ID: aiam4474

"Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is a response to your letter of November 11 1987, in which you asked for information on the 'application of seat belts in school buses.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds) to afford passenger crash protection by means of 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include high seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) experience greater force levels in a crash, Standard 222 requires the added protection of safety belts at each passenger position in a small school bus. School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, our regulations do not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses. I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled 'Safety Belts in School Buses,' which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject. You also asked whether there is an order form listing available data for safety belts in school buses. This agency does not publish 'order forms' for any data. For further information on this subject, you may wish to contact individual school bus manufacturers to ask for data about safety belts in their buses. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam1830

Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to General Motors' January 14, 1975, request fo confirmation that a Type II seat belt assembly demonstrated to Messrs. Carter, Detrick, Hofferberth, Burgett, Hitchcock, and Herlihy of the NHTSA on December 17, 1974, satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, that the lap belt portion 'adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor.' You describe the seat belt assembly as of the single retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted 'window shade' emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way frictional 'D ring' buckle tongue which limits return of webbing to the lap belt portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use. At the December 17 demonstration you specifically asked if the 'D ring' frictional characteristics satisfy the criterion established in a September 25, 1972, letter to Renault, Inc. (copy enclosed), that 'the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt cinches up the lap belt.'; Section S7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion 'by means o an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor' and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion 'by means of an emergency-locking retractor.' The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does 'automatically adjust' the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive belt slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the NHTSA has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.; One restriction was set out in the Renault letter and it is the basi for your question whether the GM 'D ring' has a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as 'automatically adjustable.'; We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform t the requirements, the assembly must be *designed* by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as 'automatically adjustable.' Thus it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular belt is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your December 17 demonstration we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.; The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to Genera Motors (copy enclosed). It limits the use of 'comfort clips' on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that 'a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1.'; This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposa (Docket 74-32, Notice 1) which would restrict the use of 'a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant' to seat belt assemblies that have 'an individually adjustable lap belt.' General Motors' response to that proposal and its anticipated use of a 'window shade' device in future continuous loop systems assume that NHTSA intends to permit 'belt tension relief' devices on all continuous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is outstanding in Docket 74- 32.; Pursuant to your request for confidential treatment of this question o a new seat belt assembly, this letter will be made public only after the introduction of the new vehicle in question.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam1728

Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to General Motors' January 14, 1975, request fo confirmation that a Type II seat belt assembly demonstrated to Messrs. Carter, Detrick, Hofferberth, Burgett, Hitchcock, and Herlihy of the NHTSA on December 17, 1974, satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, that the lap belt portion 'adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor.' You describe the seat belt assembly as of the singly retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted 'window shade' emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way frictional 'D ring' buckle tongue which limits return of webbing to the lap belt portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use. At the December 17 demonstration you specifically asked if the 'D ring' frictional characteristics satisfy the criterion established in a September 25, 1972, letter to Renault, Inc. (copy enclosed), that 'the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt cinches up the lap belt.'; Section S7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion 'by means o an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor' and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion 'by means of an emergency-locking retractor.' The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does 'automatically adjust' the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive belt slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the NHTSA has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.2.2 in two areas.; One restriction was set out in the Renault letter and it is the basi for your question whether the GM 'D ring' has a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as 'automatically adjustable.'; We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform t the requirements, the assembly must be *designed* by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as 'automatically adjustable.' THus it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular belt is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your December 17 demonstration we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.; The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to Genera Motors (copy enclosed). It limits the use of 'comfort clips' on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that 'a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1'; This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposa (Docket 74-32, Notice 1) which would restrict the use of 'a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant' to seat belt assemblies that have 'an individually adjustable lap belt.' General Motors' response to that proposal and its anticipated use of a 'window shade' device in future continuous loop systems assume that NHTSA intends to permit 'belt tension relief' devices on all continuous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is outstanding in Docket 74-32.; Pursuant to your request for confidential treatment of this question o a new seat belt assembly, this letter will be made public only after the introduction of the new vehicle in question.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam4704

"Dear Mr. Cooper: This responds to your letter asking this agency t consider a problem your company faces with respect to Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). More specifically, you asked how some of your buses could be certified as complying with the emergency exit labeling requirements set forth in Standard 217 for buses other than school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. Paragraph S5.5.1 of Standard 217 provides that, in buses other than school buses, each push-out window or other emergency exit shall have the designation 'Emergency Exit' followed by concise operating instructions, describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. The purpose of this requirement is to identify for bus occupants the location and explain the use of specially-installed emergency exits. As I understand your letter, you have no difficulties providing appropriate instructions in the specified location. Paragraph S5.5.1 continues with the following language: When a release mechanism is not located within an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label...that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within the occupant space. The terms 'adjacent seat' and 'occupant space' are defined in S4 of Standard 217 as follows: 'Adjacent seat' means a designated seating position located so that some portion of its occupant space is not more than 10 inches from an emergency exit, for a distance of at least 15 inches measured horizontally and parallel to the exit. 'Occupant space' means the space directly above the seat and footwell, bounded vertically by the ceiling and horizontally by the normally positioned seat back and the nearest obstruction of occupant motion in the direction the seat faces. You stated that many of your buses have seats that face the aisle and that back up against windows designated as emergency exits. These aisle-facing seats are 'adjacent seats' with respect to the emergency exits. The release mechanism for the emergency exit is not within the 'occupant space' for these aisle-facing seats, since the release mechanisms are behind, not above, these seats. You enclosed a group of photographs to further illustrate this situation. Since the release mechanism for the emergency exit is not within the occupant space of these adjacent aisle-facing seats, paragraph S5.5.1 of Standard 217 requires a label indicating the location of the release mechanism for the emergency exit to be placed within the occupant space for these seats. You have noted that the occupant space for these seats does not include any place to which this label could be attached. The nearest obstruction of occupant motion in the direction the aisle-facing seats face is the aisle facing seat on the opposite side of the bus. There are no intervening objects other than narrow vertical stanchions in the center of the aisle. Additionally, you suggested that placing the label on the floor or ceiling of the bus would not serve the purposes of this requirement, since those locations would not be readily visible to the seated occupant in an emergency situation. In response to your letter, we have carefully considered the labeling requirements of S5.5.1 as they apply to aisle-facing seats in front of windows that serve as emergency exits. The final rule adopting this additional labeling requirement explained that NHTSA was concerned that an occupant of an adjacent seat might hinder egress through an emergency exit if the occupant did not know how to use the emergency exit. See 37 FR 9394, at 9395, May 10, 1972. In instances in which the release mechanism itself is not within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label within the occupant space directing the occupant of the seat to the emergency exit instructions will help reduce the likelihood that the occupants would inadvertently obstruct egress through the emergency exits. NHTSA's goal of minimizing the likelihood of inadvertent obstruction of emergency exits is equally applicable to forward-facing and aisle-facing seats. However, the means of achieving that goal (i.e., placing a label within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, if the release mechanism is not within that occupant space) may not be equally successful for forward-facing and aisle-facing seats. The agency did not focus upon aisle-facing seats when it adopted this labeling requirement. With respect to forward-facing seats, it is relatively simple to locate a label within the occupant space that will be readily visible both to seated occupants and to persons standing in the aisle, as required by S5.5.2. However, with respect to aisle-facing seats, there may not be any location within the occupant space of such seats where a label could be placed so that the label would be visible to occupants of the seat and to persons standing in the aisle. If the labels were not visible in an emergency, such labels would not further NHTSA's goal of minimizing inadvertent obstruction of emergency exits. Accordingly, we plan to issue a notice proposing to amend and clarify the requirements of S5.5.1 of Standard 217 as they apply to aisle-facing seats. Please note that, unless and until a final rule amending S5.5.1 of Standard 217 becomes effective, the current requirements of S5.5.1 remain in effect for aisle-facing seats. However, the agency believes that it would be inappropriate at this time to enforce the requirement in S5.5.1 that additional information be labeled within the occupant space of aisle-facing seats given the uncertainty that such labels will serve the purpose for which the labeling requirements were established, as noted above. Accordingly, until the agency makes a final decision on the proposed rulemaking mentioned above, NHTSA will not take any enforcement actions against bus manufacturers that do not place a label indicating the location of the nearest emergency exit release mechanism within the occupant space of adjacent aisle-facing seats. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht94-2.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Moore -- Ferrucci Nurseries (Newfield, NJ)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/4/94 from John Moore to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9645)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1994, requesting verification of a statement made by a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) employee that you are allowed to install passenger seats in a van used for farm transportation if yo u comply with the safety regulations. In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you would like to add seats to the rear of a 14 foot cargo van which the nursery owns. You would be performing this work yourself. As exp lained below, Federal law does not apply to situations where vehicle owners alter their own vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue 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 moto r vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be relevant to installation of a seat in a used vehicle: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No.208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblie s, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your situation, to vehicles and not directly to i tems of equipment. Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if you ins tall new seat belts on the seats, the manufacturer is required to certify that the seat belts comply with Standard No. 209.

If a seat is installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as an item of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

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

None of these entities could install seats in your van if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards. Please note, however, that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in a situation where you as an individual vehicle owner, installed seats in your own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. H owever, you should be aware that individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

While Federal law would not apply to a modification you make to your own vehicle, I nonetheless urge you to exercise care in installing the seats and to install seat belts on the seats. The seats and seat belts will not provide any protection to occupan ts if they separate from the vehicle frame in a crash. Also, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of New Jersey regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances.

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.

ID: aiam5532

"Dear Mr. Tucker: This responds to your letter of March 21, 1995 requesting a letter stating that your van can be modified by replacing 'the factory installed steering wheel with the smaller ASTECH steering wheel without an air bag.' Your letter explains that your range-of-motion is limited from multiple sclerosis and that the smaller steering wheel improves your ability to drive. During a March 31, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the van is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of your steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards. After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in your van is one means of complying with this requirement. As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals like yourself, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem. As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement. Under the amendment, 'vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. A 'vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' is defined as vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat. Based on the information you provided, your van would come within this definition. Therefore, if the modifier of your van would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the 'make inoperative' prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed. I hope this information has been helpful. I have also forwarded a copy of this letter to the modifier indicated in your letter. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Fitzpatrick Enterprises Attn: Steve Manson FAX 614/497-1863";

ID: aiam5530

"Dear Mr. Tucker: This responds to your letter of March 21, 1995 requesting a letter stating that your van can be modified by replacing 'the factory installed steering wheel with the smaller ASTECH steering wheel without an air bag.' Your letter explains that your range-of-motion is limited from multiple sclerosis and that the smaller steering wheel improves your ability to drive. During a March 31, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the van is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of your steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards. After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in your van is one means of complying with this requirement. As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals like yourself, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem. As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement. Under the amendment, 'vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. A 'vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' is defined as vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat. Based on the information you provided, your van would come within this definition. Therefore, if the modifier of your van would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the 'make inoperative' prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed. I hope this information has been helpful. I have also forwarded a copy of this letter to the modifier indicated in your letter. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Fitzpatrick Enterprises Attn: Steve Manson FAX 614/497-1863";

ID: nht91-1.31

DATE: January 31, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott K. Hiler -- Manager, R & D Lab, The C.E. White Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/88 from Erika Z. Jones (signed by Stephen P. Wood) to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 4/2/92 from Michael F. Hecker to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7174); Also attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 3/10/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 1/8/90 from Jerry Ralph Curry (signed by Jeffrey R. Miller) to Robert J. Lagomarsino (Std. 222)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 19, 1990 concerning a padded restraining device for use in school buses. The device is U-shaped, and the ends of the device attach to the two sides of a school bus seatback. The device folds down behind the seatback for the purpose of restraining persons seated in the next rearward seat. You asked whether the back side of the restraining device attachment cover falls outside of the "leg protection zone" as described in S5.3.2.1 of 49 CFR 571.222. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.3.2.1 of Standard No. 222 reads as follows:

The leg protection zones of each vehicle are those parts of the school bus passenger seat backs and restraining barriers bounded by horizontal planes 12 inches above and 4 inches below the seating reference point of the school bus passenger seat immediately behind the seat back or restraining barrier.

You suggested that, if the restraining bar is installed as original equipment, the attachment cover is outside the leg protection zone because it "is an extension to the side of the seat and not part of the seat back surface area itself."

As discussed below, we do not agree with your suggested interpretation. I note that the pictures enclosed with your letter do not provide sufficient information to determine if the attachment cover is within the leg protection zone. However, I can explain how this determination should be made.

It is our opinion that once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback. As is the case with any other part of the seatback, if the attachment cover is bounded by horizontal planes 12 inches above and 4 inches below the seating reference point of the next rearward seat, it would be within the leg protection zone. If you determine that the attachment cover is

within the leg protection zone, it must meet the requirements of S5.3.2.2 of Standard No. 222 or be moved so that it is no longer within this zone.

You also stated that, "upon retrofitting an existing seat," the attachment cover would not be within the leg protection zone because, "the seat back leg protection zone is already defined for that seat when originally installed without the device." We again disagree. The leg protection zone is defined by Standard No. 222, not by the original design of the seat. Therefore, the attachment cover cannot be installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business if the installation would violate the "render inoperative" provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This provision would be violated if the attachment cover does not meet the requirements of S5.3.2.2 and is installed so that any part is within the leg protection zone.

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: aiam3383

Dear Mr. Shimada: This responds to your letter of October 14, 1980, regarding the warnin devices required by Safety Standard No. 114, *Theft Protection*, and Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You ask whether the sound of a voice repeating the phrase 'please pull out the ignition key' or 'please fasten seat belt' at 2-3 second intervals could be used to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 114 and Standard No. 208. You also ask whether a buzzer or chime that signals an unfastened seat belt or the presence of the key in the ignition could also be used to give the driver other warnings, such as turning off the headlights.; Standard No. 114 does not specify the nature of the warning that mus be given to the driver in the event that the ignition key is left in the locking system. Thus the system you describe would comply with the rule. Note that the signal must be activated whenever the key has been left in the ignition and the driver's door is opened.; Standard No. 208 requires that the driver's seating position b equipped with a warning system that activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than four (4) seconds and not more than eight (8) seconds. The signal must begin when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the 'on' or 'start' position and the driver's belt is not in use. If the system you have devised stops the warning only when the belt has been fastened, it would not comply with this rule. The signal must end within eight (8) seconds, irregardless of whether the driver's belt has been fastened. Regarding your specific question, an audible 'voice' signal would be permitted under the standard.; The buzzers or chimes that are installed in accordance with Standar No. 214 (sic) or Standard No. 208 may also be used to warn the driver of other conditions.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any other questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3382

Dear Mr. Shimada: This responds to your letter of October 14, 1980, regarding the warnin devices required by Safety Standard No. 114, *Theft Protection*, and Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You ask whether the sound of a voice repeating the phrase 'please pull out the ignition key' or 'please fasten seat belt' at 2-3 second intervals could be used to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 114 and Standard No. 208. You also ask whether a buzzer or chime that signals an unfastened seat belt or the presence of the key in the ignition could also be used to give the driver other warnings, such as turning off the headlights.; Standard No. 114 does not specify the nature of the warning that mus be given to the driver in the event that the ignition key is left in the locking system. Thus the system you describe would comply with the rule. Notre that the signal must be activated whenever the key has been left in the ignition and the driver's door is opened.; Standard No. 208 requires that the driver's seating position b equipped with a warning system that activated a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than four (4) seconds and not more than eight (8) seconds. The signal must begin when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the 'on' or 'start' position and the driver's belt is not in use. If the system you have devised stops the warning only when the belt has been fastened, it would not comply with this rule. The signal must end within eight (8) seconds, irregardless(sic) of whether the driver's belt has been fastened. Regardless your specific question, an audible 'voice' signal would be permitted under the standard.; The buzzers or chimes that are installed in accordance with Standar No. 214 or Standard No. 208 may also be used to warn the driver of other conditions.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any other questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel