ID: aiam0801

Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1972, requestin confirmation of your understanding of the phrase 'the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage', as used in S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210.; You indicate that the buckle in the proposed Nissan belt system i attached to the seat structure by a rigid bracket. The nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage appears to be correctly shown in each of the drawings attached to your letter. The installation shown in the upper drawing is, as you suggest, the only one of the four that would meet the location requirements of S4.3.1.3.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 1925y

Mr. L.T. Mitchell, Specification Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This responds to your letter asking us to reassess our previous interpretations of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Before turning to the substance of your letter, I would like to apologize for the regrettable delay in this response.

You asked us to reassess a December 20, 1984 letter to Mr. Melvin Smith regarding school buses. Mr. Smith had, among other things, asked for an interpretation of the concluding sentence of S5.4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 217. Section S5.4.2.1(b) requires side emergency doors installed in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds to have an opening that is at least 45 inches high and 24 inches wide when the side door is extended. The final sentence of S5.4.2.1(b) reads: "A vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear-most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." Mr. Smith had asked how much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and door edge were permissible. We responded that no variation from the explicit requirements of the standard is permissible.

Your letter stated that a requirement for an exact coincidence of the plane and door edge "opens the door to impossible manufacturing requirements," and is "an extremely difficult goal to meet." You stated that requiring an exact relationship between a part of the seat and the door will require multiple seat installation adjustments, bending the seat, or deforming the seat padding. To avoid such burdens, you asked if the agency would consider setting tolerances for the coincidence of the points expressed in this provision. You proposed the following interpretation of the requirement for coincidence of the plane and door edge:

1. A seat back may not intrude backward into the door opening through the transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the door opening.

2. A seat back may be located ahead of this transverse plane by no more than three-quarters of an inch, plus or minus three-quarters of an inch, or within but no more than, one and one-half inches ahead of the transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the door opening.

It would be helpful to set forth some background information to fully explain why NHTSA cannot issue an intepretation along the lines you have suggested. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392; the Safety Act) specifies that NHTSA shall establish by order appropriate safety standards and that the Administrative Procedure Act shall apply to all orders establishing, amending, or revoking a safety standard. The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires agencies to publish a notice setting forth the proposed change to a safety standard, and allow the public to comment thereon, before the agency can adopt any change to the established safety standard.

Please note that the Safety Act requires public notice and comment only when adopting orders that establish, amend, or revoke a safety standard. Interpretations are not subject to the requirements for public notice and comment, because interpretations do not add, delete, or change any requirements established in a safety standard. Instead, intepretations explain how the requirements established in safety standards or the Safety Act apply to particular vehicles or equipment, or otherwise clarify the meaning of the established requirements.

In this case, the meaning of the requirement in Standard No. 217 that "a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear-most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door" is clear. This language clearly and unequivocally requires an exact coincidence of the location of the seat back and the forward edge of a side emergency door. There is no way that we can interpret this language in accordance with your suggestion; i.e., that the seat back shall be located no more than 1 and 1/2 inches forward of the forward edge of the emergency door.

Your letter suggested a change to the requirements of Standard No. 217, not a clarification of those requirements. As explained above, the only way by which we can change those requirements is to initiate rulemaking and give the public notice of and the opportunity to comment on the proposed change. Hence, your letter asking for an interpretation would have been more properly filed as a petition for rulemaking, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 552.

Ordinarily, we would simply notify you of your right to file such a petition and take no further action unless and until you decided to file such a petition. In this case, however, the delay in this response may have conveyed the erroneous impression that NHTSA would provide a substantive response to your request in this interpretation. To ensure that your request receives a response addressing its merits, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking filed under Part 552. We will notify you of our response to the petition as soon as we have completed our review of it.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:8/3/89

ID: aiam5076

"Dear Mr. Stevens: This responds to your letter of October 2, 199 requesting information on standards applicable to an 'after market 3rd rear facing seat for the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable station wagons 1986-1993.' During an October 20, 1992 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that in most instances these seats are sold for installation in used vehicles, by either the owner or by a dealer or repair business. You also stated that the seat might be installed by a dealer prior to the vehicle's sale. Your three questions and the answer to each follows. Before I address the substance of your letter, I note that your letter requested that the product information enclosed with your letter be treated as confidential. Your request for confidentiality was denied in an October 27, 1992 letter signed by Kathleen DeMeter, our Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law. Accordingly, the product information enclosed with your letter has been placed in NHTSA's public docket, along with your letter and this reply. 1. Does the aftermarket 3rd rear facing station wagon system have to be tested in compliance with FMVSS 207, 209, & 210? The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be applicable to a 3rd rear facing vehicle seat: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Hence, any seat belts installed on the 3rd rear facing seat have to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209. The remaining four standards apply only to new vehicles. If the 3rd rear facing seat were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including these four, with the 3rd rear facing seat installed. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Finally, Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, specifically including seat cushions, seat backs, and seat belts. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition does not require manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to certify that vehicles continue to comply with the safety standards after any aftermarket modifications are made. Instead, 'render inoperative' prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. Please note also that the 'render inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your company's 3rd seat in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. 2. The seat belt anchorages are Ford factory anchorages built into the car at the factory and designed for the Ford factory 3rd seat and seat belts. We will be using the same anchorages with aftermarket seat belts already in compliance. Is a test required for this system? As noted above, if these 3rd seats are installed in a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale for purposes other than resale, the vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards with the 3rd seat installed. NHTSA's position on what steps manufacturers must take before certifying that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards has been often stated and applies with equal force in your situation. The compliance test procedures set forth in the safety standards must be followed by this agency during our compliance testing. With respect to your company's 3rd seats, this means that NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle would be conducted using the test procedures set forth in the relevant safety standard or standards. Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers are not required to conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply with applicable safety standards. However, to avoid liability for civil penalties if the vehicle were determined not to comply with a safety standard, the Safety Act requires the certifying manufacturer to exercise 'due care' to assure compliance and in making its certification. It may be simplest for the manufacturer to establish that it exercised 'due care' if the manufacturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, 'due care' might also be shown by using modified test procedures, engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like. Thus, the entity that installs your company's 3rd seat in a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale will have to decide for itself, in the first instance, what information it needs to make its certification in the exercise of 'due care.' If the 3rd seat were installed after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, no certification would be required. Instead, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop that performed the installation would have to ensure that the installation did not 'render inoperative' compliance with any applicable safety standard. Actual testing is not required to avoid violating the 'render inoperative' prohibition. Instead, your company could carefully examine your product and the proposed installation instructions and compare those with the requirements of the safety standards, to determine if installing your product in accordance with your instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the standards. 3. If testing is required, must they be specifically Static Tested or Dynamic Crash Tested? Testing is required only in agency compliance testing, as explained above. Agency testing must be conducted in accordance with the test procedures specified in the applicable standard. I note, however, that the dynamic crash testing requirement in Standard No. 208 applies only to the front outboard seating positions. For your information, I have enclosed a sheet for new manufacturers that identifies the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, as well as how to get copies of those standards and regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam1470

Dear Mr. Goichman: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on sea belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection,* requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems* specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempt state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. S 1392 (d)).; The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of sea belts and reclining seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1469

Dear Mr. Goichman: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on sea belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection,* requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems* specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempt state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. S1392 (d)).; The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of sea belts and reclining seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4571

"Dear Mr. Canever: In your letter of July 14, 1988 and in subsequen conversations, you have requested information concerning the proper classification of a new vehicle for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program. You also requested confidentiality, to protect future product plans of the vehicles in question. The agency has agreed to protect your identity as well as details of the request which may reveal specific new or innovative features that the product may contain when produced. In the spirit of this agreement, we have described the content of your letter only to the extent deemed necessary to provide a coherent context for our response. Specifically, you are interested in whether the agency concurs with your opinion that this vehicle would be classified as a light truck for purposes of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) program. The vehicle has multiple purposes. You describe several features of this multipurpose vehicle, including that both the second and third seats are removable, by quick release levers in the case of the second seat, and by the use of simple tools in the case of the third seat, and that the vehicle has a variety of different seating/storage configurations. You also indicate that ' r emoval of the second and third seat will create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle.' You also describe other features of the vehicle, which need not be discussed in order to answer your letter. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not 'approve' the classification of a motor vehicle. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, in the first instance, to make any necessary classifications of vehicles and to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. For purposes of CAFE compliance, each manufacturer must classify its vehicles consistent with the definitions contained in 49 CFR Part 523. You are interested in knowing whether the vehicle, as described above, is properly classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. The definition of light truck (/523.5) provides, in relevant part: (a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) Transport more than 10 persons, (2) Provide temporary living quarters, (3) Transport property on an open bed, (4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume, or (5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. Your letter clearly indicates that both the second and third seats are removable easily, and when they are removed, what remains is a flat, floor level surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle. It appears from the description you have provided the agency that your vehicle would qualify as a light truck under /523.5(a)(5). We note that this conclusion does not constitute or imply an opinion as to whether the vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck for purposes of the safety standards. Definitions for classification purposes under the safety standards may be found in /571.3 of 49 CFR. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: nht74-2.16

DATE: 11/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hall and Myers

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 23, 1974, question whether the language of S5.3.1(b) and S5.3.2(b) in Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, exempts all liftable, nonsteerable axles from the "no lockup" requirements of the standard. You specifically ask whether a liftable, nonsteerable "tag" axle and "pusher" axle would be exempt if they were both mounted on a vehicle equipped with a single nonliftable, nonsteerable axle or with tandem nonliftable, nonsteerable axles.

The sections in question permit "lockup of wheels on nonsteerable axles other than the two rearmost nonliftable, nonsteerable axles on a vehicle with more than two nonsteerable axles." This language is limited to vehicles which have more than two nonsteerable axles and therefore a liftable axle on a vehicle with only one other nonsteerable axle would not be exempt. Such combination can be found on some intercity buses.

In both of the examples you described the vehicle has more than two nonsteerable axles, and therefore the language of S5.3.1(b) and S5.3.2(b) would exempt the tag and pusher axles from the "no lockup" requirements of the standard. I would like to emphasize, however, that our language is intended to require "no lockup" performance on not less than two nonsteerable axles of any vehicle with at least two nonsteerable axles. We did not contemplate the unlikely configuration of a single fixed axle and two liftable axles which you cite as an example. If a safety problem arises with this configuration, we would consider an amendment of the standard to require "no lockup" performance of two of these axles.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

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: aiam5061

"Dear Mr. Boyne: This responds to your letter requesting clarification of the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. That section sets forth new requirements relating to key removal, which became effective on September 1, 1992. Your letter asks whether a vehicle which operates in the following manner would meet the requirements: Initial Condition - Engine running and shift lever positioned in 'drive'. Action - The operator depresses the thumb button on the left side of the shift lever and moves the shift lever to the 'park' position. Point of Concern - As long as the thumb button is held in the depressed position, the ignition key can be rotated to the lock position and removed. Still holding the thumb button, the shift lever can later be moved to any position. Removal of the key will only occur in the 'park' position. As discussed below, it is our opinion that a system which operates in the manner you described would comply with S4.2.1 of the standard for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, but not for vehicles manufactured after that time. This assumes, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, that steering is prevented after removal of the key. It also assumes that the system does not otherwise permit removal of the key when the transmission is not locked in park. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states: Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a 'park' position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. The system which you describe appears to permit removal of the key in a situation when both the transmission and transmission shift lever are not locked in 'park' and when they do not become locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. This conclusion follows from the fact that, following the removal of the key, the shift lever can be moved to any position. Therefore, the system you describe would not comply with S4.2.1 unless one of the exceptions in section S4.2.2(a) and (b) apply. The exception set forth in S4.2.2(a) only applies in the event of electrical failure and is therefore not relevant to the system you describe. S4.2.2(b) of Standard No. 114 reads as follows: (b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from 'park' after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed. (2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. NHTSA included this second exception to allow for a manual override of the transmission shift lock so that a disabled vehicle could be moved. The requirement that such devices either be operable by the key or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface originally had an effective date of September 1, 1992. However, after considering petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA decided to provide an additional year's leadtime, noting that this would lessen the impacts associated with such redesign of the emergency override buttons of a number of systems. While the agency was primarily concerned about emergency override buttons in drafting S4.2.2(b), it is our opinion that the language in (b)(1) is sufficiently broad to include the thumb button on a transmission shift lever itself, i.e., the button can be considered a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from 'park' after the removal of the key. Therefore, assuming that steering is prevented after the removal of the key, the system you describe would come within the exception provided in S4.2.2(b)(1). Effective September 1, 1993, of course, such a device must also meet the requirements set forth in S4.2.2(b)(2) in order to come within this exception to S4.2.1. The system you describe would not fall within the exception at that time. The thumb button is not 'the key, as defined in S3.' In addition, the thumb button is not 'covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.' Therefore, based on the information you have provided, the system would not comply with S4.2.1 for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 16305.ztv

Mr. Vann H. Wilber
Director
Vehicle Safety & International Department
American Automobile Manufacturers Association
1401 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Re: Definition of Optical Axis of a Headlamp

Dear Mr. Wilber:

This is in reply to the letter of October 23, 1997, that you and Jeff Erion wrote pointing out a possible inconsistency in the interpretation we provided Steve Law on June 16, 1997, and "the conclusions of the Regulatory Negotiation (Reg Neg) on this subject." Mr. Law had asked whether certain marking configurations met the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1) of Standard No. 108.

In brief, we advised Mr. Law that markings at the center of each of the four sides of a rectangular headlamp were insufficient to denote the optical axis, which runs directly through the center of the headlamp at 90 degrees to the lens face. However, the final rule and its preamble are silent as to the type of mark that must denote the optical axis. You say that the Reg Neg Committee determined that "marks on the periphery of the lens which could be converged to the center of the lens" would be acceptable, and that Mr. Law's Option C meets this requirement.

The marks on Option C are located at the center of each of the four sides, oriented at 90 degrees from the side. If lines are drawn between opposing sides, they will converge at the center of the headlamp, at the optical axis. We agree that this is a sufficient indication of the optical axis to meet the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1), and that Mr. Law's Option C is acceptable. This reverses our opinion on Option C that we provided Mr. Law on June 16, 1997.

However, the marks on Option B, located on each side, are parallel to the side. This means that lines drawn between opposing sides will not necessarily intersect on the optical axis unless they are drawn from the center of each line, which is not marked. Option B thus remains unacceptable because lines cannot be converged to the center of the lens from any point on the marks located at the sides of the headlamp.

We are providing Mr. Law and Mr. Erion with a copy of this letter.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Steve Law
Jeff Erion
d.12/22/97
ref:108