ID: nht80-3.44

DATE: 08/29/80

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Aston Martin Lagonda (1975) Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have in hand your letter of July 31, 1980, and regret to inform you that the vehicle identification number (VIN) scheme which you propose is apparently not in compliance with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.

S4.5.2 and Table 1 of Standard No. 115 provide that the following information shall be decipherable from the five characters comprising the second section of the VIN for passenger cars: Line, Series, Body Type, Engine Type, Restraint System Type. A review of your Engineering Instructions and the accompanying drawings do not provide information concerning either the engine type or the restraint system type. Likewise, it is not clear whether your model designation is more appropriately characterized as line and/or series.

If the information omitted remains constant throughout a particular model, it will only be necessary for you to so state when deciphering your model code. For example, the following would be permissible:

Position 5 and 6: "V8" means V8 Volante model LHD, seat belt manual restraint system, V-8 engine with a displacement of 5.3 liters/326 cubic inches, a compression ratio of 8.3 and a net brake horsepower of .

We would also call to your attention that gross vehicle weight class is not required to be encoded in the VIN, although you are free to do so if you so choose.

Amongst the material furnished to the agency were drawings indicating the location of your confidential chassis identification number. As these are not required to be forwarded to the agency, I have taken the liberty of destroying them.

SINCERELY,

ENCLS.

ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA (1975) LIMITED

Frederic Schwartz Officer of the Chief Counsel, N.T.S.A.,

JULY 31, 1980

Dear Mr. Schwartz,

Vehicle Identification Numbering (17 characters)

Please find enclosed details upon which the Aston Martin Lagonda (1975) Ltd.

company has based its vehicle identification number (VIN) system, to be introduced with our 1981 model year cars.

The following documents have been enclosed to help clarify and explain the construction of the VIN system in detail:

(a) Construction drawings B97-16204/5/6 apply to Aston Martin V8 Saloon, Volante and Vantage (LHD) models respectively, B97-16224 applies to the Lagonda (LHD) (not currently certified in USA).

(b) Engineering Instruction number 205 gives a detailed explanation of the VIN construction. Engineering Instructions are sent to various departments within the Aston Martin organization and act as a reference and guide upon which work is carried out.

(c) Drawings A97-16226 and A97-16544 show the VIN plate designs and locations on the vehicle. The VIN is also stamped on the chassis member in characters with a minimum height of 7 mm (0.28 inches), Figures 1 and 2 in Engineering Instruction 205 show the location.

We have not sent details of our VIN system to anyone else, therefore we would appreciate your forwarding this letter and its contents to the relevant U.S. department, or advising accordingly.

KINDEST REGARDS,

R. Goldsmith Certification Engineer Safety and Emissions Department

ENGINEERING INSTRUCTION no. 205

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Systems

1. INTRODUCTION

AML will soon be operating two distinct Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) systems, one system applying to cars sold to U.S.A. and Canada and the other system applying to cars sold elsewhere in the world.

2. U.S.A. AND CANADA VIN SYSTEM (NHTSA)

1981 and subsequent model year cars sold to U.S.A. and Canada are required to have a 17 (seventeen) character vehicle identification number assigned. This means a series of arabic numbers and roman letters assigned to each motor vehicle for identification purposes and shall be sans sarif type face with a minimum height of 4 mm.

The VIN shall appear clearly and indelibly (i.e. stamped) on:

(a) the vehicle certification label (i.e. the brass plate, part number A97-13074, fixed to left hand 'B' post), and

(b) the VIN label part number A97-16226 and fixed in the same manner and position as the superceded label, part number 071-50-0160, on the dashboard.

2.1 VIN Content and Structure The VIN content and structure is as follows:

STRUCTURE

RACTER POSITION

1)

2) Assigned by BSI

3)

4) Gross vehicle weight class. 'C' = 4001 to 5000 lbf 'D' = 5001 to 6000 lbf

5)

6) Model

7 Not used

8 Model variant

9 Check digit (see R.G.'s memo for detailed explanation)

10 Model Year. 'A' = 1980

11 Plant of manufacture. 'T' = Tickfords

12 Driving position. 'T' = (Illegible Words) A = 1 J = 1 T = 3 B = 2 K = 2 U = 4 C = 3 L = 3 V = 5 D = 4 M = 4 W = 6 E = 5 N = 5 X = 7 F = 6 P = 7 Y = 8 G = 7 R = 9 Z = 9 H = 8 S = 2

VIN: S C F C V 8 0 S A Assigned value: 2 3 6 3 5 8 0 2 0 1 Weight factor: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10 0 9 Product: 16 21 36 15 20 24 0 20 0 9

2.1.1 World Manufacturers Identifier (WMI) Section

The WMI section is located in character positions 1 to 3 inclusive and is assigned by B.S.I. The code for all our models is SCF.

2.1.2 Vehicle Description Section (VDS)

The VDS is located in character positions 4 to 8 and is assigned by the manufacturer within the constraints laid down in the USA Federal Register, volume 44, number 57.

2.1.3 Vehicle Indicator Section (VIS)

The VIS is located in character positions 10 to 17 inclusive and is also assigned by the manufacturer within the constraints in the Federal Register.

2.1.4 The Check Digit

The check digit shall be determined and included in the VIN for each car sold to North America and Canada. It is determined by carrying out a mathematical computation that utilises each of the VIN characters according to the following formula:

(a) Each alphabetic character is assigned a numeric value according to the following table:

(b) The assigned value for each character is then multiplied by a weight factor that is dependent on VIN character position, see worked example below.

(c) The products are then added together and the sum divided by 11.

(d) The check digit is the remainder of the division, when this is 10 the check digit is X; when zero the check digit remains zero.

Worked example

VS Saloon (LHD) with assumed chassis number 12456 VIN: T L 1 2 4 5 6 Assigned value: 3 3 1 2 4 5 6 Weight factor: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Product: 24 21 6 10 16 15 12

Sum of products = 265, divide by 11 = 24 1/11

*Thus the check digit = 1 (to be inserted in ninth character of VIN)

2.1.4.1 Check Digit - Simplification

Because many of the VIN characters are common to each model the check digit

The scheme works thus:

(a) The Intermediate Check Digit remains constant for each model variant.

(b) Having allocated the sequential chassis number, multiply each digit by its weight factor and add these products to find the sum.

(c) Referring to Table 1(a), line-up the appropriate Sum and read across to the next column for the Sequential Number Check Digit (SCD).

(d) Next, refer to Table 1(b), and in the first column line-up the Sequential Number Check Digit, then line-up the Intermediate Check Digit; the point where the column and rows intercept is the corresponding VIN Check Digit.

(e) A worked example of the simplified Check Digit determination is shown below.

V8 SALOON APPROX. LHD

VIN Prefix Sequential Chassis No.

SCFCV80S ATL12678

4 3 2

Sum = 61 = 24+21+16

Sequential No. Check Digit = 6 [From Table 1(a)]

Intermediate Check Digit = 2

VIN Check Digit = 8 (Illegible Words)

(f) A summary of the Intermediate Check Digits for our model range is listed below: Model Driving Intermediate Instruction Drawing position Check Digit Number V8 Saloon Left HD 2 B97-16204 " Right HD 0 B97-16211 V8 Volante Left HD 5 B97-16205 " Right HD 3 B97-16212 V8 Vantage Left HD - B97-16206 " Right HD 8 B97-16213 Lagonda Left HD 4 B97-16224 " Right HD 2 B97-16225

* APPLICABLE (Illegible Words) VIZ (Illegible Words)

3. VIN SYSTEM - BEST OF THE WORLD (i.e. not applicable to USA or Canada)

The vehicle identification number (VIN) section on the brass plate, part numbers A97-15564/5 applicable to the Lagonda and V8 models respectively, will be completed by AML using the current sequential chassis numbering system. The plates will be embossed using stamps with a character of 4 mm minimum height. There will be no gaps or marks between the characters. The number will be finished with a dash, again without a gap, similar to the start of the number as shown in drawing A97-15564/5.

The chassis numbering (VIN) system is as follows:

(a) Lagonda : -LOOR13XXX-

(b) V8 Saloon : -V8SOR12XXX-

(c) V8 Volante : -V8COR15XXX- and (d) V8 Vantage : -V8VOR12XXX-

3.1 Lagonda VIN Structure Lagonda VIN Structure CHARACTER POSITION 1 -L Model 2 0 Not yet designated 3 0 Not yet designated, but J to be used for cars sold to Japan 4 R R = Right hand drive; L = Left hand drive 5 1) Chassis number model variant prefix 6 3) 7 X) 8 X) Sequential chassis number 9 X-

3.2 V8 VIN Structure V8 VIN STRUCTURE CHARACTER POSITION 1 -V) Model 2 8) 3 S,C or V Variant, i.e. S = Saloon; C = Convertible & V = Vantage 4 0 Not yet designated, but 'J' to be used for care sold to Japan 5 R or L R = Right hand drive; L = Left hand drive 6 I) Chassis number model variant prefix 7 2 or 5) 8 X) 9 X) Sequential chassis number 10 X-

3.3 Location of VIN Chassis Stamping

Bearing in mind the points outlined in 3. above, the VIN will also be stamped in the RHS of the chassis in the locations indicated in Figures 1 and 2 applicable to the Lagonda and V8 models respectively. The character heights shall be a minimum 7 mm high, and the number shall be legible when the car is completed and ready for sale, i.e. not covered by underseal.

APPROVED BY: S. COUGHLIN

PREPARED BY: A. GOLDSMITH

SAFETY & EMISSIONS: J. D. ORCHARD

Table 1

(a) Sequential No. Check Digit (SCD) Sum SCD Sum SCD Sum SCD 1 1 36 3 71 5 2 2 37 4 72 5 3 3 38 5 73 7 4 4 39 6 74 8 5 5 40 7 75 9 6 6 41 8 76 10 7 7 42 9 77 0 8 8 43 10 78 1 9 9 44 0 79 2 10 10 45 1 80 3 11 0 46 2 81 4 12 1 47 3 13 2 48 4 14 3 49 5 15 4 50 6 16 5 51 7 17 6 52 8 18 7 53 9 19 8 54 10 20 9 55 0 21 10 56 1 22 0 57 2 23 1 58 3 24 2 59 4 25 3 60 5 26 4 61 6 27 5 62 7 28 6 63 8 29 7 64 9 30 8 65 10 31 9 66 0 32 10 67 1 33 0 68 2 34 1 69 3 35 2 70 4

(b) VIN Check Digit

Intermediate Check Digit (Illegible Table)

ID: nht79-4.29

DATE: 08/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 3, 1979, asking several questions concerning the definition of "designated seating position" (49 CFR 571.3), as that term was recently amended (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979).

In your first question, you ask for confirmation that any bench or split-bench seat with less than 50 inches of hip room may never be required to have three or more than three designated seating positions, notwithstanding the capability of accomodating a person at least as large as fifth percentile adult female. Your assumption is incorrect. As noted in the (Illegible Word) to the recent amendment, the 50-inch specification does not mean that some vehicle seats with less than 50 inches of hip room should not also have more than two designated seating positions, if the vehicle and seat design is such that three positions would likely be used (44 FR 23232). The specification is nerely the amount of space the agency will consider as conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions. The 50-inch caveat was included in the definition to simplify determinations of proper seating capacity by both manufacturers and the agency.

Your second question involves technical aspects of the amended definition of "designated seating position". The definition specifies that "hip room" is to be measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). That standard defines "hip room" as,

"the minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the 'x' plane through the (Illegible Word) front Vithin 1.0 in. (25mm) below and 3.0 in. (76mm) above the SqRP-front and 3.0 in. (76mm) force and aft of the SqRP-front." (Area A in your diagrams.)

Your question includes diagrams and asks whether various portions of vehicle seats or other components would be considered "trimmed surfaces" within SAE Standard J1100(a).

Specifically, you ask whether slightly soft surfaces such as arm rests, seat back contours or other raised portions of the seat cushion would be considered "trimmed surfaces", for purposes of determining the minimum hip room dimension. The answer to your question is yes. The agency would probably consider all of the surfaces illustrated in your letter "trimmed surfaces" and, strictly speaking, within the meaning of the SAE procedure. This interpretation must be qualified, however. The procedure specifies that "hip room" is the minimum dimension "between trimmed surfaces". If a particular bench seat has distinct sections, the total dimension must be determined by adding the minimum dimensions of each section. For example, your Figure 5 illustrates a bench seat that includes a slightly raised center surface on the tunnel (in the center of the seat over the driveshaft). The lowest portion of Area A as defined in SAE J1100(a) would strike the side of this elevated center section, even though the top portion of Area A would be above the elevation. In such case, there would be three distinct portions of the seat (the driver's seat, the passenger seat, and the center seat position) that should be measured separately and then added together to get the total dimension. Otherwise, only the portion of the seat on the driver's side of the center elevation would be measured under the strict wording of the SAE procedure--an absurd result.

Regarding these questions about the measurement procedure, I must make several candid remarks. The agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition of "designated seating position" by finding loopholes in the measurement procedure. Further, as noted above, even if the hip room as measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a) is less than 50 inches, a manufacturer may still be required to designate three seating positions. If the measured dimension is less than 50 inches only because of slight elevations or contours on the outside seat cushion, a manufacturer must designate at least three positions if these elevation or contours are not real impediments to three persons occupying the seat.

Determinations of designated seating capacity under the amended definition should not cause manufacturers any real problems. If a manufacturer truly only intends to market a particular bench or split-bench seat for two occupants, he can and should make this obvious by the seat design, regardless of whether the total seat dimension is more than 50 inches or less than 50 inches. One simple way to do this is to install a permanent arm rest or console in the center portion of the seat.

I hope this response has clarified our position and will alleviate any problems you might have in making future determinations of proper designated seating capacity.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

July 3, 1979

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing this letter to you to ask you for your interpretation concerning the 49 CFR Part 571, "Designated Seating Position," final rule in the April 19, 1979 Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 77. Your earliest reply to the attached questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Hisakauz Murakami Staff Safety

cc: RALPH HITCHOCK; GUY HUNTER

Question 2.1 (a) General

Generally speaking, would the so-called trimmed surfaces within Area A in SAE J1100(a) include the slightly soft surface (for example, seat cushion surface, seat back surface and arm rest surface) which changes its form somewhat when an occupant is sitting?

Question 2.1 (b)

If your answer is "no" in Question 2.1 (a), please show me the detailed definitions of the trimmed surfaces (for example, body panel).

Question 2.2

Surface of the Arm-Rest

Would the surface of the arm rest be considered the trimmed surfaces within the Area A when the hip-room will be measured?

Arm Rest

Figure 2

(Graphics omitted)

Question 2.3

Surface of the Seat-Back

Would the surface of the seat-back on the wheel-house portion be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Portion of the seat-back

Figure 3

(Graphics omitted)

Question 2.4

Surface of the Outside Seat-Cushion Side

Would the surface of the outside seat-cushion side be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Outside seat-cushion side

Figure 4 Question 2.5

Surface of the Inside Seat-Cushion Side

Would the surface of the inside cushion side on the tunnel be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Inside seat-cushion side

Figure 5

(Graphics omitted)

NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD. ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

May 10, 1979

Guy Hunter Crashworthiness Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Hunter:

During my May 4th visit to your office, I requested your interpretation concerning the measurement procedure of the "Hip Room" with regard to SAE J 1100a, which was adopted in the 49 CFR Part 571, "Designated Seating Position". The final rule was issued in the April 19, 1979 Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 77.

At that time, you suggested that I submit my questions, along with a letter, to your office for response.

I would, therefore, like to take this time to submit my questions to you and ask for your interpretation.

Thank you for your fine cooperation with regard to this particular matter. We look forward to hearing your interpretations in the near future.

Should any questions arise, please feel free to contact me at (201) 871-3555.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

Q-1 The "X" plane through the SgRP

SAE J 1100a states the following as the definitions of the Three-Dimensional Reference System and the Hip-room:

ZERO "Y" PLANE - (Centerline body zero plane) is a vertical plane which passes through the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

ZERO "X" PLANE - Vertical body zero plane is a plane normal to the "Y" plane.

ZERO "Z" PLANE - Horizontal body zero plane is a plane normal to the "X" and "Y" planes.

W5-HIP ROOM-FRONT - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in (25 mm) below and 3.0 in (76 mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in (76 mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.

W6-HIP ROOM-SECOND - Measured in the same matter as W5

The above-mentioned definitions are identical to those in SAE J 182a as shown in Fig. 1.

It is my understanding that the "X" plane through the SgRP (I think we should call this "X" plane the "Y-Z" plane through the SgRP, mathematically speaking) in W5 or W6 of SAE J 1100a is the one as shown in Fig. 2. Is my understanding correct?

Q-2 The measurement procedure of "Hip-room

Assuming that your answer to Q-1 is "yes", it would then be my understanding that there can be two (2) different ways of interpreting the measurement of W5 (or W6) as shown below.

(a) The case of emphasizing "the "X" plane through the SgRP"

In this case, W5 will be defined as follows, and the words of "and 3.0 in (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front"will not be significant as shown in Fig. 3.

W5-HIP-ROOM - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in (25mm) below and 3.0 in (76mm) above the SgRP-front.

(b) The case of emphasizing "within 1.0 in . . . . aft of the SgRP-front"

In this case, W5 will be defined as follows, and the words of "through the SgRP-front" will not be significant as shown in Fig. 4.

W5-HIP-ROOM - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane within 1.0 in (25mm) below and 3.0 in (76mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.

Which is correct, (a) or (b)?

FIG. 1

(Graphics omitted) FIG. 2

"X" plane through the SgRP

FIG. 3

FIG. 4 (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.52

DATE: 06/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority's May 17 and 18, 1976, letters asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of school bus or its Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, prevent the utilization of transit buses to transport students to and from school. You ask if a proposed amendment to Kansas statutes would conflict with Federal law or regulation if it exempts transit buses from a requirement that school bus seating be forward-facing.

Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)) does preempt State motor vehicle safety requirements of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal standard applicable to the same aspect of performance. In this case, the proposed section 10 appears to be identical to S5.1 of Standard No. 222 insofar as it addresses the direction in which school bus seating must face. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that this portion of the proposed section 10 would therefore not be preempted by Standard No. 222.

The second portion of section 10 provides an exception to the requirement for forward-facing seats, and it is the NHTSA's opinion that the exception is preempted insofar as it might apply to school buses purchased by a metropolitan transit authority after the October 26, 1976, effective date of Standard No. 222.

In the case of transit buses "designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation," however, the exception does not apply to an aspect of performance regulated by a motor vehicle safety standard (i.e., the orientation of seating in transit buses). It would therefore not appear to be preempted by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The NHTSA recently considered inclusion of transit buses in the definition of "school bus" but concluded that Congress' intent in broadening the definition of "school bus" did not address inclusion of transit buses involved in student transportation. I have enclosed a discussion of this issue that accompanied the redefinition of "school bus."

As you noted in your letter, Highway Program Safety Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR 1204), provides for the transportation of students in school buses and in transit buses.

SINCERELY,

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

May 18, 1976

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

As Chairman of the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority please accept this cover letter to the attached legal request. Let me simply emphasize to you that the question of federal preemption has arisen from all quarters on the State and local level, revelant to our transit authority providing service to the local school board. Your response to our inquiry is of first importance and we appreciate your attention to this matter.

David L. Ryan Chairman

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

May 17, 1976

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority would appreciate an opinion from your office with respect to the use of urban mass transit vehicles in special school route service and school related charter activities.

The Topeka MTA approached the Kansas Legislature in an effort to modify existing and proposed Kansas law so that it would be made clear that our buses can legally provide school related services. Basically our suggestions to the lawmakers would have changed state law so that it was more in line with federal provisions. However, the Director of Highway Safety for the Kansas Department of Transportation contended that the Transit Authority's position was in direct violation of federal law.

The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority believes that federal law allows urban mass transit vehicles to work with local school boards in solving their transportation problems. Please review the enclosed copy of the letter by Mr. Merrell, Kansas Director of Highway Safety, and the copy of our letter responding to such a position.

Needless to say, the view taken by the state agency is adversely affecting our revenue from school related services. The publicly supported transit system should be able to provide a variety of public services.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Your cooperation will be appreciated.

Michael D. Hood Legal Intern

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

March 15, 1976

The Honorable Don E. Crumbaker Chairman, House Committee on Education

RE: House Education Committee Amendment to Senate Bill 623

Thank you for the opportunity this morning to discuss with you Senate Bill 623. As we discussed, problems arise regarding the amendment contained in Section 10 of the bill. The portion with which we are concerned is contained on page 10, lines 22 through 29, which follows in part;

Sec. 10. K.S.A. 8-2009 is hereby amended to read as follows; 8-2009. (a) All seats on school buses shall be forward-facing . . . except that the secretary may waive such requirement upon the request of a metropolitan transit authority established pursuant to article 28 of chapter 12 of Kansas Statutes Annotated.

The underscored portion above is the amendment added to the bill by House Committee.

The above amendment is in direct violation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection," which was issued on January 22, 1976.

Section 5.1 of the Standard states as follows; S5.1 Seating requirements. School bus passenger seats shall be forward facing.

The Federal Register of January 28, 1976 (acopy of which is enclosed) contains a discussion of the Standard, including the following on page 4017 and 4018;

"The NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Association) designed the seating system in this Standard for protection from fore and aft crash forces, and considers it necessary that the seats be forward facing to achieve the objective of occupant protection."

In addition to the above objection to the amendment, we would also like to point out that a metropolitan transit authority bus may not also operate as a school bus to transport school children to or from school. Recently the NHTSA amended its definition of a school bus. (A copy of which is enclosed.)

The NHTSA concluded that it was in the public interest to continue to excluded buses used in urban transportation from coverage in the new school bus definition, as had been the case in the prior definition.

The NHTSA has repeated frequently that the States must develop long range plans for achieving full compliance with these requirements within a reasonable period of time. The amendment contained in SB623 takes a big step backwards in complying with federal standards. My office has been told by the NHTSA that any state which moves backward instead of forward in complying with the Federal Safety Standards faces the possibility of having federal funding cut or withheld. To avoid that possibility I respectfully request that the amendments to SB623, to which we have referred, be deleted from the bill.

JERRY L. MERRELL, Ph.D. Director of Highway Safety

ATTACHS.

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

April 9, 1976

Representative Ron Hein

The amendment to Senate Bill Number 623 referred to in the letter written by Mr. Jerry Merrell, Director of Highway Safety, Kansas Department of Transportation, to Representative Don Crumbaker, Chairman, House Committee on Education, does not violate federal law nor would it cause the Kansas Department of Transportation to lose federal money. That amendment would have allowed the secretary of transportation to waive the requirement that all seats in urban transit buses be forward facing when those vehicles are providing school charter service.

In 49 CFR 571.3 (b) the federal definition of "school bus" is given. That provision states:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection," which becomes effective October 26, 1976, provides:

Sec. 5.1 Seating Requirements. School Bus passenger seats shall be forward facing.

Since this safety standard speaks to seats in school buses and urban transit vehicles are expressly excluded from the "school bus" definition, there is no federal requirement that all seats in urban mass transit vehicles must be forward facing when those buses are used for school charters.

Furthermore, federal law, by excluding urban transit buses from the school bus definition, did not intend to exclude urban transit vehicles from providing school charter service. In fact, Pupil Transportation Safety Standard No. 17, which sets forth certain requirements with respect to the identification, operation, and maintenance of school buses, specifically recognizes that, because of the dual role they often play, urban transit buses are exempt from certain of those requirements when used for special school route service.

Federal law, then, recognizes the important function served by urban transit vehicles in the overall picture of urban transportation. Although not a "school bus", urban buses are sanctioned to perform school related services.

Senate Bill No. 623, on the other hand, does not recognize the ability of urban transit vehicles to provide school services. By withholding authority from the secretary of transportation to waive seating requirements on urban transit buses when those buses are used for school related services, Kansas may without logical reason, effectively prevent their public transportation systems from working with schools in meeting important public needs.

In view of federal law, Kansas is not prevented from allowing its franchised, publicly supported bus systems the ability to provide school charter services.

Moreover, there is no logical reason to withhold such permission. The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority has identified that urban transit vehicles are not only as safe as, but safer than the traditional "school bus". School related service by the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority is in the public interest.

David L. Ryan Chairman

Robert N. Salmon General Manager

cc: SHAWNEE COUNTY DELEGATION MEMBERS; JERRY MERRELL, DIR. OF SAFETY, KANSAS DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION; JIM GRAY, SUPT. OF SCHOOLS, U.S.D. 501

ID: 77-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. Dujoff for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Martha Storts Amster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 20, 1977, letter concerning Federal school bus safety standards. Your letter was forwarded to us by Ms. Margaret Costanza, Assistant to the President, since these standards are promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

As you may know, several new school bus safety standards are applicable to school buses built after April 1, 1977. These standards were established in accordance with a directive from Congress in the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). Congress enacted that directive after determining that school buses deserved additional safety protection to prevent deaths and reduce injuries.

In your letter, you contend that our standard pertaining to school bus seating (Standard No. 222) requires seat spacing that is too small for older school children. It is our understanding after extensive consultations with bus manufacturers that the new school bus seat spacing requirements result in seat spacing that is essentially equivalent to seat spacing in buses manufactured prior to April 1. Therefore, most new school buses should be manufactured similar to older buses as far as seat spacing is concerned. Some school buses, however, may have slightly reduced seat spacing. We are aware of concerns expressed about reduced seat spacing in some new buses. We are not convinced that the problem originates from the requirements of Standard No. 222, however. Currently, we are examining buses manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the standard to determine whether a modification of the standard is necessary.

Maximum seat spacing has been controlled in buses to provide for the passive restraint of school bus occupants. The seat backs in the new buses are designed to absorb the force of children colliding with them during a crash. If seat spacing were increased, the seats in these buses would not be capable of absorbing sufficient impact force to protect children in accidents. The NHTSA adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus safety in response to public comments claiming that to require only seat belts in school buses would not be sufficient since the belts might not be used by many children. Accordingly, to provide a significant increase in occupant protection, the agency adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus seat safety.

In a final question in your letter, you ask about the costs and benefits of the new school bus safety standards' requirements. The agency has estimated that the total industry cost of compliance with those standards is approximately $ 40 million annually. The benefits should include a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries resulting from school bus accidents.

If I can be of further assistance to you, do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

July 19, 1977

Dear Ms. Amstor:

Thank you so much for your letter and for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

So that your letter might receive benefit of the best possible consideration, I hope you will not mind that I have asked other interested offices here to thoroughly review it and assist me by responding directly to you. I trust you will be hearing from them very shortly.

With all best wishes,

MARGART COSTANZA Assistant to The President

June 28, 1977

Midge Costanza The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington D.C.

Enclosed is recent correspondence that I believe should be brought to the attention of someone on President Carter's staff. Quite possibly ninety percent of the problems dealt with in the oval office are inherited. Let's hope this administration will have the foresight to prevent situations like this from developing in the future.

Martha Storts Amster

I would guess that President Carter knows the Luce family that owns Blue Bird Body Company. Fort Valley is only 60 miles from Plains.

June 20, 1977

Senator Dennis Deconcini

I am writing you concerning new safety regulations from the Department of Transportation as they apply to the school bus industry. My husband, Harry Amster, is a school bus distributor for Blue Bird Body Company, whose main plant is in Fort Valley, Georgia.

The particular regulations that concern me are those regarding seats and seat spacing. Harry has taken delivery on one bus, brought it to Arizona, showed it to the State Inspectors, and is awaiting their decision before taking delivery on the remaining buses already built in Georgia. When the inspectors saw this bus last Thursday, they did not pass it. They went back to the State to see how the others in their department interpreted this new law. They were calling people in California and in Washington to find out exactly what they think it means. The people at the plant in Fort Valley evidently interpreted the law as they understood it, and have built a whole bunch of buses that way. The crux of the problem is that someone got confused. The seats in the bus in Arizona are fine for elementary children, but most unsatisfactory for high school youngsters or adults. Extra padding on the back of the seats plus spacing requirements does not allow enough knee room. These requirements have added $ 1200.00 to the cost of each new bus. This, plus the fact that the cost of buses has risen 20% in the last 3 years, is pyramiding the costs that must be passed on to the school districts. As these costs rise, more and more states are going to state purchasing, thus eliminating the local distributors. My husband is a leader in his field, provides good service for his customers, has a serviceman and a truck on the road in Arizona to satisfy the needs of his customers and employs 50 people in his business.

So it appears to me that the fact that the school bus industry had the safest record of public transportation to offer was ignored when the law was passed. The position of the factory is that the buses meet the Federal requirements, so it's up to the distributor to sell this product to his customer. The State will have to compromise its position or the schools won't have buses in the fall. The fact that some kids on the Hopi Reservation have to ride a bus 80 miles one way to get to school with their legs jammed in small space will just be ignored. The fact that the school people did not want padding on the back of the seats because of vandalism and higher maintenance is of no consequence.

Who is the ultimate loser? What is the real cost of the new Department of Transportation standards for scholl buses? Were they necessary at all? Whatever the answers, there are certainly going to be some busy people all across the United States before the true implications of these new regulations are known. It would be impossible to estimate the productive man hours lost and the dollar value wasted because someone decided to set mandatory equalizing standards for the sake of conformity and protection.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION,

Martha Storts Amster

June 29, 1977

Representative Morris Udall

This is a follow up to my letter of last week to Dennis DeConcici about the school bus problem in Arizona.

My husband just returned from a trip to the Blue Bird Body Company in Fort Valley, Georgia. The Blue Bird factory people are making every effort to help straighten out the seating problems created by the new DOT standards. While Harry was there, he worked with them in the bus yard; they measured all the seats and the spacing between the rows. The decision was made to assess each individual district, school, and age of the potential riders. Harry called each district that was affected. Blue Bird is going to take out the seats in the 26 buses that are already built for Arizona. They will reinstall them according to the district's needs, providing this does not exceed the federal standards which are generally accepted to be 25 1/4 inches of kneespace. This is not adequate for adult seating. Enclosed is a copy of correspondence that Blue Bird used to determine its calculations. I doubt if it is customary for lawyers in Washington to ride school buses, much less, those on the Hopi reservation from Keams Canyon to Winslow. According to the wording in his letter, he cannot be held accountable, anyhow.

Harry said it was really hot in Georgia this week, and that he and the other fellows working with him knew how hot it was. I have a feeling it's really going to be hot for the men who have to change all those seats, because after they do the buses for Arizona, there are another 140 units already built for other school districts around the country. Those seats will probably have to be changed, too. I do not know what Blue Bird will do about the assembly line. Somebody ought to send the fellow in DOT who set those standards to Fort Valley with a screwdriver. Enclosed in a copy of a letter I received from Joe Luce, one of the owners of Blue Bird Body Company.

There is another requirement, Joint Strength Standard #221, that states that a joint must be 60% as strong as the two members it joins. As interpreted by Blue Bird, there are 330% more interior rivets, 175% more interpreted by Blue Bird. there are 330% more interior (Illegible Word) 175% more exterior rivets, and 57 joints more redesigned. This requirement added $ 523.00 per unit over last year's models. Blue Bird decided to use rivets; some of the other manufacturers plan to use (Illegible Word) I'm going to allow someone else to fuss about that requirement -- when they can't unglue the panels to repair damaged ones.

Harry said the trip to Fort Valley cost him about $ 1000.00. While he was gone, he missed a hid opening and lost two buses to one of his competitors -- so I don't think he plans to go back for a while. However, if there is any more legislation pending that concerns regulations on school buses, we would like to be notified so we can make arrangements to be in Washington for the hearing.

My mother, Ruth Storts, has been out of town: I talked with her yesterday and she told me she had received acknowledgement from the White House about the letter you took to Washington for us. It is really good to know that we have representatives from Arizona who try to do what they say they are going to do. Thank you for the excellent delivery service.

Martha Storts Amster

ID: nht75-4.25

DATE: 08/12/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Daniel W. Lang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1975, in which you inquire as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder to your client, Star Vision, as a manufacturer and installer of see-through fiberglass replacement tops.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that the installation of the top by Star Vision must not take a vehicle out of compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 or any other applicable safety standard. You should note that the requirements of section 108(a)(2)(A) apply to modifications of vehicles following their sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. It appears from the literature accompanying your letter that the tops are not installed on vehicles prior to their first sale. If they are, then Star Vision is subject to the notification, remedy, certification, and recordkeeping requirements of section 108(a)(1).

There is no specific requirement for testing the replacement tops in order to determine compliance with Standard No. 216. However, since the Act prohibits knowingly rendering inoperative any vehicle or part of a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard, Star Vision is under an obligation to test its product if it has reason to believe that installation of the tops will substantially degrade the performance of the vehicle roofs. If the company has no reason to believe that installation will affect the safety characteristics of the vehicle, it is not obligated to conduct compliance tests.

The replacement tops appear to be subject to Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). As a result, Star Vision must certify the tops in accordance with section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403).

If the tops do not comply with Standards Nos. 205 or 216 or any other applicable safety standard, or if they contain a malfunction or defect related to motor vehicle safety, the company will be obligated by sections 151-60 of the Act to notify the purchasers of the kits and to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge. In addition, section 108(c) of the Act provides that compliance with the Act will not exempt a person from common law liability.

We trust that this information will be of assistance.

SINCERELY,

July 15, 1975

James Gregory National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attention: Office of Chief Counsel

Re: "Star Vision See Thru Tops"

This office represents Star Vision, a division of Etanter Enterprises, of Los Angeles, California.

Star Vision, as the enclosed literature indicates, sells a see-through fiberglass replacement top for most makes of automobiles, both domestic and foreign. Installation requires the cutting of a hole in the roof of a vehicle. The top may be purchased in a kit for home installation or installed by a Star Vision distributor who purchases tops from the company. Star Vision occasionally in the past has installed a top itself.

I would appreciate your consideration in answering the following questions:

1. Does @108 of the 1966 Act or @103 of the 1974 Act control the activities of the company;

2. Does the company have to test its product to determine whether or not it complies with Safety Standard #216;

3. If yes, how, where, and when can a product be tested in a manner acceptable under the law;

4. What responsibilities does the company have as a manufacturer only; as a manufacturer-installer;

5. What responsibility does the company have under the law to a do-it-yourself purchaser of a home installation kit?

The company is most anxious to be adequately informed about any standards or requirements that might affect their business. A prompt reply will help us greatly.

Daniel W. Lang Additional notes and hints to aid the installation of the STAR VISION rooftop kit.

Some cars come equipped with a beam across the roof under the headliner. Make sure that when you lay out the panel that you leave enough clearance about 1 1/2". If the panel supplied for your car should clear all beams or bars. If for any reason it does not, do not proceed with the installation, measure the space that is available, ship us back the panel that you have with the size that you need and we will ship you the proper size.

BEFORE cutting or laying out the area to be cut, carefully feel around the headliner for any obstructions. Be careful that your car does not have a double roof, such as some late model GM cars. (Illegible word) Be sure to leave room near the windshield, some cars such as some Toyotas will have about 3" of extra support so stay back from that as you will not make a clean installation.

Stay back from the sun visors but as far as possible to the front of the car. The Star Vision roof kit is most beneficial as far forward as possible than over or behind the drivers head.

We have installed our STAR VISION rooftop kit in almost every kind of car. If you have any problems with your particular car do not hesitate to contact us, we will research the problem free of charge and forward you the help that you seek.

BE SURE TO READ ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY. PROCEED WITH CARE, PATIENCE AND PRIDE.

STAR VISION

TRANSPARENT ROOF TOP KITS

Your STAR VISION Transparent rooftop kit will add years of enjoyment to your driving pleasure. The installations is simple, the following instructions will help you achieve professional results.

Lay the piece of transparent panel flat on the roof of your car. DO NOT remove the protective paper until last. Place the material as for forward as possible with out interfering' with the windshield mouldings and framework. (usually about 4 to 6 inches.) Measure the distance on both sides to ensure an even fit. Now measure the distance from the edges left and right to ensure that the panel is centralized. Use some masking tape to prevent the panel from moving once the exact position has been arrived at.

Use a crayon pencil to trace out the outline of the panel. The line should be 3/8 inch away from the panel to leave room for the moulding. Drill four (4) 5/16" holes thru the roof of your car at each corner of the panel. Drill thru the headliner. Now get in the car and note the four holes. Using a single edge razor blade cut out the headliner using the holes as reference points. (NOTE some cars such as Porsche 914 and Fiat X 1/9 do not have a headliner)

NOTE: If your car has thin metal bars suspended across to hold up the headliner, cut them in the middle and remove them completely. On older cars the headliner may be brittle and subject to tearing, use extreme caution in those cases. Before going to them next step check out the total travel of your jigsaw blade, make sure that when you start to cut out the panel, that the blade will not tear into the remaining headliner. You can shorten the blade by merely breaking of the tip about one inch. Use a soft cloth on the side of the jigsaw foot that is going over the part of the roof that will remain so that it will not scratch the surface.

Using a Jig saw with a 32 tooth per inch blade cut out the outlined panel. When completed use masking tape to adhere headliner to the roof so when the molding is applied the headliner will neatly tuck away. Adhere only about 1/4 inch to the headliner and adhere the rest to the roof see illustration.

When installing the molding always use the wooden tools supplied to "Lip" over the rubber. Should your hand slip, these tools will not scratch the plexiglass or paint. Also use the blunt end of the tool to pry apart the locking slot to insert the "lock" use a weak soap solution to aid installation.

Now you are ready to install the panel. First install the rubber molding as in illustration #2. Note that the molding has two different sides to accommodate different roof thicknesses. Any side can be used for the panel. Install the molding with the "lock" side up. After the panel is in place install the "lock" to ensure leak proofing. Note that your supplied with a few extra inches of molding. Trim excess to fit, but leave extra inch. Compress this extra inch, this will expand and make a leakproof seal. If for any reason your top leaks, use the tool supplied to lift up the molding and apply any commercial windshield sealer under the molding. Wipe away any excess. Use non abrasive cleaners only!

(Graphics omitted)

Eatanter Products presents another quality product, completely new in style, and guaranteed to enhance the appearance of your car.

Our transparent 'STAR VISION' roof top kit adds a whole new feeling of freedom and comfort to your driving pleasure, experience all the skies and sights under any weather condition.

To complement the appearance of your automobile, we are offering several tints to suit your personal car.

NEW!

STAR VISION

TRANSPARENT ROOF TOP KITS

VOLVO

Ford

FIAT

CHEVROLET

Mazda

VW

LOW COST FUN!

EAST DO IT YOURSELF

your car or ?.....?

12" x 24" $ 43.95 15" x 30" size $ 64.95 15" x 40" size $ 74.95

SHIPPING NOT INCLUDED.

We accept BANKAMERICARD.

Easy Do-it yourself!!!

Complete illustrated instructions in every kit. Also HELPFUL hints & TOOLS.

Enjoy all the skies and sights under all weather conditions with our new 'STAR VISION' rooftop kit. Our 'STAR VISION' rooftop kit is a low cost practical method to add prestige and value to your automobile. Our 'STAR VISION' is a full time accessory unlike the $ 450 to $ 800 'moonroofs' and sunroofs that can only be used under ideal weather conditions. Our roofkit is in use ALL THE TIME.

On the coldest nights or downpour rainfalls, when other sunroofs and tops are unusable, our rooftop kit is in use. Our kit is a permanent installation. There are no parts to wear out, no pulleys to crank, only pure enjoyment of great views and a whole new world of new sights, previously unattainable. Our STAR VISION rooftop kit is available in SMOKE, BLUE, GREEN, AMBER and clear. The kits are designed for easy installation and come complete with a set of thorough instructions. The only tools that are not supplied are a sabre saw, and a hand-drill. Average installation time is two hours.

ID: nht88-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Apple

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Rod Willaredt (A33; Std. 108); 5/17/89 letter from Rod Willaredt to Taylor Vinson; 2/19/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Charles Wilson; 7/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Willaim J. Stephenson

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Apple 14738 Bronson Avenue San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29. 1987, in which you asked whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-Turn indicator. However, a U-Turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the i mportance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-Turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. 108 does not cover a U-Turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or part, any lamp reflective device, or associated equipment that was in stalled pursuant to Standard No. 108. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) The legibility of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American A ssociation of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-Turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the gener al type of crash for which U-Turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-Turn crashes is substantially less than 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles.

We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing ou r Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

December 29, 1987

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel Legal Office, Room 5219 D.O.T. Headquarters 400 7th Street Southwest Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Erika,

I have been instructed by the Office of Vehicle Compliance to write you concerning a new Safety feature I have designed. I am interested in receiving feedback as to whether my idea is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the D epartment of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product.

The reason I have designed this Safety feature, which is called an Automobile U-turn Directional Indicator was to reduce the number of automobile accidents in which U turns are involved. My sister and several acquaintances, have suffered serious injuries , primarily due to the lack of communication between drivers, simply because they do not have a tool by which to communicate.

The solution is simple and at a very low cost, yet it could save the lives of many.

Please review the attached documentation, and feel free to write or call me if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Wayne Apple 14738 Bronson Ave. San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 377-0174 Home (408) 986-2526 Work

AUTOMOBILE U-TURN DIRECTIONAL INDICATOR SAFETY FIRST

Far too many accidents involve U-turns, and most likely they are of a serious nature. The ability to make a U-turn is much too convenient to try to strip away from the American public. A better and simple means of communicating the intention of making a U-turn is in order; and I have the solution. Implementing this simple tool will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Situation A: You are in you automobile waiting in the left turn lane with or without a signal light. There is an automobile in front of you, and one behind you, waiting as well. When it is time to turn, the car ahead of you starts accelerating through th e turn. You accelerate as well, and so does the car behind you. Suddenly, midway through the turn, the car in front of you whips into a sharp U-turn, without any means of warning. If you are not quick to react, you clip the rear end of the car as it make s it U-turn, sending it into a spin, hopefully avoiding any serious injuries. If you were quick to react, you end up slamming on your brakes and either slide into the car making the U-turn, or have the car behind you crash into your rear end, slamming yo u into the car making the U-turn. Hopefully, no serious injuries result. Had you known the driver was going to make a U-turn all along you would have been prepared for it from the start of the turn. No accident would have resulted.

Situation B: You are driving your automobile down the street and approach an intersection. There is a car with sitting in the oncoming traffic left hand turn lane. They have activated their left hand turn indicator. There are several cars following behin d your car. The oncoming car in the left hand turn lane believing there is enough time to make the turn, and there probably is. You slow down, so do the cars behind you, to allow for the turning car to pass through the intersection. Suddenly the car whip s into a U-turn. There is not enough time to react. Your car crashes into the U-turn car. One or two of the cars behind you crash into your car's rear end. Hopefully no serious injuries result, but they usually do in such circumstances. Had you known the car was planning to make a U-turn initially, you would have applied the brakes harder when the driver first began the turn, and hopefully avoided any accident at all situation C: You are waiting at a four way intersection in your automobile to make a ri ght hand turn. There is a car waiting in the cross traffic left hand turn lane, ahead and to your right, with the left turn indicator blinking brightly. Right hand turns are legal in your state on red lights. There is a break in traffic. You begin to tur n to the right and into the lane. The car in the left hand turn lane begins to turn down the road you had just traveled on. Suddenly, the driver of the car turning left, who was paying more attention to the oncoming traffic, whips the steering wheel hard to make a sharp U-turn, which is legal at this intersection. The two cars collide, crushing the front ends of both automobiles. You would not have made the turn to the right had you suspected the driver of the other car would be making a U-turn.

PRODUCT SOLUTION

The need stated in the problem situations above is a means to notify other drivers when you are planning to make a U-turn, and be able to discern it from a left hand turn signal; thus, I have designed a product with the means to satisfy this need.

The product is an Automobile U-turn Directional Indicator (U-turn Blinker), which is to be mounted on the front and rear driver's side of the car next to the left hand turn indicator. They are to be activated by a four position turn indicator switch, tha t utilizes the fourth down position to activate the U-turn signal. It is recommended that there be additional resistance in moving from the third position (left turn) to the fourth position (U-turn) to alleviate mistakes, as well as a U-turn dash light.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

* Four position indicator switch. Fourth position down is U-turn. Resistance between third and fourth position.

* The rear U-turn directional indicator light assembly is mounted near the rear left hand turn indicator. The arrow should start at the lower right portion of the light housing, head straight to the top, curve to the left, then point straight downward, a s if the driver trailing the car were looking at a posted U-turn sign.

* The front U-turn directional indicator light assembly is mounted near the front left hand turn indicator. The arrow should start at the upper left hand portion of the light housing, head straight down, bend to the right then head straight up.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Cont...

* The black area contained within the U-turn light housing assembly which blacks out the portion of the light assembly to outline the arrow, should be painted on, or preferably, be made of black rubber and glued onto the reflector plastic.

* The reflector portion of the U-turn light housing assembly should be a different color than the left hand turn indicator, to better differentiate the two. A cross between yellow and lime green would be noticeable.

* The size and shape of the U-turn directional housing is up to the discretion of the manufacturer, with a minimum of three square inches.

* The intensity of the U-turn indicator light should be equal to, or brighter than, the left hand turn indicator. The color and arrow shape will assist in the differentiation.

* Matching reflector plates can be used on the right side of the car for cosmetics and balance.

* A U-turn dash light indicator should be located near the dash turn indicator light, preferably the same color as the reflector plate.

SUMMARY

Communications between automobile drivers needs to improve. Clearly notifying other driver's your intentions can reduce the number of accidents by over fifty percent. Having the tools to better communicate to other drivers is a necessity. The U-turn dire ctional indicator is one of those tools to making America's roads a safer place.

ID: 1982-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/09/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Halloran, Sage, Phelon & Hagarty

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. 20590

February 9, 1982

Mr. Thomas J. Hagarty Halloran, Sage, Phelon & Hagerty One Financial Plaza Hartford, CT 06103

Dear Mr. Hagarty:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, includes specifications for fixed barrier rear-end crash test.

The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 301 specifies a rear-end crash test, but the test involves a moving barrier, not a fixed barrier. On August 29, 1970, the agency did propose a fixed barrier rear-end crash test for Standard No. 301 (35 FR 13799). However, that proposal was never made final. Rather, on August 20, 1973, the agency issued another proposal which specified a moving barrier for the rear-end crash test (38 FR 22417). This proposal was finalized and is the rule which is in existence today. I am enclosing copies of these Federal Register notices for your information, as well as a copy of Standard No. 301.

I hope this has answered all your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures HALLORAN, SAGE, PHELON & HAGARTY ATTORNEYS AT LAW

November 24, 1981

Hugh Oates, Esquire National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

Re: Our File No. 1410-10-008

Dear Mr. Oates:

Andrew R. Hricko, General Counsel and Secretary of the Institute for Highway Safety suggested that you might be able to answer some questions for me or refer the questions to someone who can.

I am involved in a lawsuit involving an automobile fire following a rear-end collision and overturn. I recently took the deposition of an expert for the other side who testified in substance that there is a fixed barrier rear-end crash standard and that NHTSA has been doing fixed barrier rear-end crash tests. The enclosed photocopy of a portion of a transcript of this expert's deposition further details this.

If there is a fixed barrier rear-end fuel system integrity standard I have been unable to find it. I am familiar with Standard 301 - I think. It is my understanding that this Standard mandated a frontal crash into a fixed barrier in the late 1960's and that in the mid-70's a moving barrier rear crash requirement was added. So far as I have been able to learn neither it nor any other Standard described a fixed barrier rear-end crash test for fuel system integrity (or, so far as I know, any other characteristics). I would appreciate it very much if you would tell me whether I am missing something. Is there any Standard involving a fixed barrier rear-end crash test?

Has the Bureau of Crashworthiness (if that is the correct designation) or any other governmental agency been engaged in a program involving fixed barrier rear-end crash testing? If there is or has been such a program how can I obtain complete detailed information concerning it?

I appreciate your assistance.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Hagarty

TJH/hma

Q And about how many times have you testified in court on a similar project?

A Twenty times.

Q Now, you concluded that the pre-impact speed of the Datsun was what?

A. The speed at impact of the Datsun was 26.46 miles an hour.

Q. And the speed of the Firebird, the Ellsworth Firebird, just at the instant of impact was what?

A. 86 -- wait a minute. It was 86.26.

Q. And that resulted in a post-impact speed of the Datsun of what?

A. 57.7.

Q. So, the difference between 57.7 and 26.4 is what?

A. The change in speed.

Q. How many miles per hour?

A. That's 31.24 miles per hour.

Q. That's what the equivalent fixed barrier speed?

A. That's right.

Q. What does that mean to us?

A. Okay,. Well, when a vehicle crashes into a fixed barrier, it has kinetic energy, it has velocity and mass and the kinetic energy in the speed of the vehicle times the square of the speed, it loses that kinetic energy when it hits the barrier. The barrier was not moving before the impact or after, so its speed change was zero. That's the equivalent fixed barrier collision.

There is a change in speed if you strike a barrier at 30 miles an hour, from 30 miles an hour to zero or a net change of 30 miles an hour and that's equivalent to 60 miles an hour head-on collision between two vehicles and the reason for that is that in head-on collisons between two vehicles, each vehicle absorbs some of the kinetic energy so you get the collision deformation.

Whereas, in the fixed barrier case, one has a barrier that absorbs none of the energies of the collision and the vehicle that strikes it absorbs it all, so that's why the 30-mile per hour fixed barrier speed is equivalent to the 60-miles an hour --approximately equal to a 60-mile an hour head-on collision where the closing speed is 60-miles an hour.

Q. What is the significance that in this case the equivalent fixed barrier speed of the Datsun is 31.24?

A. The basic conclusion one determines from this is that the fuel tank integrity was not maintained at the motor vehicle standard of 30 miles an hour fixed barrier collision.

Q. The fuel integrity standard was no maintained?

your own w????????

MR. HAGARTY: Mark it for identification to expedite matters.

(Plaintiffs' Exhibit A for identification: Report.)

BY MR. HAGARTY:

Q. Mr. Dworetzky, what Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are you referring to?

A. The ones governing rear-end collisions and I'm not -- I don't remember the number.

Q. Would it be 301?

A. I don't remember offhand.

Q. Do you have a copy of it?

A. I have copies of all of them back in my office, yes.

Q. Did you consult that before you made up that report?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know when that standard become effective?

A. I don't remember the date. Early seventies.

Q. The early seventies?

A. Probably 1970.

Q. What does that standard require?

A. It requires that the vehicle maintain its integrity and especially the fuel tank system under 30 miles per hour fixed barrier collisions. Also has something to say about the occupants of the vehicle.

Q. The 30-miles an hour collison with a fixed barrior?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is that a front-end collision or rear end?

A. There's two separate standards, one for front and end and one for rear end and both require 30-miles an hour.

Q. Both fixed barriers?

A. Fixed barriers.

Q. And when did the current standard which is the one you referred to -- you referred to the current standard, is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. Is that the original standard from back in the early 1970s?

A. It may have been amended but I'm sure the speed hasn't changed.

Q. You're sure about that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know if there was any Federal Standard with regard to rear impacts in '71?

A. Like I said, I believe there was.

Q. Do you know?

A. I do not know at this moment.

Q. Number one, you don't know if there was a rear-end crash test among the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards in 1971, correct?

MR. AMES: I object. You're cross-examining your own witness.

MR. HAGARTY: He's not my witness as you well know.

MR. AMES: I thought I did. You noticed --

MR HAGARTY: Perhaps you did.

BY THE WITNESS:

A. I answered that I believed there was such a standard but at this moment, I didn't have any document to substantiate it with me.

Q. If you had a document to show otherwise, -- well, obviously --the present standard, it's your understanding, related to the fixed barrier rear-end impact at 30-miles an hour?

A. That's right.

Q. Not a moving barrier?

A. No, sir.

Q. And --

A. Once again, I have answered the question previously.

Q. What was your answer, that you know or didn't know?

A. I said that I have no document with me in which to -- to which I can refer, but there is a clear record obviously and that the standard may have been undergoing amendments since then but I do not believe the speed would have changed.

Q. In any event, you can't tell with certainty what standard was in effect in 1971?

MR. AMES: Object. Leading.

BY MR. AMES:

Q. Can you tell with certainty?

A. My answer again is I have answered that question very specifically.

Q. Would you answer it again for me. Can you tell us what the standard was in 1971?

A. I believe the same standard applied in 1970.

Q. That applies today?

A. That applies today.

Q. Would you consider an 86-mile per hour highway speed common place?

A. No, sir.

Q. It's unusual is it not?

ID: 1985-01.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William G. Hilton -- Manager, Vehicle Standards Technical Development Section Transportation and Safety Building (Harrisburg, PA)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William G. Hilton, Manager Vehicle Standards Technical Development Section Transportation and Safety Building, Room 407 Harrisburg, PA 17123

Dear Mr. Hilton:

I am writing to you at the request of Mr. John Patchuka, Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Motor Vehicles, concerning the effect of Federal law and regulations on small vans that are being used to transport school children in Pennsylvania. Mr. Patchuka's letter to me included several letters and memoranda from Pennsylvania officials, to which I will refer from time to time in my reply.

Briefly stated, it is my opinion that any van with seats for more than ten persons that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events must comply with tha standards for school buses issued by this agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-565 (hereafter, the Vehicle Safety Act). These standards include requirements for school bus lights and for mirrors. It is my further opinion that if the highway safety program standard on pupil transportation safety issued by this agency under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-564 (hereafter, the Highway Safety Act) were to be fully incorporated into Pennsylvania law, a van required to be equipped with school bus lights and mirrors would also have to comply with the painting and marking requirements for Type I school bus vehicles under that standard.

I believe that much of the confusion on the question of van-type school buses arises from the fact that we have issued regulations at various times under two separate statutes. The potential effect of the regulations is sometimes not apparent unless they are read side by side. This is particularly true of the basic definitions. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, which applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles:

"School bus" means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from schools or events related to such schools.

This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety (Public Law 93-492). As part of our effort to implement the school bus amendments, we undertook rulemaking to establish a regulatory definition. In the course of this rulemaking, we noted that the capacity of a "school bus" as defined in the Act (more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver) was one person larger than the capacity of a "bus" as defined in the standards (more than 10 persons). To make the regulatory definitions consistent, we defined a "school bus" as a category of "bus", thereby including a vehicle with a capacity of more than 10 persons including the driver. The complete regulatory definitions of "bus" and "school bus" are as follows (49 CFR S571.3(b)):

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

"School bus" means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Pennsylvania's recent enactment of Act 1984-146 conforms the definition of "school bus" under Pennsylvania law to our regulatory definition in 49 CFR S571.3.

Although we have exercised our discretion under the Vehicie Safety Act to exclude certain transit-type vehicles, the great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of school bus. More specifically, any new bus sold to a school district, or to a school bus contractor, is considered to be a school bus and must comply with the school bus safety standards applicable at the time of sale. A dealer or distributor who sells a non-complying bus to a school district or school bus contractor is subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

Under the Highway Safety Act, which deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States, we defined Type I and Type II school vehicles in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, 23 CFR S1204.4 (hereafter, HSPS 17). These definitions are as follows:

"Type I school vehicle" means any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. This definition includes vehicles that are at any time used to carry schoolchildren and school personnel exclusively, and does not include vehicles that only carry schoolchildren along with other passengers as part of the operations of a common carrier.

"Type II school vehicle" means any motor vehicle used to carry 16 or less pupils to or from school. This does not include private motor vehicles used to carry members of the owner's household.

The distinctian between school vehicles according to whether their passenger capacity is more than 16 appears only in HSPS 17, which relates only to the operation of the vehicles. At the point of sale, the Vehicle Safety Act standards apply. An 11 passenger bus, for example, would be required to be sold with school bus lights and mirrors conforming to the requirements for school buses found in Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 111 (49 CFR SS571.108, 571.111), the same as a school bus with a capacity of 44 passengers.

This is the point at which the interaction between the different Acts becomea crucial to an understanding of the lighting and marking requirements of HSPS 17. For the smaller buses that it defines as Type II school vehicles, HSPS 17 creates alternative requirements in Section IV.B.5.a: a Type II school vehicle must either (1) conform to the requirements applicable to Type I school vehicles (yellow paint, black bumpers, warning lights, and "School Bus" signs), or (2) be devoid of all school bus equipment and identifying features. There is no middle ground: Type II school vehicles must be either fully equipped and identified, or not equipped or identified at all. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). It therefore has the equipment specified by HSPS 17 for Type I school vehicles. Because it must have this equipment, it would not comply with IV.B.5.a(2) of HSPS 17. In a State whose law fully incorporated HSPS 17, such a bus would have to be painted and signed, as required by IV.B.5.a(1).

Let me stress once more that if a school district or school bus contract operator purchaces a bus to transport students, that bus must comply with the federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses, including the requirements for warning flashers, regardless of the provisions of State law. It is not relevant for Vehicle Safety Act purposes that the bus might be used in some areas where its warning signals may not be activated. The only relevant question is whether the bus will be used to transport students to and from school or related events.

The memoranda and letters attached to Mr. Pachuta's letter reflect differing interpretations of one section of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code which bears on the question of school bus equipment. This section, 75 Pa.C.S. S4552(h), provides that

established by the department shall not require vehicles which pick up and discharge schoolchildren only at locations off the highway to be of any particular color or to display flashing red and amber lights.

The letter from Mr. David H. Dille, Assistant Solicitor for the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, asserts that this section prevents the State from requiring a Type II school vehicle to "be painted National School Bus Glossy Yellow and to be equipped with flashing red and amber lights." In contrast, the opinion of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, as reflected in the letter of March 13, 1984, from Douglas K. Tobin, Director of Driver Licensing, and the supporting memorandum from Michael R. Deckman, Deputy Chief Counsel, is that the Federal regulations interact to require Type II school vehicles to be equipped with warning lights, yellow paint, and "School Bus" signs.

In my view, Mssrs. Tobin and Deckman are essentially correct. Mr. Deckman's memorandum cites the passage in the guidelines we issued in Notice 900 on June 1, 1977, in which we concluded that HSPS 17 would require buses equipped with the school bus lighting system to be painted and signed. We have consistently maintained this position in subsequent memoranda and correspondence, and we believe that it reflects the operation of a "Federal law or regulation" that prevents Section 4552(h) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, by its own terms, from allowing the use of school buses without warning lights and yellow paint. This is the case even though our agency has not elected to insist on the State's compliance with HSPS 17 as a condition for receiving highway safety funds.

As a final note on the operation of school buses under Section 4552(h), it is consistent with the Federal regulations for a State to designate areas in which school bus warning lights may not be used. The standards under the Vehicle Safety Act regulate only the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, not their use. Under the Highwsy Safety Act, section C.3.b of HSPS 17 expressly states that the "use of flashing warning signals while loading or unloading pupils shall be at the option of tne State." Thus, while our regulations require s school bus to be equipped with school bus warning lights, we do not specify the circumstances in which the lights must be used. If Pennsylvsnis chooses to invoke Section 4552(h) by designating aress in whioh warning lights should not be used, it may do so.

To summarize, our laws and regulations provide that:

o A vehicle is a bus under the Vehicle Safety Act if it is designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

o A bus sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events is s school bus under the Vehicle Safety Act.

o A school bus manufactured after the effective date of a school bus safety standard under the Vehicle Safety Act must comply with the standard.

o The safety standards now in effect require school buses to have school bus warning lights, mirrors and other safety equipment.

o Under the Highway Safety Act, HSPS 17 provides that a school bus equipped with school bus warning lights must also be painted yellow and marked as a "School Bus".

o A State is free to specify the circumstances under which the warning lights are to be used.

I hope that you will find this letter responsive to your needs. Please do not hesitate to write if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Alberto Negro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Alberto Negro Fiat Research & Development - USA Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn, MI 48216

Dear Mr. Negro:

This is a response to Mr. Rossi's request for an interpretation of the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541), which he asked that I direct to you. That standard requires that certain parts of high-theft carlines, including the engine and transmission, be marked with the vehicle identification number, if the part is an original equipment part, or with the letter "R" and the manufacturer's trademark, if the part is a replacement part. Mr. Rossi stated that it is occasionally ne cessary to remove the original equipment engine or transmission from one of these cars and install a replacement engine or transmission in the car. The original equipment engine and/or transmission is then sent to the factory to be repaired and reconditi oned. Following such repair, the engine and/or transmission is then put into the replacement parts network.

Mr. Rossi stated his belief that the original equipment part should have the original equipment identification removed and a replacement marking put onto the part. He then asked whether Ferrari was required to remove the footprint left by the original eq uipment identification marking or if that should be left on the part. The answer is that Ferrari and all other reconditioners are not permitted to remove from any reconditioned part the original equipment identification marking inscribed or affixed to th e part in compliance with Part 541. further, reconditioners are not required to inscribe or affix any additional markings to parts they have reconditioned.

Title II of the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-547: the Theft Act) includes a provision that addresses this question. This section (18 U.S.C. 511) reads as follows:

S511. Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers

(a) Whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle, or motor vehicle part, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b)(1) Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration by a person specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection (unless such person knows that the vehicle or part involved is stolen).

(2) The persons referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection are

(A) a motor vehicle scrap processor or a motor vehicle demolisher who complies with applicable State law with respect to such vehicle or part;

(B) a person who repairs such vehicle or part, if the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary for the repair; and

(C) a person who restores or replaces an identification number for such vehicle or part in accordance with applicable State law.

None of the exceptions set forth in 18 U.S.C. 511(b)(2) would permit Ferrari to routinely remove original equipment markings from reconditioned engines and transmissions. The first exception is not applicable, since Ferrari is clearly not a motor vehicle scrap processor or demolisher. The second exception would be applicable only in rare instances, since it is not usually necessary to remove the original equipment identification marking in order to recondition engines or transmissions. The third excepti on was explained as follows in the House Report on the Theft Act (H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 24 (1984)): "The exemption also applies to persons acting under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation or State law to restore or rep lace such markings." for the policy reasons discussed below, we will not give reconditioners authority to routinely remove original equipment identification markings from engines and transmissions. Assuming Ferrari does not have authority under applicabl e State law to remove such markings, the third exception does not apply to Ferrari when it is reconditioning engines and transmissions.

If reconditioners of engines and transmissions were allowed to routinely remove the original equipment identification markings, the law enforcement purposes of the Theft Act would be seriously undermined. In response to some comments received on the prop osed Part 541, a new S541.6(b) was added to the final rule. This section expressly prohibits covered major parts from being marked as both original equipment and replacement parts. The preamble to the final rule explained the reasons for prohibiting such "dual markings" as follows:

Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stolen original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. Once the original equipment identification (the VIN) had been obliterated from those stolen parts, a legitimate replacement part marking would remain. Assuming that the obliteration of the VIN were performed reasonably proficiently, repair shops and investigators would have little reason to suspect chat this part was anything other than a properly identified replacement part. 50 FR 43178; October 24, 1985.

These same law enforcement concerns would arise if Ferrari were to remove the VIN markings from its reconditioned engines and transmissions. If those parts were marked as both original equipment and replacement parts, the problems associated with dual ma rkings would arise. If, on the other hand, Ferrari were to try to obliterate the footprint from the original equipment, law enforcement officials would have no means of distinguishing engines Ferrari had reconditioned from stolen engines on which thieves had obliterated the original equipment marking and added a counterfeit replacement marking. In either case, it would cause confusion and uncertainty for law enforcement officials if Ferrari and the large number of other reconditioners were legitimately and routinely to remove the original equipment identification from reconditioned parts and add a replacement part marking to those parts.

Indeed, such action by reconditioners would serve to defeat the purpose of the Theft Act, which was to "decrease the ease with which stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced." If reconditioners routinely removed the original equipment markings from the engines and transmissions they reconditioned, car thieves could also remove those original equipment markings with impunity. If the thieves were ever questioned by law enforcement officials about the obliterated original equipment marking, they could respond that the marking must have been obliterated during reconditioning. If obliterated original equipment markings on parts do not provide law enforcement officials with evidence of illegal activity, there would seem to be no reason to require the original equipment markings on the parts.

Further, a requirement that all persons reconditioning engines and transmissions obliterate the original equipment marking and add a replacement part marking would impose significant additional costs and burdens on those persons. This would be inconsiste nt with the Theft Act's stated purpose of minimizing regulation of the aftermarket motor vehicle industry.

All of these potential problems can be avoided if reconditioners simply leave the original equipment marking on the parts after reconditioning. When those markings are left in place by reconditioners, thieves cannot claim that an engine or transmission t hat has a "footprint" in the area where the original equipment identification is placed is just a reconditioned part. Instead, the "footprint" would alert law enforcement officials to the likelihood that the original equipment marking had been unlawfully removed from the part. Further, no burdens are imposed in reconditioners if they must leave the original equipment markings in place and are not required to add any markings of their own. Therefore, we conclude that the Theft Act and Part 541 require th at businesses that recondition any major parts required to be marked pursuant to Part 541 leave those markings in place on the reconditioned parts. Part 541 does not require reconditioners to add any further identification markings to these parts.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: Theft Prevention Standard Request for Agency Interpretation

Dear Ms. Jones:

On October 24, 1985, the agency published in the Federal Register (50 FR 43166) the final rule for the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard and Selection of Covered Major Parts as required by the Motor Vehicle Theft law Enforcement Act of 1984.

The Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard requires a manufacture whose car line(s) fall above the median theft rate to mark the fourteen (14) major parts with the vehicle identification number (VIN) and replacement parts for those high theft lines are to be marked with the manufacturers logo and the letter "R". The standard also requires that the "target area" for marking of the replacement parts be different from the marking of the original parts marking so that repair shops and investigators can identify an original part from a replacement part.

On occasions, it becomes necessary for Ferrari to replace the original engine and/or gearbox in a customers vehicle in order to prevent tying up a customer's vehicle for an extended period to correct a major problem in the engine and/or gearbox. This rep lacement engine and/or gearbox will contain the label with the Ferrari logo and the letter "R" beginning with 1987 models.

The original engine and/or gearbox is then sent to the factory to be repaired and re-conditioned and at that point is placed in the spare parts network. The re-conditioned part will have the label containing the VIN removed and a replacement label affixe d prior to going into the spare parts network. The removal of the original parts marking label and the affixing of the replacement label is causing Ferrari some concern and they have asked that we request an agency interpretation on how to best handle th is matter.

The regulations in paragraph 541.5(d)(v)(8) requires that the removal of the label must "discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that invest igators will have , evidence that a label was originally present". The label to be affixed to the original engine and gearbox will be riveted and glued to the part so that when it is removed a "footprint" will be left behind.

The concern that Ferrari has for which they are requesting an agency interpretation is what to do with the "footprint" left by the original label after it is removed once the engine and/or gearbox has been re-conditioned prior to going into the spare par ts network? Do they remove the footprint or do they leave it on the part? If they are to remove it, do they have to fill in the two holes which were drilled for the rivets?

Ferrari does not want to cause confusion with repair shops or investigators when the "re-conditioned" engine and/or gearbox is used at some later date to replace a customers engine and/or gearbox that is in need of some major repair.

The agency's response to this request of interpretation should be sent to the Fiat R & D office in Dearborn, Michigan to the attention of Mr. Alberto Negro. We are prepared to supply you with any further information you may need to respond to our request .

Sincerely yours,

Ing. M. Rossi FSM/ai

ID: nht88-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/88

FROM: DENNIS D. FURR

TO: HOWARD WOLPE -- UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED TO HOWARD WOLPE, REDBOOK A33, SECTION 103(D) FMVSS 222, HSPG 17; TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED 12/21/88 FROM HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS TO JAMES BURNLEY

TEXT: Dear Congressman Wolpe,

In response to a phone conversation with one of your staff I would like to ask you to forward the following questions to the Department of Transportation for their response to the individual questions.

I feel that part of Motor Vehicle Safety Program Standard 17 is in direct violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also feel that the manner in which S4.1 in Safety Standard 222 is being interpreted, influences the overloading of the passive restraint system, and nullifies the safety features of the passive restraint system.

Basically, the questions are in regards to the individual seating position for the passenger in the passive restraint system.

QUESTION #1; Is Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act enforceable on the States, and school districts, and if so by whom?

QUESTION #2; If it is not enforceable, what is needed to make it enforceable?

QUESTION #3; It is my understanding that Standard 222 is the only enforceable Standard that address the passive restraint system, and is the minimum specifications for the passive restraint system.

Is the specifications in Standard 222 the minimum specifications for the passive restraint system?

QUESTION #4; S4.1 in Standard 222 says the number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W" and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.

Is the 15 mentioned in S4.1 the size of the individual seating position for a passenger?

If not, what is the width of the individual seating position?

QUESTION #5; I have been told by NHTSA that Standard 222 is for testing, and applies to the manufactures and is a condition of sale for new school buses.

As a result, NHTSA says the capacity for the standard 39 inch bench seat is 3. 39 divided by 15 is 2.6, and rounded to the next whole number is 3.

I have maintained that S4.1 says rounded to the nearest whole number, and the nearest whole number is 2, and not the next whole number of 3.

Understanding that the 6 tenths represents only 9 inches of the minimum 15 inch seating position for the passive restraint system mentioned in S4.1, and can not be used as a seating position as it is in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffi c and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, understanding that the 9 inches is less than the minimum 15 inch seating position in the applicable standard 222 which is still in effect.

The NHTSA says they carry the 6 tenths to the next whole number to insure that the bench seat is tested for the maximum number of seating positions.

I have maintained that the maximum number of seating positions in the 39 inch bench seat is 2, and there is not any need to carry the 6 tenths to the next whole number, even for testing.

I have maintained that the pounds of force that the symbol "W" is multiplied by should reflect the correct formula for testing the bench seat, and by adding a additional seating position to the bench seat to insure that the bench seat is tested for the m aximum number of seating positions, casts a shadow of dought on the formulas in Standard 222.

Also understanding that some fractional parts of the bench seats when divided by 15 is dropped, and others do not have fractional parts, and reflect the number of seating positions without adding the additional seating position as in the case of the 39 i nch bench seat.

The question is, what is the correct method for determining the number of the minimum 15 inch seating positions for any of the bench seats length?

QUESTION #6; It is my understanding that Safety Program Standard 17 is an elective Standard. In Safety Program Standard 17, under Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating (1); Seating shall be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufactures to provide seating accommodation for a

person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3.

It is my understanding that the manufactures have to comply to Standard 222, and by complying, Standard 222, and the 15 inch seating position mentioned in S4.1 is the intent of the manufactures, and the minimum seating position for the passive restraint system.

Regardless whether Standard 17 is, or is not adopted by a State, is Standard 222 the intent of the manufactures?

If not, what is?

QUESTION #7; It is my understanding that if Standard 222 is the minimum specification for the passive restraint system, the seating position for the 5th percentile adult female mentioned in Standard 17, would be in violation of Section 103 (d) of the Nat ional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, understanding that the 5th percentile adult female has minimum 15 inch seating position in Standard 222 which still is in effect.

Understanding that NHTSA has in an elective Standard, given directions for the use of a seating position that is less than the seating position mentioned in the enforceable Standard.

Also understanding that because of Standard 17 being an elective Standard by the states, and not a requirement of the manufacture, the 5th percentile adult female is not the intent of the manufactures.

Is the 5th percentile adult female seating position in Standard 17 in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #8; The school bus manufactures are rating the capacity of the bus by a 13 inch seating position instead of the 15 inch seating position for the passive restraint system.

It is now my understanding that this is because the NHTSA has carried the fractional part of S4.1 to the next whole number instead of to the nearest whole number as S4.1 says.

I have maintained that the passive restraint system is to protect the individual, and the method used by NHTSA launders the individual minimum 15 seating position mentioned in Standard 222.

By NHTSA saying the 39 inch bench seat has 3 considered seating positions, the school districts are saying 39 divided by 3 is 13, and maintain that the 13 inch seating position is the seating position for the standard 39 inch bench seat, even though it i s the 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222, and not the 13 inch seating position.

At the same time the school districts are being told the manufactures have complied to the requirements of Standard 222.

Is the method the manufactures rate the capacity of the school bus in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #9; As a result of the manufactures rating the capacity of the bus by the 13 inch seating position, the third passenger in middle or high school is required to sit in a standard 39 inch bench seat on only 9 inches of the bench seat.

This puts the third passenger outside of the head, and leg impact zones as described in Standard 222, S5.3.1, and S5.3.2., understanding that only one leg is in the impact area, and the head would also miss the intended impact zone, and in the event of a collision that passenger would be thrown out of the bench seat and receive additional injuries that he would not normally receive if he remained inside of the passive restraint systems impact area.

Is the placing of part of the passenger outside of the passive restraint system in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #10; According to the Blue Bird letter, the school bus manufactures follow the specifications of the State, and the recommendations of the Tenth National Conference, (1985 Revised Edition, Standards For School Buses and Operations), instead of f ollowing the specification for the seating position in Standard 222.

This is my understanding of a triple violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

First, the States specifications of a 13 inch seating position is less than the 15 inch seating position in the applicable Standard for the passive restraint system, and does effect the performance of the item of equipment by placing the third person in the standard 39 inch bench seat outside of the impact zones for the head, and legs.

Second, the recommendations of the Tenth National Conference, (1985 Revised Edition, Standards For School Buses and Operations), is the same as above, and in addition is the recommendations in part of the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, a political Subdivision of the States they represent, and they have recommended the 13 inch seating position for the 3-3 seating plan.

And third, the Manufactures have ignored the Standards for the passive restraint system in favor of the States

specifications for a seating position that is less than the minimum 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222 when rating the school buses capacity.

Also understanding that the minimum 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222 is not a estimated seating position, and only a seating position above the minimum 15 inch seating position can be rated, or estimated.

Is the above three items in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #11; Standard 222, S4.1 makes reference to a 15 inch seating position. Standard 208, S7.1.1 makes reference to the seating position of the 95th percentile adult male, who has a sitting width of 16.5 inches. Understanding that the seat belt is t o fit a person who is as large as the 95th percentile adult male.

This is the same John Doe sitting in the same length bench seat, and the only difference is in one instance he is sitting on a bench seat in the passive restraint system, and in the other instance he is sitting on the bench seat with seat belts.

Why is there the need of a larger seating position for a person wearing seat belts, than there is for a person seating in the passive restraint system?

QUESTION #12; Because of the trend of wearing seat belts, some school districts are adding seat belts to buses already purchased.

The seat belts are being attached to the 13 inch seating position instead of the 16.5 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 7.1.1. because of the states specifications being 13 inch seating position.

This is also my understanding of a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Is the attachment of the seat belt suppose to be along side of the seating position, or behind the seating position of the 95th percentile adult male?

Respectfully,