Interpretation 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.