ID: aiam3980

Dear Mr. Lucki: This responds to your letter of March 7, 1985, concerning Standard No 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. I regret the delay in our response. You noted that sections S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) of the standard require a seat belt warning system that conforms to S7.3 of the standard to be installed at each front outboard seating position of automatic restraint-equipped cars that have manual belts also at those positions. You pointed out that S7.3, however, only sets requirements for a warning system for the driver's seating position. You asked whether the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) can be met by providing a warning system conforming to S7.3 at only the driver's seating position. The answer is that those requirements can be met by a warning system for the driver only.; In December 1974 (39 FR 42692), the agency amended Standard No. 208 t establish new safety belt warning system requirements for vehicles manufactured after February 24, 1975. As discussed in the preamble, the agency decided against requiring a warning system at both the driver's seating position and the right front passenger's position. Instead, the agency adopted a requirement in S7.3(a) for a warning system at only the driver's seating position. (In July 1977 (42 FR 34299), the agency renumbered S7.3(a) to become the current S7.3).; In July 1976 (41 FR 29715), the agency proposed language concerning th safety belt warning system in automatic restraint-equipped cars. The proposed language was subsequently adopted, on July 5, 1977 (49 FR 34299), in S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The agency explained in the preamble of the July 1976 notice that the proposed safety belt warning system was to parallel the existing requirements for passenger cars. Thus, the intent was to require a warning system for only the driver's position. Requiring a warning system for the driver's position only is also consistent with the separate warning system requirement set in S4.5.3.3(b) for automatic belts. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a warning system only for the driver's position.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4251

"Dear Mr. Doe: This responds to your letter in which you asked how th conversion of a convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new two seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a 'factory manufactured and approved' hardtop conversion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216. I would like to set the foundation for answering your specific questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as 'a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.' In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer. The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would not permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception. Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on selling nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or to a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certificate of conformity from Lotus or the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certificate of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have reason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requirements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR /567.7. The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth in sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were: 1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any car that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the rollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216. 2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you are referring. However, you stated in your letter, 'It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area.' The requirements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a 'designated seating position.' This term is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as follows: 'Designated seating position' means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designated seating positions. The required occupant restraint system would also be affected by converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purposes of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would not be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: J. Douglas Hand, Esq. Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232 /";

ID: aiam4250

"Dear Mr. Doe: This responds to your letter in which you asked how th conversion of a convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new two seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a 'factory manufactured and approved' hardtop conversion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216. I would like to set the foundation for answering your specific questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as 'a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.' In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer. The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would not permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception. Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on selling nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or to a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certificate of conformity from Lotus or the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certificate of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have reason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requirements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR /567.7. The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth in sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were: 1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any car that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the rollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216. 2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you are referring. However, you stated in your letter, 'It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area.' The requirements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a 'designated seating position.' This term is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as follows: 'Designated seating position' means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designated seating positions. The required occupant restraint system would also be affected by converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purposes of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would not be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: J. Douglas Hand, Esq. Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232 /";

ID: aiam4252

"Dear Mr. Doe: This responds to your letter in which you asked how th conversion of a convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new two seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a 'factory manufactured and approved' hardtop conversion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216. I would like to set the foundation for answering your specific questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as 'a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.' In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer. The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would not permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception. Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on selling nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or to a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certificate of conformity from Lotus or the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certificate of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have reason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requirements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR /567.7. The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth in sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were: 1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any car that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the rollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216. 2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you are referring. However, you stated in your letter, 'It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area.' The requirements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a 'designated seating position.' This term is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as follows: 'Designated seating position' means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designated seating positions. The required occupant restraint system would also be affected by converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purposes of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would not be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: J. Douglas Hand, Esq. Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232 /";

ID: aiam4402

Dear Mr. Doe: This responds to your letter in which you asked how the conversion of convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new two seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a 'factory manufactured and approved' hardtop conversion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216.; I would like to set the foundation for answering your specifi questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as 'a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is *not joined* at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.' In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that , 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer.; The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would no permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception.; Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on sellin nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or to a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certification of conformity from Lotus or the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certification of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have reason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requirements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR S567.7.; The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth i sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were:; 1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crus requirements of Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?; ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any ca that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the rollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216.; 2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provisio remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?; ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you ar referring. However, you stated in your letter, 'It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area.' The requirements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a 'designated seating position.' This term is defined in 49 CFR S571.3 as follows:; >>>'Designated seating position' means any plan view location capabl of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.<<<; We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable o accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designated seating positions.; The required occupant restraint system would also be affected b converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purposes of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR S571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would *not* be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Major Harry A. Crytzer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Major Harry A. Crytzer Bureau of Patrol Pennsylvania State Police l800 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110

Dear Mr. Crytzer: .

This responds to your letter to our office and a telephone call between Trooper Monko of your department and Deirdre Hom of my staff, concerning how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations affect a certain modificatio n of a school bus. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You explained in your letter and enclosures that the vehicle in question is a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds. The vehicle is being leased by the Governor Mifflin school district from a local dealer, Wo lfington Body Company, who bought the vehicle from the school bus manufacturer, Collins Industries. Your letter said that Collins delivered the vehicle to Wolfingiton with an extra side door "in place." The side door has provided for purposes of installi ng a wheelchair lift. You stated that Wolfington could have installed a wheelchair lift, if it had wished to do so; however, in the case at hand, Wolfington sealed the door and installed rear seats provided by Collins in the bus.

You first ask whether the school bus dealer (Wolfington) is prohibited by Federal law from sealing the side door and installing the rear seats. The answer is no. However, Federal law does impose limitations on the modifications that may be made. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) states:

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

Section lO8(a)(2l(A) prohibits Wolfington from either removing, disconnecting or degrading the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with applicable Federal safety standards. Thus, the school bus dealer cannot seal the door i f the door had been installed on the vehicle to meet the requirements for emergency exits found in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In the case you describe, the school bus Has provided with a rear emergency door which presumably satis fies Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. If the school bus is able to meet the requirements of the standard notwithstanding the sealed side door, then there is no "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the school bus em ergency exit requirements.

Nevertheless, Wolfington must ensure that no other safety design or item of equipment installed pursuant to applicable Federal safety standards was rendered inoperative by its modifications. For instance, the performance of the fuel system must be mainta ined to the level required by Standard No. 301, Fuel System integrity. Similarly, Wolfington must ensure that the seats previously certified to Standard No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, maintained their levels of performance.

Trooper Monko requested information on the Federal requirements applying to Collins and Wolfington, if Collins had delivered the school bus with the door sealed to Wolfington, the purchaser, and Wolfington had installed the lift and removed the rearmost seats. Wolfington is subject to the "render inoperative" provisions of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act in this situation, just as it is in the situation discussed earlier. Thus, Wolfington must ensure that its modifications do not negatively affect the c ompliance of safety equipment and designs with Federal safety standards. Notably, the fuel system and seats on the school bus must continue to meet the applicable safety standards.

We note that a different set of our regulations would apply if wolfington had obtained a new school bus from Collins to resell it to a school district. These regulations apply to the alteration of new vehicles, and impose certification responsibilities o n dealers modifying new vehicles. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are interested in those regulations.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 29, 1986

Deidre Hom, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

It has been requested of cur office by Trooper Barry J. Jozwiak, Troop "L", Reading, to provide clarification for the Pennsylvania State Police school bus inspection on the subject of rendering inoperable an additional service door on a school bus. The v ehicle when manufactured offers a dual option to the vehicle owner for use as either a special education or normal school bus. The selected use of the school bus can be converted to the owner's transportation needs at anytime by adding or deleting certai n school bus body items.

Would any Federal Statute or Regulation prohibit the dealer or owner from rendering this extra service door inoperable?

This supplements the conversation on August 8, 1986, between you and Trooper Thomas J. Monko of my staff. As requested, the attachments are forwarded for your information.

Should you have additional questions or require further clarification, phone contact, Trooper Thomas J. Monko at (717) 783-5517.

Sincerely, Harry A Crytzer Major Bureau of Patrol

SUBJECT: Service door on school bus To: C. O. Troop "L", Reading, Pa. 4310 FROM: Tpr. Barry J. JOZWIAK, Troop "L", Reading 4310

This officer inspected a 1985 Ford School Bus, VIN#1FDJE34H5FHCl29969, Pa. Reg. SB17235, COLLINS Body; 21 Passenger (including driver) with mileage 15,742, While inspecting this vehicle it was determined that an additional service door had been installed on the right side of the vehicle at the rear. This door is usually used with buses that have lift gates in them for transporting students in wheel chairs, however, this bus does not have the lift gate. It does have seats throughout the bus. The door itself is not operable. This officer feels the doo r should be operable. GVW is 9300.

This bus is currently in use by Governor Mifflin School District, Shillington, Berks Co. Pa. The bus is on the buy-back program with WOLFINGTON Body Co., Eagle, Pa. A check with Mr. Ralph BROWN OF WOLFINGTON advised they when they order these type of veh icles they order them with the extra side door in order for the buses to be used for dual purposes. One for lift gate wheel chair use and the other for normal transportation with the door secured shut. BROWN advised there are approx 3 other buses being u sed for 1986 with the door secured shut. All others have lift gates in them.

The door is located on the right rear corner of the bus. The side rub rail is located on the right side and travels up to the rear door and stops. Another rub rail is then installed approx. 2/3 or the door and stops just past the door opening where it is secured through the pillar post with 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts. The door handle is on the outside of the door and is locked with a key. The inside or the door has a latch assembly that when the handle is turned to lock, The latch assy. travels up to th e roof or the bus and down to the floor of the bus. In this bus the latch assy. is in the open position. The key was inserted into the lock to unlock the latch, but the handle does not turn. There is a chair rail located on the inside the bus that the se ats are mounted onto on the right side of the seat. At the rear door the seats are bolted to the floor with 4 lag seats with 4 bolts in each leg. They are not attached to the chair angle rail. The chair angle rail is not attached to the door, however it is secured before the door and also with one of the carriage bolts that go through the pillar posts from the outside.

Mr. Ron PETERS, COLLINS INDUSTRIES, Hutchinson, Kansas, was contacted 1-800-835-5007 and he advised that they have made these types of vehicles for many years and that they are for dual purpose, He feels the bus is stronger with the door rather than the conventional side due to the additional structure installed for the door.

These buses are built to ordering specs and can be made with or without the side door. The bus in question is an original equipment installation. When the bus is delivered to the distributor the door is in place without the lift assy, and the rear seats are not belted to the floor. It is the dealers option to use the vehicle as he see the need, and either install the lift assy, or the seats, The only thing that actually holds the door shut is the 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts that go through the rub rail a nd the pillar post. The inside latch assy. should also hold the door shut.

This officer feels this door should function for the following reasons; 1- Pa Insp regulations 175.110, (a), (7), (vi) (c) indicate doors must function. 2- The door is equipped with an outside handle giving the appearance to the general public that this is a door. In the event of an accident a person might waste time trying to open a door that cannot be opened. 3- There are no labels placed on the door that advise door not operable. 4- The only things that actually keep the door secured is 1 rub rail th at only crosses approx. 2/3 of the bus door and 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts that go through the rub rail & into the pillar post.

Tpr. Tom MONTKO, Bureau of Patrol, discussed this with this officer and advised to inspect the vehicle for use at this time and to submit this letter along with photos of the vehicle in order to secure a legal opinion from Penn Dot and the Nat'l Safety T ransportation Board.

School Bus inspection regulations 171.50 indicate service doors and emergency doors. School Bus regulations 171.103 and 171.104 address special service entrance and special service entrance doors on vehicles with power lifts.

Photos of the bus attached.

Respectfully Submitted, Tpr. Barry J. JOZWIAK

ID: 3140o

Mr. Doug Cole
National Van Conversion Association, Inc.
2 West Main St., Suite 2
Greenfield, IN 46140

Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter asking about the test procedures of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. I regret the delay in responding.

In your letter, you explained that the National Van Conversion Association (NVCA) gathers samples of materials used for vehicle floor coverings, seat covers, etc., in van conversions to determine the compliance of the material with Standard No. 302. In your test program, you have found that many samples do not appear to comply. You said that a closer look at the conditions under which these samples were tested revealed that use of support wires affected whether many materials passed or failed the standard's test. You ask for clarification as to when support wires are used in Standard No. 302 testing.

The conditions and procedures under which Standard No. 302 compliance testing is conducted using support wires are stated in paragraphs S5.1.3 and S5.3(a) of the standard. Basically, these two paragraphs specify, respectively, that support wires are used: (1) when testing a specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning," to keep the specimen horizontal; and (2) when testing a specimen that has an available width of not more than 2 inches, to position and mount the specimen on the U-shaped frames used in the test. Standard No. 302 makes no provision for using the wires other than in these two situations.

The agency follows the test procedure specified in Standard No. 302 when testing vehicles for compliance with the requirements of the standard. The agency uses heat-resistant wires as specified in S5.1.3 when there is a reasonable expectation that a test specimen will bend or curl while burning. NHTSA bases its determination about the likelihood of bending or curling on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with materials similar to a test specimen. I would like to point out that manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in only the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its compliance testing. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to bend or curl, or that are too small to fit in the test frame without wires. However, manufacturers must exercise due care in making their certification of compliance that their product will meet the standard's requirements when tested by the agency according to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a manufacturer meets that due care standard when using heat-resistant wires in situations other than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/

ref:302 d:ll/1/88

ID: aiam3247

Dear Mr. Halper: This responds to your letter of March 13, 1980, on behalf of Californi Strolee, Inc., concerning Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*.; You asked whether a 'foam tray' marketed as an accessory for a chil restraint by Strolee is prohibited by section S5.2.2.2 of the standard. According to your description, the tray 'may be affixed to the car seat by straps and velcro fasteners' and is made of polyurethane foam and 'does not contain any metal or solid parts.' The purpose of the device is 'to give a child a surface on which to play or to put things during car rides.'; Section S5.2.2.2 prohibits any fixed or movable surfaces in front o the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain the test dummy in the 20 mph test. If the foam tray attaches to the child restraint so that it is the only surface in front of the child, the child restraint would have to be tested with just the tray as specified in Section S5.2.2.2. If the foam tray is attached to a surface that complies with S5.2.2.2, such as a padded shield, a separate test using the foam tray alone would not be required.; You also raised a question about section S6.1.2.1.2. You explained tha Strolee is considering the use of 'an impact shield designed to go across the front of the car seat to restrain the child.' The impact shield 'would be removable and it would be recommended that it not be used when the car seat is in the rearward facing mode.' When the restraint is used in a rear-facing position, the child is to be restrained by a five-point belt system. You asked if the Strolee seat would be required to be tested under Test Configuration II in a rear-facing position.; The answer is no. Section S6.1.2.3.2 provides that each fixed o movable surface is to be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions prior to the testing required by S6.1.2.1.2. Thus, if the instructions inform users that the removable shield is not to be used in a rear-facing position, then the restraint need not be tested at 20 mph in a rear-facing position. The restraint would be tested at 20 mph in the forward-facing position with the shield in place but with none of the restraint system belts fastened, unless they are an integral part of the shield.; You also asked about obtaining copies of interpretations issued by th agency. The agency's docket section maintains a file of the interpretations for each standard and can provide you with copies. The address is: Docket Section, Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-3.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOCIATION, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/23/87 FROM DOUG COLE OF STEVE KRANTZKE; LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM JONATHAN JACKSON TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M. TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/08/87 FROM ROSE TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter asking about the test procedures of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materils. I regret the delay in responding.

In your letter, you explained that the National Van Conversion Association (NVCA) gathers samples of materials used for vehicle floor coverings, seat covers, etc., in van conversions to determine the compliance of the material with Standard No. 302. In your test program, you have found that many samples do not appear to comply. You said that a closer look at the conditions under which these samples were tested revealed that use of support wires affected whether many materials passed or failed the stan dard's test. You ask for clarification as to when support wires are used in Standard No. 302 testing.

The conditions and procedures under which Standard No. 302 compliance testing is conducted using support wires are stated in paragraphs S5.1.3 and S5.3(a) of the standard. Basically, these two paragraphs specify, respectively, that support wires are use d: (1) when testing a specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning," to keep the specimen horizontal; and (2) when testing a speciment that has an available width of not more than 2 inches, to position and mount the specimen on the U-shaped frames used in the test. Standard No. 302 makes no provision for using the wires other than in these two situations.

The agency follows the test procedure specified in Standard No. 302 when testing vehicles for compliance with the requirements of the standard. The agency uses heat-resistant wires as specified in S5.1.3 when there is a reasonable expectation that a tes t specimen will bend or curl while burning. NHTSA bases its determination about the likelihood of bending or curling on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the speciment, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience wi th materials similar to a test specimen.

I would like to point out that manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in only the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its complaince te sting. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to bend or curl, or that are too small to fit in the test frame without wires. However, manufacturers must exercise due care in making their certification of compliance that their product will meet the standard's requirements when tested by the agency according to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a manufacturer meets that due care standard when using heat-resistant wires in situations ot her than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: aiam2943

Dear Mr. Gerth: This responds to your letter of December 19, 1978, asking whether manually adjustable seat belt anchorage for the upper torso portion of a 3-point safety belt is permissible under Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You state that this new anchorage is adjustable over a certain range and is intended to increase wearing comfort by providing a better 'fit' for all occupants.; We have reviewed the drawings and specifications enclosed with you letter and determined that the proposed adjustable anchorage design would not be precluded by Safety Standard No. 210 if the design meets the following two conditions: (1) the anchorage complies with the zone location requirements of the standard in any of the positions to which it can be adjusted, and (2) the anchorage complies with the strength requirements of the standard at all times, even when the adjusting mechanism (bolt) is in its loosened status. There is nothing in the standard that prevents the use of adjustable anchorages, per se.; From discussions with your engineers, we found that the proposed desig would require the use of a tool to tighten the adjusting bolt. We are concerned that this feature could reduce potential increases in belt use. For example, if driver A adjusts the belt anchorage to its lowest position, will driver B readjust the belt when he enters the car if the two drivers are of different sizes and the lowest position is uncomfortable for driver B? If the readjustment requires the use of a wrench to loosen and retighten the anchorage bolt, will driver B simply choose not to wear the belt? We believe that a manually adjusting anchorage that does not require the use of tools would be a preferable design in terms of potential seat belt use.; The agency is of course very interested in any seat belt design tha will increase comfort and convenience and, thereby, seat belt use. Therefore, we encourage innovative designs. Please keep us informed about the progress of your work on your new anchorage system.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hereby grants you request for confidential treatment of the drawings included in your letter (enclosures 1, 2 and 4). We have preliminarily determined that the drawings and specifications contain privileged commercial information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel