ID: nht79-2.46

DATE: 01/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 14, 1978, to Mr. E. T. Driver, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your letter depicted the use of two headlamps, both round and rectangular, mounted side by side, and also one above the other.

Table IV of FMVSS No. 108 requires that if two headlamps are mounted on a motorcycle they must be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. The same requirement applies to taillamps, stoplamps, and reflex reflectors. This has been interpreted previously, in the case of reflex reflectors, to mean that if two are used they may be mounted only side by side. Four headlamp systems are not permitted on motorcycles. These are specified in the new paragraph S4.1.1.34 in the amendment published in the Federal Register July 27, 1978. A copy of the new amendment is enclosed, along with copies of previous notices that constitute FMVSS No. 108. However, if two headlamps are mounted on a motorcycle, they still must be mounted side by side and equidistant from a vertical centerline of the body of the motorcycle.

This Agency is currently considering an amendment to the standard that will, if approved, permit the positioning of headlamps and reflectors one above the other when two are mounted on a motorcycle. The necessary rulemaking procedures, if initiated, would take several months and there is no certainty that the contemplated amendment would be issued.

We welcome your further comments and questions.

ID: nht79-2.47

DATE: 03/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vespa of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of January 22, 1979, petitioning for a determination that a possible noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

This is to inform you that upon review of Mr. Levin's letter to you of March 14, 1978, and examination of the turn signal system employed on Vespa motor scooters, we have determined that there is no failure to comply with the standard and your petition is moot.

Vespa brought to our attention the fact that S4.5.6 of Standard No. 108 requires each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit to have an illuminated pilot indicator but SAE Standard J588e, incorporated by reference, requires it only if turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Mr. Levin informed Vespa that, if all turn signal lamps were readily visible to the driver, no pilot indicator was necessary. Mr. Levin continued by saying:

"If the driver must turn his head to the rear to check the operation of turn signal lamps, then those lamps are not 'readily visible to the driver' and a turn signal indicator must be provided."

You have now informed us that you believe the turn signal system on Vespa motor scooter manufactured between March 1975 and the latter part of 1977 "are the functional equivalent of turn signal indicators", specifically

"The turn signal systems . . . are designed so that in the event of a failure of either rear turn signal lamp, the appropriate front turn signal lamp will flash at three times the normal rate. As the front turn signal lamps and their flash rates are readily visible at all times to the operator, any turn signal malfunction will be readily apparent to the operator."

We agree with your conclusion. The rapid flash rate will indicate the presence of a problem in either the front or rear turn signal system and the equivalent of a turn signal indicator appears to have been provided.

SINCERELY,

vespa of america corporation PIAGGIO GROUP

January 22, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Joan Claybrook, Administration Petition for Exemption

Gentlemen:

Vespa of America Corporation ("Vespa") respectfully submits its petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Act") pursuant to 49 CFR S 556.4 with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's November 14, 1977 notification of possible non-compliance with Section 4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Vespa is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 355 Valley Drive, Brisbane, California 94005. The motor vehicles involved are Vespa motor scooters manufactured by Piaggioe & C. S.p.A. and imported into the United States by Vespa from March of 1975 through December of 1977.

On October 14, 1977, Vespa received notification from Mr. Francis Armstrong (letter ref. NMV-22 GSH CIr. 1627.2) that Vespa motor scooters with obtainable speeds of over 30 MPH were required to be equipped with a turn signal indicator under Section 4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. On October 24, 1977, Vespa responded to the Administration pointing out the apparent inconsistency between Section 4.5.6 and SAE Standard J588e. On March 17, 1978, Vespa received a response from Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esq., the Administration's Chief Counsel (letter ref. NOA-30) acknowledging this inconsistency and indicating that vehicles equipped with signal lamps readily visible to the driver in compliance with SAE Standard J588 (e) did not need to be equipped with an illuminated pilot indicator in order to comply with the Act. Mr. Levin interpreted the phrase "readily visible to the driver" to require that all turn signals (both front and rear) must be visible to a driver facing forward in the normal driving position.

For the reasons hereinafter set forth, Vespa believes that the turn signal lamps on the affected vehicles are in substantial compliance with Section 4.5.1 of SAE Standard J588 (e) and that, because of their location, visibility and operation, these turn signal lamps are the functional equivalent of the turn signal indicators required by SAE Standard J588 (e). Vespa accordingly believes that any non-compliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Although the affected vehicles are not equipped with a separate illuminated turn signal indicator, Vespa motor scooters incorporate an alternate but equally effective method for operator notification of turn signal malfunction. The turn signal systems in the motor vehicles involved are designed so that in the event of a failure of either rear turn signal lamp, the appropriate front signal lamp will flash at three times the normal rate. As the front turn signal lamps and their flash rates are readily visible at all times to the operator, any turn signal malfunction will be readily apparent to the operator.

It is apparent that the purpose of both sections is to afford the driver with an immediate and readily visible indication that a failure in the turn signal system has occurred. Vespa believes that its present system completely satisfies this objective and that no modification of any sort would increase the safety of the vehicle or would increase the driver's ability to detect any failure in the turn signal system.

To require Vespa to modify and equip all vehicles which have been imported into the United States since its formation in March of 1975 with an additional turn signal pilot indicator lamp would impose an impossible financial burden on the corporation which could quite possibly result in the insolvency of the corporation. The modifications which would be required would entail a major modification of the existing headlight housing and a total revision of the existing electrical system. The estimated cost of bringing all vehicles into strict compliance with the Act's standards will exceed $ 493,000. A breakdown of the estimated cost is attached hereto as Attachment I.

The Vespa motor scooter was redesigned in the latter part of 1977 and the turn indicators on the new model are no longer readily visible to the operator. Accordingly, all new models are equipped with illuminated turn signal indicators which meet the Act's requirements.

In light of the foregoing, we respectfully request that Vespa be exempted from the requirements of Section 4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and from the requirements of Section 4.5.1 of SAE Standard J588e with respect to all Vespa motor scooters imported from March of 1975 through December of 1977.

Bruno Porrati President

ATTACHMENT I

NOTIFICATION REPAIR COST BREAKDOWN

Approximate total of effected vehicles imported by Vespa of America Corporation since March 1975 - 4,500

Notification Costs:

(Customer & Dealer) $ 8,000.00

Repair Cost:

Time allotted for unit repair - 5 hrs. @ $ 20.00 per hour

(100.00 x 4,500) = $ 450,000.00

Special Tools needed - $ 20.00/tool

(20.00 x 425 dealers appx.) = $ 8,500.00

Cost of Replacement Parts - $ 6.00 per vehicle

($ 6.00 x 4,500) = $ 27,000.00

TOTAL $ 493,500.00

ID: nht79-2.48

DATE: 01/31/79

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

TO: R.C. Back -- Director, Government Relations, Ryder Truck Rental Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1979, in which you asked for confirmation of your interpretation that the new restriction on mounting height of rear side marker lamps applies only to trailers and not to trucks.

This confirms your interpretation. As is stated in Table II of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, rear side marker lamps are to be mounted above the road surface "not less than 15 in., and on the rear of trailers not more than 60 in."

SINCERELY,

RYDER TRUCK RENTAL INC.

January 23, 1979

The Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Taylor Vinson

Gentlemen:

Effective March 1, 1979, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment is amended to require that side marker lamps be mounted on semitrailers and trailers at a height not less than 15" nor more than 60" from the roadway. The purpose of the amendment is to afford the manufacturer more flexibility with respect to trailers of unique design while satisfying the goal of making it more likely that the trailer rear side marker lamp can be viewed in the outside rear view mirror of the tractor pulling it, "acting as a reference light by which the tractor driver may check the tracking of the trailer's rear end."

On August 25, 1978, your agency issued a rule in accordance with the prior notice amending Table II of 49CFR571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table II as amended provides:

Item . . . . Height above road surface measured from center of item on vehicles at unit weight

Side . . . . Not less than 15 in., and on the rear of

Marker trailers not more than

Lamps 60 in.

The purpose of this letter is to request a formal interpretation of the table as amended. It would appear that the purpose of the rule-making procedure was to limit the application of the amendment to trailers and semitrailers.

The reference in the table, in apparent conformity with the purpose of the rule making, limits the application of the 60" limitation to trailers only. Consequently, straight trucks are not affected. Will you please confirm our interpretation of the amendment.

R. C. Back, Director Government Relations

ID: nht79-2.49

DATE: 01/09/79

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

TO: SAE Lighting Committee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1978, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The standard was recently amended to establish a ceiling of 60 inches from the roadway surface for the mounting height of rear side marker lamps. You have asked whether it is permissible to mount an additional side marker lamp at the upper rear corner of a trailer whose overall height exceeds 60 inches.

The answer is yes. Such a supplemental lamp would not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, within the meaning of the prohibition of S4.1.3 that you mentioned.

SINCERELY,

COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

December 18, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Agency

Attn: Office of Chief Council

SUBJECT: Docket No. MC-66-1; Amendment No. 77-8

Gentlemen:

The DOT/FHWA/BMCS recently announced a new rulemaking notice which required that large semi-trailers and full trailers have their rear side marker lamps located at a height between 15 inches and 60 inches above the road surface. This is the so-called tracking light to enable drivers to have better visibility of the rear section of the trailer in bad weather.

The specific question raised here is whether or not trailer manufacturers and users can continue to mount a side marker lamp at the upper rear corners of the trailers on the sides of the vehicles in addition to the newly required device at the lower mounting dimensions just described above.

Past precedent would indicate that having an additional, optional side marker lamp at the top rear corners would certainly not, in any way, interfere with the required lighting. However, we are getting inquiries as to whether or not this is permissable and I would like your confirmation that this presents no problem in using this added, optional light.

Apparently, some manufacturers and vehicle users prefer to use a rear side marker lamp at both the top and bottom which would undoubtedly increase the safety. We would appreciate your prompt response so that we can in turn reply to these inquiries.

Paul G. Scully Chairman, SAE Lighting Committee

P.S. The NHTSA final rule was published 31 August 1978 as Docket No. 77-1;

ID: nht79-2.5

DATE: 04/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Studio Aguila

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 12, 1979, letter asking whether a sports car designed for use without doors must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). The vehicle design discussed in your letter would apparently only have attachable doors for use in bad weather.

Since the test procedures in Safety Standard No. 214 require a loading device to be placed against the vehicle door, a passenger car having no doors could not practicably be tested. Therefore, a vehicle having doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from the vehicle are not required to comply with Safety Standard No. 214, if the vehicle is designed to be operated without the doors.

SINCERELY,

MARCH 12, 1979

Joseph J Levin Jr Chief Counsel Deartment of Transportation NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINSTRATION

Dear Mr. Levin,

Our office would like clarification from your Department on a point of ruling refering to USFMVSS 214.

We have a client, for whom we are developing a vehicle design aimed at introduction into the US market. This vehicle, being principally recreational in nature (In the sense of a sports car rather than a camper) is designed for use without doors.

Whilst this clearly is covered in clause S4 of VS206 we are concerned about VS214.

On the face of it one might say this vehicle need not comply with the standard VS214 as doors are not fitted except as draft excluders for use in any inclement weather. (Ref: VS206).

However, as we see it, although the rule VS214 states its purpose is to test door strength, the intent and partialy stated objective is to prevent injury to the occupants in a side collision situation. We feel therefore morally obliged to meet this aspect of the rules intent.

We would like your confirmation of the following points in this regard.

1/ Does the fact that the vehicle complies with VS206 Clause S4 (ie is Designed for use without doors) mean that we are not required to demonstrate compliance with VS-216?

2/ If the answer to the above is affirmative and we do have to show compliance with VS214 how should we locate the test device when we have no door?

3/ May we demonstrate compliance by placing the loading device at a height above the ground line with the vehicle loaded to its GVW which corresponds to the typical height at which the load device would be placed for the majority of the US vehicle population?

Our vehicle has extremely deep sills which are effectively very deep but rigidly integrated into the chassis structure, doors.

May we therefore locate the test device with reference to this sill provided that the height covered (See first para of Q3) indicates the strength at the point at which a side intrusion at an intersection collision is most likely to occur?

If we can have your confirmation of approval of proceedures outlined in 3, we will test to VS214 on those lines.

Otherwise we shall require a clear answer to Q1/.

We are looking forward to your reply at your earliest opportunity.

Dave Williams DIRECTOR -- DESIGN OFC.

ID: nht79-2.50

DATE: 01/23/79

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

TO: Esley Development Corporation

COPYEE: Don Morrison -- BMCS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1978, asking about your responsibilities, as the manufacturer of a snow plow headlamp holder, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Under the Act a truck, with or without snow plow attachment, is a "motor vehicle" and the plow itself and any associated equipment is considered "motor vehicle equipment" since it is an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. But Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, contains no requirements either for snow plow or accessory lighting, and your sealbeam holder therefore is not subject to regulation under the standard. However, as a manufacturer of "motor vehicle equipment," you are responsible for notification of purchasers and dealers, and remedy of any safety-related defects that may occur in your product. (Sec. 151 et seq. of the Act)

As to "what legal burden rests" with you as a "manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse" of your units once they leave your plant, we are uncertain what you mean by "misuse." If you mean that the holder is used in a way that you did not intend, then the question would appear to be one not answerable under Federal law. If the "misuse" is attributable to a defect in the sealbeam holder, then the question would arise whether the defect is safety-related. If the answer is affirmative, then you would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, for a reply to your question as to what Federal requirements must be met for use of your units "on inter and intra state highways."

Enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested, as well as a copy of the Act.

SINCERELY,

ESLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

December 21, 1978

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of an all rubber heavy duty auxiliary lighthousing used in off road mining, construction and logging. We are looking into manufacturing a snow-plow headlight with a turn signal attachment out of the same heavy duty rubber. It will be similar to the Yankee snow plow light and the Dietz snow plow light. It will be designed to hold a standard PAR 56 sealbeam of the 6014 or 6015 series as manufactured by G.E., Wagner Tung-Sol, and Westinghouse which are the standard sealbeams being used as OEM in autos and trucks for their primary headlights. Since we are not manufacturers of the sealbeams but just the holder of the sealbeam we would like your determination and response to the following questions:

-- Is a snow plow or truck using a snowplow attachment considered a motorized vehicle?

-- What legal burden rests with us as a manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse of our units once they leave our plant?

-- What federal requirements or regulations must be met for use of our units on inter and intra state highways? $-- Please send us a copy of Federal Standard 108.

Gentlemen, it takes 6 to 8 months to develope a product such as this prior to going into production. We are aiming at the 79-80 winter season and would therefore appreciate receiving your reply and any other advise you care to pass along as soon as possible.

Stephen E. Hall President

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: nht79-2.7

DATE: 02/13/79

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 15, 1978, petition asking for changes in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as that standard applies to the measurement of contact area. In particular, you ask the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to amend the standard adopting a specific test medium for measuring contact area and deleting the existing list of acceptable contact area test mediums currently established in the agency's compliance test procedures.

On July 19, 1978, the NHTSA responded to an earlier petition (December 20, 1977) submitted by you on this same issue. In that letter, the NHTSA denied your requested amendment of the standard. Your current petition presents no additional data or arguments supporting your suggested modification that were not presented and thoroughly considered in our determination of your first petition. Accordingly, for the reasons specified in our July 19, 1978, letter to you, the agency denies your suggested rulemaking.

In your August 15 petition, you suggested that Standard No. 222 should incorporate more detailed test procedures, because some of the agency's other safety standards specify test procedures in greater detail. Standard No. 222 currently specifies test procedures to be used by manufacturers in complying with the standard. However, like all of the agency's standards, Standard No. 222's compliance test procedures are even more detailed than the requirements specified in the standard.

The NHTSA writes safety standards as simply as possible while providing the necessary detail for manufacturers to comply with their requirements. A manufacturer is then permitted to develop its own test procedures as long as its procedures are compatible with the requirements of the standard. The NHTSA, itself, devises tests that it uses for testing a vehicle's compliance. Whenever possible, these tests are available to manufacturers, and manufacturers are free to adopt them or to proceed with their own test procedures. Your twice-submitted petition would have the NHTSA rewrite its standards in a manner that would specify test procedures in greater detail. Such an approach would increase the complexity of safety standards if done uniformly to all standards and would in fact be detrimental to small manufacturers. The purpose of allowing some variation in details of test procedures is to permit a manufacturer to develop test procedures that are tailored to that manufacturer's needs and constraints. For example, certain test procedures used by the NHTSA may be too costly for a small manufacturer. Under the current compliance system, any manufacturer can develop a less expensive alternative test methodology. Under the system that you propose, however, a manufacturer would be required to adopt the test procedures specified in the standard. Since your suggestion, if applied to all safety standard, could add costs to the agency's regulations without achieving any significant benefits, the NHTSA determines that your suggested amendment is not in the public interest.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

August 15, 1978

Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PETITION

References: 1. W. G. Milby Petition of December 20, 1977. 2. J. J. Levin to W. G. Milby, NOA-30 July 19, 1978. 3. R & D 222 - MS - 78-01 - Impact Media Evaluation.

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to reference 2 and to again petition the agency on the same subject as reference 1. The basis for this second petition is reference 3, which was not available when the first petition was submitted and apparently was not consulted by the agency before denying reference 1.

To quote a ranking NHTSA official, "regulation without enforcement is meaningless." We agree. But to have enforcement, there must be a repeatable procedure which all interested parties use. Otherwise test results are not comparable. When methodology causes significant variance in the test results, then, methodology must be addressed before rational enforcement can exist.

Today, as documented in reference 3, the allowable variations in test methodology regarding FMVSS 222 contact area cause significant variance in the test results and prevent rational enforcement. This is the reason we submitted reference 1, a petition requesting rulemaking action on FMVSS 222 which would require and allow only one transfer medium for measuring contact areas.

Reference 2 denies that petition. However, we believe the reasons which the agency set forth as a basis for the denial are not valid. Further, the agency did not address the content of the proposed amendment in reference 1. Each of the reasons the agency gave for denying reference 1 is discussed below with comments showing why they are not valid.

1. The first reason NHTSA gave for denial was that the agency does not specify the "details for manufacturer testing . . .", but instead, leaves it up to each manufacturer to determine how to test. We do not believe this is true in all cases. For example, FMVSS 121 goes into significant detail for air brake testing. FMVSS 209 goes into even more detail on seat belt assemblies, with the demonstration procedures alone requiring 11 pages. Therefore we conclude that the NHTSA does specify details in a standard when it is consisted with good rulemaking.

2. The second reason for denial was that the agency does adopt certain test procedures for use in its own compliance testing and that manufacturers are free to use these test procedures. It is true that NHTSA has published test procedures for FMVSS 222. However, these procedures are inadequate with respect to contact area measurement methodology as was spelled out in detail in reference 1. The basis of our petition, reference 1, was that the test procedures for FMVSS 222, as well as the standard itself, contains inadequate detail to insure consistent contact area measurements. Therefore, simply stating that NHTSA has published test procedures is not a valid reason for denying the petition.

3. NHTSA's third reason for denying the petition was that NHTSA makes the test procedures public and manufacturers are welcome to use them for their own testing. While it is true that the test procedures are eventually made public, reference 1 points out the fact that test procedures are sometimes not made public in time for manufacturers to use them for certification testing. In fact, we were not able to get the FMVSS 222 test procedures until December 9, 1977, and that was only in response to our request made under the Freedom of Information Act.

4. The fourth reason given for denial of the petition was that "the transfer medium specified in the NHTSA compliance test are for the purpose of convenience of NHTSA testing." We do not believe that the convenience of NHTSA testing should be given higher priority than the need for specifying procedures which will give repeatable results. In fact, as the standard and test procedures now allow more than one transfer medium, it results in inconvenience to all parties involved, including NHTSA, rather than convenience. This is so because allowing different transfer media causes different results which then generate false indications of non compliance. This is very costly as well as inconvenient to all parties involved.

None of these reasons, in our opinion, is a valid basis upon which to deny our petition reference 1. Since this issue must be resolved before enforcement of this part of the standard can occur, we hereby again petition NHTSA to amend FMVSS 222 as follows:

1. Change paragraph 6.8 to read "Except for during contact area measurement impacts, the head form and knee form, and contactable surfaces are clean and dry during impact testing."

2. Add a new paragraph 6.8.1 to read "Prior to each contact area impact, use a bristle brush to apply a cost of latex base exterior house paint to the entire sperical surface of the head or knee form. Wipe the head or knee form clean after each contact area impact."

3. Add a paragraph 6.8.2 to read "Immediately after each contact area impact, record the contact area pattern by holding a piece of vellum drafting paper stationary over the pattern and firmly rubbing it."

4. Add a new paragraph 6.8.3 to read "After allowing contact area patterns to dry on the vellum paper, draw non intersecting lines tangent to the outer bounds of areas of direct contact. the contact area is that area enclosed by the periphery of these lines and the area of direct contact. Measure this area by tracing the periphery with a direct reading planimeter."

We look forward to receiving an affirmative response to this petition within 120 days.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht79-2.8

DATE: 03/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 1, 1979, letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to withdraw an earlier interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which stated that any contactable objects falling within the head protection zone must comply with the head impact and force distribution requirements. The head protection zone might include some areas in the driver's seating location, and therefore, any contactable object in the driver's seating location that falls within the zone must comply with the requirements. The agency declines to alter its interpretation.

The standard is clear in its specification of zones for head form impact and force distribution testing. These zones help to ensure that any contactable objects falling within them will be sufficiently padded to protect a child from serious injury in an accident. The head protection zone for any passenger seat extends into the seat area of the passenger seat immediately in front of it. Similarly, the zone for the front passenger seat might extend into the driver's seating location. You argue that the restraining barrier between the front seat and the driver's seat removes the need for head protection zone requirements in the driver's seating area.

The fact that a restraining barrier separates the driver's seating location from the passenger seat bears no relevance to the need for head impact protection in the head protection zone for the front passenger seat. The head protection zone extends above and beyond the restraining barrier recognizing the possibility that the heads and upper bodies of larger children are likely to be impelled somewhat beyond the barrier in an accident. The barrier should help to prevent a child from being thrown entirely out of its seating position, but a barrier cannot prevent a child's head from being propelled beyond the barrier in some instances. Since the head protection zone requirements are designed to provide protection in these situations and that protection is needed for all passenger seats including the front seat, the agency will not alter its interpretation of the requirements as they apply to the head protection zone for the front passenger seat.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 1, 1979

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: 1. FMVSS 222 2. Robert B. Kurre to Frank A. Berndt, April 1, 1977

3. Frank A. Berndt to Robert B. Kurre, N40-30, May 11, 1977

Dear Mr. Levin:

Paragraph S 5.3.1.1 of reference 1 defines a head impact zone relative to the passenger seating reference point which must meet certain performance requirements with respect to head impact testing.

Reference 2 requests a clarification of the zone with respect to the drivers area. Reference 3 states that contactable surfaces in the zone of S 5.3.1.1 must meet the requirements as specified in S 5.3.1.

The purpose of this letter is to question the interpretation given in reference 3.

The driver's side barrier required by S 5.2 effectively isolates passengers from the driver's compartment. To require padded driver's seat frames in addition to isolating them from the passenger compartment is a redundant requirement which adds cost without any corresponding safety benefit.

The only other alternative is to provide more clearance between barrier and the driver's seat. By doing this, driver's seat padding requirements could be avoided. However, since most states have an overall length limit to which specific bus models are designed, this would eliminate at least three passenger positions.

As can be seen from the attached photos, taken before and after a barrier performance test, there is no need to pad the driver's seat since it is isolated from possible passenger impact. The posttest photograph is taken from NHTSA's compliance test report no. 780903 of a Blue Bird All American Schoolbus.

Therefore, on the basis of practicality we would ask that the interpretation given in reference 3 be reversed.

Thank you for your early reply.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

Barrier / Driver's Seat relationship, Protest.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 3-16 (CONT) FORCE/DEFLECTION TEST, DRIVER BARRIER, PRETEST & POSTTEST

ID: nht79-2.9

DATE: 05/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 13, 1979, letter in which you ask whether a seat that does not have another seat immediately behind it must comply with the rearward performance requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The seat to which you refer is abutted by a portion of a lift device for handicapped students. Behind the lift structure, itself, is a restraining barrier and more seats.

Standard No. 222 states that any seat that has another seat behind it must comply with the rearward performance requirements. The effect of this statement is to exclude rear seats from complying with the rearward performance requirements. In the Federal Register notice of April 23, 1975, the agency stated that it was adopting this approach to save costs in school buses without impairing the safety of those vehicles. The agency indicated that the passengers in the rear seat were protected as well as passengers in other seats, because they can "ride down" the vehicle structure rather than the seat back in an accident (40 FR 17855).

The above analysis is equally appropriate for other seats that are directly in front of some substantial vehicle structure. The lift mechanism depicted in your picture and diagram appears to offer similar "ride down" benefits to passengers as does the rear wall structure of a vehicle. Accordingly, the agency considers the rearward performance requirements to apply in situations such as yours only when a seat is immediately in front of another passenger seat. The agency cautions, however, that this interpretation applies only in those instances where the affected seat is in front of some substantial vehicle structure. If the seat does not have the benefit of vehicle structure behind it, it must comply with the rearward performance requirements.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 13, 1979

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 222 PARAGRAPH S5.1.4 SEAT PERFORMANCE REARWARD

REFERENCE: Telephone conversation between W. G. Milby and Roger Tilton March 6, 1979.

Dear Mr. Tilton:

The subject paragraph says "when a school bus passenger seat that has another seat behind it is subjected to the applications of force . . .". The effect of this language is to not require the rear most seats in a school bus to be subject to the rearward performance requirements of FMVSS 222.

The rationale behind this is that the rear structure of the bus body will restrict the seat back from excessive rearward deflection. The purpose of this letter is to seek a similar interpretation for seats which have other structures behind them (such as handicapped passenger lifts as described in the attached photo) which would insure that the rearward deflection does not exceed 8 inches as described in S5.1.4(b). An interpretation is necessary since in some floor plans, such as the ones described on the enclosed form number OE-79122 page 12, it is necessary to have some seating positions rearward of the lift. When this is the case, a barrier is placed between the rear portion of the lift and the next seating position, as shown on the enclosed floor plans. Although these seats are "behind" another school bus passenger seat, they are not immediately behind another seat which is the sense in which the language of S5.1.4 is used.

We thank you for your consideration in this matter and look forward to your early response.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

(Graphics omitted)

SCHOOL BUS

ALL AMERICAN BLUE BIRD'S HANDY BUS 35" LIFT

SUGGESTED SEAT PLANS BODY MODEL AAFC3101 Body Sections Front to Rear: 179" W.B. Floor Plan Number: 0917484 5-28, 2-35, 4-28 Seat Plan Number: 0896696

BODY MODEL AAFC3101 Body Sections Front to Rear: 179" W.B. Floor Plan Number: 0914069(1) 3-28, 2-35, 6-28 Seat Plan Number: 0914325

(Graphics omitted)

(1) NOTE: Option 4594 Relocate 60 gal. fuel tank w/barrier must be ordered. Body Sections Front to Rear: 149" W.B. Floor Plan Number: 0850875 5-28, 3-35, 1-28 Seat Plan Number: 0914309

BODY MODEL AAFC2700 Body Sections Front to Rear: Floor Plan Number: 0850875 5-28, 3-35, 1-28 149" W.B. Seat Plan Number: 0850867

(Graphics omitted)