ID: 7768

Mr. C. Morris Adams
1201 Rockford Road
High Point, NC 27260

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your FAX of September 24, 1992, requesting a ruling regarding the legality of lap belts at the passenger seats on school buses. As explained below, Federal law has long required lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at every passenger seating position on small school buses. Federal law has also long permitted, but not required, lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at passenger seating positions on large school buses, provided that those belts do not adversely affect the large school bus's compliance with the applicable safety standards. This is still the agency's position.

As you know, in 1977, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum levels of crash protection that must be provided for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] of more than 10,000 pounds), the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Small school buses (those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

Ever since 1977, NHTSA has indicated that Federal law permits lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions on large school buses as long as the vehicle would still comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 222. NHTSA has no information to indicate that installation of seat belts at the passenger seating positions on a large school bus would affect the bus's compliance with any safety standard. The allegations in your FAX that using seat belts in large school buses will result in crash forces producing concentrated loading on the head, instead of being spread evenly over the upper torso as is the case without a seat belt, are nearly identical with the explanations included in a 1985 Transport Canada report on school bus safety. NHTSA carefully evaluated and considered the Canadian report and these explanations in connection with its rulemaking action considering whether to specify requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts on large school buses. 54 FR 11765; March 22, 1989. After fully considering the Canadian report, the agency stated at 54 FR 11770:

NHTSA shares commenters' concerns about any implications that safety belts negatively affect the protection provided to passengers on large school buses. However, the agency is not aware of accident data showing an injury caused or made more serious by the presence of safety belts on a school bus. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot conclude from the Canadian report's findings that belts actually degrade the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system renders inoperative the safety of large school buses, but the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur.

The agency then identified some possible safety benefits that could result from seat belts in large school buses, benefits that were not considered in the Canadian tests. The agency concluded that, "Although these benefits are not significant enough to justify a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts on all large school buses, they are enough to provide a basis upon which the agency will decline to prohibit the installation of belts on large school buses." 54 FR 11765, at 11770; March 22, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of this notice for your information.

As you can see, NHTSA has carefully considered the subject raised in your FAX and reviewed all available information in this area. After that review, the agency concluded that there was no justification for changing its longstanding position that persons that wish to do so should be permitted to install seat belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Your letter did not provide any data that NHTSA had not already considered. Hence, there is no basis for the agency to change its longstanding position in this area.

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

Enclosure

ref:222 d:10/9/92

ID: nht95-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Motorcycle Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. is hereby requesting an interpretation from NHTSA regarding the applicability to motorcycles of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Lamp requirements within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84.

When reviewing Table III of FMVSS 108 (Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment) and its applicability to motorcycle turn signal lamps, we are referred to SAE J588, November 1984. SAE J588 not only specifies turn signal lamp requirements but also speci fies other related requirements such as the need for a turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if the turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.

Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 indicates the illuminated turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow colored light.

All Kawasaki motorcycles designed for use on public roads and sold in the United States are equipped with turn signal lamps meeting the requirements of FMVSS 108. In addition, all Kawasaki motorcycles having turn signal lamps are equipped with an illumi nated pilot indicator lamp (yellow colored).

Table III within FMVSS 123; Motorcycle Controls and Displays, specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification. However, FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for the turn signal pilot indicator lamp.

In future model years, Kawasaki would like to change the current yellow colored light that illuminates our motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps to a green colored light. However, when reviewing SAE J588 NOV84 and FMVSS 123, we cannot determine w ith confidence if it would be allowed.

When reviewing the language within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84, it seems evident this section was written with passenger cars in mind and not motorcycles. "5.4.3.3 - If the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for exam ple on the front fenders, they should emit a yellow colored light and have a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 mm." It is our belief the color and area requirements are specified within this section to insure visibility by the driver because the l ocation of the indicator lamp would be a greater distance away from the drivers eye than a indicator lamp located inside the vehicle on the dash panel.

FMVSS 123 does not need to address distance from the drivers eye, color, or size of the turn signal pilot indicator lamp because the location of the indicator lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the drivers eye.

Motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are, in most cases, located within the main instrument panel of the motorcycle with other instrumentation such as speedometer, tachometer, oil pressure gage or warning light, fuel level gage, and transmission neutral indicator. The main instrument panel on motorcycles is usually located between the handlebars and the headlamp. In some cases, motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are located away from the main instrument panel on the fuel tank, or wit hin a separate panel between the motorcycles fuel tank and handlebars. When considering these locations and their distance from the drivers eye, we believe any pilot lamp light color would be acceptable.

When reviewing current FMVSS requirements (FMVSS 108 / FMVSS 123), we believe we are not limited to using only a yellow color for the lamp of our turn signal pilot indicators because FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for turn signal indicator lamps. However, as indicated above, we are not entirely confident our interpretation of the requirements is correct because of the yellow color requirement specified within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84. Therefore, we are requesting your assistance in resolving this matter.

Thank you in advance for your timely response to our request.

If further information is required, I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext 2456.

ID: nht95-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 16, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Randall B. Clark

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/17/95 LETTER FROM RANDALL B. CLARK TO OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE (OCC 10671)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 17, 1995, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. You have asked for a clarification of the stop lamp requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.1.27(a), and Tables III and IV.

Your car "has the normal two stop lamps and has a spoiler with a stop lamp built into it." In addition, it "has a stop lamp mounted inside the back window which is not currently hooked up due to the fact that 'Subaru of America' thinks the procedure is a gainst the law." You would like a statement "that an automobile with four stop lamps is perfectly legal in the United States."

For the reasons given below, the legal situation is of sufficient complexity that we cannot provide a blanket statement of this nature. We shall begin with a possible explanation of Subaru's position. We assume that when you refer to Subaru of America you are referring to the manufacturer of your car. In producing and selling your car, Subaru was obliged to conform to Standard No. 108 (and all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards), and to certify that it conformed to those standard s. The three provisions of Standard No. 108 that you reference above required Subaru to equip your car with a center highmounted stop lamp in conformance with the photometric performance and location requirements of Standard No. 108. Ordinarily, this w ould be the lamp inside the rear window. When a vehicle has a spoiler in the rear deck area as original equipment, a manufacturer will frequently locate its center stop lamp in the spoiler instead, since the spoiler might partially block a lamp located in the rear window and thereby create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. We surmise that Subaru, to facilitate the production process, found it preferable to equip all cars with a window mounted lamp, and to disconnect it on vehicles where a lamp is in the spoiler. The spoiler lamp thereby became the conforming lamp required by S5.1.1.27.

In this circumstance, Standard No. 108 treats the window mounted lamp as a supplemental stop lamp. There are no requirements for a supplemental center stop lamp; however, under S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, any supplemental lamp is permissible, provided t hat it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The impairment decision is made by a vehicle manufacturer and is reflected in its certification of the vehicle. For whatever reason, Subaru chose to certif y your car with the window stop lamp disconnected.

We do not know whether this represented an affirmative determination by Subaru that the window mounted lamp would impair the effectiveness of other rear lighting equipment (such as overloading the stop lamp circuit and diminishing the light output of the other lamps). But dealers are reluctant to engage in any activity that might negatively affect a manufacturer's certification of compliance. This reluctance is based upon a statutory prohibition forbidding manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and mot or vehicle repair businesses against "making inoperative" equipment on a vehicle already in use, which was installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In our opinion letters, we have generally equated the "impairment" test for new vehicles with the "inoperative" test for those in use. In short, Subaru or its representative could believe that connecting the inoperative stop lamp might create a noncompliance that did not exist when the vehicle was certified, thereby putting the m in violation of the prohibition directed against modification of safety equipment on used vehicles.

Obviously, another manufacturer could leave the original window lamp connected and offer a spoiler one as well, its certification being a representation that one lamp meets all requirements and that the supplementary one does not create an impairment of any of the required rear lighting equipment. In this circumstance, four stop lamps would be "legal" under Federal law.

The prohibition against modifications does not extend to the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA discourages vehicle owners from making modifications that reduce the safety of their vehicles. Moreover, state law may restrict such modifications.

I hope that this clarifies the situation for you.

ID: nht91-5.47

DATE: September 12, 1991

FROM: Robert A. Adams -- Vice President, Solar Car Corporation

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-21-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert A. Adams (A38; Part 555; Part 555.6(c))

TEXT:

Solar Car Corporation is a small corporation located at 1300 Lake Washington Road, Melbourne, Florida 32935, and chartered under the laws of the State of Florida. The company retrofits standard gasoline powered vehicles to electric and solar electric configuration for short range use by individuals and fleet operators. Information on the company and photos of our vehicles are herewith enclosed. Safety features inherent in the frame and body of the vehicle are maintained without alteration.

We hope to retrofit about 100 vehicles during the next twelve months, including Ford Festivas, Dodge Colts and Chevy S 10 pickup trucks. Not more than 2,500 exempted vehicles will be sold in the United States in any 12 month period for which an exemption may be granted pursuant to paragraph (C)(5) of 555.6 of the Code. It is the intention of Solar Car Corporation to conform with the safety standards of the Code at the end of the exemption period.

Solar Car Corporation hereby respectfully petitions the NHTSA for a temporary exemption for three years from federal motor vehicle safety standards as defined in Part 555 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 49 - Transportation on the basis of low emission engine features.

Electric and solar electric vehicles are inherently free from polluting emissions. A typical solar electric retrofit by Solar Car Corporation of a Ford Festiva has been subjected to substantial engineering tests at the California Air Resources Board facility in El Monte, California. Results of those tests and the judgement of CARB relative to the safety of the vehicle should be available to you from CARB.

Granting of an exemption would be in the public interest for several reasons, including current and proposed legislation (brief summary attached) either requiring or encouraging the use of low and zero emission vehicles, the environmental and health needs to reduce or eliminate pollution, and the need to reduce dependence on overseas sources of a rapidly depleting world supply of petroleum.

Granting of an exemption would also be consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as these non internal combustion powered vehicles are inherently safer than those traditionally using gasoline. I, in my lifetime, have, on three separate occasions, witnessed automobile accidents in which an ill fated driver is seen sitting in his car, engulfed in gasoline flames, with bystanders helpless to rescue him.

Our electric vehicles differ from a conventional gasoline powered vehicle in that an Advanced D.C. Motors, Inc. electric motor (description enclosed herewith) replaces the standard internal combustion engine and is coupled to the standard transmission by means of a heavy cast aluminum adapter plate. A Curtis electronic controller controls the electricity between the motor and batteries. We currently use ten batteries, most of which are secured in a heavy duty fiberglass container in the rear portion of the vehicle.

Solar Car Corporation has reason to believe that a temporary exemption will facilitate the development and field evaluation of its electric and solar electric vehicles. Several municipal and utility company fleet managers have serious interest in acquiring our vehicles for demonstration and field testing, and the Arizona Public Service Company has placed an order with us. The Energy Office of the State of Arizona has encouraged us over the past two years to produce and sell these vehicles in Arizona, and, as a matter of record, the Governor of Arizona rode in one of our prototype solar electric cars during the dedication ceremonies for the completion of the final segment of Interstate 10 which runs from Florida to California. We are an accredited vendor for the State of Arizona which will be purchasing fleets of electric vehicles during the next 12 months, subject to the exemption petitioned hereby. In addition to Arizona, municipal and utility fleet operators in California, Nevada, and Connecticut have expressed interest in our supplying purchase proposals that will allow them to further comply with mandates and incentives relative to the implementation of electric and solar electric vehicles as additions to their fleets.

I trust that the above information will allow you to make a favorable judgement in granting to Solar Car Corporation its request for a temporary exemption from federal motor vehicle safety standards on the basis of low emission engine features.

ID: nht95-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 3, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM JEFFREY D. SHETLER TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shetler:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green.

You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted t hat the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehi cle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators.

You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. Yo u also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acce ptable.

We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard s pecified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including turn signal pilot indicat ors and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator.

We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light "with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle." Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with "a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders." Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to "inside" and "outside" the vehicle are inap posite.

Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so.

As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard N o. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment "be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions."

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs, Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors; Signature by F. Laux

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Request for FMVSS 205 Interpretation; USG 3183

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MILFORD BENNETT (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of FMVSS 205. Specifically, General Motors seeks the agency's concurrence that a vehicle equipped with a particular rear window sunshade meets the light transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 .

General Motors plans to offer a rear window sunshade in a near-future Cadillac model. The sunshade is a screen-like device that significantly reduces the light and heat load entering through the backlite. In its raised position, the sunshade covers app roximately 90% of the backlite area, and the light transmissibility through the combined backlite and sunshade is less than 70%. In its retracted position, the sunshade is stowed in the panel shelf area below the backlite, such that no portion of the bac klite is obscured. A driver operated switch on the instrument panel is used to electrically raise and lower the sunshade.

FMVSS 205 requires a minimum of 70% light transmissibility through glazing that is requisite for driving visibility. The agency has historically interpreted the backlite of passenger cars to be requisite for driving visibility. General Motors seeks the Chief Counsel's interpretation that the proposed sunshade comports with the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205. Our reasons for believing that a vehicle equipped with the sunshade would continue to comply with FMVSS 205 are summarized as follow s:

* The rear window sunshade would have no adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. As with conventional windshield sunvisors, drivers can be expected to utilize the sunshade in a way that will maximize, rather than diminish, driving safety and comfort. Wi th the sunshade in its raised position, trailing vehicles and other objects are readily visible through the screen mesh. Driver and passenger side outside rearview mirrors further provide for rearward visibility, comparable to other passenger carrying v ehicles (light trucks, vans, multipurpose passenger vehicles) which are not required by FMVSS 205 to have 70% light transmittance in the backlite area.

* The sunshade is not glazing material, nor is it in contact with glazing material. FMVSS 205 states that: "This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment."

* The rear window sunshade is fully analogous to conventional windshield sunvisors. In both cases, the driver-selectable device can be positioned in a way that reduces effective transmissibility below 70%, and then easily stowed when not needed to resto re full transmittance.

* There is a well established international precedent for rear window sunshades. European and Japanese regulatory authorities have explicitly recognized and accepted these devices.

General Motors is aware of previous Chief Counsel interpretations stating that the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 must be met with a rear window sunscreen in position. (Reference Ms. Erika Jones letter to Mr. T. E. McConnell dated September 22, 1986, and Ms. Erika Jones letter to Ms. Susan B. House dated December 22, 1985.) We believe there is a critical distinction between the products the agency has previously commented on and the rear window sunshade GM contemplates. Specifically, the e arlier products were apparently tinting materials applied to the backlite, or shade devices that physically contacted the backlite via attaching hardware. By virtue of being in physical contact with the backlite, these earlier sunscreening products coul d be interpreted as being part of the backlite. The rear window sunshade GM plans to install will not be attached to the backlite in either the raised or stowed position, and therefore is clearly not part of the backlite glazing subject to FMVSS 205.

We would appreciate a favorable response at the agency's earliest convenience. In order to accommodate our product plans for the sunshade device, we would like to obtain a response by July, 1995, if possible. If there is any additional information we ca n provide to help expedite the agency's review, please contact Mr. Philip Horton (810-947-1738), Mr. Richard Humphrey of our Washington office (775-5071), or me (810-947-0149).

Thank you.

ID: nht95-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C. Rufus Pennington, III -- Margol & Pennington, P.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/5/95 LETTER FROM C. RUFUS PENNINGTON, III TO MARY VERSAILLES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Pennington:

This responds to your letter concerning the rear seats of a 1979 Porsche 911 SC, which were not equipped with any type of seat belt. You asked two questions relating to whether these seats should have been equipped with seat belts. Your questions are a ddressed below.

1. Did the manufacturer's designation of "two front" passenger seats eliminate any obligation on the part of the manufacturer to provide seat belts in the rear seats under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208?

As explained below, a manufacturer's designation that a vehicle has two front seats does not eliminate the obligation to provide seat belts at rear seats, if those positions are "designated seating positions."

By way of background information, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 req uired passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1973 and before September 1, 1986, to have either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each rear "designated seating position."

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1980, the term "designated seating position" was defined as:

any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding j ump seats. n1

n1 The definition was amended effective September 1, 1980. Copies of the September 28, 1978 notice of proposed rulemaking and April 19, 1979 final rule are enclosed.

In a May 22, 1978, notification to vehicle manufacturers, the agency stated that manufacturers are responsible for determining the number of seating positions that are in the vehicle. The agency also stated:

This does not mean, however, that the manufacturer's designation will be accepted by the agency if there are additional, obvious seating positions that are likely to be used by occupants while the vehicle is in motion. The agency unquestionably intends to require protection for all vehicle occupants. n2

Thus, a manufacturer's specification that a vehicle has two front seats did not eliminate Standard No. 208's requirement for a seat belt assembly at each rear seat, if those locations met the above definition.

2. Did the Porsche 911 SC comply with, or did it violate, the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208?

NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a vehicle complied with applicable safety standards outside a compliance proceeding. However, I can advise you of the factors the agency would look at to determine if the rear locations are designated seat ing positions. If those locations are designated seating positions, they should have been equipped with a seat belt assembly when originally manufactured.

n2 43 FR 21893. A copy of this notice is enclosed.

The May 22, 1978, notice provides a good summary of the agency's position. n3 That notice states:

the agency will consider any position . . . capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female to be a "designated seating position", if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the manufacturer knows the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion.

I note that the hip breadth of a sitting fifth percentile female is approximately 13 inches, and the sitting height is approximately 31 inches. These are the measurements NHTSA would consider in determining whether a position is capable of accommodating a fifth percentile female.

n3 While that notice was focused on front seats, the rationale would apply to any seat.

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

ID: nht92-2.38

DATE: 11/10/92

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TO: DENNIS T. JOHNSTON -- ENGINEERING PLANNING AND LIAISON MANAGER, ROVER GROUP NORTH AMERICAN ENGINEERING OFFICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-12-92 FROM DENNIS T. JOHNSTON TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TEXT: This responds to your document dated August 12, 1992, which was characterized as either a petition for reconsideration or a request for interpretation, depending on our response. The document concerned a final rule published in the Federal Register (57 FR 30917) on July 13, 1992, which responded to petitions for reconsideration concerning the extension of Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements to light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (collectively referred to as LTV's). As discussed below, we are treating your document as a comment on a related January 1992 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and not a petition, because your concerns relate to a possible future final rule based on that NPRM.

By way of background information, NHTSA extended Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements to LTV's in a final rule published on June 14, 1991. In the preamble to the final rule, the agency stated that it intended to propose amendments to the standard in the near future to clarify the test procedure for two types of doors, double-opening doors and doors without windows. NHTSA's NPRM was subsequently published in the Federal Register (57 FR 1716) on January 15, 1992.

As discussed in the January 1992 NPRM, the agency determined that clarification of the test procedure was needed for certain contoured doors, as well as for double-opening doors and doors without windows. Standard No. 214's test procedure works well when a door's lower edge is essentially horizontal along its entire length, or only a small portion of the door's lower edge deviates from that description by being contoured upward. Almost all passenger cars have doors of these types. However, as discussed in the January 1992 NPRM, the standard's test procedure is not appropriate when only a small portion of a door's lower edge is horizontal and the edge is contoured significantly upwards for a large part of the door. Some LTV's have such doors.

The NPRM therefore proposed amendments to clarify the test procedure for contoured doors.

The comments closing date for the January 1992 NPRM was March 16, 1992. The agency has not yet reached a decision concerning a possible final rule. On July 13, 1992, however, NHTSA published its response to a petition for reconsideration of the initial final rule extending Standard No. 214's side door strength requirements to LTV's. The petition requested that the agency phase-in the new requirements instead of applying them to all of the newly covered vehicles simultaneously. As part of its response to that petition, NHTSA delayed by one year the effective date for double opening cargo doors, doors with no windows, and certain contoured doors on those vehicles.

In your August 12, 1992 letter, you noted that the July 1992 final rule delayed the effective date of the side door strength requirements for doors for which the ratio of the width of the lowest portion of the door to the width of the door at its widest point is not greater than 0.5. You expressed concern that, in a possible final rule based on the January 1992 NPRM, the agency might use a discriminator other than the 0.5 ratio for determining which contoured doors must conform to particular tests. You stated that this could have significant cost impacts on your company.

While you characterize your document as a possible petition for reconsideration of the July 1992 final rule, the only concerns you raise relate to a possible final rule based on the January 1992 NPRM. Therefore, we do not consider your document to be a petition for reconsideration.

I note that the use of the 0.5 ratio in the July 1992 final rule was not intended as a signal concerning the final action the agency may take on the January 1992 NPRM. As indicated above, the current Standard No. 214 test procedure only creates problems for contoured doors which have a significant degree of contour. In order to delay the effective date for those doors and not ones that have only a small degree of contour, it was necessary to specify a definition. The agency selected the 0.5 ratio to ensure that the effective date was delayed for contoured doors which have a significant degree of contour.

We will consider your August 1992 submission as a comment on the January 1992 NPRM. A copy of this correspondence is being placed in the public docket.

ID: nht92-3.33

DATE: October 1, 1992 Est.

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C. Morris Adams

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/24/92 from C. Morris Adams to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7768)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of September 24, 1992, requesting a ruling regarding the legality of lap belts at the passenger seats on school buses. As explained below, Federal law has long required lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at every passenger seating position on small school buses. Federal law has also long permitted, but not required, lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at passenger seating positions on large school buses, provided that those belts do not adversely affect the large school bus's compliance with the applicable safety standards. This is still the agency's position.

As you know, in 1977, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum levels of crash protection that must be provided for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds), the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Small school buses (those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

Ever since 1977, NHTSA has indicated that Federal law permits lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions on large school buses as long as the vehicle would still comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 222. NHTSA has no information to indicate that installation of seat belts at the passenger seating positions on a large school bus would affect the bus's compliance with any safety standard.

The allegations in your FAX that using seat belts in large school buses will result in crash forces producing concentrated loading on the head, instead of being spread evenly over the upper torso as is the case without a seat belt, are nearly identical with the explanations included in a 1985 Transport Canada report on school bus safety. NHTSA carefully evaluated and considered the Canadian report and these explanations in connection with its rulemaking action considering whether to specify requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts on large school buses. 54 FR 11765; March 22, 1989. After fully considering the Canadian report, the agency stated at 54 FR 11770: NHTSA shares commenters' concerns about any implications that safety belts negatively affect the protection provided to passengers on large school buses. However, the agency is not aware of accident data showing an injury caused or made more serious by the presence of safety belts on a school bus. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot conclude from the Canadian report's findings that belts actually degrade the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system renders inoperative the safety of large school buses, but the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur.

The agency then identified some possible safety benefits that could result from seat belts in large school buses, benefits that were not considered in the Canadian tests. The agency concluded that, "Although these benefits are not significant enough to justify a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts on all large school buses, they are enough to provide a basis upon which the agency will decline to prohibit the installation of belts on large school buses." 54 FR 11765, at 11770; March 22, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of this notice for your information.

As you can see, NHTSA has carefully considered the subject raised in your FAX and reviewed all available information in this area. After that review, the agency concluded that there was no justification for changing its longstanding position that persons that wish to do so should be permitted to install seat belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Your letter did not provide any data that NHTSA had not already considered. Hence, there is no basis for the agency to change its longstanding position in this area.

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: nht92-4.40

DATE: 08/12/92

FROM: DENNIS T. JOHNSTON -- ENGINEERING PLANNING AND LIAISON MANAGER, ROVER GROUP NORTH AMERICAN ENGINEERING OFFICE

TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA

COPYEE: GREG DANA -- AIAM

TITLE: SUBJECT: PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - FMVSS 214 - SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION; LIGHT TRUCKS, BUSES AND MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES; FINAL RULE

REFERENCE: DOCKET NO. 88-06, NOTICE 19, FMVSS 214 - FINAL RULE: RESPONSE TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED JULY 13, 1992 FR VOL. 57, NO. 134 PP 30917-23

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-10-92 FROM BARRY FELRICE TO DENNIS T. JOHNSTON (A40; STD. 214)

TEXT: Rover Group Ltd., the British manufacturer of the Range Rover Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV), submits the following in response to the referenced Final Rule amending FMVSS No. 214, 'Side Impact Protection; Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles'.

The July 13, 1992 Final Rule introduces a concept that had not been previously addressed in the June 14, 1991 Final Rule or the NPRM dated January 15, 1992. That is the classification of contoured doors by the ratio of the width of the lowest portion of the door to the width of the door at its widest point ("ratio"). This classification is not specifically mentioned in the preamble (except obliquely as ". . . certain contoured doors . . ."), but rather, appears directly in the rule in Section 3(e)(7).

Specifically, the July 13, 1992 Final Rule treats contoured doors with a ratio of greater than 0.5 differently than those whose ratio is 0.5 or less. It is Rover Group's understanding following the final rule that a contoured door on a multipurpose passenger vehicle whose width of the lowest portion of the door, for example, measured 41 centimeters and whose widest portion measured 80 centimeters would be required to meet the current quasi-static door strength procedures contained in FMVSS 214 for passenger cars beginning with vehicles produced after September 1, 1993. Multipurpose passenger vehicles (trucks and buses, as well) with contoured doors whose ratio was 0.5 or less (whose lower most width was 40 centimeters or less in the above example) would not be required to have these contoured doors meet quasi-static requirements until September 1, 1994, with the inference that a newly proscribed test procedure would be promulgated for these doors far enough in advance to allow manufacturers to meet this requirement.

However, in conversation with NHTSA staff since the release of the July 13, 1992 Final Rule it appears that NHTSA is considering another discriminator other than the 0.5 ratio to determine which contoured doors for multipurpose vehicles will need to conform to the current quasi-static test or to the not as yet promulgated test.

The current Range Rover has contoured read doors. These doors have a ratio greater than 0.5 (though not significantly greater), and under our interpretation of the July 13, 1992 Final Rule would be required to meet current FMVSS 214 quasi static door strength requirements beginning September 1, 1993. We have developed a design that will meet the current requirements, and have begun to purchase tooling to ensure that production after September 1, 1993 will comply. Any significant change in the test procedure for these doors (along the lines of that proposed in the January 15, 1992 NPRM, for example) would render this tooling obsolete. Thus Rover Group would be required to scrap this tooling at significant cost, and embark on an additional development program. (For details on the design changes necessitated by the test procedure quoted in the January 15, 1992 NPRM please see Rover Group's response dated March 16, 1992.)

Futhermore, based on our side impact test data, we believe that the positioning of door strengtheners that result using the currently specified test procedure in FMVSS 214 is more appropriate than the test procedure in the January 15, 1992 NPRM to offer the passengers of Range Rover vehicles with enhanced side impact protection.

If the Final Rule is to be interpreted as Rover Group has related above (in the third paragraph), please consider this document as a request for interpretation. If, however, NHTSA believes another interpretation is appropriate, please consider this as a petition for reconsideration to align the rule with that contained in this document.

If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me on (301) 731-8709 at your earliest convenience.