ID: nht95-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 24, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry M. Habshey -- Oxytire Incorporated

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/6/95 LETTER FROM TERRY M. HABSHEY TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10785)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Habshey:

This responds to your March 6, 1995 letter to Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff in which you requested a "new D.O.T. number." As discussed below, we are unable to provide you a tire man ufacturer's identification mark since the operations you perform on tires are not sufficient to make you the manufacturer of the tires.

You explained that your company is a global exporter of tires, particularly to third world countries, but that you intend to distribute tires domestically in the future. You stated that you obtain new tires from different manufacturers consisting of ori ginal equipment overruns, blems, etc., and that by a new process you intend to remove "most" of the information from the tire sidewalls. The new process includes removing a thin layer of rubber from the tire sidewall, then vulcanizing a layer of new rubb er onto the sidewall. The new layer will contain a new "registered" trade name, logo, and "identifying marks along with the size, safety information, mounting instructions, maximum and minimum inflating instructions, etc." You emphasized that all tires will be new and meet "all minimum standards established by the Department of Transportation."

Before addressing your request, let me first provide some background information. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety st andards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment sold in or imported into the United States. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufact urers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs effective on the date of manufacture. In the case of tires, manufacturers reflect that certification by molding the letters "DOT" into or onto the sidewalls of all their tires manufactu red for sale in the United States.

The FMVSSs are not applicable to tires intended solely for export, labeled for export on the tires and on the outside of the container, and exported. See 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(b)(3); 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.7(d)). Accordingly, you are free to export any tires you want, whether or not they comply with the FMVSSs and after whatever modifications you make to them.

That is not the case, however, with tires distributed for sale in the United States. FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires and FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims, specify performance standards and labeling requirements for new passenger car tires and r ims. FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars and FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, specify performance standards and labeling requirements applicable to tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping, requires new tire manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto one tire sidewall a tire identification number (TIN) and specifies methods by which new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners shall maintain records of tire purchasers. 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS), requires new motor vehicle and new tire manufacturers and brand name owners to provide informat ion to consumers concerning the relative performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The UTQGS grades are also required to be molded into or onto the tire sidewall.

The labeling requirements specified in the regulations referred to above apply to the actual tire manufacturers and/or brand name owners, and the required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A tire distributor or dealer cannot legally remove any of the required information from new tire sidewalls. The required information on new tires is intended for safety purposes, purchaser information, and to enab le this agency to identify the manufacturer in the event of a noncompliance or defect in a tire line or lot.

A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(5) as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles or equipment or one who imports motor vehicles or equipment for resale. The operations you describe would not be sufficient to make you the manufa cturer of the tires in question. According to your letter, you would, for marketing reasons, remove a thin layer of the surface area of the sidewalls of the tires so that most of the existing information is removed. You would then apply a new thin laye r of rubber containing new information. Your operations would thus not be changing the basic tire as such but simply changing the labeling. A change in labeling would not change who manufactured the tire. Thus, since you would not be a manufacturer of tires, you may not obtain a manufacturer's identification mark in accordance with 49 CFR @ 574.6. Only tire manufacturers or retreaders may obtain that mark.

49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and/or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with applicable FMVSSs unless that individual reasonably believes that the vehicle or equipment will not be used when the device or element is inoperative. Thus, removal of the labeling information required to be marked on tire sidewalls in accordance w ith the standards and regulations discussed above could be a violation of @ 30122(b), which could subject the violator to civil penalties of up to $ 1000 per violation, or up to $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

In summary, the Safety Act does not apply to tires intended solely for export. Thus, those tires are not required to comply with any FMVSSs. However, all new or retreaded tires sold or imported into the United States for sale must comply with all applic able FMVSSs and regulations as discussed above. Distributors and dealers may not remove any of the labeling information required to be marked on new tires by the actual manufacturers and/or brand name owners of those tires. Removal of that information c ould make inoperative an element of design on those tires, which could constitute a violation of 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b).

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

ID: 10-001800drn_risner

ID: nht75-5.45

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - California

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This reponds to your letter of June 12, 1975, requesting confirmation that you as a final-stage manufacturer would only have to check the application and release times of a truck whose chassis you shortened or lengthened in order to certify that vehicle to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Certification of vehicles to the standard is an area which our statutory scheme leaves to the manufacturers, and in which, aside from discussion of general principles, the agency has declined to issue statements of approval.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has stated that actual road tests by final stage manufacturers are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard No. 121 or other standards, where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. The agency has recognized that small organizations cannot be expected to test to the same scale or by the same methods as the large integrated automotive manufacturers. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assemblers are expected to use statutory "due care" to see that their products conform.

From this discussion it should be apparent that verifying only the brake actuation and release functions will probably be an insufficient basis for certifying that the vehicle will comply, for example, with the stopping distance requirements of the standard. Engineering calculations may, however, satisfy you, in the exercise of due care, that the vehicle as modified meets all the requirements of the standard.

The incomplete vehicle documentation provided with the vehicle would generally serve as the basis of certification to equipment requirements, to the degree that the equipment is undisturbed. The addition of an axle may cause the air reservoirs to no longer satisfy the air volume requirements of the standard.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OFFICE OF EQUIPMENT

SINCERELY,

June 12, 1975

File M 18.03

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator

We are final stage truck manufacturers and often our equipment and operating requirements requires the shortening or lengthening of frame rails of certified cab and chassis equipped with air brakes.

Upon completion of our modifications, i.e.; lengthen or shorten the frame rails and air brake lines, we propose to certify the unit to be in compliance with FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems. Our certification will be based upon test data indicating the following two functions remain within compliance limits of the standard:

1. The brake system complies with the requirements of FMVSS 121 Paragraph No. S 5.3.3 Brake Actuation Time.

2. The Brake System complies with the requirements of FMVSS 121 Paragraph No. S 5.3.4 Brake Release Time.

The test data reflecting compliance would become a permanent part of our vehicle record files.

We request an answer to the following question.

Is the above proposed method and support data acceptable for FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems Vehicle Recertification?

Your prompt response would be appreciated.

ROSSELL O. LIGHTCAP, Chief Office of Equipment

ID: nht89-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/89

FROM: TAKAYOSHI CHIKADA -- MANAGER OF AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC

TO: RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE -- SAFETY STANDARDS ENGINEER

TITLE: REVISION OF FMVSS NO.108 (DOCKET NO.85-15 NOTICE 8)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER 08/23/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO TAKAYOSHI CHIKADA; REDBOOK A34[3]; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Iderstine,

We thank you very much for your kind cooperation during our stay in the U.S. for SAE Lighting Committee Meeting.

We would like have your advice concerning interpretation of new FMVSS No. 108 (Docket No.85-15 Notice 8).

1. The requirement of S7.7.5.1.a) was not applied to replaceable type headlamp by previous FMVSS No.108. Please give us your advice whether this requirement will also be applied to the replaceable bulb type headlamps which are already manufactured accor ding to the previous FMVSS No.108.

2. The requirement of S7.7.5.1.b) need to quote SAE J580 b "Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly" by previous FMVSS No. 108 and the expression seem to be slightly different from new S7.7.5.1.b). Please advice us whether the requirement of "0.1 in. max." is cond itioned when headlamp is being pushed or after said force is removed.

3. How should we prove the confirmation to the requirement of S7.7.2.2? We think the combinations of Horizontal and Vertical angle within the aim range will be so huge and it is not practicable to test for all combinations.

4. It is acceptable to set up initial "0" point of S7.7.5.2.a).2) not mechanically but photometrically?

Please give us your advice by return facsimile.

We thank you very much in advance.

Yours faithfully,

ID: nht95-4.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 27, 1995

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown and Platt

TO: Samuel Dubbin, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 207/Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 1/4/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Erika Z. Jones (A44; Redbook 2; Std. 207)

TEXT: I am writing to request an interpretation of FMVSS 207 S4.4, pertaining to labelling of certain motor vehicle seats.

S4.4 provides that:

"Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect."

It is my understanding that S4.4 does not require designated seating positions to be labeled, even if those seating positions are equipped with a folding seat back that enables that seat to be converted to a bed.

This conclusion is consistent with a letter from your office to Mr. Richard Moss, dated June 30, 1971, in which the Acting Chief Counsel advised that FMVSS 207 does not require designated seating positions to be labeled.

The vehicle seat at issue in my question is generally intended for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion, while it is configured as a bench seat. The bench seat contains several "designated seating positions" equipped with safety belts, and the se at is otherwise certified to FMVSS 207 requirements in the seat configuration. When the seat is converted to a bed by folding down the seat back, however, it is no longer "an occupant seat," as that term is defined in FMVSS 207.

Under these circumstances, it is my understanding that the labeling requirement in S4.4 does not apply, and I respectfully seek your concurrence in this conclusion.

Please let me know if I can obtain any additional information for you. I look forward to your response.

ID: nht88-2.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 11, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MGR., REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 210; SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-16-90 TO WILLIAM SHAPIRO FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 210). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-18-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO; (OCC-3422). TEXT:

Section 4.3.2 of FMVSS 210 sets forth the location requirements for the upper torso portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. This section requires the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint to be located within the acceptable r ange shown in Figure 1 of FMVSS 210.

Volvo is currently designing a Type 2 seat belt assembly that has its upper torso anchorage point located in the acceptable range as defined in Figure1. The function of the seat belt and all strength requirements specified in FMVSS 210 are met using thi s anchorage point.

Volvo believes that an extra set of hardware at the upper torso anchorage would increase the stability of the mounting. The location of this extra set of hardware would fall outside the acceptable range as specified in Figure 1.

Volvo believes that a correct interpretation of FMVSS 210, with respect to the extra set of hardware for the upper torso anchorage, would be that it is acceptable for it to fall outside the range as specified in Figure 1, because the extra set of hardwar e is not required for the seat belt assembly to comply with the strength requirements as specified in FMVSS 210. Please confirm this for us.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht95-7.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 27, 1995

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown and Platt

TO: Samuel Dubbin, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 207/Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 1/4/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Erika Z. Jones (A44; Redbook 2; Std. 207)

TEXT: I am writing to request an interpretation of FMVSS 207 S4.4, pertaining to labelling of certain motor vehicle seats.

S4.4 provides that:

"Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect."

It is my understanding that S4.4 does not require designated seating positions to be labeled, even if those seating positions are equipped with a folding seat back that enables that seat to be converted to a bed.

This conclusion is consistent with a letter from your office to Mr. Richard Moss, dated June 30, 1971, in which the Acting Chief Counsel advised that FMVSS 207 does not require designated seating positions to be labeled.

The vehicle seat at issue in my question is generally intended for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion, while it is configured as a bench seat. The bench seat contains several "designated seating positions" equipped with safety belts, and the seat is otherwise certified to FMVSS 207 requirements in the seat configuration. When the seat is converted to a bed by folding down the seat back, however, it is no longer "an occupant seat," as that term is defined in FMVSS 207.

Under these circumstances, it is my understanding that the labeling requirement in S4.4 does not apply, and I respectfully seek your concurrence in this conclusion.

Please let me know if I can obtain any additional information for you. I look forward to your response.

ID: nht75-1.47

DATE: 05/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Alan Cranston, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of April 14, 1975, in which you requested information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 (49 CFR Part 571.106-74) and its relation to the enclosed letter you had received from Mr. Thomas Z. Marshall of San Francisco.

Standard No. 106-74 specifies performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. Because labeling applied to hose and end fittings cannot satisfactorily identify the manufacturer of an assembly made up of those components, S7.2 of the standard (by incorporating S5.2.4) requires certain assemblies to be labeled by means of a band. By identifying the manufacturer and the date of production, this band permits both the enforcement of the standard's performance requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies.

Mr. Marshall appears to have misunderstood some aspects of the standard. While each manufacturer of brake hose assemblies must initially inform the NHTSA of the identifying designation he intends to use on his bands, there is no requirement that he keep records of assemblies made or send such records to this agency. In addition, the bands need not be metallic, but may be of other materials which are less expensive to produce. Mr. Marshall has correctly pointed out, however, that the standard in its present form specifies the same requirements for large manufacturers, repair shops, and individual truck owners. In recognition of the burdens thus imposed on a person who manufacturers only a small number of assemblies, the NHTSA proposed an amendment of the definition of brake hose assembly, to exclude certain assemblies from the requirements of the standard (40 FR 8962, March 4, 1975, copy enclosed). We expect to act on that proposal in the near future.

Sincerely,

2 Enclosures Constituent's letter

United States Senate WASHINGTON, D.C. 20518

April 14, 1975

To: Office of Congressional Liaison -- Department of Transportation

Enclosure from: Thomas Z. MArshall -- Waits Motor Supply Co., 234 - 7th Street, San Francisco, California 94103

Re: Please explain and give current information on the new truck regulation, 106 Air Brake Standard.

I forward the attached for your consideration.

Your report, in duplicate, along with the return of the enclosure will be appreciated.

Sincerely

Alan Cranston

Please address envelope to: Senator Alan Cranston Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Att: M. Bleeke

Feb. 18, 1975

Senator Alan Cranston Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C.

re: FMVSS(DOT) 106 Air Brake Standard

Dear Senator Cranston:

Please have some of your staff look into what the National Hwy. Traffic Safety Commission is up to.

I am enclosing a reprint of only a portion of the subject regulation.

Please understand that these people are requiring that over 400,000 truck fleets, shops, and purveyors of hose register and receive a registration number; (2) Each fabricator (except Original Equipment Manufacturer) will have to fabricate a metal tag and affix same to assembly (3) he will also have to keep records of assemblies made and send these reports to Wash.

Can you see the number of bumbling bureaucrats the administration of this law will require. I heard today that one enterprising manufacturer is out selling a tag marking machine at $ 80 each. Multiply that out and see what a windfall profit someone is going to make; to say nothing of the profit in the repeat sale of the blank tags themselves.

Someone has sold this agency a bill of goods. They don't want to listen to reason. They are hell bent to see that their stupidity doesn't come to light.

Someone must rise up and say, "let's wait a minute."

Do you realize that the owner of one truck, if he does his own repair, will have to register if he wants to save money by making his own hose assembly? This is where this regulation is viscious and inflationary.

If you are just going to send me the usual "kiss off" letter and file this in the file 13, don't bother to reply. If you are really interested in looking into this rather than the headline grabbing CIA, FBI and Watergate matters, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Very truly yours, Thomas Z. Marshall, Pres. -- WAIT MOTOR SUPPLY CO.

Labeling

A. Hose and Tubing

1. Must have a layline consisting of the following:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the manufacturer that the hose and tubing conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. Manufacturers identification can presently be any symbol, trademark, letters, etc., which have been files by letter with NHTSA. Our (Illegible Symbol) has been registered and will be used on hose, tubing and couplings manufactured by I-E.

c. The month, day or year, or the month and year of manufacture, expressed in numerals.

d. The nominal inside diameter of the hose expressed in inches or fractions of inches, or the nominal outside diameter of the tube expressed in inches or fractions of inches followed by the letters OD.

e. The letter "A" to indicate the hose or tube is for use in "Air Brake" assemblies.

2. No additional information is allowed on the DOT layline; however, a second layline (180 degrees away) is permissible with any information desired. I-E hose and tubing will have an additional layline to identify our style, size, etc.

3. Examples of DOT hose and tube marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

B. Couplings

1. All reusable and renewable couplings must be labeled.

Permanently attached crimped or swaged couplings do not require any marking.

All fittings which are labeled need the DOT marking on only one piece of the coupling.

2. Coupling marking shall be as follows:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the fitting manufacturer that the end fitting conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. Manufacturer identification. Our (Illegible Symbol) has been registered and will be used on couplings manufactured by I-E.

c. The letter "A" to indicate the fitting is for use in "Air Brake" hose assemblies.

d. The nominal inside diameter of the hose to which the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches or fractions of inches, or the outside diameter of the tube to which the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches or fractions of inches followed by the letters OD.

3. Example of DOT coupling marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

C. Assemblies

1. As of March 1, 1975 each brake hose assembly, except those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly. The band may be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings.

2. The band shall be permanently etched, embossed, or stamped with the following:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly. Our (Illegible Symbol) with a letter indicating assembler has been registered and will be used on hose assemblies manufactured by I-E.

c. The month, day and year, or the month and year of assembly.

2. Example of DOT hose assembly band marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

Summary

1. The new regulations are law and everyone concerned with vehicle brake hoses, brake hose end fittings and brake hose assemblies used on vehicles manufactured for use on the public streets, roads and highways must comply.

2. State of Pennsylvania Approval of Air Brake Hose. Until recently it was apparent that the labeling of air brake hose would still be required. However, Pennsylvania has bowed to federal jurisdiction and will now accept FMVSS 106 as the governing authority for brake hose assemblies.

It is still necessary for hose manufacturers to obtain Pennsylvania State approval on all brake hoses. Only now the approval testing will be done to the FMVSS 106 requirements and not SAE requirements.

3. Please remember that FMVSS 106 pertains only to products intended for use in brake systems. Any I-E hose or fittings manufactured for use in auxiliary air or hydraulic applications can be used without falling under the jurisdiction of FMVSS 106.

4. Registration.

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose, hose fittings and hose assembly shall be filed in writing with:

Office of Standards Enforcement Brake Hose Identification National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: FMVSS 106

5. Questions on FMVSS 106.

Anyone may contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for interpretations of the standard. If calling, they may answer your question on the telephone, but will probably ask that you put the questions in writing and send you a letter in reply.

ID: nht79-2.6

DATE: 08/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for written confirmation of statements made by Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during a meeting with your representative, Mr. Bernstein. That meeting concerned the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216 as they apply to convertibles. The discussion below follows sections "I" and "V" of the transcript enclosed in your letter, which involve legal questions.

(I.) Convertibles, like all other passenger cars, must comply with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 beginning in 1981, 1982 or 1983, depending on vehicle wheelbase size. This means that convertibles will have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and, either meet the lateral and roll-over requirements of S5.2 and S5.3 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants or, at the option of the manufacturer, have a Type I or Type II seat belt assembly at each front designated seating position (and meet the frontal requirements of S5.1 with these belts fastened around the test dummies).

In the second part of your first question, you asked whether a convertible may meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. The answer to your question is yes. Convertibles are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 but may do so, at the option of the manufacturer, as an alternative to meeting the automatic roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. Please note that compliance with Standard No. 216 would not excuse convertibles from compliance with the automatic lateral protection requirements of Standard No. 208. As stated above, however, installation of a lap belt at front designated seating positions would excuse all passenger cars from both the lateral and the roll-over requirements. Therefore, a convertible that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and that also has lap belts installed, does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216. I am enclosing a letter of interpretation that was issued last year which discusses the relationship between Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216, in light of the automatic restraint requirements.

In the final part of your first question, you asked whether you could manufacture convertibles with fold-down tops, removable tops or removable hard-tops that would comply with Safety Standard No. 216, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is also yes. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible," the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, if any of the vehicle designs you mentioned meet this criteria and also comply with Safety Standard No. 216, they would not be required to comply with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208.

(V.) Section V of your transcript includes a discussion of the growing aftermarket convertible industry (removing hard-tops from vehicles) and the increasing number of kit-car convertibles. You asked about the legal requirements for these vehicles. Any new vehicle that is manufactured or assembled from a kit-car must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Likewise, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (by converting a hard-top vehicle to a convertible, for example) is required to place an additional lable on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. This means that all of these vehicles would have to be in complaince with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 (after those requirements become effective). Mr. Hitchcock's statement that removing the top of a vehicle that is in compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 would be prohibited by Federal law is incorrect. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, does provide that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and this is the law that Mr. Hitchcock referred to. The agency has stated in the past, however, that conversion of one vehicle type to another vehicle type (e.g., hard-top to convertible) does not violate this provision, as long as the converted vehicle complies with all safety standards that would have been applicable to it if it had originally been manufactured as the new type. Therefore, removal of a passenger car's hard-top does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216 since a new convertible would not have been required to comply with that standard.

I hope this letter has responded fully to the legal questions raised in your discussions with Mr. Hitchcock. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

July 3, 1979

Ralph J. Hitchcock Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

This letter is in reference to the meeting concerning F.M.V.S.S. 208 between you and Mr. Bernstein of this office on Monday, July 2, 1979.

I do appreciate the opportunity of having our representative meet with you and thank you for clearing up some vague areas of the regulations concerning convertibles.

We are following your advice and have made a transcription of the discussion which is enclosed for your review. Following your review, we would like the office of General Counsel to review it so that we may get a written confirmation (or clarification of misconceptions) by both the N.H.T.S.A. Engineering and Legal staffs concerning these issues.

D. Black

Manager

U.S. Engineering Office -- ALFA ROMEO, INC.

ENCLS.

CC: ING. LANDSBERG; ING. TOBIA; ING. SURACE; DOTT. BOZZI

OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND HENRY BERNSTEIN OF ALFA ROMEO ON JULY 2, 1979 CONCERNING:

FMVSS 208 - OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION

FMVSS 216 - ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE

AS RELATED TO OPEN BODY OR CONVERTIBLE TYPE VEHICLES

I. INTRODUCTION & QUESTIONS

Introduction:

Alfa Romeo is a very old company dating back to 1909; practically to the beginning of automobile development. Alfa Romeo has always built vehicles which are out of the ordinary in both engineering, style and performance. This is a heritage that we wish to preserve and continue into the future. We have always strived for excellence in our product and always will. We realize the need for safety standards and wish to comply with all applicable standards in effect for present and future model years, however, we are concerned over and a little confused about the requirements of open body vehicles (convertibles) as related to the occupant crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208 and it is this reason for which I come to Washington to meet with you with hopes of clarification of our questions in this area. Questions & Answers: Mr. Bernstein question: (I) Is it true that even convertibles must meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 as follows: a) meet the frontal crash protection require- ments (S5.1) by means that require no action by occupants (passive)? Mr. Hitchcock answer: yes Mr. Bernstein question: b) and either meet the lateral crash require- ments of S5.2 and the rollover requirements of S5.3 passively? Mr. Hitchcock answer: No (see 2) Mr. Bernstein question: c) or at each front designated seating position have a Type I seat belt or a Type II seat belt conforming to FMVSS 209 (seatbelts) and meet the requirements of S5.1 (labelling) in addition to passive? Mr. Hitchcock answer: Yes Mr. Bernstein question: (2) May we as optional compliance with the standard (208) as an alternative to the rollover require- ments of FMVSS 208 show compliance with the requirements of roof crush resistance FMVSS 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: According to Mr. Hitchcock, a recent amendment to FMVSS 208 (Dec. 5, 1977, 42 FR 61466) was the addition lap belts as an alternative to meeting lateral and rollover passively (S4.1.3) and that 216 would no longer be applicable. (This is "relief" for convertibles in his opinion).

In other words, we do have to meet the frontal requirements passively (belts or bags) and also provide lap belts and that neither roof crush or rollover compliance were necessary.

Hitchcock said he believes his interpretation is correct, but suggests that I write a report with these specific points and questions outline , which would be reviewed by the legal staff as well as the engineering staff. As a result , upon receipt of your comments and questions, a copy of this report will be forwarded to Mr.

Hitchcock so it may be reviewed and confirmed in writing by N.H.T.S.A.

We also discussed 216 as an alternative /optional compliance to rollover in 208 and I asked the following: Mr. Bernstein question: (3) May we design and produce a fold down convertible a) top which will meet 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: OK Mr. Bernstein question: b) May we design and produce a removeable convertible top which will meet 216?

c) What about a removeable hard top which will when installed meet 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: No need to comply but Mr. Hitchcock gave the following remarks concerning above questions b) and c). This area is not specifically covered in the regulations due to lack of proper definitions of "convertible top", "soft top", "hard top", etc.

The advise given was if we specifically wanted a review and confirmation concerning particular items such as these, that we should make specific Mr. Hitchcock answer: written presumptions about these subjects requesting definitions and concurrence with our views. This is the only way we may get documented proof of N.H.T.S.A.'s concurrence or non-concurrence with our views.

II. BACKGROUND

I discussed the importance of Spider sales to our company including past sales performance and future projections for which Mr. Hitchcock understood Alfa Romeo's concern in this area. Our Spider model is currently our largest selling model as indicated by both past and present sales figures and projections for the future as follows*: Future projections: 1980: 3,500 or 46.7% of projected sales total 1981: 4,500 or 41% of projected sales total 1982: 4,500 or 45% of projected sales total 1983: 5,000 or 41% of projected sales total 1984: 13,000 or 81% of projected sales total 1985: 14,500 or 73% of projected sales total 1986: 16,000 or 67% of projected sales total

Future projections: 1980: 3500 of 7,500 1981: 4500 of 11,000 1982 4500 of 10,000 1983: 5300 of 13,000 1984: 13000 of 16,000 1985: 14000 of 20,000 1986: 16,000 of 24,000

So therefore, Mr. Hitchcock, you can see our deep concern for saving this vehicle and promoting it well into the 1980's and beyond into the '90's.

* please refer to sales comparison graph and raw data (attached) for U.S. Spider (Illegible word) history from 1961 to 1978.

III. PROBLEMS INVOLVED/CONVERSION, ETC.

Commercially:

We wish to keep a convertible; it is a "disappering breed"; people still want this type of car. Detroit cannot justify production of convertibles anymore. We wish to be different than others (as we always have been) and provide our customers with a true convertible for which there is a great demand. We don't want to compromise by adding targa roofs, moon roofs, "T" tops, etc. as many maufacturers have already done and will do in the future.

At this point, we discussed briefly some other "convertibles" incorporating the systems mentioned above, and I also showed Mr. Hitchcock some brochures, newspaper and magazine clippings on the subject.

We discussed also passive limitations. Technically:

Air bags are impossible due to cost considerations, size, and a complete lack of European suppliers. U.S. suppliers aren't interested in our small numbers. We could do it if we did not care about cost and had a supplier.

Belts: passive belts (VW/Chevette type) are impossible due to lack of "B" pillar and lack of door frame to anchor belt to.

Roll bar: the producer, Pininfarina, is on contract to ARI at a certain. price. They say the present structure does not allow for adaption of a roll bar. Very difficult if not impossible when taking into consideration the desire to provide a folding soft top assembly.

Targa roof/door frames: roof rails would not be a convertible and buyers would agree.

Mr. Hitchock recommended "Development of Specifications for Passive Belt Systems by Man Factors, Inc." (DOT-HS-800-809) for some other passive ideas. I have already ordered a copy for Alfa Romeo.

IV. LEGALITIES "RULING OUT" CONVERTIBLES, ETC. (reference 1966 Safety Act)

When we discussed the 1966 Safety Act statement concerning "safety standards which are appropriate for the particular type of vehicle for which it was prescribed and that safety standards should not rule out a class of vehicle" (FR 1392 (f)(3), Mr. Hitchcock noted that convertibles are not ruled out as a class of vehicle and that many presume that they are due to a lack of total understanding of the regulations.

V. AFTERMARKET MANUFACTURERS, ETC.

Mr. Bernstein question: What alarms me is the ever growing aftermarket convertible industry. Conversion shops, etc. are turning out and selling convertibles in large quantities to meet the demand. Replicar manufacturers are constantly increasing their sales and new companies are being born overnight due to the fact that most are convertibles which are in such great demand. Also, many "kit cars" are becoming prominent on the market, most of which are also convertibles. Is there no relief to us, a manufacturer who imports far less convertibles than these operations sell here?

Mr. Hitchcock answer: Concerning the aftermarket manufacturers, Mr. Hitchcock explained that they will also be responsible for compliance due to the fact that rendering a safety device or system inoperative is prohibited by law and that "chopping" a roof off a vehicle would probably violate this requirement. Naturally, enforcement is an area requirement. Naturally, enforcement is an area in which these operations may be safe for now due to manpower limitations and other priorities.

VI. ECONOMICS, EXEMPTIONS, AMENDMENTS

Mr. Bernstein question: What about petitions, exemptions, etc.?

Mr. Hitchcock answer: If economics are a problem, we may be able to petition and that we may also petition for an amendment to the standard for convertibles. This amendment would not be for Alfa Romeo vehicles exclusively, but for convertibles in general.

NOTE: Apparently, a current Chrysler petition is in the docket with a petition for amendment concerning a similar situation as related to hard top vehicles with no "B" pillar. Chrysler must comply in 1982 >114" wheelbase.

VII. RECOMMENDED FOLLOW UP ACTION

A written report as outlined in this report for review and written reply by N.H.T.S.A.

Henry E. Bernstein

Attachments 7.3.79 BREAKDOWN OF GRAPH DATA BODY STYLE SPIDER COUPE SEDAN YEAR 1961 349 38 0 1962 572 165 12 1963 608 73 1 1964 799 169 0 1965 832 729 5 1966 658 747 1 1967 804 747 1 1968 426 487 0 1969 1199 671 690 1970 887 352 313 1971 1218 899 435 1972 935 866 546 1973 163 863 732 1974 1703 1565 844 1975 3089 2072 1082 1976 2503 1685 1139 1977 1993 2162 1265 1978 3562 1663 912 TOTAL: 22,300 15,953 7,978 % OF SALES 48.2% 34.5% 17.3%

GRAND TOTAL = 46,321 = 100%

(Graphics omitted) (Illeg.) 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 (Illeg.) TOTAL 73 = 1758 74 = 4112 75 = 6243 802 76 = 5329 (Illeg.) 110 77 = 5420 (Illeg.) 1663 78 = 6139 3562 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 TOTAL 73 = 1758 74 = 4112 Retails 75 = 6243 Sedan 802 76 = 5327 Automatic 110 77 = 5420 Sprint Veloce 1663 78 = 6137 (Illeg.) 700 981 1265 (Illeg.) GT 635 1254 2119 844 382 158 43 1565 1437 431 1703 3089 2503 1993 3562

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-2.39

DATE: 05/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 15, 1975, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 requirements for Type 1A and 2A automotive headlamps.

The following answers are provided for your specific questions

1. FMVSS No. 108 would not prohibit use of metal-back Types 1A and 2A headlamps that conform to all requirements of the standard.

2. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issue approvals on automotive equipment. The equipment manufacturer self certifies that the equipment conforms to the applicable FMVSS. The various states may, however, require equipment approval. Information on these approvals may be obtained from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20036.

3. The drawings of the Type 1A and 2A headlamp submitted with your letter, indicate that aiming pads have been deleted. Aiming pads are required by FMVSS No. 108.

For your information enclosed is a copy of FMVSS No. 108, which includes requirements for Types 1A and 2A headlamps, and a copy of Docket No. 75-8 Notice 1, that proposes to allow use of the four-lamp rectangular systems indefinitely.