ID: nht92-2.47

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JULIA WALL -- HEAD OF SCHOOL, THE TRINITY SCHOOL OF TEXAS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09-01-92 (EST.) FROM JULIA WALL TO D.O.T. (OCC 7738)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to the Department of Transportation seeking a copy of the federal law regulating student transportation in general, and as it specifically relates to multiple passenger vans. I assume that your use of the term multiple passenger vans refers to vans with seats to the rear of the driver.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, passenger vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes passenger vans which carry ten persons or less; passenger vans which carry more than ten persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. A copy of Guideline 17 is enclosed.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Texas law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.48

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: G. THOMAS OWENS -- SENIOR ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVE, AETNA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-9-92 FROM G. THOMAS OWENS TO OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 7764)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards. Specifically, you requested a book or pamphlet containing the requested information.

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National "Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to promulgate Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. In 1974 Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which, by amending section 121 of the Safety Act, directed the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, applicable to all school buses. Those standards became effective on April 1, 1977 and are included, along with the rest of the agency's safety standards, in 49 CFR Part 571.

The Safety Act defines a school bus as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA further defines a school bus as a motor vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more persons, including the driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR 571.3.

It is a violation of Federal law for any person knowingly to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. On the other hand, once a vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, it may be used to transport school children without violating Federal law, even though it may not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. That is because individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. Therefore, to ascertain whether one may use noncomplying vehicles to transport school children, one must look to state law. It is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children.

Please find enclosed a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Specifically, the following standards include requirements for school buses:

Standards 101 through 104;

Standards 105 (school buses with hydraulic brakes)

Standards 106 through 108; Standards 111 through 113;

Standard 115;

Standard 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brakes);

Standards 119 and 120;

Standard 121 (school buses with air brakes);

Standard 124;

Standard 131 (effective September 1, 1992);

Standards 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 205;

Standards 207 through 210;

Standard 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 217;

Standard 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 220;

Standard 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds);

Standard 222;

Standards 301 and 302.

Some of the above-listed standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, such as Standards 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard 131 was promulgated on May 3, 1991 and may be found at 56 Federal Register 20370. It requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992, to be equipped with stop signal arms. Standard 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard 221 establishes strength requirements for school bus body panel joints. Standard 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants of school buses. Under the provisions of Standard 222, small school buses, that is those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must be equipped with lap belts. For large school buses, those with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through "compartmentalization," a concept which calls for strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats.

Should you wish copies of our safety standards, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet prepared by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.49

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: LEO WENSTRUP -- MANAGER - TECHNICAL SERVICES, EATON CORPORATION AXLE & BRAKE DIVISION

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: J. DOAN; B. PICKORNIK; B. WALTER

TITLE: BRAKE DYNAMOMETER CERTIFICATION TESTING

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-29-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO LEO WENSTRUP (A40; STD, 121)

TEXT: To Whom It may Concern,

Our company has been requested by a customer who uses our brake products in a City refuse fleet to pursue alternative lining materials. The reason for their request is the current lining formulation is very aggressive and prone to noise. This lining was chosen based on standard dynamometer certification testing as required by Section S5.4 and S6.2 of FMVSS-121 to a GAWR and rolling radius in excess of this fleets vehicle specifications.

It was decided to conduct certification testing to the exact vehicle specifications to optimize the brake performance for this customer. In reviewing the vehicles specifications, it was noted the maximum vehicle speed is governed to 45 MPH. This is below the initial speed of the fade portion of the FMVSS-121 dynamometer certification protocol in section S5.4.2.

At what speed should the fade portion of this certification be conducted in light of the fact the vehicle is incapable of meeting the test conditions?

I thank you in advance for your office's review of this enquiry and a timely response.

ID: nht92-2.5

DATE: 11/25/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: M. FRANCES PARTON

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-7-92 FROM M. FRANCES PARTON TO JACK RICE (OCC 7913)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 7, 1992, requesting information on whether a 1992 van can be modified by installing swivel bases on the seats so that you can transfer from the seat to a wheelchair. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat you want modified is a front or a rear seat. As explained below, there is no federal requirement that expressly prohibits installing a swivel base on a seat, provided that the seats and belts continue to comply with the applicable safety standards.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that modifies a van for you along the lines described in your letter after you have purchased the van would be subject to the requirement of the Safety Act (at 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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.

Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design installed in the van in compliance with applicable safety standards, this section prohibits any of the named commercial entities from making any modification or repair to the seats and/or their accompanying safety belts if such modification or repair would cause the vehicle no longer to comply with an applicable safety standard.

Adding a swivel base to a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. 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. Based upon the information in your letter, it appears that the vehicle you wish to have modified would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) for purposes of NHTSA's regulations. Standard No. 208 requires an MPV to provide occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. Standard No. 208 also requires an MPV to have a lap/shoulder belt at every rear outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other rear seating position. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages.

As you can see, with the exception discussed below, there is nothing in Federal law that prohibits persons from adding a swivel base to a seat. Instead, Federal law requires that modifications to a van that include adding a swivel base to a seat be done in such a way that the seats and safety belts continue to provide the safety protection mandated by the safety standards.

With respect to Standard No. 208's requirements for front seats, NHTSA has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from van converters and individuals, suggesting that the crash testing requirement for front seats in MPVs will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency has also received a petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requesting an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, the agency granted the RVIA petition. On August 5, 1992, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the requirements of Standard No. 208 to give manufacturers of certain light trucks and vans the option of installing non-dynamically tested manual safety belts instead of complying with the dynamic testing requirements. However, the agency is aware that you and others who need to purchase a new vehicle need more immediate relief than a rulemaking can offer. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the agency has stated that it will not conduct any dynamic testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. If you need to have the swivel base added to a front seat, this should allow you to find a converter to make this modification while this decision is pending.

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

ID: nht92-2.50

DATE: 11/01/92 EST

FROM: Guy Boudreault

TO: U.S. Dept. of Transportation; U.S. Senate Committee on Science, Commerce & Transportation; U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; National Transportation Safety Board; U.S. Office of Motor Carriers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/13/93 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Guy Boudreault (A40; Std. 105; Std. 121)

TEXT:

unfortunately, I am compelled to send you a copy of a letter sent by me to Mr. Wayne Mc Neil, the safety department head at Sunbury Transport Limited, in regard to the obligations imposed upon the drivers and asking him to act in reference to these present conditions.

I would appreciate your cooperation in regards to general rules applied within the United States relevent to the said letter. I sincerely think that safety on the roads are of major interest to you and therefore I consider it my duty to inform you as to the conditions imposed, although never expressed in writing.

I have confidence that Mr. Mc Neil will do his outmost to rectify the situation, nevertheless, I consider it my duty to report to you in order to get the whole story as to the application of the laws, for often have I seen drivers that I have worked with be charged in different accident cases causing death.

Thanking your for your cooperation in this matter, I remain respectfuly yours,

DATE

Subsequent to writing the following document, I did not send it immediately for I wanted to be sure that this document would be taken seriously considering that I am not very much educated and that many mistakes can be found in spelling as well as a lack of vocabulary to express myself reasonably well. However, I was rather encouraged to send it when the personnel company for which I work decided to give me a lay-off for lack of work. It also asked that I not send the present document for if I did, it would hurt the transportation industry. I do not believe for a minute that this would happen, but I do beleive that it might help other drivers to get better conditions in the future and thus have decided to go forward with this mailing and also have decided to walk away from driving as a proffession like many more before me. It is in my view a shame that company needs have become such important that workers' rights are diminished to the point of endangering public lives for the profit of too often subsidised companies who pride themselves in total disregard for their workers as well as the general public.

I have included a list of my calculations which can be revised at your will and have come up with the the following balance owing from the company to me. The personnel agency, has given me a part of this balance owing but has not as yet collected from the transport company and will definitely not collect all of the

amount for already, a member of the dispatching staff has refused to pay some time period claimed saying that my instructions were to go home on a certain day when in fact, he did not know that I was to wait for over eighteen (18) hours.

I finish my letter by asking that road transportation be looked into thouroughly and that logbooks be compared with payroll or tripsheets so as to find the real facts behind what every driver calls "SWINDLE SHEETS". May I add that in the last twenty-four years, my logbooks have been checked but four times, from where I seriously believe that encouragement to ignore laws is thereby given.

Respectfully yours, GUY BOUDREAULT

ILE PERROT, le 18 Octobre, 1992

Sunbury Transport Ltd Mr. Wayne McNeil P.O. Box 905 Station "A" Fredericton, N.B. E3B 5B4

Mr. McNeil,

I hereby wish to inform you of my agravated state of mind in relation with work at your employ. Of course you will understand that I realy mean employment Sunbury Transport" contracted by "A & F Personell of Montreal, Montreal, driving at leased "Renteway" tractor and pulling either leased "Caravan" trailers or "Sunbury" trailers.

I thought this situation seems to be of the most complexe category, the fact remains that "Sunbury" transport is where I get (direct orders) as to the manner in which I must perform my duties and therefore, I firmly believe that I should direct my questions, worries and suggestions to you since you are the at the helm of the safety department for transport division. Many anomalies have conflicted with the terms of my employment in comparison to the first interview I have had with you in May 1992. As I describe the discrepencies I have found, I hope that you will understand as well as appreciate my present frustations.

I was lead to believe that "Sunbury Transport insisted to our driving legaly in all aspects of the law and that we must under no circumstance drive overlog, use two log books or the use of other means for bypassing any Canadian or U.S. laws. I was also promissed by you personally that we would be allowed plenty of time for deliveries, however this is definitely not the feeling I have gotten since I first started driving at your service on June 25th, 1992. I also was promised an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. I have kept my end of the deal, but somehow I have difficulty in understanding the payroll. I have therefore tabulated my log book trips as well as my paychecks and at this point I cannot yet see the equilibrium between the two. I have mentioned before that as human beings, we needed time for meals, for showers, for shaving

and sleep. It is my finding that the aforementioned have been ignored and that the appointments are taken with customers much too soon giving us no time our basic personal needs. On this subject may I suggest that (E T A)s (estimated time of arrival) be annulled. In my experience, only airlines have such ETAs' and in many cases they are delayed although they do not have to deal with scales, police, DOT checks, speed limits, school buses, school zones, stop signs, traffic lights, heavy traffic and road construction. It is also my understanding that we are paid by the shortest practical way from point A to point B and calculated schedules of delivery are at an average speed of 50 mph. or 80 km/h. while these shortest practical routings are often limited to 25, 35, and 45 mph. Please, let me know how we actually make the scheduled time of delivery within the allowed time, for after spending 24 years driving a commercial vehicle, I still donot acheive such performances. Please consider equally as important the fact that for a driver to be getting two days off every fifth or sixth week while he is working a minimum of twelve hours per day awaiting these precious days off. A driver cannot be alert, competant and comfortable in his performances under such conditions. We have to realise that we weigh 40 tons and that we are loaded to the limit most of the time and also that sometime we have to run on low fuel in order to respect the weight limit laws. In restrospect, I firmly disaprove of these working conditions and strongly suggest that some improvement be implemented, where appointments are concerned. I myself wish to advise you that I shall no longer consider the times of appointments for delevery unless reasonable time is granted to do so in consideration of the forementioned personal needs.

Mr. McNeil please consider the following duties we must perform and that for wich is paid or unpaid or benevolant.

Paid Benevolant 28/practical mile run a) Fulling tractor delivry time after 2 1/2 hrs b ) 2 1/2 per client(loading) at customer c) Calling dispatch(average 2 hrs/day) d) customer clearance e) 2 1/2 hrs per client(unloading) f) waiting for load g) paperwork

In resume on this point,I usually am at work for 16 hrs a day while being paid for miles only wich adds to my frsutations when I calculate my meal expenses etc which does not permit me to at least drive without worring about my rent and other utilities usually late paid.

Another point brought to my attention is the fact that you now want us to adjust the brakes on trailers. So I was told on October 14th, 1992 when I asked a dispatches for a P.O. for brake adjustments on trailer # 4403 and was asked to buy a 9/16" key so as to do it myself. It would be easier if I was informed asto its legality in the United States where we do most of our driving. I already know that in some Canadian provinces, it isn't legal and even if it is, brakes are too important considering the weight we carry for me to take that responsibility.

In reference to responsibility, I think it should be understood that I cannot perceive your way of thinking when people don't earn enough to make a decent living have to accept responsibility so costly that an important and prosperous international conglomerate such as the "Irving Group" would not think of being liable for such responsibilities from where the use of leased trucks trailers and Personal Agencies are hired. If a mishap should happen, and they do, the driver is sent to judgement as alone and as easily as old time Christians were sent to the Arena and fed to the lions. This has proven to be the case before in the trucking industry and it is the main reason for my intervention in this situation. It has to change in order for professional drivers to be reinstated in the industry as responsible and respected as professionals and not regarded as happy go lucky Bozos endangering public lives. I have spoken to many drivers and they were saying that alternatives to legalities needed to be used in order to make it and these alternatives ranged from a multitude of logbooks to electrical speedometers that shut off with ignition thus permitting to improve miles driven and comsequently payroll. This is not my way of operating and therefore I insist that the present conditions be revised so as to improve the safety on the roads, not only for us drivers, but for the population in general. It is your duty to improve these conditions as it is mine to report them.

Thanking you for your cooperation in this matter and hoping to hear from you very soon, I remain

respectfuly yours,

GUY BOUDREAULT - 9020

P.S.: Enclosed, you will find :

a) logbook sheets b) trip sheets c) pay slips d) payroll breakdown e) Sunbury "Memorandum" f) today's trucking exherps g) Copies of presentation to all organisms concerned.

ID: nht92-2.6

DATE: 11/25/92

FROM: PHILIP E. STERN -- ATTORNEY FOR THE SUSSEX WANTAGE REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, RAND, ALGEIER, TOSTI AND WOODRUFF, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA

COPYEE: DR. DIBENEDETTO

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-28-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO PHILIP E. STERN (A40; STD. 221)

TEXT: Please be advised that I am the attorney for the Sussex Wantage Board of Education, a school district in Northern New Jersey. The School Board is interested in placing video cameras on school buses in order to promote safety. In order to best serve the interests of my client, kindly forward to my attention any information you may have on the issue of video cameras on school buses.

I am particularly interested in speaking with any other school districts that may use video cameras on their school buses. Thank you in advance for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht92-2.7

DATE: 11/24/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: LAWRENCE A. BEYER -- ESQ.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-22-92 FROM LAWRENCE A. BEYER TO Z. TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 7813)

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of September 22, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with reference to your request to become a Registered Importer ("RI"). We interpret your letter as seeking an opinion on your eligibility to submit an application to become an RI under 49 CFR 592.

Because of your representation of RIs, you are familiar with the record keeping mechanisms and other regulatory requirements of this agency. Your intent is to perform modifications on those Canadian vehicles which require only minor modifications, and you have a 3-car garage, tools including pneumatics, and storage space. You would have in your employ several people qualified to perform the modifications requires. You are aware that, in prmmulgating Part 592, NHTSA specificaly rejected a proposal to allow RIs to designate agents to perform conformance work, thus you would not accept vehicles requiring major modifications, but would refer those to the other RIs.

Section 592.5 sets forth the requirements for registration as an RI. According to paragraph 592.5(a), "any person" may file an application. An application must contain the information specified by the subparagraphs of paragraph (a). We note no restrictions upon who is eligible to apply for RI status. We therefore see no legal impediment to your submitting an application under section 592.5.

The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) has the authority to grant or deny applications for RI status. Your application must, therefore, contain arguments sufficient to convince OVSC of your ability to perform the limited modifications that you contemplate. We advise you, therefore, to set out with specificity in your application the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which you have the capability to conform vehicles, and the standards for which you have not.

We would like to make clear that, in the event a vehicle requires major modifications, our regulations would not allow you to bring the vehicle into partial conformance before transfering the vehicle to another RI for to complete the conformance process. An RI must certify the conformance work to NHTSA, and paragraph 592.6(e) requires the RI's certification to state that "it is the person legally responsible for bringing the vehicle into conformity." We interpret that as meaning that the certifier itself performed all the conformance work and did not resort to an agent.

ID: nht92-2.8

DATE: 11/24/92

FROM: SHAFI J. KEISLER -- PRESIDENT, ONE MORE RUN, INC.

TO: PAUL J. RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: REPLACEMENT TAIL LIGHT LENS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO SHAFI J. KEISLER (STD. 108)

TEXT: My company is pursuing the manufacture of a licensed replacement tail light lens for the 1966-7 Dodge Charger. Per my conversation with Mr. Vinson today, I am formally requesting all safety standards information pertinent to the manufacture of this replacement lens. Please note that we are manufacturing the lens only (with reflex reflector) and not the entire lamp assembly. We will use only current DOT and SAE approved material to build this item. It is our goal to build this lens to meet and exceed all safety standards.

Please send your formal reply to the address at the top of this letter. Thank you in advance for your help.

ID: nht92-2.9

DATE: 11/24/92

FROM: JAY C. TOWNLEY -- VT JAY TOWNLEY & ASSOCIATES

TO: PAUL J. RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION USA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION CONCERNING CLASSIFICATION OF PEDAL ASSISTED BICYCLE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-16-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO J. C. TOWNLEY (A40; PART 571)

TEXT: NOTE: This entire submission is Business Confidential.

I am a consultant working in the international bicycle industry, and I am making this request for an Advisory Opinion on behalf of my Client, Yamaha Motor Corporation USA.

Enclosed as Exhibit I you will find photographs of three (3) prototype Pedal Assisted Bicycles. The first prototype is a shaft drive Commuter, or City Bicycle. The second is a shaft drive All Terrain Bicycle, and the third is a chain drive All Terrain Bicycle.

The Product Definition we are using for marketing plan development is:

A bicycle equipped with a battery powered pedal assist system that engages when the system senses "kicking" torque between 5 Kg and 50 Kg, such as when the bicycle is starting from a stop, or climbing hills.

Exhibit II is the Pedal Assisted Bicycle System Abstract and a diagram explaining the system as installed in the second, shaft drive All Terrain Bicycle prototype pictured in Exhibit I.

You will note that the electric motor power output is in proportion to the torque input signal. Also, the system is designed to disengage when:

Speed is less than 1.24 MPH (2 Km/h), or more than 15.0 MPH (24 Km/h).

Torque at the pedals is less than 11 lbs (5 Kg), or more than 110 lbs (50 Kg).

The braking system is activated.

Accordingly, the pedal assist feature is intended to provide quicker and therefore safer standing starts in traffic, take the extra effort out of climbing hills, and keep up the pace when a rider becomes fatigued while commuting, running an errand or exercising.

The pedal assist feature cannot be engaged unless the bicycle rider is actively pedaling, and it will "assist" the rider only in direct proportion to the torque the rider inputs to the pedals.

Based on all of the above, we believe that the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle does not fall within the current definitions of "Motor Vehicle", "Motor Cycle" or "Motor-Driven Cycle".

FORMAL REQUEST

1. We request an advisory opinion that the Yahama Pedal Assisted Bicycle is not a "motor vehicle", or "motor driven cycle" within the meaning of the Safety Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. Should you be of the opinion that such product is a "motor vehicle" we would like to explore the possibilities to obtain appropriate exemptions from the potentially applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

2. We additionally request a meeting with you and your staff to review and demonstrate the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle at the earliest possible date.

ID: nht92-3.1

DATE: October 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Spencer A. Darby -- Vice President, Engineering, Sate-lite Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/17/92 from Spencer A. Darby to Legal Counsel - FMVSS 125, NHTSA (OCC-7675)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a warning device would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR S571.125). You were specifically concerned about the implications of adding a battery operated flashing light to a warning device that otherwise complies with the Standard. You stated that placing flashing lights between the reflex reflectors would enhance the device's conspicuity at night. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our require- ments to you.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act 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 new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

As your letter states, Standard No. 125 applies to "devices, without self- contained energy sources that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (emphasis added; see section S3) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that the phrase "self-contained energy sources" includes such things as battery powered lights. Accordingly, a warning device to which a battery operated flashing light was added would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

You also asked whether a vehicle required to have three "125 warning triangles" would be required to have three non-lighted complying triangles set out as well. Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate the use of warning devices. I am forwarding your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate some motor vehicle

operators and vehicle operations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.