ID: 77-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/01/77 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: National School Transportation Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In reply to your letter to Fred Vetter of May 6, 1977, concerning the knee room required for passengers in a small school bus, I think it is essential for your members to understand that the terms "Type I" and "Type II" are meaningless in the context of the motor vehicle safety standards. There is a difference in the seat spacing requirements for large buses and small buses, but in deciding which spacing a particular bus must meet, the manufacturers must use the criteria of the standards under 49 CFR Part 571, and not the Type I/Type II distinction.

In dealing with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses, two criteria determine the applicability of various requirements: seating capacity and vehicle weight. The seating capacity of a vehicle determines whether a vehicle is to be considered a school bus. Under the definitions of bus and school bus in 49 CFR @ 571.3, the critical number of passengers is 10. If a motor vehicle is designed to carry "more than 10 persons," it is a bus. If a bus is sold "for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events" it is a school bus. All school buses must conform to the applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Standard No. 222, however, makes the criterion of weight relevant in determining the spacing between seats. In a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, section 5.2 of the standard requires each passenger seat to have either a seat back or a restraining barrier within 20 inches of the "seating reference point," a design point that is roughly 5.2 inches forward of the seat back. Measured from the seat back, therefore, all school buses with GVWR's of more than 10,000 pounds must provide "knee room" of not more than about 25.2 inches. School buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less do not have to meet the spacing requirements.

Any school buses that your members purchase will therefore have to meet the spacing requirements of Standard No. 222 if they weigh more than 10,000 pounds. This weight corresponds roughly to a bus with a seating capacity of 14-17 persons, so that most "Type I" school buses would have to meet the spacing requirements, and most "Type II" buses would not. Always keep in mind that it is the school bus's weight, not its seating capacity, that determines the applicability of the spacing requirement.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

National School Transportation Association MAY 6, 1977

Fred Vetter -- Associate Administrator, NHTSA Safety programs

Dear Mr. Vetter:

RE: Type II Buses

It seems appropriate to bring you up to date on the Type II Bus Saga . . . . . . .

Further discussions with Bob Kure from Wayne and finally with Tim Hoyt of the NHTSA did bring out the fact that the knee room is not a problem in the Type II Buses as earlier stated by our Association.

There are still problems in that Dodge has now dropped out of the market and Chevrolet has yet to certify their chassis. At the moment there is no chassis available to the Type II market. (Ford has not been involved since the April 1 regulations came into being).

The frustration we feel at this time is indeed great. In dialogue with 4 manufacturers of these vehicles and many state directors, the notion that the 25.2" knee room applies to Type II School Buses still abounds. In fact, one Regional Highway Administrator is telling all of his states that 25.2" is fact for both Type II and Type I school buses.

When I first raised the question at the Motor Vehicle Programs Sector, this was told to me as being the truth after I was asked the question by a State Director. That day Tim Hoyt was not in, but someone of his superiors did take the call and confirm that Type II buses need 25.2" knee room and the seat belts. I fussed at this and indicated it would not work and was told "Congress gave us this short time constraint and we did the best we could . . . and we spent a lot of thought about these matters . . . . even if you think we did not". Based on that conversation, I went forth concerned and upset that the Special Education buses would not fit the needs of the children being transported.

We still have concerns and will be reponding to the Activity Bus problems and others as they develop. Your time and attention during our distress is appreciated. If only we could get better answers when we need them!

Sincerely,

BILLIE REYNOLDS

ID: 11988.ogm

Mr. Rancy F. Snyder
1318 N.W. 11th Place
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in response to your letter regarding requirements for seat belts on buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds. I apologize for the delay in providing you with a response.

You ask if moving a seat belt receptacle for the operator's seating position from an inside position to an outside position would violate Federal motor vehicle safety standards, particularly Federal motor vehicle safety standards No.208, "Occupant Crash Protection" (Standard 208) and Federal motor vehicle safety standard 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard 209).

The requirements for buses with a GVWR of over 10,000 pounds are found in S4.4 of Standard No.208. Most manufacturers meet this requirement by installing seat belts at the driver's position. Section S7.2(a)of Standard 208 requires that a seat belt assembly, other than an automatic belt, shall have a latch mechanism that is accessible to seated occupants in both the operational and stowed positions. However, Standard 208 does not require that the receptacle, which we assume is the female end or latch assembly, be positioned to the inside of the driver's seat.

Your letter also makes reference to the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard 209) to your question. Standard 209 does not require that a bus have a seat belt assembly with the latch mounted to the inside of the driver's seat.

In sum, neither Standard 208 or Standard 209 require that a seat belt assembly for a bus over 10,000 pounds have the latch assembly mounted to the inside of the driver's seat. Provided that such a seat belt assembly complies in all other respects with applicable requirements, a seat belt assembly provided for the driver of such a vehicle may have the receptacle mounted in a position outside of the driver's seat.

If your question relates to modifying an existing design, you should be aware that after the first retail sale of a vehicle, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Therefore, any modifications to the existing seat belt system made by a business such as those listed above must be made in such a way so that the vehicle continues to conform to existing standards.

Federal law does not prohibit owners of vehicles from making modifications that may impact on the vehicle's compliance with applicable standards. However, we urge any owner contemplating such modifications to take reasonable steps to ensure that essential safety systems, such as seat belts, are not compromised by any modifications. If you are considering any alterations to the seat belts, NHTSA urges you to contact the manufacturer of the bus to determine if such modifications can be made safely.

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d:11/8/96

ID: aiam5572

"Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your letter to Ms. Deirdre Fujita o my staff asking about safety regulations, particularly for flammability resistance, for a device you call a 'Toddler Traveler pillow.' According to promotional literature you sent with your letter, the Toddler Traveler pillow is used with a child booster seat to provide 'padded comfort and support' to a child sleeping in the booster. The pillow provides a surface the child could lean on while sleeping. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter and promotional literature. Currently there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Toddler Traveler pillow. 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.' The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pillow that is used with a child booster seat. Our standard for flammability resistance, FMVSS 302, applies to new motor vehicles and to new child restraint systems. It does not apply to child restraint accessory items. While no FMVSS applies to the Toddler Traveler pillow, 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 a copy of those defect provisions, as well as 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 Toddler Traveler pillow 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. No commercial business listed in 30122 can install a Toddler Traveler pillow if the product undermines the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard, including Standard 302 for flammability resistance. 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. Before closing, we would like to comment on a further issue, one that you and Ms. Fujita discussed on the telephone. The advertising literature you enclosed with your letter described the Toddler Traveler pillow as being suitable for use with children ages '18 months to 4 years.' We believe this description is potentially confusing concerning the use of booster seats by young children. Booster seats are intended to be used as a transition to safety belts by older children who have outgrown convertible seats (ideally, over 40 pounds and 4 years). A booster seat is not designed to restrain young children, and under a requirement we recently adopted, cannot now be recommended for children under 30 pounds. Stating '18 months to 4 years' may be mistaken to imply that, with your pillow, a booster seat could be used to restrain a child as young as 18 months. To avoid any possible misunderstanding, we suggest that the phrase on recommended use of the pillow should refer to older children, such as those 'over 4 years.' One further note in closing. You said that a year ago, Ms. Fujita told you 'there are no codes to govern' your product. Ms. Fujita is concerned that you might believe you were given an oral interpretation of how our requirements apply to your product. Please note that we cannot give oral interpretations. Ms. Fujita provided you a copy of an interpretation we'd issued in the past on a child seat pillow accessory, while indicating that an interpretation of which requirements apply to your product must be from us in writing. (This letter comprises that interpretation.) We regret any confusion on this issue. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4957

"Re: Micho Industries and Safety Research Manufacturing Inc. Exemptio Petition Dear Mr. Gallo: This responds to your petition of December 18, 1992, on behalf of your clients, Micho Industries and Safety Research Manufacturing, Inc. The petitioners are manufacturers of an item of motor vehicle equipment called the 'R-Bar Restraining System.' They asked for an exemption for the R-Bar from compliance with the testing procedures set forth in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.222 subsections S5.1.4(c) and S5.1.4.1 & 2 (1991) for purposes of determining whether the R-Bar (when attached to a passenger seat) deflects to within four inches of any part of another passenger seat. The petition was submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(B). Alternatively, you request consideration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(B). Preliminarily, let me note that the provisions of section 1397(a)(2) apply to vehicles originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards but which are subsequently modified before or after their sale to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Section 1410(a) applies to a vehicle at the time of its manufacture. Section 1397(a)(2)(A) provides, in pertinent part: 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 . . . . Section 1397(a)(2)(B) provides that: The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from subparagraph (A) if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this chapter. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term 'render inoperative'. Thus, your petition asks, in effect, that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses be permitted to install the R-Bar in a school bus in use, even if the installation may cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 222. Although section 1397(a)(2)(B) was added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 'Act') in 1974, yours appears to be the first formal request for an exemption that the agency has received, and is therefore a case of first impression. Although NHTSA has provided advisory letters over the years interpreting 'render inoperative,' the NHTSA has not prescribed any 'regulation' pertinent to section 1397(a)(2). Congress did not write into the statute any limitation on the use of the section 1397(a)(2)(B) exemption authority apart from specifying that any exemption must be consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. However, the committee report in the House, where the exemption provision arose, suggested a limited scope of authority. The report stated that 'exemptions may be warranted for owners with special medical problems, who require special controls, or for emergency vehicles or police cruisers.' While these purposes were not expressly incorporated in the statute as limitations on the exemption authority, the agency believes that it would not be appropriate to issue an exemption based on other grounds unless there were a strong, compelling reason to do so. NHTSA does not believe that there is a strong, compelling basis for granting your clients' petition under section 1397(a)(2)(B). Indeed, NHTSA believes that the concept of using 'safety bars' as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns that would need careful evaluation before the agency would take any action to facilitate their use. One concern is 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. This is a complicated issue involving many variables, including type of crash (e.g., frontal, rear), positioning of occupants (sitting up straight, leaning forward, slouching, etc.), what happens when a large occupant is seated next to a small occupant (which could affect the position of the bar relative to the small occupant), and what happens if books, brief cases, lunch boxes, etc. are placed beneath the bar or on top of the bar (thereby affecting the position of the bar relative to the occupants and/or movement of the bar during a crash). Another concern is whether the bar could result in excessive loading of occupants' heads during a crash, from head contact with the seat back in front of the occupant, instead of loading that is spread more evenly over the occupant's body. I note that NHTSA does not have the information that would be necessary to assess your client's product in relation to these safety concerns. The agency has not conducted any testing of safety bars, and the very limited test information submitted with your client's petition does not provide a basis to make such an assessment. It is clear, however, that Standard No. 222 has been effective in ensuring a high level of occupant protection in school buses. NHTSA believes it would be inappropriate to take any action to facilitate the use of a device that potentially could reduce school bus occupant protection. Please note, as we have advised others, the prohibition in section 1397(a)(2)(A) does not extend to the owner of the vehicle. If a school bus authority has its own private service facilities, the installation of the R-Bar by the service facilities would not violate the prohibition. However, in view of our discussion above, we would not encourage a school bus authority to make that installation. The petitioners have also asked to be exempted pursuant to section 1410(a)(1)(B). This section excuses a noncompliance if the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety features which provide a level of safety which is equal to or exceeds the level of safety established in the standard from which exemption is sought. However, a petitioner under section 1410(a) must be the manufacturer of the new motor vehicle for which an exemption is sought. Thus, NHTSA can not consider your clients' petition under that section. The agency would be able to consider a petition under section 1410(a)(1)(B) that is submitted by a school bus manufacturer which wished to install the R-Bar in its vehicles. However, any such petition should address the safety concerns discussed earlier in this letter. We are returning the videotapes and two of the three copies of the petition that accompanied your letter. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263), who spoke with you previously on this matter. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 7653

Mr. Mike Hawkes
General Manager
Unique Motors and Upholstery, Inc.
407 E. Ft. Lowell
Tucson, AZ 85705

Dear Mr. Hawkes:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992 requesting information on adding lap belts to a mini bus. During an August 27th phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you clarified that the bus to which you are referring is a 26-passenger 1987 Ford Econoline (6-wheeler) that is not a school bus and that has already been used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the occupant protection that must be provided at passenger seats in buses. The first of these is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. The second potentially relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. For buses manufactured before September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 required that a seat belt be installed at the driver's seating position only. In other words, no belts were required to be installed at the passengers' seating positions in this bus when it was a new vehicle.

The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all 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. Hence, the seat belt originally installed at the driver's seating position and any other seat belt assemblies that were installed in the bus had to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209.

The fourth and final potentially relevant standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages For buses manufactured before September 1, 1991, Standard No. 210 required that anchorages for a seat belt be installed at the driver's seating position only. Hence, no seat belt anchorages were required to be installed at the passengers' seating positions in this bus when it was a new vehicle.

Federal law requires that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards at the time of the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. After that first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

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

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Your company is subject to this prohibition, because you are a motor vehicle repair business. However, because the bus in question was not required to have seat belts or seat belt anchorages at the passenger seating positions and those passenger seating positions were not required to meet the performance requirements for seats, the voluntary installation of belts and anchorages at the passenger seating positions would not violate the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act, regardless of where the anchorages were located.

As noted above, replacement belts must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209. Hence, to avoid violating the Safety Act, you must ensure that the seat belts your company voluntarily installs at the passenger seating positions in this bus are certified as complying with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 209.

Despite the absence of such a requirement in Federal law, I urge you to exercise care when installing belts in the passenger seats of this bus. As noted above, the passenger seats of this bus were not required to meet the generally applicable seat performance requirements, and they were not required to be equipped with any seat belts or anchorages. The belts you propose to install will fail to achieve their intended purpose if they separate from the vehicle or separate the seats from the vehicle frame in a crash. I recommend that you contact the original manufacturer of the bus to learn if it can offer guidance on how to best attach seat belts at the passenger's position. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, I note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208#209#210 d:9/17/92

ID: nht92-3.49

DATE: September 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mike Hawkes -- General Manager, Unique Motors and Upholstery, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/6/92 from Mike Hawkes (OCC-7653)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992 requesting information on adding lap belts to a mini bus. During an August 27th phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you clarified that the bus to which you are referring is a 26-passenger 1987 Ford Econoline (6-wheeler) that is not a school bus and that has already been used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the occupant protection that must be provided at passenger seats in buses. The first of these is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. The second potentially relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. For buses manufactured before September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 required that a seat belt be installed at the driver's seating position only. In other words, no belts were required to be installed at the passengers' seating positions in this bus when it was a new vehicle.

The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all 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. Hence, the seat belt originally installed at the driver's seating position and any other seat belt assemblies that were installed in the bus had to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209.

The fourth and final potentially relevant standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210), which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. For buses manufactured before September 1, 1991, Standard No. 210 required that anchorages for a seat belt be installed at the driver's seating position only. Hence, no

seat belt anchorages were required to be installed at the passengers' seating positions in this bus when it was a new vehicle.

Federal law requires that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards at the time of the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. After that first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

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

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Your company is subject to this prohibition, because you are a motor vehicle repair business. However, because the bus in question was not required to have seat belts or seat belt anchorages at the passenger seating positions and those passenger seating positions were not required to meet the performance requirements for seats, the voluntary installation of belts and anchorages at the passenger seating positions would not violate the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act, regardless of where the anchorages were located.

As noted above, replacement belts must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209. Hence, to avoid violating the Safety Act, you must ensure that the seat belts your company voluntarily installs at the passenger seating positions in this bus are certified as complying with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 209.

Despite the absence of such a requirement in Federal law, I urge you to exercise care when installing belts in the passenger seats of this bus. As noted above, the passenger seats of this bus were not required to meet the generally applicable seat performance requirements, and they were not required to be equipped with any seat belts or anchorages. The belts you propose to install will fail to achieve their intended purpose if they separate from the vehicle or separate the seats from the vehicle frame in a crash. I recommend that you contact the original manufacturer of the bus to learn if it can offer guidance on how to best attach seat belts at the passenger's position. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, I note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

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: 09-000724 fortin.draft.dj.aug20

ID: aiam5111

"Dear Mr. Berk: This follows up on telephone conversations between yo and Deirdre Fujita of my staff about a letter you received from the Medical Device Inspection Company (MDI) concerning the 'Tumble Forms LifeSeat.' While much of the information in the letter is subject to a claim of confidentiality, Ms. Carolann Kotula-Cook of MDI told us that we can provide, for purposes of a letter that will be placed in the public docket, the following description of the LifeSeat. The LifeSeat is described by MDI as 'a safety seat designed to protect children who are riding in emergency medical vehicles. The seat is designed to be secured to the ambulance stretcher or cot... and may also be secured to the vehicle's captain's chair.' You ask whether the LifeSeat is a 'child restraint system' regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems.' As discussed below, the answer is yes. Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. The term 'child restraint system' is defined in S4 of the standard as '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.' As described in MDI's letter, the LifeSeat meets the child restraint system definition, since it is designed to restrain or seat a child in a motor vehicle. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each child restraint system that is sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. Since the LifeSeat is a child restraint system, it must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. We informed Ms. Kotula-Cook that it appears the LifeSeat would not comply with some of Standard No. 213's requirements. We have sent her a copy of the standard, and an information sheet for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The information sheet describes manufacturers' responsibilities under Federal law for manufacturing vehicles and items of equipment, such as the responsibility to ensure these products do not have any safety-related defects. Ms. Kotula-Cook said that MDI will be contacting us directly for more information about Standard No. 213 and these responsibilities. We are returning the copy of MDI's letter you provided us. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht89-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: KEITH A. MCDOWELL -- VICE PRESIDENT -- ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS GROUP AMERICAN SEATING COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/25/89 FROM KEITH A. MCDOWELL TO NHTSA; LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM KEITH A. MCDOWELL TO NHTSA, OCC 2908

TEXT: Dear Mr. McDowell:

This responds to your recent letter asking this agency to "provide guidelines for the design and installation of seat belt assemblies on large buses (over 100,000 pounds GVW)." You explained that you were interested in this information for passenger seat s of large buses used in transit service, not as school buses. I am happy to be able to explain our requirements to you.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (48 CFR @ 571.208) sets forth the crash protection requirements applicable to most vehicle types. Section S4.4 of that standard sets forth the requirements applicable to large buses other than school buses. T hat section requires large buses to have either a complete automatic protection system for the bus driver's seating position, or a seat belt assembly that conforms with Standard No. 209 at the driver's seating position. Standard No. 208 does not specify any requirements for either an automatic protection system or seat belt assemblies to be installed at any other seating positions in large buses.

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR @ 571.210) also includes requirements applicable to the anchorages for any belt assemblies installed at the driver's seating position on large buses. Specifically, section S4.1.2 of Standard No. 21 0 provides that: "Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position, except a passenger seat in a bus or a designated seating position for which seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat b elt assembly are required by S4.1.1." As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 210 exempts passenger seats in large buses from its requirements.

Finally, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209) sets forth requirements applicable to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, including large buses. Thus, any seat belt assembly installed at the driver's position in a larg e bus would have to be

certified as complying with Standard No. 209, as would any seat belt assembly voluntarily provided by a manufacturer for passenger seating positions in a large bus.

In short, our standards do not require seat belt assemblies to be installed in passenger seats of large buses, but any seat belt assemblies that are installed at those positions would have to comply with Standard No. 209. Your letter indicated that you were generally aware of the fact that seat belt assemblies were not required to be installed at passenger seating positions of large buses. Nevertheless, you asked us to provide you with "guidelines" for such installations, in response to the continuing demand for such installations by your company's customers. As a policy matter, NHTSA does not provide the sort of guidelines you have requested.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) sets forth certain specific requirements that must be satisfied by each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards established by this agency. Among these requirements are tha t each safety standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms (section 103(a) of the Safety Act) and each standard shall be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of vehicl e for which it is prescribed (section 103(f)(3) of the Safety Act). NHTSA has determined that the current requirements of Standards No. 208 and 210, which do not apply to passenger seats in large buses, meet all of the safety criteria.

The issuance of "guidelines" specifying measures beyond those required by our standards could readily be misinterpreted as an agency decision that these additional measures are necessary to satisfy the criteria of the Safety Act, or indirectly force manu facturers to comply with the "guidelines," in addition to the standards issued under the Safety Act. Either or both of these results would be inappropriate for passenger seats on large buses, because the information currently available to NHTSA indicate s that no additional requirements are necessary in this area.

Indeed, if the agency were to learn of additional information suggesting the current requirements no longer meet all the statutory criteria, and that requirements for the installation of seat belt assemblies at passenger seats of large buses would meet a ll the statutory criteria, we would have an obligation to consider changing the

applicable standards. Any such change would be required to be made through the ordinary, notice-and-comment rulemaking process, rather than through issuance of supplemental guidelines.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ID: 05-006004_Dec-12-2005drn

Thomas D. Turner, Manager
Engineering Services
Blue Bird
402 Blue Bird Boulevard
Fort Valley, GA 31030




Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the head impact zone requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, applying to small school buses (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less). You ask how we position the drivers seat back when the school bus passenger head protection zone specified in the standard might include some areas in the drivers seating position. You suggest that the drivers seat back should be adjusted to its most upright position. It is our opinion that the school bus must meet impact zone requirements when the drivers seat back is in any position, not just the most upright position.

The test conditions for the head impact protection and other requirements of FMVSS No. 222 are specified in S6 of the standard. For a school bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less, the test conditions apply when testing "all seating positions other than the drivers seat". Although S6.4 specifies that "If adjustable, a seat back is adjustable to its most upright position," that provision applies only to the adjustment of passenger seat backs.

S5. (b) of FMVSS No. 222 specifies that small school buses (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less) must meet certain requirements of the standard "at all seating positions other than the drivers seat," including the requirements of S5.3, "Impact zone requirements".As you note in your letter, NHTSAs longstanding position has been that the head protection zone requirements extend to all contactable surfaces in the zone, including the drivers seat. (March 27, 1979, letter to Blue Bird Body Company; May 11, 1977, letter to Wayne Corporation.) To ensure that head protection is provided to passengers seated behind the driver regardless of how the driver positions his or her seat, in conducting the head impact protection test we will not limit the adjustment of the drivers seat back only to the most upright position. The agency will test the school bus to the head protection zone requirements with the drivers seat back adjusted to any upright or reclined position to which the seat can be adjusted.

In your letter, you state that the drivers seat for FMVSS No. 222 testing should be positioned as in other crashworthiness FMVSSs that specify that the drivers seat is tested in its nominal design driving position. Unlike the other crashworthiness standards you mention, FMVSS No. 222s protections extend to passengers rearward of the driver. FMVSS No. 222 has to ensure that reclining the drivers seat back does not negate or reduce the protection provided to those passengers.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:222
d.1/24/06