ID: nht91-6.14

DATE: October 3, 1991

FROM: Alan E. Willis -- Senior Transportation Engineer, Franchise Regulation Division, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: TaxiCab Safety Shield/Partitions and Passenger Safety

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-16-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Alan E. Willis (A38; Std. 201; Std. 205; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The City of Los Angeles plans to require the installation of safety shields in all taxicabs which may be 1982 model year and newer. The installation is intended to deter or prevent crimes against the taxicab driver. Such mandated installations will be similar to laws existing in other cities such as Oakland, California and Tampa, Florida. We are concerned for the safety of the rear seat passenger who may impact the rigid shield in a sudden stop and question the compliance of the shield with any Federal auto safety regulations.

In talking with Mr. John Rigby of your staff on September 18, 1991, it was determined that 49 CFR, Sections 571.201 (Occupant Protection) and 571.205 (glazing Materials) may apply. He suggested that we write to you to request an official determination on the issue. If you have any questions, please contact me or David Leatherman at (213) 485-4817.

ATTACHMENT

Tentative Resolution Board Order No. 484 Board of Transportation Commissioners City of Los Angeles

(Text of attachment omitted)

ID: nht91-6.15

DATE: October 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jon Nisper -- K.B. Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-23-91 from Jon Nisper to Jerry Medelin (OCC 6403)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of August 23, 1991, to Jere Medlin of this agency. You have enclosed a drawing of a combination headlamp/turn signal lamp assembly that depicts two possible positions ("Case l," "Case 2") for the inboard wall. With respect to each, you have asked "where should the 100mm separation be measured for turn signal headlamp position?"

Let me begin by noting that there is no requirement in Standard No. 108 that front turn signal lamps be separated from headlamps by at least 100mm. However, if there is less than a 100mm separation of those lamps, S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 provides that the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities for the lamps shall be 2.5. NHTSA determines the distance of the separation pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 5.1.5.4.2 of SAE Standard J588 NOV84, "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width." That paragraph provides the following means of measuring spacing:

"Spacing for a front turn signal lamp which primarily employs a reflector (for example, one of parabolic section) in conjunction with a lens to meet photometric requirements, shall be measured from the geomeric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area to the lighted edge of the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp."

We would apply this as follows. You stated in your letter that the inboard walls in your proposed headlamp/turn signal assembly serve no functional purpose. We interpret this as meaning that neither the inboard wall in Case 1 or Case 2 shown in your drawing would be used optically in the headlamp. Under this assumption, and the assumption that no direct light from the bulb filament illuminates the outer edges of the headlamp lens nearest the turn signal, the lighted edge of the headlamp reflector would end where the relevant inboard wall meets the reflector. Pursuant to SAE Standard J588 NOV 84, one would then take a vertical plane that is parallel to the axis of the headlamp bulb, and project it from the end of the lighted edge of the reflector (i.e., where the respective inboard wall meets the reflector) onto the lens. You have already drawn this as a line in the drawing enclosed with your FAX. Next, take the axis of the turn signal bulb and project it onto the lens (this line also exists in your enclosed drawing). To determine the separation, one would then measure the distance between the projected points on each lens. Should the headlamp lens area between the turn signal and the projected vertical wall line onto the headlamp lens be lighted, either on purpose or inadvertently, then the actual lighted edge of the headlamp would be used for measurement purposes.

ID: nht91-6.16

DATE: October 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: D. G. Kong -- General Manager, Certification Business Department, KIA Motors Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-3-91 from D. G. Kong to Andrew J. Sklover

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to former Special Assistant Andrew Sklover, requesting information about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and about National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) certification and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirements. You asked whether the Isuzu Amigo, a sport utility vehicle, the roof of which you described as composed half of hard top with steel and half detachable soft top with plastic or cloth, would be considered a "convertible" and thus exempt from Standard No. 216. You also asked for information about vehicle certification and VIN requirements, as well as the relationship between Federal and state regulations in the area of motr vehicle safety. I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions.

First, you asked whether NHTSA would consider the Isuzu Amigo to be a "convertible" and thus exempt from the performance requirements of Standard No. 216. The agency has defined a convertible as

a vehicle whose A-pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or another rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.

Based on NHTSA's information about the Isuzu Amigo's design, the "hard top with steel" that you described joins the vehicle's A-pillar to the B-pillar at the top, extending as a roof over the driver and front passenger seating positions. The soft top portion covers an area that may include rear seating positions. Because the A- and B-pillars are joined by a "fixed rigid structural member," the Amigo would not be considered a convertible. Accordingly, since the Amigo is not a convertible, S108 of the National Higway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397) requires that all such vehicles manufacturered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States on or after September 1, 1993 conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 216.

You also asked for general information about NHTSA certification and VIN requirements. Although I will address certification generally, I have also enclosed two information packets which discuss these, as well as other issues related to NHTSA requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. These packets explain the basic procedures manufacturers must follow to comply with NHTSA regulations, and explain how manufacturers can obtain copies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other regulations.

As a general statement about certification, manufacturers are not required to get an "approval" from this agency before selling its products. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, S114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles and items of equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. When a manufacturer has, in the exercise of "due care," determined that its product complies with all applicable standards, the manufacturer affixes a certification to the product in accordance with the applicable safety standard, and Part 567, Certification, in the case of new vehicles. The agency periodically tests certified vehicles and equipment item for compliance with the safety standards, and investigates alleged safety-related defects.

You also asked generally about the relationship between state and Federal laws and regulations related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards that establish minimum performance requirements for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also prohibits states from enacting "safety standards" that are different from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. States do, however, have substantial authority to adopt regulations that relate to motor vehicle safety. States are not prohibited from adopting, for example, requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after their first sale, or the operation and modification of vehicles by their owners. Information about state laws related to motor vehicles can be obtained by writing to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administraotrs, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-6.17

DATE: October 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey P. Shimp -- Engineer, Fleet Engineering & Q.A., Transportation Department, Baltimore Gas and Electric

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-91 from Jeffrey P. Shimp to Mary Versailles (OCC 6483)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 17, 1991, regarding the addition of a seat to your company's cargo vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of Federal law for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles or new items of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards at the time the product is delivered to the first purchaser in good faith for purposes other than resale.

After a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Please note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Therefore, Baltimore Gas and Electric may install additional seats in the cargo vans it owns without violating the "render inoperative" provision or any other provisions of the Safety Act, providing Baltimore Gas and Electric performs the work themselves.

However, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that owners can make to their own vehicles. You should contact the State of Maryland to learn if it has enacted any laws or regulations that apply to your planned modifications to your vans. In addition, you may wish to consult with an attorney familiar with the law in the State of Maryland regarding potential liability for your company in connection with adding a seat to these vans.

Finally, although Federal law does not regulate your company's planned addition of seats to its vehicles, we urge you to carefully consider the safety issues that would arise if your company proceeds with the installation of these additional seats. Specifically, this agency encourages your company to select and install any additional seats in a way that will not degrade occupant protection, and to install a safety belt for those additional seats, so that your employees using the additional seat will be protected in the event of a crash.

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

ID: nht91-6.18

DATE: October 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gordon W. Didier -- Butzel Long

TITLE: Re ASC, Inc. - Petition for Low Volume Exemption from Average Fuel Economy Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-25-91 from Gordon W. Didier to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

In a letter dated September 25, 1991, you indicated that General Motors Corporation has agreed to accept the transfer from ASC, Inc. to General Motors of responsibility under the CAFE law for model year 1989 and 1990 Turbo Grand Prix vehicles, provided that NHTSA does not object to this transfer of CAFE responsibility. You enclosed a copy of a letter from General Motors confirming this agreement. You indicated that ASC and General Motors are communicating directly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to arrange for the EPA to amend its data base and include ASC's production in the calculations for General Motors for model years 1989 and 1990. You requested written confirmation that NHTSA does not have any objection to this arrangement, in order that you can provide EPA with a copy.

This letter is to confirm that NHTSA does not have any objection to General Motors taking CAFE responsibility for the model year 1989 and 1990 Turbo Grand Prix vehicles. The reasons underlying this opinion are set forth in the July 29, 1991, Federal Register notice (56 FR 35834) denying ASC's petition for a low volume exemption for these vehicles. In particular, the vehicles have two manufacturers, GM and ASC, and since 49 CFR Part 529 does not cover the manufacturing arrangements of GM/ASC, the manufacturers can, under a past NHTSA interpretation, determine by agreement which of them will count a vehicle as its own.

ID: nht91-6.19

DATE: October 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nikki G. Setzler -- Setzler, Chewning & Scott, P.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-6-91 from Nikki G. Setzler to Ronald E. Ingle (OCC 6476)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 6, 1991 to Mr. Ronald Engle which was forwarded to our office for response. Your letter asks whether it is a violation of Federal law for a school district to use "two vans that it purchased used after 1977" to transport school children. "(B)oth vans are built to carry more than 11 passengers."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including new school buses. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if they are aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. It is not a violation of Federal law to sell any used vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards, even if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. It is also not a violation of Federal law to use a vehicle to transport school children that does not comply will all school bus safety standards. Individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. Therefore, to determine if the school district you represent may use noncomplying vans to transport school children, you must look to state law. You may also wish to consult state law concerning liability, because using a noncomplying van as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident.

NHTSA also has the authority under the Highway Safety Act of 1966 to issue guidelines for the states to use in developing their highway safety programs. Under this authority NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, which contains recommendations to the States on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. A copy of the recent Federal Register notice updating Guideline 17 is enclosed for your information.

I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage the

school district you represent to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

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

ID: nht91-6.2

DATE: September 18, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John E. Calow -- Senior Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Chassis Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-12-91 from John E. Calow to Taylor Vincon (OCC 6358)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 12, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a verification of your understanding of certain requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you ask:

"If the Brake Lights and Hazard Warning Lights are optically combined and both are activated (per federal regulations) which of the following will occur?

A) The brake lights will over-ride causing a steady light emission.

B) The hazard lights will over-ride causing a flashing light emission.

The answer to your first question is either "A" or "B" depending on how the manufacturer decided to wire the vehicle. The vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is required to operate sufficient turn signal lamps to meet, as a minimum, the turn signal lamp photometric requirements of the standard (see S5.5.5) and function (see Table I or III) in accordance with SAE J910, January 1966. Since the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit causes turn signal lamps to operate simultaneously, the turn signal lamps become hazard warning lamps that are optically combined with turn signal lamps. Should these hazard warning lamps also be optically combined with the brake lamps, as in your question, the standard does not provide any requirement for which, brake or hazard, should override.

You also ask:

"If the vehicle has a Center High Mounted Stop Lamp 'CHMSL' is it acceptable to have the Hazard Warning Lights over-ride the Brake Lights if the CHMSL has a steady light emitance (sic) upon brake application?"

The answer to this question is the same as the first. However, the CHMSL may not be combined, optically or otherwise, with any other lamp, and therefore it must remain operative upon brake application, even if the remaining stop lamps have been overridden.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht91-6.20

DATE: October 10, 1991

FROM: James M. Watson

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re United States Custom Service file no. 866522R

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to James Watson (A38; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

I am writing to ask your assistance in a disagreement with Customs about whether a farm vehicle I hope to import has to meet Federal highway safety standards. I am a mechanical engineer living on a small farm. On a trip to Thailand, I saw a unique Thai farm vehicle which I thought would be very convenient to bring bales of hay down from my field for storage in my barn. I am engaged in the process of trying to import one.

I requested a tariff classification ruling from the United States Customs Service in New York. I included a brief discussion in my descriptive literature of those features whose presence or absence indicate it is a farm vehicle rather than a motor vehicle. I was shocked when they decided it is a motor vehicle and enclosed a booklet which says a motor vehicle must be brought into compliance with the DOT motor vehicle highway safety standards before it can enter the country.

I wrote Customs asking how to appeal their ruling. I also wrote DOT NEF-32 a letter, with a copy to Customs, asking if one of its engineers could review Customs' file to offer an opinion whether the vehicle falls within DOT's purview. Customs recently informed me that they have sent the referenced file to U.S. Customs Service Headquarters, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229 for their review. If they change their mind, this request for help could become moot. Meanwhile, a DOT engineer called to discuss the matter, sent me a copy of N40-30 (TWH), "Vehicles which are affected by the Federal Safety Standards", and advised me to send you my copies of the material I sent to Customs.

I have enclosed copies of the documents I sent to or received from U.S. Customs. Having read N40-30, I believe my difficulty with Customs derives from my description of these vehicles being used on highways IN THAILAND, even though I tried to make it clear how I intend to use it in the United States and why almost anything can use the roads over there. If you need additional information, you can write to my return address or call me during the day at (412)-655-1200. Your assistance will be appreciated.

LIST OF ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS

A. 22 August 1991 letter from James M. Watson to U.S. Customs in New York City requesting classification for e-tant farm vehicle. Three pertinent sentences have been highlighted.

B. "Information Regarding the Farm Vehicle" enclosure to document A.

Eleven pertinent sentences have been highlighted.

C. Undated postcard received about 30 August 1991 from U.S. Customs in New York City to James M. Watson.

D. 11 September 1991 letter from U.S. Customs in New York City to James M. Watson classifying e-tant as motor vehicle.

E. Customs' Importing a Car" booklet which accompanied document D.

Markings added by Customs on the cover, page 8 and page 10 have been highlighted, as have statements of particular concern to me on page 2.

F. 18 September 1991 letter from James M. Watson to Jean F. Maguire (U.S. Customs in New York City) protesting classification of e-tant as motor vehicle. Two pertinent paragraphs have been highlighted.

G. 17 September 1991 letter from James M. Watson to Jean F. Maguire (U.S. Customs in New York City) enclosure to document F.

H. 19 September 1991 letter from James M. Watson to U.S. DOT with copy to Jean F. Maguire (U.S. Customs in New York City).

I. 30 September 1991 postcard from U.S. Customs in New York City to James M. Watson.

J. 3 October 1991 letter from James M. Watson to U.S. Customs in Washington, D,C. responding to document I. Seven pertinent sentences have been highlighted.

K. 4 October 1991 letter from Jean F. Maguire (U.S. Customs in New York City) to James M. Watson indicating file was forwarded to U.S.

Customs in Washington, D.C. for review.

ID: nht91-6.21

DATE: October 14, 1991

FROM: Robert W. Smith -- President, Auto Safety Corporation

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Senior Staff Attorney, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated November, 1991 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert W. Smith (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

My partner and I want to thank you for all the help you gave us during the course of the meeting in your office on August 15, 1990.

Since that meeting we have been continuing the development of our prototype stop lamp license plate frame, in order to conform to all applicable NHTSA standards.

The purpose of this letter is to confirm what we learned at that meeting. Your computer search of Safety Standard #108 data as it would apply to our device, the flashing/steady burning stop lamp, turned up the following:

1. In the case of the Simcox letter (A29, Redbook 3, Erika Z. Jones to Bettie Lou Simcox, October 24, 1986), the use of a flashing/steady burning stop lamp is permissible on a motorcycle. As you'll recall, our embodiment, which complies with specifics of the Safety Standard #108, is a specially designed license plate frame that incorporates a light assembly and a patented (U.S. Patent No. 4,871,945) electronic circuit. (See attached drawings Fig. 1 and Fig. 2)

2. Safety Standard #108 also would allow the use of a flashing/steady burning stop lamp on passenger cars. Specifically, for our purposes, in the embodiment of a license plate frame with built-in lights and circuitry. (Drawing Fig. 1)

3. Safety Standard #108 would permit the use of an auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp which could be mounted on the rear of vans, pickup trucks, and mini vans. (Drawing Fig. 3)

In closing, we again thank you for the help you have given us.

ATTACHMENT

Motor vehicle flashing/steady burning stop lamp license plate frame. (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) (Graphics omitted)

Auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp. (Fig. 3) (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-6.22

DATE: October 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Elizabeth D. Smith -- Department Head, Community and Special Services, Division of Program Monitoring, State Health and Human Services Finance Commission

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-14-91 from Elizabeth D. Smith to Mary Versailles (OCC 6363)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 14, 1991, "regarding the addition of safety belts to a 1986 Ford Club Wagon" and other similar vehicles. The vehicle is certified as a bus according to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and is primarily used to transport pre-school age children (between three and five years of age) to and from a child development center and on field trips. The vehicle has seat belts for 15 passengers, including the driver. Currently, more than 14 children can be transported in these vehicles, by belting more than one child to a seat belt. However, you are concerned about the legality of doing so. Therefore, you wish to increase the capacity of these vehicles by adding additional belts in the passenger area. The additional belts would be installed by a local Ford dealership.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) 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 the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. Section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) do not apply "after the first purchase ... in good faith for purposes other than resale."

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, 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:

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.

In general, this "render inoperative" provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard when modifying a motor vehicle. Violations

of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Before discussing how these provisions would affect the modifications you wish to make, I would like to discuss another issue raised by your letter. While your letter indicates that your vehicles are certified as "buses," it appears that, under Federal law, the person who sold you these vehicles should have sold you a vehicle certified as a "school bus." NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for purposes that include transporting students to and from "school or school-related events." NHTSA has also stated that whether a program for preprimary-age students is a "school" is determined by whether the program is educational or custodial. Based upon phone conversations between you and Mary Versailles of my staff, it appears that our "child development center" would be considered a school. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to SELL any new vehicle that does not comply with all Federal school bus safety standards to a purchaser that intends to use the vehicle as a school bus, if the seller knew or should have known of the purchaser's intent. However, it is not a violation of Federal law for the purchaser to USE a vehicle to transport school children that does not comply with all the Federal school bus standards. Some states, however, require that only certified "school buses" be used to transport school children.

Later in this letter, I explain why it appears that additional seat belts could be added to a "bus" without violating Federal law. I caution you that my subsequent analysis would NOT apply to a "school bus." Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating requires a seat belt at every designated passenger seating position in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 222 calculates the number of seating positions on a school bus bench seat by dividing the seat width by 15, and rounding the result to the nearest whole number. Therefore, it would appear to "render inoperative" a school bus' compliance with Standard No. 222 if someone were to increase the seating capacity of a school bus.

I will now address the issue of adding safety belts to buses other than school buses. A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. Therefore, the additional safety belts which might be added to your vehicles must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards that apply to safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. For buses manufactured prior to September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 required installation of a safety belt at the driver's designated seating position only. Therefore, the safety belts installed at the passenger's designated seating positions in your vehicles were not required for the vehicles to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208. The vehicle was also not required to have seat belt anchorages at any designated seating position other than the driver's. Since safety belts and

anchorages were not required for the passenger seats in your vehicles, any modifications to the voluntarily-installed belts and anchorages at the passenger seats of your vehicles would not result in a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act.

I note that safety belts and anchorages are now required ton vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991) at every seating position in buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. I would also note, that, if the increase in seating capacity was significant, the modifications you are considering could "render inoperative" compliance with a number of safety standards for your buses by overloading the vehicles. However, your letter indicates that the dealership which may perform the modifications on your vehicles has already considered this and determined that the vehicle would not be overloaded.

In closing, I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage you to give the most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

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