ID: 86-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: H. Hakaya -- Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in response to your letter of June 21, 1985 requesting, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512, confidential treatment for your letter of that date and of the two attachments thereto.

Your request has been granted. NHTSA will treat your June 21, 1985 letter and the attachments confidentially. Pursuant to a January 22, 1986 telephone conversation between and Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, our letter to you regarding this matter will be made publicly available to the extent indicated on the copy which is enclosed. Also enclosed is a copy of this confidentiality determination, which indicates the extent to which it will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Kathleen DeMeter Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law

Dear

This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that a proposed mini-van, which would use a front-wheel-drive passenger car platform as its base, would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). The vehicle would have an airduct lying on top of the floor and running longitudinally rearward from the dash area between the two front seats and then turning outboard to enter the bottom of the 'B' pillar. While the top of the airduct would be above the level floor plane in the area between the front seats and immediately behind the front seats, it would not extend under the second or third seats, which would be removable. The floor would otherwise be flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

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 statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classification of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed mini-van would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).

Section 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.

With respect to the location of the airduct, it is necessary in order to come within section 523.5(a)(5) that the removal of seats creates a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. Since the airduct would not extend under the removable second or third seats, and since the floor is otherwise flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior, it is the agency's opinion that the vehicle would qualify as a light truck under section 523.5(a)(5).

This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed mini-van for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CPR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523. We have enclosed a copy of a letter dated December 1, 1983, which addresses some of the issues involved in making such classification.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (sec, e.g., 49 CFR Part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (in the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meet the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MVP is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into a MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan difference mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Originally Signed By

Frank Herndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-3.3

DATE: 08/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Honorable David Boren - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 28 1979

Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Weaver, regarding problems he is having with the automatic belt system on his Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, the belt system does not properly fit Mr. Weaver, and Volkswagen has stated it cannot lower the driver's seat to correct the problem because of Federal regulations.

Before getting into the details of this matter, I want to express my admiration for Mr. Weaver in his efforts to obtain the benefits of his safety belts. It is discouraging to hear that a person wishing to use his belts is unable to do so. However, I must stress that we have no authority to compel a manufacturer to alter a vehicle in a situation like this. The most we can do is attempt to clarify whether it is federal law or other factors that led to Volkswagen's reluctance to make the alterations desired by Mr. Weaver.

The discussion in the letter you received from Mr. Kenneth Adams, Volkswagen's Washington representative, needs some clarification. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger cars to be equipped with safety belts that adjust to fit drivers ranging in size from a 5th-percentile adult female (weighing about 102 pounds) to a 95th-percentile adult male (weighing about 215 pounds). Therefore, the regulation requires safety belts to fit at least 90 percent of the driving population. Of course, nothing prohibits manufacturers from designing their belts to fit 100 percent of the population, and the agency encourages manufacturers to do so. The standard is only a minimum requirement, allowing manufacturers some leeway because of unusual body sizes at either end of the spectrum.

Mr. Adams also stated in his letter to you that lowering the seat would change the performance characteristics of Volkswagen's belt system and would make it necessary "to begin the entire testing process for certification again." This statement too requires clarification. At the present time, Safety Standard No. 208 does not require safety belts as installed in motor vehicles to meet dynamic performance requirements. Dynamically testing safety belts would entail restraining a test dummy with a vehicle's safety belts and testing their performance by crashing the vehicle into a test barrier. In such testing, the position of the seat in relation to the belts would be important. However, the current requirements do not involve testing safety belts inside the vehicle. They require that the belts meet certain laboratory tests and that belts capable to passing those tests be installed in new vehicles.

Further, regardless of the type of performance standards involved, lowering the seat of a used vehicle could not raise any question about recertification. Certification relates to new vehicles exclusively. The only question which lowering the seat would lose under our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, would be whether lowering the seat would cause equipment installed pursuant to Federal safety standards to no longer be in compliance. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative safety equipment. If this prohibition is the concern of Mr. Adams of Volkswagen, perhaps he can clarify for your constituent how Volkswagen believes lowering the seat would violate that prohibition. Mr. Adams does not state that lowering the seat would preclude the belt system from adjusting to fit the range of people specified in the standard.

It may be that Volkswagen's reluctance to lower the seat stems from a concern about products liability. Lowering the seat could very well alter the performance of the Volkswagen automatic belt system.

In an effort to promote further clarification of Volkswagen's position, I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Adams. The only further thing I can do is suggest that Mr. Weaver contact Mr. Adams again and obtain his reaction to my letter. Perhaps we can then see what other alterations are available. I hope some adjustment can be made to accommodate Mr. Weaver.

Sincerely,

Joan Claybrook

Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence

cc: Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative Volkswagen of America, Inc. 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

August 2, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Enclosed are copies of a letter from a constituent concerning a problem he is experiencing with his new car seat belts and the corresponding answer from the government relations department of the car manufacturer.

As evidenced from the letter from the car manufacturer, the Federal Government requires that the car be equipped with seat belts that will fit more than 90% of the population. What is to be done for those other 10% who must try to cope with the regulations on seat belts, but do not want to do anything violative of the law and are unable to get any relief from the car manufacturer?

I would appreciate it if you could give me some information that would be helpful to Mr. Weaver. If you know of any special waiver to the regulations that can be granted on an individual basis such as this, it would be very helpful in assuring that Mr. Weaver is given full satisfaction while still obeying the regulations under which he must operate his car.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to give in this matter. Your full attention to this problem is respectfully requested.

Sincerely,

David L. Boren United States Senator

Enclosures

July 3, 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

Thank you for the inquiry from Mr. Thomas J. Weaver regarding the seat belt system in his Volkswagen 4-door Rabbit-L Diesel vehicle.

I have personally checked with our safety engineers regarding the possibility of modifying Mr. Weaver's seat belt system. The system in Mr. Weaver's Rabbit is 100 percent in compliance with Federal standards for occupant crash protection. In fact, it is the Federal government that requires our seat belts to fit more than 90 percent of the American population.

To comply with these Federal standards, Volkswagen employs an integrated passive belt system in the model that Mr. Weaver owns. The occupant is protected by a combination of design features in the car which include the belt itself, a kneebar, the wheel and a special type of seat. If we were to lower the seat, the performance characteristics of our belt system would change, and it would be necessary to begin the entire testing process for certification again.

Therefore, because of the requirements of Federal laws in this area, we are unable to recommend an adjustment in the height of the seat.

If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative

KRA:hk

025 N. Sherry Avenue Norman, Oklahoma 73069 21 April 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Dear Senator:

I recently purchased a Volkswagon 4-door Rabbit-L diesel automobile. The seat belts in the front seats are attached to the front doors so the seat belts "put themselves on" as the driver and front seat passenger enter the car. When I am driving the seat belt should come over my left shoulder. Instead it comes across my left arm. In an emergency situation where the seat belt mechanism became locked, this would severly restrict the use of my left arm in turning the steering wheel and could cause an accident.

Due to the large backlog of orders, I was not able to test drive this model car before purchase. Soon after delivery I notified the local dealer, Thunderbird Imports, of this problem and requested the front seats be lowered which would eliminate the problem. I was told the local dealer could not modify any of the safety system without the authorization of at least the regional office.

On 3 April 1979 I sent letters to the San Antonio Regional Office and the national headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, stating the problem and requesting that the front seats be lowered. On 19 April a representative from the San Antonio Regional Office, Jack Atwood, observed the situation but stated the car was made to specifications and no modifications could be made. The seat belts fit him properly--but he doesn't drive my car! Mr. Atwood passed the buck stating that only the U.S. Government could authorize changes to an approved automobile design. Today I recieved a letter from the San Antonio Regional Office confirming they would do nothing to correct this safety hazard.

Is there anything you can do have them lower the front seats of my car? I realize this is a lot of difficulty to make my car safer to drive. In their current position, I feel the seat belts are more likely to contribute to accidents and injury than to prevent them.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Weaver

Copy to: Thunderbird Imports

ID: nht87-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: JKJ Chevrolet

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert B. Dix, Jr. Fleet Manager JKJ Chevrolet Koons Plaza 2000 Chain Bridge Road Vienna, VA 2218O

Dear Mr. Dix:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning "aftermarket upfittings". You indicate that you intend to bid on Federal, State or County motor vehicle solicitations and it appears that a number of these solicitations contain specification s that would require "after market upfittings". You asked how our regulation would affect those "after market upfittings".

As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue these safety standards. NHTSA does not have authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to a manufacturer's motor vehicles of motor vehicle equipment. R ather, the Safety Act established a "self-certification" process, in which each manufacturer is responsible before certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

It is not clear from your letter whether "after market upfittings" means that you will be altering motor vehicles while they are still new, i.e., before they have been sold to a consumer for the first time or that you will be making modifications to used vehicles, i.e., ones that have been purchased already. The requirements applicable to the "after market upfittings" vary, depending on whether the alteration is performed before or after the vehicle has been sold to a consumer for the first time.

I will discuss first the requirements that would apply if you modify vehicles that are new. As modified, the vehicles must continue to comply with all applicable standards, since section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits the sale of any vehicle th at does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Further, the agency's certification requirements in Part 567 of the Code of Federal Regulations applies to any person who changes previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the weight ratings assigned to the vehicle are no longer valid. Such a person is considered an "alterer" for purposes of Part 567 (copy enclosed). The person performing the modifications set forth in your letter (installing a bench seat or adding auxiliary springs) would be considered an alterer, because seats and springs are not readily attachable components.

In this situation, 49 CFR 567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see S567.7(a));

(2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in SS567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see S567.7(b)): and

(3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certification.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Safety Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Non compliance Reports.

With respect to your first point, i.e., that you believe you should "(o)btain from the company doing the work a certification that the after market upfitting meets National Highway Safety Standards," the alterer is required to certify that the altered ne w vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

I am not sure that I understand your second point, i.e., that if a bench seat is installed in a cargo van, the van must have a side door that can be opened from the inside. If you are speaking of an obligation to make some modification to an existing sid e door, the door would be governed by Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention system (See 49 CFR 571.206). S4 of Standard 206 provides that the standard's requirements apply to "any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" and specifies different strength and lock requirements for different types of doors. The addition of a bench seat to what was formerly the cargo compartment would convert that compartment into one subject to S4. The safety standard does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative.

If your second point refers to an obligation to install a side door because you install a bench seat, that is not correct. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not impose an obligation that there be a side door in a van. With all of the precedin g statements, however, you should note that section 108(c) of the Safety Act provides that compliance with our standards does not exempt any person from any liability under common law. Accordingly, you may wish to consult with a private attorney regardin g any product liability concerns you may have about the operability of the door.

Your third point is that you believe that you must place "a decal, label, or some form of paperwork in the vehicle indicating the results of the upfitting." If the "after market upfittings" to which you refer are made to a new vehicle, S567.7 requires th e alterer to permanently affix to the vehicle a label setting forth the information specified in that section.

Having discussed the requirements applicable to new vehicles, I now turn to discussing those applicable to used vehicles. If the "after market upfittings" are modifications to used vehicles (in this case, vehicles sold and delivered to a public authority ), section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act applies. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, neither your dealership nor any company that is a repair business or manufacturer can alter legally any vehicle that complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when you receive it (as certified on the mo tor vehicle by the original manufacturer), in such a way that the vehicle no longer complies with the applicable safety standards.

If the vehicles in question are used vehicles at the time of their modification, the company performing the modifications is not required to provide a separate certification, as discussed in your points 1 and 3. Since you, as the dealer, may be held resp onsible under section 1081a)(2)(A) for any rendering inoperative by a company acting as your agent, you may wish to get written assurances from the modifier that it has made the modifications in a manner which will not take the vehicle out of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, that matter is left for your dealership and the modifier to resolve.

As an aid to helping you determine which standards may apply to the modified vehicles, I am enclosing a publication entitled "Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This pamphlet indicates which standards apply to which vehicle types. I also h ave enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again i f we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration Room 5219 400 - 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Erika:

We have made a management decision to bid on Federal, State and County motor vehicle solicitations. A number of these solicitations contain specifications that require after market upfittings, because the option is not available from production. In an ef fort to assure that we would be complying with existing regulations we contacted the Department of Transportation. We were referred to Jim Birtill and Steve Oesch and discussed the following items: Installing a bench seat in a cargo van, adding auxillary springs to vehicles and after market installations in general. The following is our interpretation of what we were told:

1. Obtain from the company doing the work a certification that

the after market upfitting meets National Highway Safety Standards.

2. If installing a bench seat in a vehicle and after complying with item 1 it must have a side door that can be opened from the inside.

3. Place a decal, label or some form of paperwork in the vehicle

indicating the results of the upfitting. Example: Installed a bench seat in a cargo van which changes the certification from truck to a multi-passenger vehicle.

We request that after reviewing our interpretation you inform us if we would be in compliance with existing National Highway Safety Regulations following the above steps.

We would appreciate you recommending any regulations that we should purchase and keep for reference material. Thank you for your assistance concerning this matter and await your response.

Sincerely yours,

Robert B. Dix, Jr. Fleet Manager

ID: nht89-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/89

FROM: DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: BRAKING DISTANCE TEST & LABORATORIES USED BY D.O.T.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/18/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS; A35; STANDARD 105

TEXT: We have been in contact with Dr. Carl Clark, Inventor Contact Code NRD-12 and George Parker, Compliance Testing, regarding our product i.e. Gyroscopic Wheel Cover and in doing so, Dr. Carl Clark suggested we request a letter from your department specific ally outlining the requirements of the braking test used and a list of the various testing facilities used by the D.O.T., when testing a product for this purpose.

In lieu of the D.O.T. actually testing our product, we are requesting a letter from your office stating the FMVSS (571.105) Stopping Distance Test guidelines and a list of laboratories acceptable by the D.O.T., that could be used to test our product.

Is this a Proper Example? - SAE J299 Stopping Distance Test

Our intention is to use these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document our product's tests results in compliance with the D.O.T. testing standards.

Please return a copy of the specific guidelines used for this kind of test and a list of the acceptable laboratories as soon as possible.

Thank you so much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Douglas Mayes, President CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

Encl: Brochure, introduction, VHS

CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

"THE GYROSCOPIC WHEEL COVERS"

Introduction

This unique product was invented by Mr. Kim Rush, of Anaheim, California. An extensive amount of research has been completed with various governmental and independent testing laboratories in order to substantiate several claims as to the positive effect s this product has on several performances of a vehicle. There are locking devices attached to keep the product from coming off or being stolen off the vehicle. There are several different designs or looks that can be manufactured into the facial appear ances of the wheel cover.

There has been extensive market studies completed on the number of new automobiles being manufactured, estimates on the number of vehicles already in service and operating in the U.S. and foreign countries, as well as some future market projections. Thi s number includes vehicles in fleet service, municipalities, cab companies, etc. In addition, a study or overview of competitive products marketed as a "gas saving device", and "devices that improve automobile highway safety", has been made.

Market Viability

It is important to note that any sales figures would just educated projections only and the potential results of any extensive marketing program is dependent upon a variety of external factors, such as:

* Consumer perceptions of the product

* Retail price

* The distribution structure

* Advertising strategies

* Competition

* Ability of the product to perform as promised

This kind of quality product by providing the safety features and handling enhancements that it does, should be important to everyone, including the government. As an added bonus, this product gives the consumer an actual investment payback on his or he r purchase within a very reasonable period of time in gas savings, extended tire wear, longer shocks and brake life and most importantly the safety benefits to family members and passengers when this unique product is installed on the family and/or busin ess car.

There are huge economic benefits to large fleet owners as well. When this product is used by a whole population of people, this product could have a substantial effect on helping us get through a gasoline shortage.

Product Description & Function

The Gyroscopic Wheel Cover model #1 is very similar in appearance to the conventional fancy spoke wheel covers currently being offered on a variety of expensive new domestic and imported automobiles in the after market. There are 13", 14" and 15" config urations and this unique product is designed to fit almost 95% of all wheels manufactured today. The steel spokes model is made from heavy 12 gauge metal and the spokes are cushion mounted at a 6 degree pitch. As the wheel rotates to a speed of 10-15 m iles per hour, the centrifugal force causes the spokes to flex in and expand, forming a disc.

The magnitude of the rotational force creates a gyroscopic effect which increases wheel stability, creates some 80 foot pounds of inertia or downward pressure at the kiss point of each tire, maximizing road contact, giving better transaction in rain and snow and greater road stability at all times.

The wheel cover can be manufactured in a variety of various type configurations and levels of ornamentation. A specific public demand for design and style can easily be met.

Situational Analysis

The U.S. consumer is at present time able to purchase gasoline at a reasonable price, but will this condition stay that way. Not according to some reports. The public is looking for more ways to save money and conserve energy. Starting in 1980, as you know, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued standards for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for U.S. automobile manufacturers, setting a minimum average fuel economy requirement based upon the manufacturer's total vehicle production. The aver age standard for 1990 is 26 mpg for car manufacturers. The net result forces the auto makers into building smaller cars, smaller engines in the efforts to develop fuel saving methods and whether we like it or not, exposing the buying public to some new dangers, by having less automobile or metal between you and all the other driving public. The next change is plastic engines.

European markets

The foreign car market is an exciting opportunity, especially when gasoline is priced around $ 2.30 per gallon in Europe, and when these users can add 16-20% annually to their fuel economy, that can amount to a lot of dollar savings, as well as energy sa vings. This product could be our part of the overall effort to conserve their energy resources.

Added Safety when using Product.

This product can improve your chances against having an accident in your car while these wheel covers are on your automobile. These wheel covers provide for quicker stops, better handling, less swaying in turns, better stability, lessens greatly the cha nce of hydroplaning in water and snow. We are presently in the process of contacting the insurance industry to try and obtain a auto insurance premium reduction when these wheel covers have been installed. Creative Products expects additional tests wil l have to be performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to substantiate our claims and be able to offer a possible discount. Braking tests prove that this product reduces the stopping distance for automobiles by as much as 10% or more at 55 mph. A set of wheel covers in providing better traction, better stopping and handling capabilities will give the consumer more control, thus less wrecks in all kinds of weather.

Market Opportunities

There are almost two hundred million automobiles in the U.S., or over 40% of the world's totals. Owners with new and used automobiles that need this product and would desire a set of these wheel covers for their car. The U.S. market alone for this prod uct today may exceed $ 10,000,000,000.00, the European market may be just as good with a higher percentage of users. Fleet owners, new car manufacturers would be very interested in this product for their cars, vans and trucks.

Product Costs and Savings At todays' prices, a set of nice wheel covers may cost $ 350.00 or more and they obviously do nothing more for your car than looks. Certainly nothing for saving gas, tire wear or safety. This product will be offered for sale to distributors around the world and the retail price will probably be in the range of $ 350-$ 400 for a set of four. Sizes come in 13", 14", or 15", this price range would not be out of line with the standard priced wheel covers for the more expensive automobiles.

The actual money saved by a consumer when using this product for instances could be if presently they are using; (1) 110 U.S. gallons/mo., (2) getting 18 mpg of gas on the average, (3) the price of gas is at $ 1.20 cost per gallon, (4) when driving 24,00 0 miles of annually, using this product will provide the owner with an annual savings of $ 200.00 or 16% of his total gas bill. Saving this amount of money annually is very attractive to the average consumer and when taking into the consideration the ad ditional benefit of an extended tire life, the consumer gets all of his or her money back in the first year.

CONCLUSION

Creative Products believes this wheel cover will provide several new safety advantages to anyone buying this product. You have to drive your car with a set of these wheel covers on to believe the difference it makes. With this product installed on any car, you will experience a whole new dimension of safety driving in all kinds of adverse weather.

gyroscopic wheel covers[trademark]

energy efficient . . . money saver . . . greater road safety

increase mileage

increase tire life

increase brake life

increase traction in snow

filmed tests indicate vehicle braking reduced by fifteen feet at 55 m.p.h

ID: nht73-1.47

DATE: 03/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 31, 1973, requesting several interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", as it applies to motor homes and campers.

We find the interpretations as to the use of item 3 glazing contained in your letter to be correct. Your interpretation of "levels not requisite for driving visibility" as meaning that other windows are available and more suited for driving visibility is reasonable, and acceptable for purposes of Standard No. 205.

We also find your interpretations on the use of items 4, 5, 8, and 9 glazing materials to be correct. We do not agree, however, with your suggestion of allowing items 5 and 9 glazing to be used in camper windows adjacent to the truck cab rear window without regard to driving visibility. We agree it is unlikely with respect to most vehicles that such windows will be requisite for driving visibility, and will accept a good-faith, reasonable judgment decision on the question by a camper manufacturer. Consequently we do not believe that the remaining "degree of uncertainty" will result in compliance problems for camper manufacturers.

Your conclusions regarding the application of items 6 and 7 glazing are correct. We do not agree, however, that it is necessary or desirable to use such materials in any forward-facing windows, including those adjacent to the rear window of the truck cab. We believe the possibility of impact into these windows precludes the safe use in them of these glazing items, and item 13 glazing as well.

Your conclusions regarding the application of item 12 and item 13 glazing are correct. We appreciate your pointing out the lack of continuity in subparagraph designations for items 6, 7, 8, and 9. This was unintentional on our part, and your conclusion that the added subparagraphs should be read as following immediately those existing, regardless of letter designation, is correct. Finally, you are correct in your conclusion that the amendments to Standard No. 205 should be seen as overriding the headings for the various glazing items in the ANS Z26 standard.

Yours truly,

January 31, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider--

Chief Counsel,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Larry:

This letter seeks your confirmation of our interpretation of certain aspects of Standard No. 205, as amended on June 21, 1972 and November 11, 1972, or your advice as to proper interpretation if we are incorrect.

The language of the cited amendments leaves as a qualification on the use of various item of glazing materials the phrase "at levels not requisite for driving visibility" or a similar qualification slightly varied depending upon the item of glazing involved. Insofar as we are aware, there has not been an interpretation of this qualification and we have had member inquiries on its application to certain windows of our units. Our subsequent comments will refer to the questionable items of glazing as they are listed in ANSI Z.26.

Item 3. Paragraph S5.1.1.5 of the November 11 amendment prescribes that motor homes, as multipurpose passenger vehicles, will be treated as trucks where not otherwise specifically provided for in the standard. Thus we conclude that:

(1) Item 3 cannot be usedfor windows to the immediate right or left of the driver of a motor home unless such windows are at levels not requisite for driving visibility which we would take to mean windows not required for visibility to the right and left of the driver because other windows are available and more suited for that purpose.

(2) The rear window of a motor home, where so equipped, may utilize Item 3 where it is not in fact used for or designed for driving visibility because of the impracticability for doing so and where outside side view mirrors are provided in accordance with Standard No. 111. In this connection, we have reference also to the opinion by Mr. Francis Armstrong of April 16, 1971, advising that rearview mirrors are not required in motor homes of configurations which obstruct the view to the rear to such an extent it could not meet the requirements of the Standard No. 111; and the interpretation incorporated with Standard No. 111.

Items 4, 5, 8, 9:

(a) These items cannot be usedin windshields or windows of motor homes to the immediate rigth or left of the driver.

(b) These items can be usedIn all other windows and doors of motor homes including over-the-cab forward-facing windows in those configurations which have space over the vehicle cab and a forward-facing window therein; and including those relatively few configurations where there may be a window in the motor home and/or a window in the cab just behind the driving compartment. Some few configurations may use a truck chassis and cab without a passageway directly from the driving compartment into the living quarters.

(c) These items can be used in all windows and doors of slide-in-campers and pickup covers, including any over-the-cab forward-facing window and any window in the slide-in-camper or pickup cover immediately behind the driving compartment.

In connection with both (b) and (c) above, we note that Items 5 and 9 carry the qualification of use only "at levels not requisite for driving visibility". Items 4 and 8 are not so limited. Over-the-cab forward-facing windows in motor homes, slide-in-campers and pickup covers (these units are unlikely to have such windows) clearly are not at levels requisite for driving visibility. Windows in the slide-in-camper or pickup cover just behind the driving compartment of the pickup truck on which such units are temporarily mounted are not generally used for driving visibility since pickup trucks customarily carry outside side-view mirrors to provide requisite rearview capability in the light of their property carrying function when used separately from a slide-in-camper or pickup cover. Although pickup trucks are not required by a current standard to have side-view mirrors, it seems appropriate and consistent with the actual practice to recognize that, in fact, they do and thus the windows described are not "requisite to driving visibility", rather than leave a degree of uncertainty on the part of the manufacturer of slide-in-campers and pickup covers as to whether Items 5 and 9 can be used in such windows.

The conclusion with respect to motor homes is predicated on the same reasoning as applied under Item 3 above. These conclusions also seem consistent with the opinion rendered to Mr. Robert T. Sanders on July 5, 1972 by Mr. Dyson.

Items 6 and 7:

These items cannot be usedin windshields, forward-facing windows (including over-the-cab forward-facing windows), and windows to the immediate right or left of the driver in motor homes; similarly, they cannot be usedin forward-facing windows, including over-the-cab forward-facing windows of slide-in-campers and pickup covers.

We note that Item 6 is not limited by the qualification that the locations not be requisite for driving visibility but Item 7 is so qualified. For the same practical reasons as set forth in regard to Items 4, 5, 8 and 9, above, we would conclude that the small windows in slide-in-campers, pickup covers, and a few configurations of motor homes just behind the driving compartment of the pickup truck can use Items 6 and 7, except for the fact they are "forward-facing" in the directional sense; neither item requires compliance with a test related to penetration resistance; and the cited opinion of July 5, 1972 by Mr. Dyson. RVI still feels that safety does not require penetration resistance characteristics in these behind-the-cab windows and requests your reconsideration as to whether such windows must be considered as "forward-facing" windows in connection with the possible use of Items 6 and 7 in such behind-the-cab windows.

Items 12 and 13, Rigid and Flexible Plastics:

Both of these items, as authorized by the amendment of June 21, 1972 contain the limitation of use only at "specific locations at levels not requisite to driving visibility". Based on the reasoning and opinions above cited, we conclude that:

(1) Item 12 can be usedin over-the-cab forward-facing windows of motor homes, slide-in-campers, and pickup covers, and in all such units in the windows behind the cabs of motor homes which have such configurations and behind the cabs of pickup trucks on which slide-in-campers and pickup covers are mounted.

(2) Item 13 cannot be usedin over-the cab forward-facing windows of such units including windows behind cabs. However, for the same reasons as expressed in connection with Items 6 and 7, we request your reconsideration as to whether such behind the cab windows must be considered "forward-facing" windows.

Other matters of interpretation:

(1) We note that, in the process of the amendment of November 1, 1972, subparagraphs "j" and "k" were added to Items 6, 7, 8 and 9 of ANSI - Z.26 although the subparagraphs in those items do not go beyond "(d)", "(c)", "(e)" and "(c)", respectively. We interpret the amendments as adding paragraphs falling immediately after the numbering of the appropriate subparagraph.

(2) We note that the headings in the same items are generally descriptive of other units than motor homes, slide-in-campers, and pickup covers. We interpret the amendments as overriding the headings and as controlling in the case of these recreational units.

Very truly yours,

David J. Humphreys --

RVI Washington Counsel

ID: nht75-2.47

DATE: 08/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: F. A. McNiel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On May 12, 1975, you petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to provide "A means that will hasten the illumination of a vehicles conventional stop warning lamps at any time that a 'panic' or any other exceptionally sudden stop is made, but wherein the said means will not affect the normal functioning of the vehicles lighting system at any other time."

We have given thoughtful consideration to your petition. It appears to us that the system you prefer would indicate only that the accelerator pedal had been released suddenly, and not that a sudden or "panic" stop was being made. In our view, a sudden release of the accelerator does not necessarily mean that a panic stop is in progress. Conversely, all sudden stops are not necessarily accompanied by a sudden release of the accelerator. In short, the presumed benefit of the system appears speculative, and no data have been submitted demonstrating that the signaling system would enhance highway safety. For these reasons your petition must be denied.

Standard No. 108 would not preclude the sale of your deceleration warning device in the aftermarket, subject to regulation by the individual States.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motor Vehicle Programs

Dear Mr. Carter:

The May 1, 1974 issue of 'Status Report' published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety contained an article stating that your agency had proposed amending Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to allow the use of (1) a vertically mounted rear facing red-yellow-green lamp system that signals braking, no pedal application, or acceleration. -- or (2) Pulsating rear lamps that indicate when the vehicle is decelerating rapidly. - The proposal would also allow for the use of a combination of both systems.

Apparently both of these systems require auxiliary lamps in addition to the vehicles existing stop-light signal lamps. I am petitioning that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 be further amended to include basically the following - "A means that will hasten the illumination of a vehicles conventional stop warning lamps at any time that a 'panic' or any other exceptionally sudden stop is made, but wherein the said means will not affect the normal functioning of the vehicles lighting system at any other time".

It has long been a universally recognized and accepted fact that the flash of a lead vehicles stop-lights signal a following driver that the lead vehicles momentum is being retarded, possibly to the extent of a complete stop. As everyone knows there has been no basic improvement in a vehicles stop warning system since the adoption of the brake operated stop-light switch. - You could obtain an 'add-on' stop-light kit for a Model-T more than fifty years ago that would function just as effectively as the conventional stop-light system that is now in use on all modern automobiles, - either one will illuminate a stop lamp the instant that the vehicles brakes are applied.

The warning that is produced by such conventional stop-light systems is adequate under the proceedure that is customarily used by most drivers in making a normal stop, but is woefully inadequate when a 'panic' or other unexpected sudden stop is made. The critical factor in this instance is the loss of time that occurs between the driver of a closely following vehicle seeing the flash of a lead vehicles stop-lights (at which time the lead vehicles brakes are already on), and the time that the following vehicles brakes are actually applied. This time loss is composed of two very distinct and separate parts, the first part being 'driver reaction' and the second part being 'warning lag'.

Driver reaction accounts for the time loss occuring between a driver perceiving the flash of a leading vehicles stop-lights and the complete release of the following vehicles accelerator pedal. This time interval varies in accord with a specific drivers mental alertness and physical agility. It is estimated that this time loss is at least one quarter of one second for an exceedingly alert driver, and considerably more for one that is less alert. There appears to be no discernable way by which this reaction time loss can be prevented.

Warning lag is the split second that is required for a driver to shift his (or her) foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal and apply pressure to energize the brake operated stop-light switch, and illuminate the vehicles stop-lights. This time interval also varies to some extent according to the agility of a particular driver. -- Extensive tests have been conducted, using electronic detonating equipment to gauge the results. These tests have established the fact that this time loss is also approximately one quarter of one second for agile drivers. - This time loss can positively be totally eliminated.

It is an accepted fact that the majority of rear-end collisions occur when one driver in a congested flow of traffic unexpectedly jams on the vehicles brakes without prior warning, to make a 'panic' or other very sudden stop, and the driver of a closely following vehicle does not have sufficient braking time to stop before ramming the vehicle ahead. - This is particularily true of 'chain-reaction' pileups where the 'warning lag' is cumulative from car to car.

Enclosed is an outline for a hypothetical traffic situation of a type that is typical of todays congested traffic conditions. The accompanying chart that is based on the conditions as set forth by the hypothetical situation illustrates precisely the results that would be obtained by the elimination of 'warning lag'. - I am also enclosing sketches and an explanation of a particular means that I have perfected, that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the possibility of eliminating 'warning lag' as emphasized by chart is a reality - not a 'pipe dream'.

I was informed by the National Highway Safety Bureau more than five years ago:- "The National Highway Safety Bureau is cognizant of the fact that rear end collisions account for 10 per cent of the fatal motor vehicle accidents and 49 per cent of all motor vehicle accidents". - In line with these statistics I pose the following analysis in accordance with the submitted data.

Assume that one half of all drivers that crash into a vehicle ahead see the flash of the lead vehicles stop-lights, and are on their own vehicles brakes at the time of the crash. - If the lead vehicles were all equipped with a means for the elimination of 'warning lag', this would mean that one eight of the drivers that are involved in all motor vehicle accidents would have been applying their brakes for an additional ten feet (at 30 M.P.H.) before becoming involved in an accident that would cause damage to two cars. - If this ten feet of braking did not prevent an accident occurring, it would in every instance greatly reduce the force of impact, and the resultant damages to both of the vehicles that were involved. - Thus, if the safety feature that I am advocating was standard equipment on all motor vehicles, it would greatly reduce the damages sustained by one fourth of all motor vehicles that are involved in motor vehicle accidents of any kind! - Stupendous? - but true.

If this reduced the rear-end collision fatality toll by one tenth, it would amount to the saving of one life out of every one hundred of the current traffic fatalities. - The reduction in personal injuries resulting from such accidents would be very considerable, and the monetary saving by the public would be collosal. - Also, it should permit the Insurance Companies to make a very substantial reduction in the cost of premiums that are charged the public for motor vehicle insurance.

Any vehicle that is damaged in a traffic accident is not any more valuable after it has been repaired than it was prior to the accident occurring - consequently, all expenditures that are required for both the labor and materials used for repair or replacement of vehicles that are damaged in accidents that could have been prevented are wholly wasted. - If these really enormous outlays were available for constructive purposes, it would help to bolster our sagging national economy.

In relation to the enclosed data concerning the particular means I have perfected, sketch No. 1 shows the general assembly of switch unit. Sketch No. 2 shows the unit mounted behind the instrument panel in passenger compartment of vehicle, and sketch No. 3 shows unit mounted under hood in the engine compartment of the vehicle. - Both methods of mounting as shown have been very thoroughly tested, and each has been found to function perfectly. The accompanying specifications are drawn around sketches No. 1 and No. 2. Sketch No. 3 shows some alternations in the assembly of the unit, but functioning is identical to that of sketch No. 2.

If your engineers will thoroughly check all of the submitted data they will find it to be totally correct. - Also, careful analyzation of this data will reveal that factory installation of this type of safety equipment would cost no more than does the installation of conventional turn signals.

In view of the unquestionable reduction in damages to both the vehicles and their occupants that would accrue from the use of safety equipment such as I am advocating, I request that your organization give due consideration to amending Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to include the use of such safety equipment for improving the performance of a motor vehicles existing stop warning lamps.

In the meantime, will you please inform me if the use of safety equipment such as is described by the enclosed data is permissible under the existing Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Yours very truly,

Fred A. McNiel

ID: aiam4525

"Dear Mr. Tokunaga: This letter responds to your inquiry in which yo ask a number of questions concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 124, Accelerator Control Systems. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you describe a new accelerator control system that operates through electrical rather than mechanical signals. You state that the moving components of this system are the accelerator pedal, stepping motor arm, linkage, and the throttle lever. When a driver depresses the accelerator pedal, a pedal sensor converts the displacement into a proportional electric signal. The signal goes through a control unit to a position switch, and then to a stepping motor. This stepping motor works to move the motor's arm and linkage, and they in turn work the throttle lever. Therefore, you say, the engine speed is controlled in proportion to the amount of accelerator pedal displacement. You further inform us that Isuzu already has distributed vehicles equipped with this system in Japan, and that the company would like to market this kind of vehicle in the United States. You present three questions and a diagram of the system components, and request an agency response. First, please be aware that in issuing this interpretation, NHTSA is neither approving, certifying, nor endorsing your new accelerator control system. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. However, based on the information you supplied in your letter, I have the following responses. Question I: In this vehicle, Isuzu considers the battery that drives the stepping motor to be one of the energy sources under S5.1, and the return springs (accelerator pedal and throttle lever return springs) the other sources. Is this interpretation correct? We do not have enough information to state whether the battery that drives the stepping motor, or the return springs would be considered energy sources under S5.1. Section S5.1 of Standard 124 requires, among other things, that there be a minimum of two energy sources capable of returning the throttle to idle whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force, or if there is a single severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. With respect to the battery, if all system elements are operating properly, then it would appear that removing the actuating force will cause the electrical circuit from accelerator pedal sensor to stepping motor to return the throttle to idle. On the other hand, if there is a failure caused by a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system between the pedal and the stepping motor, it is not clear to me whether the stepping motor will return to zero, and bring the throttle springs back to idle, or lock the arm and linkage in an 'open-throttle' position. Similarly, it is not clear to me that the accelerator pedal and throttle return springs are capable of returning the throttle to idle in the event of a failure caused by an ACS severance or disconnection. (While you include the throttle lever in your description of the accelerator control system, the agency considers it as part of the fuel metering device. However, as NHTSA explained in the preamble to 124, an energy source under the Standard may be attached to the fuel metering device. 37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972. ) Ordinarily, the agency would have no difficulty in finding that either of the throttle return springs is an energy source capable of returning the throttle to idle. But I cannot tell from your description and diagram whether a severance or disconnection in the electrical system would cause the throttle to lock in a position other than idle. I would make the same observation with respect to the accelerator pedal. I can not tell from the information you supplied what impact a severance or disconnection failure would have on the pedal. For example, it is not apparent whether some element in the electrical system senses a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system, so that a sensor transmits a signal to the appropriate energy sources that the throttle should return to idle. If the pedal and return springs can operate mechanically and in concert to return the throttle to idle in the event of a failure in the accelerator control system caused by a severance or disconnection, then together they may be an energy source under the Standard. Question 2a: Is a severance in electric wires in this system a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2? Isuzu considers negative because electric wires are not a moving part. A severance or disconnection of the electric wires in this system would be a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2 of Standard 124. Section S4.1 of Standard 124 defines a 'driver-operated accelerator control system' as 'all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.' You stated in your letter that, in this new system, when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, the mechanical displacement is converted into electrical signals. These electrical signals are transmitted by wires to a control unit that regulates engine speed in direct response to pressure on the accelerator pedal, again by means of wires that connect the control unit's electrical signal to the appropriate components. Thus, the control unit, all of the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make those connections are 'vehicle components ... that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.' Under S4.1, then, the control unit, the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make the connection are components of the driver-operated accelerator control system. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires that the throttle return to idle 'from any accelerator position or any speed...whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point.' Please note that this language does not limit the requirement to disconnections or severances of components that are moving parts. Thus, all severances or disconnections of any component of the accelerator control system are within the ambit of the standard. In this case, since the wires are a component of the accelerator control system, the throttle must return to idle whenever a wire is disconnected or severed. Question 2b: If a severance in electric wires were a severance or disconnection under S5.2, what about a short-circuiting that may result from such a severance? Does the Standard require that the throttle returns to the idle position even in such a condition? Yes. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position whenever any component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point, regardless of the other consequences of the disconnection or severance. In the case of this system, this language requires the throttle to return to idle when any wire is severed, even if the severance results in a short circuit. Question 2c: Our understanding is that a failure (other than severance or disconnection) of a system component itself (i.e. a failure in the accelerator pedal sensor with pedal position switches, control unit, throttle valve position switch, or stepping motor) is not subject to the throttle return requirement under the Standard. Is this correct? Your understanding is partially correct. Standard 124 addresses those circumstances where (1) the driver removes the opposing actuating force, and (2) a severance or disconnection in the ACS causes a failure. Therefore, you are correct that Standard 124 addresses only those failures resulting from a severance or disconnection within the system. However, for electrical systems, shorted or open circuits are the consequence of a change in one or more of the electrical components in the system. The agency would consider such a change a disconnection or severance in the context of this Standard. Question 3: It is our interpretation that the battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit are not a part of the accelerator control system under this definition. (That is, the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system.') Is this interpretation correct? No, your interpretation is incorrect. We have set out the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system' in section S4.1 above, in response to your Question 2a. With respect to your electrical accelerator control system, the electrical impulse that travels between the vehicle battery and the control unit is a direct consequence of the driver's applying an actuating force to the accelerator pedal. Given this aspect of your system's design, both the vehicle battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit fall within the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system.' I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 16907-1.pja

Mr. Jason Backs
VP Operations
CPS Trailers
Highway 77, P.O. Drawer K
Oran, MO 63771

Dear Mr. Backs:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the bottom dump trailer that your company manufactures with a large push block at the rear would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. As explained below, your trailer is not excluded but, assuming you are attaching an underride guard to the push block in the location that you drew on your diagram, your vehicle may already comply with our regulations.

Your letter attached a diagram of your bottom dump trailer. Attached to the rear and extending 25 inches behind the rear of the trailer is a push block, used by bulldozers to push the trailer out of soft ground at construction sites. Viewed from above, the push block shaped like a trapezoid with its long side attached to the trailer. It tapers to a width of 28 inches at its rear, which is 28 inches off the ground. Eleven inches forward of its rear a guard-shaped structure, which you refer to as the horizontal member of the push block, is attached to the bottom of the push block. The bottom of the guard-shaped structure is 19 3/4 inches above the ground. Based on a conversation with David Coleman of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,⁽¹⁾ you believe that the trailer is excluded from our regulations because it meets the definitions of two classes of excluded vehicles: the low chassis vehicle and the special purpose vehicle.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are low chassis vehicles and special purpose vehicles.

Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your vehicle that meets these configuration requirements is the guard-shaped structure attached to the underside of the push block⁽²⁾, so the question becomes whether this is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicles. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure."

To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. For most trailers that carry things, this means that the structure would have to contribute to providing underlying support for the cargo load when the trailer is in transit.

To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load.

Applying these principles to the horizontal member of your push block, we find that it is not part of the chassis. Although the push block and presumably also the guard-like structure are strongly attached to the chassis, they do not contribute to supporting cargo load. The push block itself is not part of the frame structure of the trailer, it is an attachment. Although you imply that the guard-like structure attached to the bottom of the push block is part of the push block, we consider it to be another attachment (to the push block). It does not define the outline of the trailer, but projects downward from an attachment to the rear of the chassis. Therefore, it is not part of the chassis, and the bottom dump trailer is not a low chassis vehicle.

We turn now to the question of whether the bottom dump trailer is excluded as a special purpose vehicle. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽³⁾ Again, the guard-like structure on the underside of the push block is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied be the rear underride guard. Therefore, it would have to be considered work-performing equipment for the trailer to be excluded.

There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971. Taken together, NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. The guard-like structure does not perform work in this sense. Its function is unclear. Even the push block does not perform work. Its function is to merely transmit the force of the bulldozer blade to the chassis of the trailer. Therefore, the guard like structure is not work-performing equipment, and the bottom dump trailer does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. An underride guard would have to be provided on this vehicle.

However, your bottom dump trailer may already comply with the rule. You made several correct observations in your letter regarding the determination of the rear and side extremities. The rear extremity is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as " the rearmost point on the vehicle . . ." (not the chassis). Therefore, it coincides with the rearmost point on the push block. The side extremity is defined in S4 as "the outermost point on the vehicle's side that is located . . . between a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle and a transverse vertical plane located 305 mm forward of that plane." Since your push block tapers toward the rear, the side extremity coincides with the outer edges of the push block in a transverse plane one foot forward of the rear extremity. The bottom of the guard-like device extends to the side extremities and the 21 inch ground clearance meets the vertical height requirements of S5.1.2. Assuming the face of the horizontal member of the guard-like structure is at least 100 mm high, as required by S5.1 of Standard No. 223, the guard-like structure would meet all the configuration requirements of an underride guard. If it can pass the strength and energy absorption requirements as well, the guard like structure itself could be labeled and certified as a guard under Standard No. 223.

If you have difficulty meeting these requirements, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:224
d.5/22/98

1. We note that the Chief Counsel's Office is the only office in the agency that can issue interpretations of our regulations.

2. The push block itself is too high to meet the maximum height requirement of S5.1.2.

3. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 1985-01.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 26, 1984, requesting several interpretations of Standard Nos. 201, 208, and 210. The answers to your questions raised in Attachments I, II, and III of your letter are discussed below.

In attachment I of your letter, you asked about the requirement of S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201. You were specifically concerned about the language which provides that the length of the armrest is to be measured vertically in side elevation. You provided a drawing of an armrest and asked if the length is to be measured as shown in section (dimension) b of your Figure 1.

The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that there is at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. For this requirement to be meaningful, the covered surface must be contactable by the vehicle occupant. The vehicle occupant would not contact the base of the arm rest illustrated in your drawing. Therefore, the measurement should be made at dimension a in section A-A or dimension c in section B-B as shown in your Figure 1.

On question one of Attachment II, you asked about the application of Standard Nos. 208 and 209 to a safety belt system you are developing to meet S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. The system consists of a two point automatic belt and a Type 1 manual safety belt. You asked which requirements of Standard No. 209 apply to such an automatic belt. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of August 7, 1981 to Volkswagen which explains the application of Standard No. 209 to an automatic belt.

In question two of Attachment II, you state that your vehicle will have four anchorages for each front outboard seating position (two anchorages for the automatic belt and two for the Type 1 seat belt assembly). You said that S4.4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages for Type 2 safety belts at each front outboard seating position and you asked what is meant by anchorages for a Type 2 belt. You also asked whether you must install any other anchorages at those positions in your vehicle.

Paragraph S.4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly to be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars. This is true regardless of whether the seating position is equipped with an air bag and a lap belt, with a single diagonal automatic belt or with any other system. Safety Standard No. 210 is independent of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. A Type 2 belt requires three anchorages (two for the lap portion of the belt and one for the upper torso restraint). The presence of the Type 2 anchorages in vehicles will allow vehicle owners to install easily Type 2 belts at their own initiative if they desire to do so for whatever reason. For example, if a single diagonal automatic belt system has been damaged, an owner may wish to replace it with a Type 2 manual belt system.

Under paragraph S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages for automatic belts are exempted from the location requirements of the standard. This exception was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs to determine the optimum anchorage locations in terms of both effectiveness and comfort (43 FR 53440, Nov. 16, 1978). If, however, the anchorage points for an automatic belt do not fall within the location specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, the manufacturer would have to provide additional anchorage points that could be used by a properly located Type 2 manual belt. Thus if your lap belt and upper torso anchorages fall within the location requirements for Type II belts, you would not have to provide any additional anchorages.

In question three of Attachment II, you asked what strength test applies to anchorages used with an automatic belt and to the manual lap belt used in your system. You illustrated the test procedures you plan to use in your Figure 3. As explained below, the procedure shown in Figure 3(1) is correct and the procedure shown in Figure 3(2) is partially correct.

The agency has stated in an interpretation letter of July 23, 1980 to Mazada that the anchorages for a single diagonal automatic belt should be tested with a 3,000-pound force for purposes of Standard No. 210, in accordance with the test procedures of paragraph S5.2. This is the same force that is required for testing the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt system. This force requirement is applicable whether the single diagonal automatic belt is used alone or whether it is used in conjunction with a manual lap belt. The anchorages for the manual lap belt, however, would be required to withstand test forces of 5,000 pounds under paragraph S4.2.1 for Standard No. 210. The anchorages for the manual lap belt and for the automatic belt must separately meet their respective force requirements and would not have to be tested simultaneously since they are separate systems.

In question one of the Attachment III, you requested the agency to clarify the words "fold" and "tumble" used in S7.4.6 of Standard No. 208. You stated your understanding that "fold" means to move the seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-a and "tumble" means to move both the seat cushion and seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-b. Your understanding of both words is correct.

In question two of Attachment III, you asked the meaning of the word "receptacle" as used in paragraph S7.4.6.2 of Standard No. 208. The word "receptacle" refers to the devices into which an occupant would insert the tang of a safety belt to fasten the belt.

I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

OCC 1578

Ref. No. 84-007 Date Nov. 26, 1984

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear sir,

Subject: Questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 201, 208 and 210

We, DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD., plan to export our vehicles to U.S.A. We have some questions to conform our vehicle to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We would like to ask you to answer the questions described in Attachment I, Attachment II and Attachment III.

Your earliest and kind response will be greatly appreciated.

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

Attachment I: Standard No. 201

The underlined part of the paragraph S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201 as follows is not clear at which section the armrest shall be measured vertically.

S3.5.1(c) "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area."

We understand it shall be measured at the section b shown in Fig. 1. If our understanding is wrong, please explain or illustrate in detail.

Fig. 1

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment II: Standard Nos. 208 and 210

We are developing an occupant protection system shown in Fig. 2. It consists of an automatic belt and optionally Type 1 seat belt assembly to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

Fig. 2

(Graphics omitted)

Question 1.

We understand that the paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208 means "An automatic belt furnished pursuant to S4.5.3 that is required to meet the perpendicular frontal (Illegible Word) protection requrements of S5.1 neet not conform to the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209." Then, shall the automatic belt conform only to S4.1.2.1 (including S5.1), S4.5.3.3(including S7.1) and S4.1.1 of Standard No. 208, and need not conform to any requirements of Standard No. 209?

Question 2.

Our vehicle with the automatic belt will have four anchorages for one front seating position (two anchorages for the automatic belt and two for the Type 1 seat belt assembly), and have no anchorages for a three-point manual seat belt assembly. Paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires that seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing outboad designated seating position in passenger cars. We cannot understand what the seat belt anchorages for the Type 2 seat belt assembly mean. Are the anchorages of the vehicle regarded as the anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt anchorages? To conform to Standard No. 210, shall the vehicle install any other anchorages?

Question 3.

We cannot find any requirements about the strength test of anchorages for an automatic belt. To conform to Standard No. 210, we will test the anchorages of the vehicle by the way shown in Fig. 3 according to the test procedures for the anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly described in Standard No. 210. If our test procedure is wrong, please explain it in detail.

Fig. 3

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment III

Question 1.

The difference of meanings between "fold" and "tumble" in the paragraph S7.4.6 of Standard No. 208 is not clear. We understand that the meaning of the word "fold" is to move the seat back forward shown in Fig. 4-a, and that the meaning of the word "tumble" is to move both the seat cushion and the seat back shown in Fig. 4-b. If our understanding is wrong, please explain the meanings.

Question 2.

We cannot understand the word "receptacle" in paragraph S7.4.6.2. So please explain what the phrase "the inboard receptacle end of a seat belt assembly" means.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht87-2.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director, Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Office of Commissioner Nashville, TN 37219-5335

This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking how our regulations apply to the refurbishment of used school buses. I would like to apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter, you explained that the Tennessee Department of Correc tions plans to use prison labor to "refurbish" used school buses. The refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. You are concerned that this undertaking might conflict in some way with our regulations applicable to school buses, and posed five specific questions as to how our regulations would apply to your planned refurbishment.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. gives this agency the authority to regulate the manufacture and sal e of new vehicles. Thus, all new school busses must be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to school buses. Additionally, the Safety Act prohibits commercial establishments, such as repair businesses or school bus dealers, from performing modifications to school buses after they have been sold, if those modifications cause the used bus no longer to comply with the safety standards. As a general rule, however, vehicle owners are not subject to this p rohibition, and are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the modified vehicle complies with the safety standards.

It is possible that a vehicle owner's modifications would be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle instead of just a modified vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified as complying with all applic able safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when a modified truck or school bus has been so substantially altered that it is considered a new vehicle, we have set forth specific criteria in 49 CFR @571-7(e) of our regulations. In past interpretations of our regulations, NHTSA has applied @571.7(e) to school buses that are assembled combining new and used components, because school buses are typically manufactured with a truck chassis. Under @571.7(e), a modified school bus or truck is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new an d at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.

I will now address your specific questions in the order they were presented:

1. Has NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of school buses?

Yes, we have. As explained above, we have set forth specific criteria to allow refurbishers to determine whether a refurbished school bus is a new bus, subject to all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, or a refur bished used bus.

Further, while we encourage effective school bus maintenance programs, we would be concerned if a refurbishment program has the effect of avoiding the replacement of obsolete school buses. The school bus safety standards do not apply to school buses that were manufactured before April 1, 1977. It is possible that a refurbishment program could be used to continuously recondition these old buses that do not comply with any school bus safety standards, and use them for pupil transportation. We believe that school buses complying with the Federal school bus standards are one of the safest means of transportation, and that school bus safety will improve as complying school buses replace older non-complying school buses. We certainly hope that school bus own ers will ensure that their fleets are replenished with complying school buses. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a Federal Register notice we published on September 23, 1985, (5O FR 38558 ), which denied a petition for rulemaking from the Blue Bird C ompany concerning the remanufacture of school buses. In this notice, we expressly encouraged school bus operators to consider voluntarily meeting Federal school bus safety standards when they refurbish their school buses.

2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer' s certification?

The original school bus manufacturer's certification means that the school bus as sold was manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification does not mean that a school bus continues to comply with the safety s tandards after it is sold, since that obviously depends on many factors beyond the manufacturer's control, such as maintenance, any accidents, any modifications, and so forth. Since the original manufacturer's certification is limited to the vehicle's co ndition at the time of sale, it cannot be "voided" by any subsequent actions of the vehicle owner.

If you were asking whether a refurbisher is required to make a separate certification in addition to the original manufacturer's certification, the answer depends on whether the refurbished school bus is considered "new" or simply refurbished, according to the criteria set forth in @571.7 (e). If the refurbished school bus is new according to those criteria, the refurbisher is required to certify that the school bus complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and affix its own certification label to the school bus. If the refurbished school bus is not considered new, the refurbisher is not required to affix another certification label. Instead, the refurbisher simply allows the original manufacturer's certificati on label to remain on the school bus.

3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to recertify all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?

The answer to this question depends on whether the refurbished buses are considered new under @571.7(e). If the buses are not new according to those criteria, no additional certification is necessary as explained above. However, the specification sheet f or the refurbishment that has enclosed with your letter indicates that the refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. Every school bus that is equipped with a new engine or dr ive axle would be considered a new school bus, according to @571.7 (e). Additionally, each school bus on which the engine, transmission, and/or rear axle are replaced with used components will be considered a new school bus, unless two of those three com ponents came from the same vehicle. If your refurbishing constituted the manufacture of a new vehicle, the State of Tennessee would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles.

As explained above, each refurbished school bus that is new, according to the criteria of @571.7(e), must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. However, the manufacturer d oes not make any certification directly to the agency. Instead, the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to furnish a certification with the vehicle. We have promulgated a regulation that sets forth how each vehicle must be certified as complying which t he Safety Act (49 CFR Part 567: copy enclosed). As you will see, this regulation requires that the manufacturer permanently affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed for your information an information sheet that describes generally the responsibilities of manufacturers of new motor vehicles.

4. Is the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTSA standards?

As explained above, the refurbishment program is permitted, provided that it complies with the applicable requirements.

5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by the Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?

If the State of Tennessee engages in operations during school bus refurbishing that make it a manufacturer of new vehicles, according to @571.7 (e) , the State would be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Safety Act itself and this ag ency's regulations issued pursuant to the Safety Act. The State would also be responsible for remedying any vehicles that either do not comply with applicable safety standards or that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not provi de advice on the State's potential liability under State law for manufacturing and refurbishing school buses. Therefore, you might wish to consult an attorney familiar with Tennessee law for information on these matters.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions on this program.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Diane Steed NHTSA - U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed,

The Tennessee Department of Correction is planning to construct a refurbishment facility that will be relying on prison labor to supply the work force required to keep it operable. We have no problem with their wanting to keep inmates busy but we are som ewhat concerned about their intent to keep them busy by working on our older school buses, especially when such may be in conflict with certain standards in your agency.

Your prompt response to the following questions will be appreciated. 1. Has the NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of school buses?

2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer's certification?

3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to re-certify all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?

4. Id the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTSA standards?

5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by the Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?

Thank you for any assistance you may provide.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer, Director Pupil Transportation

EF/lr

Enclosures omitted (Specification sheet for refurbishment.)