mirror and a System B convex cross view mirror. The System A mirror on the left side of the bus is required by S9.2(b)(2) to provide a view of "the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, and of that area of the ground which extends rearward from the mirror surface not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet)" (emphasis added).

Please note that the agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition in which Blue Bird Body Company has requested that the agency amend Standard No. 111, with respect to System A driving mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:111 d:2/14/94

ID: 9050

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 223l4

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We have reviewed your letter of September 2, 1993, asking for three interpretations of S5.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions that relate to heavy trailer conspicuity.

You have set forth the metric dimensions specified in S5.7, together with corresponding values under the headings "English (actual)," and "English (nominal)." The latter is a rounding off of the values of "English (actual)." Your first question is whether you may consider the English (nominal) dimensions equivalent for the purpose of compliance with Standard No. 108.

We assume that you would like to provide measurements in the conventional manner to your members who may not be familiar with the metric system, as a means of assisting them to comply with the conspicuity requirements that become effective December 1, 1993. However, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not expressed in equivalents, but in precise values, whether metric or conventional, and there can be no rounded "equivalences" for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. SAE J1322 JUN85 "Preferred Conversion Values for Dimensions in Lighting" which you reference has not been incorporated into Standard No. 108. In implementation of Departmental and national policy, NHTSA has begun to specify the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards using metric system values, and manufacturers are expected to learn and to comply with them.

We would also like to correct a misimpression indicated in your letter. You have placed a single asterisk by certain metric values reflecting your assumption that these are minimum values. This is incorrect; the standard expresses these values as fixed values rather than minimum ones. However, you are correct in your identification as minimum of those values that are not designated by an asterisk. Your second question concerns the location of rear and side sheeting. You point out that cargo tank trailers may have a "vertical surface" only at their "belt line" which may be as high as 2.3 m above the ground. You ask whether retroreflective sheeting may be located higher than 1.25 m if there is no vertical surface lower than this height "without installing structure just for the sheeting." As adopted, Standard No. 108 specified a mounting height as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface". The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance as mounted on a vehicle in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers are expected to mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers. In the case of your hypothetical tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at the belt line, whether 2.3 m or higher, would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

Your third question presents five Figures and asks with respect to each whether the vertical and horizontal sheeting for the upper right and left contours, as specified by S5.7.1.4.1(b), may be of the dimensions and locations shown. This section requires application of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair consisting of strips 300 mm long, applied "vertically" and "horizontally" to the contours "as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable." With respect to Figures 1 and 2 (van trailers), we shall assume that the horizontal strips are mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable. Figure 1 depicts two separate strips at right angles to each other, each 300 mm in length. This design is not in accordance with Standard No. 108. The side strip does not appear mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable, and the top strips do not appear to be mounted as far apart as practicable. While the presence of door hinges may necessitate designs similar to Figure 1, this design, as drawn on an unobstructed surface, does not comply. To effect compliance, either the side strips should be moved upwards, or the top strips should be moved closer to the outside corners.

Figure 2 depicts two strips joined at the corners to make an inverted "L." Each leg of the "L" is 300 mm in length when measured from the outside, top to bottom, or side to side. This configuration is in accordance with S5.7.1.4.1(b).

Figures 3 and 4 present alternative conspicuity treatments for liquid tank trailers where the body is curved rather than rectangular. In Figure 3, two strips 300 mm in length intersect at an angle greater than 90 degrees. In Figure 4, a curved strip 600 mm in length follows the contour of the body. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(b) of Standard No. 108 requires marking the upper outer contours of the body with strips "applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body . . . ." However, the rear contours of a tank body are rounded rather than vertical and horizontal. In view of this fact, the agency accepts the treatment shown in your Figure 3 as meeting the requirement for horizontal and vertical application. The design of Figure 4 does not differ in any significant way, and we consider that it is equivalent.

Finally, Figure 5 depicts a dry bulk trailer with a 300 mm strip centered horizontally at the top of a round body, and two strips of the same length placed lower, at an angle slightly off of vertical, but far from the edges of the body contour. We understand that the body of the trailer tapers to a blunt end represented by the circle upon which the horizontal conspicuity treatment is placed. As the approximately vertical strips cannot be placed on the tapering trailer body, they should be located as far apart as practicable, and the depicted location appears to represent that placement. Similarly, if two horizontal strips cannot be placed on the trailer body, NHTSA will not question the compliance of the vehicle based on the provision of a single, centered strip of retroreflective material.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d.2/7/94

ID: 9058a

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
Chairman
Subcommittee on Crime and
Criminal Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-6216

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter requesting NHTSA's views on whether Title VI "Theft Prevention" of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., Cost Savings Act) places a limit of $15 on the cost of an antitheft device to be installed in a high theft vehicle pursuant to an exemption from the parts marking standard. You believe the answer is no. As explained below, we agree.

The $15 limitation applies only to the cost of complying with the parts marking standard. The cost limitation appears in 2024(a), which provides that "The standard under section 602 (section 2022) may not (1) impose costs upon any manufacturer of motor vehicles to comply with such standard in excess of $15 per motor vehicle..." (Emphasis added.) Further, 2024(a) makes no reference to 2025 or to the costs of installing antitheft devices pursuant to exemptions issued under that section.

Thus, unless the costs of an antitheft device installed in lieu of compliance with the standard can be regarded as costs imposed by the standard, the $15 maximum does not apply to the costs of those devices. We do not regard the costs of those devices to be costs imposed by the standard. Instead, they are costs which the manufacturer has chosen to bear by voluntarily seeking an exemption from the standard. Further, we note that 2025 does not itself contain any cost limitation.

Although the foregoing analysis of the statutory language is sufficient to answer your question, we note that the legislative history of the 1984 Theft Act speaks directly to that question. Chairman John Dingell of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce commented on concerns that the costs for antitheft devices will be far greater than the costs of parts marking. He believed that manufacturers will not install devices that add a substantial cost to a vehicle and indicated that, regardless of the potential costs, Title VI "does not provide for consideration of costs by DOT." (See, Congressional Record-House October 1, 1984, p. H 10462, at 10472.)

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Cost Savings Act does not limit the cost of an antitheft device that is installed pursuant to the issuance under 2025 of an exemption from the standard. Please note that the passage of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (ACTA) did not amend, in any way relevant to our conclusions, the provisions limiting costs of parts marking and authorizing the installation of antitheft devices in lieu of parts marking.

I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator

ref:CSA d:9/21/93

ID: 9061

Ms. Carolyn H. McDaniel
2614 Briar Ridge
Suite 493
Houston, TX 77057

Dear Ms. McDaniel:

This responds to your September 1, 1993, letter to Mary Versailles of my staff. You are concerned with vehicles used by a company called Extradition Services, Inc. (ESI), to transport prisoners, one of which was involved in an accident in Texas. You describe the vehicle involved in the accident as follows:

...an extended Dodge van, bars over the windows, handles off the doors, one bench in a wire cage, two more bench seats and a bench seat across the back of the van. The aisle ran along the passenger side of the van. The seats appeared to be the original seats and seat belts apparently had been removed because none were present.

You also expressed concerns related to the way these vehicles were operated.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of 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. The regulations administered by this agency only address the way in which the vehicle is manufactured, not the use of the vehicle.

Based on your description of the vehicle, there may be a question as to whether the vehicle was required to have seat belts. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. In addition, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which the prisoners were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and GVWR of the vehicle.

Your letter states that you believe the seat belts were removed from the vehicle after manufacture. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a 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. The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from removing seat belts from a vehicle. Please note, however, that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications owners make to their own vehicles.

Your concerns about ESI's use of the vehicle are not addressed by the Federal law administered by this agency, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their use. It is possible that there may be an issue associated with commercial driver regulations, and we have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration. In addition, because your questions concern the safety of vehicles used to transport prisoners and an accident in Texas, you may wish to contact the Governor's Office, the head of the Texas prison system, or your state representative.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Federal Highway Administration ref:208 d:9/27/93