ID: nht80-2.36

DATE: 05/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning folding jump seats you intend to install in some future van models that your company manufacturers. You ask whether the seats would qualify as "designated seating positions", for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The term "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

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

As described and illustrated in your letter, the Nissan seats in question appear to qualify as folding jump seats. Consequently, under the definition above they would not be considered "designated seating positions". Although this is the case, we encourage you to install safety belts for these jump seats as you had previously planned. Likewise, we hope you will ensure that the seats have a crashworthiness performance equivalent to that required by Safety Standard No. 207 (for "designated seating positions") when the jump seats are folded into place for occupant use.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

April 23, 1980

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., would like to take this time to ask you for your interpretation concerning Part 571 Definition "Designated Seating Position."

Our questions can be found on the attached pages. We would like to ask that you treat the attached pages as "Confidential" until it is introduced to the public. Your interpretations will be appreciated very much.

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

ATTACH.

cc: HUGH OATES (NOA-30)

ID: 10536bun

Ms. Lori A. Hawker
20 Begonia St.
Casper, WY 82604

Dear Ms. Hawker:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a product you wish to manufacture. You describe the product as "bunting" that fits inside an infant-only car seat. (An infant-only seat is lightweight and is easily used as an infant carrier to carry an infant to and from the car.) The bunting is intended as a substitute for a blanket. You state that the bunting has slots through which the harness on the car seat is threaded and the buckle of the harness is attached to the car seat. You believe that, when properly installed, "the bunting in no way interferes with the adjustment or function of the safety straps or buckle mechanism."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of FMVSS 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as car seat pillows, pads and bunting.

While no FMVSS applies to the bunting, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-

related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the bunting would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. '30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Standard 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for infant seats. Any person listed in '30122 who installs the bunting must ensure that the product does not vitiate the seat's compliance with those flammability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of '30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

I would like to close with the following remarks. It is crucial for the safety of an infant that the straps of its infant seat retain the baby's torso in a crash. Excessive slack in the straps due to the straps binding up on a fabric liner in the seat (such as bunting material), or because of excessive compression of the liner, can cause shoulder straps to move off an infant's shoulders. As a consequence, the infant can be ejected from the seat. We know that you recognize the importance of the straps in a crash, and that you believe that the bunting will not interfere with their adjustment or function. We underscore the importance of this feature. Bunting material that degrades the ability of an infant seat to restrain its occupant would be an obvious safety problem.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:2/2/95

ID: 11496TENT

Ms. Kristin M. Mortenson
President
Nirin, Inc.
4233 Standish Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55407

Dear Ms. Mortenson:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a product you wish to manufacture, called the Tiny Tent. You describe the Tiny Tent as a covering for infant car seats. (An infant car seat is lightweight and is easily used as an infant carrier to carry an infant to and from the car.) The Tiny Tent would be used when the infant is carried to and from the car in its infant seat in harsh weather.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of Standard 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as aftermarket infant seat covers.

While no Federal safety standard applies to the Tiny Tent, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you

are subject to the requirements of 49 United States Code ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business is prohibited by our statute from installing the Tiny Tent if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard, such as Standard 213.

The Amake inoperative@ prohibition does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

You note in your letter that manufacturers of infant car seats usually advise users to put the car seat handle behind the seat when the restraint is used in the vehicle. You also state that the Tiny Tent Arolls up around the handle and allows this.@ We agree that any material that may prevent the handle from being secured out of the way of the child would be unsafe in a crash. We suggest you include a statement in the instructions for the Tiny Tent that the car seat handle should be stored in the manner recommended by the car seat manufacturer when the restraint is used in the vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:3/29/96

ID: 24547_Q'Straint_vest

Jean Marc Girardin, President
Q-Straint
5553 Ravenswood
Building 104
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312

Dear Mr. Girardin:

This responds to your letter concerning the Q-Vest, a vest for use on school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that Athe Q-Vest incorporates a y-belt that is secured around the seats loading bar, at the base of the seat." You ask how we interpret S5.3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, as applied to your product.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter, and addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised as necessary to render this interpretation. If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue. Likewise, this interpretation may not discuss every requirement of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that might apply to your product. It is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine the requirements that apply and certify the compliance of your product with those requirements. NHTSA determines the compliance of products with the safety standards in the context of an agency enforcement proceeding.

The QStraint is a device that is designed to restrain children in school buses. It is thus a "child restraint system" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. (See definition of "child restraint system" in S4 of Standard No. 213.)

As you know from telephone conversations with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, the agency recently amended S5.3.1 of Standard No. 213 (October 22, 2002, 67 FR 64818). Effective October 22, 2002, S5.3.1 states, in pertinent part:

S5.3.1 Add-on child restraints shall meet either (a) or (b), as appropriate.

(a) Except for components designed to attach to a child restraint anchorage system, each add-on child restraint system must not have any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat cushion or vehicle seat back and any component (except belts) that is designed to be inserted between the vehicle seat cushion and vehicle seat back. Harnesses manufactured before February 1, 2003, that are manufactured for use on school bus seats are excluded from S5.3.1(a).

(b)  Harnesses manufactured on or after February 1, 2003, but before December 1, 2003, for use on school bus seats must meet S5.3.1(a) of this standard, unless a label that conforms in content to Figure 12 and to the requirements of S5.3.1(b)(1) through S5.3.1(b)(3) of this standard is permanently affixed to the part of the harness that attaches the system to a vehicle seat back. Harnesses that are not labeled as required by this paragraph must meet S5.3.1(a).

* * *

The issue posed by your letter is whether the QStraint vest^[1] has a "means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat back." If it does, the vest cannot be manufactured after January 31, 2003, unless it has the label specified in S5.3.1(b) of the standard.

We believe that it does. The instructions you provided for the QStraint indicate that the y-belt is routed over and around the seat back to attach to a bar at the bottom of the seat cushion. From your instructions, it appears that routing the y-belt this way attaches the restraint system to the vehicle seat and provides upper torso restraint to the child.

In our view, routing the y-belt in this manner constitutes attaching the system to the vehicle seat back. We interpret S5.3.1 to include any means that uses the vehicle seat back in whole or in part to attach the child restraint to the vehicle. The y-belt attaches to a bar that is part of the seat structure and wraps around the seat back to hold the system to the vehicle seat. Because the y-belt uses the vehicle seat back to attach the system to the vehicle seat, it is a means designed for attaching to a vehicle seat back.

The enclosed copy of the agencys October 22, 2002, Interim Final Rule explains that NHTSA has determined that a need exists to permit the limited manufacture and sale of vests that attach to school bus seats. However, such vests manufactured on or after February 1, 2003, must bear a specific warning label informing users that the vest must be used only on school bus seats and that the seats directly behind the child wearing the seat-mounted vest must be either unoccupied or occupied by restrained passengers. After reviewing the public comments on the Interim Final Rule, NHTSA will decide whether to issue a final rule amending the standard on a permanent basis.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.11/26/02





---




^[1] We consider the terms "vest" and "harness" to be interchangeable.

ID: nht94-3.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Huff -- Co-Chairperson, Special Transportation, Central Missouri State University

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 4/11/94: Letter from David Huff to Charles Holt (OCC-9936)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Charles Hott of this agency asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222), for wheelchair securement devices. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about the need to increase Standard 222's strength requirements for wheelchair securement devices that are part of an integrated system. In an integrated system, the occupant restraint system (lap and shoulder belts) is anchored to the wheelchai r securement device. You suggest that a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system should be required to withstand twice the load that is required for a securement device that is not integrated with the occupant restraint system.

While we share your belief that wheelchair securement devices should be sufficiently strong, we do not believe there is a need to increase Standard 222's present requirements for securement devices that are part of an integrated system. Rather, we belie ve a securement device that meets the standard's present requirements is capable of withstanding the forces imposed on that device in a crash, even when the device is part of an integrated system such as the one you described.

As you point out in your letter, S5.4.1.3 of Standard 222 provides for increasing the load requirement for a wheelchair securement anchorage when that anchorage is used by more than one wheelchair securement device. Moreover, S5.4.3.2(e) of the standard specifies that

When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1.3 [13,344 Newtons] a nd S5.4.3.2 [13,344 Newtons] shall be applied simultaneously . . .

Stated differently, the floor anchorage used for an integrated system must withstand a load of 26,688 Newtons, which is the sum of the load specified for the wheelchair securement device and the load specified for the occupant restraint.

However, Standard 222 does not require increasing the load for a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system, and there is valid reason for the different approach. Under S5.4.2(a) of Standard 222, wheelchair securement devices that incorporate webbing or a strap must comply with the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Type I systems are lap belts, and are required by S4.2(b) of FMVSS 209 to have a breaking strength of not l ess than "6,000 pounds or 2,720 kilograms." The 6,000 pound (2,720 kg.) requirement is equivalent to the 26,688 Newton requirement for an anchorage used for an integrated system. Thus, Standard 222 requires wheelchair securement devices to be as strong as an anchorage that secures both the wheelchair and the occupant restraint. Requiring the wheelchair securement device to be stronger than the anchorage cannot be justified by a safety need.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht72-4.21

DATE: 05/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles H. Hartman; NHTSA

TO: Rose Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of March 23, 1972, and March 27, 1972, concerning our previous letter to you dated March 10, 1972.

We recognize your contribution to safety and your deep personal involvement in child harnesses. Harnesses, such as yours, offer many desirable features. The child is free to move about, and he is adequately restrained if the harness system is properly adjusted and anchored. Effective harness systems can probably be produced at modest cost.

There certainly can be no objection to the upper torso restraint provided by a good harness system. Indeed, this is a very important feature which is required because of the child's special skeletal structure.

On the other hand, restraints which are anchored to inadequate structures or which allow excessive motion of the child in a crash cannot be condoned. Actual thirty mile-per-hour, sixteen g dynamic sled tests of child harnesses anchored as you recommend have shown that a severe problem exists with the anchorage system. Quoting the University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute Report, Child Seat and Restraint Systems Test Program, DOT/MS-000-376, "In the test at 30 mph the adult seat back broke away due to the load imposed by the restraint system tether. This allowed the dummy to move forward far enough to cause potential contact with the vehicle interior." This test was conducted using a heavy duty Bostrom truck bucket seat and utilized only the thrity-pound, three-year-old child dummy, restrained by a Sears small harness. The present typical seat back strengths are, thus, inadequate to support a harness system which depends upon the seat back. It is our intention to encourage improvements in seat back strength for automobile production by future rule making action.

Since your harness is recommended for children up to fifty pounds and since most passenger car seats are not as strong as the test seat, we expect the situation to be even more serious in realistic usage conditions which also normally encounter appreciably higher load levels in thirty mile-per-hour crashes. This is why we object to your system of anchorage. Thus, our position is as stated in our previous letter to you.

We hope that you will consider other methods of anchoring your child harness which will prevent seat back failure and resulting excessive occupant excursions.

We appreciate your sincere interest and concern in this matter. We emphatically do believe that child harnesses play a vital role in child restraints.

ID: nht72-3.35

DATE: 05/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Resources Applications, Designs & Controls, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1972, on the subject of the test procedures of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207 and 210.

Your first question is whether the center of gravity referred to in S5.1.2 of Standard 207 is the center of gravity of the seat bench alone or the center of gravity of the seat bench in combination with the supporting structure. It is often a close question in recreational vehicle seating where the seating system ends and the vehicle structure begins. In cases such as the one depicted in Attachment 1 to your letter, where the supporting structure consists of a storage cabinet that is integrated into the interior structure of the vehicle, it is our opinion that the storage cabinet should not be considered in determining the weight and center of gravity of the seat bench under S5.1.2.

Your second question asks us to concur in your opinion that separate tests are not required under Standards 207 and 210 when identical seats are installed in different vehicles. Our reply is that the number of tests you perform is a matter for you to decide; we do not, as a rule, comment on the adequacy of a test program. The standards do not require a manufacturer to test his product in a specific manner or with a specific frequency, so that failure to test is not, in itself, a violation. If our Office of Standard Enforcement should happen to test one of the vehicles in question, however, and it fails when tested in accordance with the standard, the manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties unless he can establish that he exercised due care in the design and manufacturer of the vehicle. Whatever your decision on the subject of testing, it should be carefully made.

Our reply to your third question follows the reasoning set forth above. If we conduct a test in accordance with S4.2(d) and the seat fails, the manufacturer will have to establish that he exercised due care in making that seat. Without a set of specific facts before us, we cannot say what the result of our inquiry would be.

The label proposed for the rotating seat to indicate that it is not to be used while the vehicle is in motion except in the forward facing position would be an acceptable label under Standard 207.

ID: nht71-5.11

DATE: 12/02/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lotus Cars Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971, in which you asked whether Standard No. 208 would require seat belt retractors to be installed after January 1, 1972, for the rear occasional seats of the Lotus Plan Plus Two. Our answer is that retractors will be required if the rear seats are "designated seating positions" as defined in our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3(b). The definition provides, among other things, that to be a designated seating position a seat must accomodate a 5th percentile adult female. To define an occupant of this size, the regulations incorporate a U.S. Public Health Service publication that includes the following specifications: weight, 104 pounds; standing height, 59 inches; sitting height, 30.9 inches; knee height, 17.9 inches; buttock-knee length, 20.4 inches. If the Plan Plus Two cannot accomodate a person of this size in the rear seat, it need not have a seat belt retractor for that seat. If such a person can be accomodated, then retractors will be required unless the seat is otherwise exempt by the definition as an auxiliary seating accomodation such as [a temporary or folding jump seat." We do not have the information necessary to judge whether the seat is exempt as an auxiliary seating accomodation.

Please advise us if further explanation is necessary.

ID: nht93-7.25

DATE: October 15, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/93 from Michael F. Hecker to John Womack (OCC-8882)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning our June 29, 1993, letter to your associate, Mr. Michael Dunn, about the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R-Bar). The R-Bar, an item of motor vehicle equipment, is a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses to fold down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seats. You have further questions about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA regulations, as applied to R-Bars.

In our letter to Mr. Dunn, we addressed several statements that we believed were potentially misleading that Micho made to school officials. These statements include, among other things, that NHTSA has "approved" R-Bars and that R-Bars are certified as complying with Federal safety standards. We noted that, while Micho indicated that it would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars, we sought assurances that Micho would not continue to represent that it can "certify" the compliance of R-Bars.

You ask for clarification of that letter. You state that there "appears to be some confusion" resulting from past correspondence with this agency regarding certification of compliance with applicable FMVSSs. You believe, based on previous correspondence, that the R-Bar must comply with FMVSSs that apply to the school bus seat and "the general safety of school buses," such as school bus exits and flammability resistance. Accordingly, you believe that Micho can properly "certify" the R-Bar to these school bus FMVSSs.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our requirements. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system whereby the manufacturer of the vehicle or item of equipment is responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence of the manufacturer.

Because of the self-certification system established by law, NHTSA can neither approve, disapprove, endorse, nor offer assurances of compliance for any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification of the product. Rather, this agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing a vehicle or item of equipment in the retail market and conducting the compliance tests specified in the pertinent standards. The

agency also investigates safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of its product and remedying the problem free of charge. The recall responsibility for noncomplying or defective vehicles is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a product is installed on a new vehicle by that vehicle manufacturer.

As stated in our previous letters to your company, there are no FMVSSs specifically applicable to R-Bars. Our school bus FMVSSs apply to whole vehicles, rather than to individual items of school bus equipment. If R- Bars are installed as original equipment on a new school bus, the vehicle manufacturer is required by the Safety Act to certify that, with the devices installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.222); Standard 217, Bus Window retention and Release (S571.217); Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (S571.302); and, with regard to small school buses, the pertinent provisions of Standard 208, occupant Crash Protection (S571.208). 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. S1403, and 49 CFR Part 567. Because these FMVSSs apply to the vehicle there are no standards to which Micho can, or must, certify compliance.

If the R-Bars are added to a previously-certified new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person who so modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" of a previously certified new vehicle. As an alterer, the person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR S567.7.

The vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs an R-Bar may, in order to meet its duty to exercise due care, in part rely on information from you concerning the R-Bar's performance characteristics, to the extent such reliance is reasonable. Since compliance with Standard 222 appears to be a significant concern with respect to the installation of R-Bars, you might wish to test a bus or buses equipped with an R-Bar, using the test procedures set out in Standard 222. The results of such tests might be useful to a school bus manufacturer in determining whether it could certify a school bus equipped with R-Bars as complying with standard 222.

If R-Bars were installed on a used school bus, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would be required to ensure that by installing the R-Bars, the installer did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A). In this case, the installer would be responsible for ensuring that the R-Bars did not cause the school bus to fail to comply with any safety standards, including but not limited to the standards enumerated above.

This agency has addressed various compliance issues and other safety concerns applicable to R-Bars and similar devices on a number of occasions in the past. As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated

February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard 208.

You asked for our comments on two statements you intend to make to your customers. The first statement is that there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to R-Bars. As discussed above, that statement is correct. The second statement is that, when properly installed, R-Bars will not violate any standard or regulation or render inoperative any safety feature on a school bus. NHTSA lacks information on which to assess the accuracy of that statement. However, it appears unlikely that you could provide such assurances for school buses in general, since the question of whether adding R-Bars would result in a school bus no longer complying with safety standards is likely to depend, at least in part, on factors specific to a particular school bus, such as the seats, floor, etc. Accordingly, absent data to substantiate this statement for all bus configurations and potential installation procedures, we believe that it would not be proper for you to make such a statement.

I hope this resolves the issues raised in your letter.

ID: 8882

October 15, 1993

Mr. Michael F. Hecker Micho Industries Post Office Box 2017 Lompoc, CA 93438

Dear Mr. Hecker:

This responds to your letter concerning our June 29, 1993, letter to your associate, Mr. Michael Dunn, about the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R-Bar). The R-Bar, an item of motor vehicle equipment, is a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses to fold down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seats. You have further questions about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA regulations, as applied to R-Bars.

In our letter to Mr. Dunn, we addressed several statements that we believed were potentially misleading that Micho made to school officials. These statements include, among other things, that NHTSA has "approved" R-Bars and that R-Bars are certified as complying with Federal safety standards. We noted that, while Micho indicated that it would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars, we sought assurances that Micho would not continue to represent that it can "certify" the compliance of R-Bars.

You ask for clarification of that letter. You state that there "appears to be some confusion" resulting from past correspondence with this agency regarding certification of compliance with applicable FMVSSs. You believe, based on previous correspondence, that the R-Bar must comply with FMVSSs that apply to the school bus seat and "the general safety of school buses," such as school bus exits and flammability resistance. Accordingly, you believe that Micho can properly "certify" the R-Bar to these school bus FMVSSs.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our requirements. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system whereby the manufacturer of the vehicle or item of equipment is responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence of the manufacturer.

Because of the self-certification system established by law, NHTSA can neither approve, disapprove, endorse, nor offer assurances of compliance for any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification of the product. Rather, this agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing a vehicle or item of equipment in the retail market and conducting the compliance tests specified in the pertinent standards. The agency also investigates safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of its product and remedying the problem free of charge. The recall responsibility for noncomplying or defective vehicles is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a product is installed on a new vehicle by that vehicle manufacturer.

As stated in our previous letters to your company, there are no FMVSSs specifically applicable to R-Bars. Our school bus FMVSSs apply to whole vehicles, rather than to individual items of school bus equipment. If R-Bars are installed as original equipment on a new school bus, the vehicle manufacturer is required by the Safety Act to certify that, with the devices installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222); Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (571.217); Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (571.302); and, with regard to small school buses, the pertinent provisions of Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection (571.208). 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1403, and 49 CFR Part 567. Because these FMVSSs apply to the vehicle, there are no standards to which Micho can, or must, certify compliance.

If the R-Bars are added to a previously-certified new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person who so modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" of a previously certified new vehicle. As an alterer, the person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR 567.7.

The vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs an R-Bar may, in order to meet its duty to exercise due care, in part rely on information from you concerning the R-Bar's performance characteristics, to the extent such reliance is reasonable. Since compliance with Standard 222 appears to be a significant concern with respect to the installation of R-Bars, you might wish to test a bus or buses equipped with an R-Bar, using the test procedures set out in Standard 222. The results of such tests might be useful to a school bus manufacturer in determining whether it could certify a school bus equipped with R-Bars as complying with Standard 222.

If R-Bars were installed on a used school bus, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would be required to ensure that by installing the R-Bars, the installer did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). In this case, the installer would be responsible for ensuring that the R-Bars did not cause the school bus to fail to comply with any safety standards, including but not limited to the standards enumerated above.

This agency has addressed various compliance issues and other safety concerns applicable to R-Bars and similar devices on a number of occasions in the past. As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard 208.

You asked for our comments on two statements you intend to make to your customers. The first statement is that there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to R-Bars. As discussed above, that statement is correct. The second statement is that, when properly installed, R-Bars will not violate any standard or regulation or render inoperative any safety feature on a school bus. NHTSA lacks information on which to assess the accuracy of that statement. However, it appears unlikely that you could provide such assurances for school buses in general, since the question of whether adding R-Bars would result in a school bus no longer complying with safety standards is likely to depend, at least in part, on factors specific to a particular school bus, such as the seats, floor, etc. Accordingly, absent data to substantiate this statement for all bus configurations and potential installation procedures, we believe that is would not be proper for you to make such a statement.

I hope this resolves the issues raised in your letter.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222#571#VSA d:10/15/93