ID: nht87-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Senator Strom Thurmond

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/22/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Sterling Troxel; 10/5/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Charles B. Honeycutt; 12/29/77 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Kentucky Dept. of Education; 3/20/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr., to Nebraska Dept. of Mot or Vehicles

TEXT:

Dear Senator Thurmond:

Thank you for your December 8, 1986, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Roy H. Herron of the Anderson County School District No. 3 in Iva, concerning our school bus regulations. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply , since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In his letters to you' Mr. Herron expressed his concern with Federal laws Which he believes prohibit the school district from using 15-passenger vans manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, that do not meet Federal school bus standards. be argues that th ere is a need for school districts to use 15-passenger vans and suggests that we amend our regulations to permit their use.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. As explained below, the Federal requirements apply only to the manufacture and sale of new school buses, not to the operation of school buses after they have been purchased. Thus, there is no Federal law that prohibits the Anderson County School District from using their 15-passenger vans to carry school children. Federal law does, however, affect the manufacture of the vans and their sale to school districts.

I believe it might be helpful to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the School bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments which directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 passengers and likely to be significantly used for student transportation. The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each new school bus manufactured on or after that date. School buses manufactured prior to the effective date of the safety standards were not required to be designed and built in compliance with those standards.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of school buses must ensure that their new vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses and also those specifically applicable to school buses. The Safety Act also requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards or be potentially subject to fines under Federal law. We define a "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) and intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. Since new 15-passenger vans that are sold to the Anderson County School Districts are considered "school buses" under Federal law, persons selling such vans must ensure that the vans conform to Federal school bus safety standards.

Mr. Herron suggests that the definition of a school bus be amended to provide that passenger capacity be extended to 15 passengers. NHTSA's definition of a school bus necessarily follows the statutory definition of that term. Without a change by Congress in the statutory definition, our definition must remain as it is.

Your constituent argues in his letter to you that 15-passenger vans should be safe enough for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the School bus amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that spec ial measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportation. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent perfor mance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields and seating systems.

New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may be sold to the Anderson County School Districts to transport its pupils to school related events. The school districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, becaus e such vans are considered "multipurpose passenger vehicles"' (MPV's) and not "school buses" under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of new MPV's to carry school children nor do we require then to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. I nstead, they must meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's, which also provide high levels of passenger safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 8, 1986 Mr. David Sloane, Director Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Suite 10406, 400 Seventh Streets S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloan:

I have enclosed for your review communication from Mr. Roy H. Herron regarding the regulations pertaining to the transporting of students to and from school.

It is my understanding that your regulations allow schools to use vans that Here manufactured on or before April 1, 1977 that do not comply with school bus safety standards, but the schools are not allowed to use new vans unless they comply with all the school bus safety standards.

I would appreciate your explaining these regulations and giving me an up to date status report of this case.

With kindest regards and Greetings of the Season,

Sincerely,

Strom Thurmond

ST/hk Enclosure

November 25, 1986

The Honorable Strom Thurmond The United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Attention Mr. Jeff Kull

Dear Sir:

This letter is follow-up to our conversation this date concerning the use of vans to transport school students to related events.

The more we read into this problem it appears that the Department of Transportation is concerned only with vehicles introduced into the transportation system.

The attached letter, dated March 22, 1979, from then Acting Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Mr. Sterling Troxel states in paragraph three that "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate the sale or use of used vehicles. Therefore , there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling such a used vehicle for school use."

This whole set of regulation is arbitrary. Under current regulations a church group can transport our school students on Saturday and/or Sunday in the same type vehicle we use and be legal.

Your assistance in getting this regulation changed or waived so that school districts can use vans designed to carry 15 passengers or less, including driver, will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herron Superintendent

encls.

The Honorable Strom Thurmond United States Senator Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Senator Thurmond:

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your assistance. We have recently been made aware of Department of Transportation regulations (attached) that prohibit the use of vehicles designed to trans- port more than 10 passengers, that were manufactured af ter 1977, for the purpose of transporting school students unless the vehicle meets school bus specifications.

This school district and the vast majority of other districts in South Carolina use vans for transporting cheerleaders, small athletic teams, students on field trips and other academic related activities.

This regulation does not seem to be well thoughtout. Either a vehicle is safe to carry passengers or it is not; whether they be school children or adults. A van with its higher gross vehicle weight and seats installed higher than most other traffic is mu ch safer than a station wagon or automobile.

The impact of complying with this regulation is substantial. To replace our two vans with minibuses will cost our district $60,000 plus increased operating expenses. We are a small district, therefore, the impact on larger districts is even greater.

We have operated vans for many years with a perfect safety record. They serve a need most effectively and efficiently.

A remedy that will aid all school districts in South Carolina is for DOT to amend its regulation so that vehicles designed to carry 15 passengers or less be exempt from school bus standards. This change will not contribute to reduced safety for our stude nts.

Your assistance in this matter is most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herroxn Superintendent

(See letters from NHTSA to Sterling Troxel, Charles B. Honeycutt, Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles and Kentucky Dept. of Education)

ID: nht95-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Adam Englund -- Electric Bicycle Company, LLC

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 1/19/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Adam Englund (A44; Std. 108; Std. 116; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 122)

TEXT: The Electric Bicycle Company, LLC, 3601 Empire Avenue, Burbank CA, 91505 (hereinafter, "EBC") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. EBC hereby requests an interpretation with respect to certain Federal Motor Veh icle Safety Standards for the EV Warrior, an electric/human-powered bicycle to be manufactured by EBC.

Confidentiality

Certain portions of this document contain confidential information and trade secrets related to our product and marketing strategy. We have carefully calculated our market position. Based on that market analysis, we spent a great deal of time, money and effort to develop the EV Warrior. As we are about to launch our initial production run, we are aware that other electric bicycles are also entering the market. Our insistence on compliance with FMVSS sets us apart from our competitors. As such, t he very existence, and certainly the content of this Request for Interpretation is confidential and constitutes trade secrets.

We seek an interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with respect to the electric bicycle that we are about to manufacture.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior is essentially a multi-speed bicycle with attached electric motors that drive the rear wheel through a friction drive wheel against the rear tire. The transmissions of each power source - human and electric - are entirely separate. W hereas the bicycle employs six speed derailleur shifting, the electric motor powers the rear wheel through a single drive wheel on a roller clutch against the tire. The EV Warrior employs many standard bicycle components, including wheels, tires, cantil ever or optional hydraulic disc bicycle brakes, "Grip Shift" gear shifters, cranks and pedals

The power pack is integrated into the chassis of the cycle and is not intended to be removed, especially by the consumer. However, were the electric assist motor to be removed, the device would still function fully as a bicycle. (Without the assist m otor, the EV Warrior's equipment would be regulated under 16 CFR 512 by the Consumer Products Safety Commission - as a bicycle.)

Using the electric motor alone, the EV Warrior is capable of traveling approximately 15 miles at 12 m.p.h. Its maximum speed is under 25 m.p.h. Even with pedaling, it is difficult to push the bike beyond 25 m.p.h. Its total weight is approximately 85 lbs. Separate service brake systems operate the front and rear brakes, respectively.]

A. License Plate Attachment

CONFIDENTIAL

[We would like you to confirm our understanding that marine grade hook-and-loop material is an acceptable method of attaching the license plates. In my conversation with Luke Loy, NHTSA Safety Compliance Engineer, he advised me that since the FMVSS ar e silent on this issue, such attachment is acceptable.]

B. Adjustability of Headlight Beam, Standard No. 108 Table III, "Headlamps"

This Standard specifies the applicable SAE Recommended Practice for "Headlamp Mountings", SAE J566, Jan. 60. It recommends that:

"Headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that:

1. The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment."

CONFIDENTIAL

One primary rationale for beam adjustability is to compensate for changes in a vehicles suspension system. However, the EV Warrior has no springs or shocks. Rather, it uses a fixed frame and fork. In our experience, bicycle headlamps are continually knocked out of alignment. So, we have designed the headlamp to be secured such that the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service [per SAE J566, Jan. 60, par.]

We request an interpretation that the practical operating conditions for a motor driven cycle, whose top speed is under 25 mph and whose operation will correlate to a normal bicycle, dictate that its headlamp (which meets all other headlamp requiremen ts) need not be adjustable.

C. Hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil. Standard No. 116, "Motor vehicle brake fluids".

CONFIDENTIAL

[Our basic model EV Warrior employs mechanically activated wire cable "cantilever" brakes, front and rear. However, we currently offer a "standard option" hydraulic front disc brake. This brake, made by Sachs of Germany, is far superior to virtually any cantilever brake. It offers excellent braking power; simplicity in set-up, maintenance and operation; reliability; and fine modulation.

The Sachs hydraulic brake uses a green colored biodegradable synthetic oil, Shell Naturelle HF-E 15, that is not in contact with any elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloropren e (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR)."] Standard No. 116, S4. states that:

"Brake fluid means a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system in which it will contact elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inn er tube stock or natural rubber (NR).",

and,

"Hydraulic system mineral oil means a mineral-oil-based fluid designed for use in motor vehicle hydraulic brake systems in which the fluid is not in contact with components made of SBR, EPR or NR."

The synthetic oil employed by the Sachs system is neither a "Brake fluid" because it is not in contact with any components made of SBR, EPR, CR or NR, nor is it an "Hydraulic system mineral oil" as it is not petroleum based.

"S5. Requirements This section specifies performance requirements for DOT 3, DOT 4 and DOT 5 brake fluids; requirements for brake fluid certification; and requirements for container sealing, labeling and color coding for brake fluids and hydraulic sys tem mineral oils . . ."

CONFIDENTIAL

[The standard sets out the requirements for "brake fluid" and other requirements for "hydraulic system mineral oil. However, there are no requirements under S5. for fluids that do not fall within either of these definitions. EBC seeks an interpretat ion that, by omission, there are no requirements under FMVSS 116 for the hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil as used in the Sachs hydraulic brake system.]

D. Hydraulic Service Brake System Standard No. 122, "Motorcycle brake systems", S5.1.2

CONFIDENTIAL

[The Sachs brake differs from traditional hydraulic systems in that it is a closed system that employs a simple actuator instead of a master cylinder with a reservoir. In open systems, to compensate for brake pad wear, the master cylinder system requ ires a reservoir. However, the Sachs brake compensates for brake pad wear through a simple screw adjustment in the brake lever. This is an excellent system that is commensurate with the weight and simplicity of our electric bicycle. It is, in fact, mu ch easier to adjust than any cable type bicycle brake.]

Standard No. 122, S5.1.2 Hydraulic service brake systems, requires that:

"Each motorcycle equipped with a hydraulic brake system shall have the equipment specified in S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2."

S5.1.2.1 States that:

"Each master cylinder shall have a separate reservoir for each brake circuit, with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal and cover retention device . . ." (emphasis added) CONFIDENTIAL

[Since the Sachs hydraulic system employs no master cylinders, a simple calculation bears out the premise that when there is no master cylinder, the number of master cylinder reservoirs required is zero.

Alternatively, this standard seems to assume that an hydraulic brake system requires a master cylinder reservoir for its proper operation and does not contemplate an actuator system. We request an alternate interpretation that this standard applies t o an open system that requires a reservoir, but not to a closed, actuator system as employed by the EV Warrior. The reservoir serves no purpose in a closed system.

If your interpretation agrees with ours, that a reservoir is not required, then we hope you will also agree that, a fortiori, labeling requirements of S5.1.2.2, for a non-existent reservoir would also not be required.]

E. Tire requirements, Standard No. 119, "Pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars", S6. Requirements.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior's electric motor will propel the vehicle at no more than 25 m.p.h. (40 k.p.h.). Consequently, the maximum speed of the EV Warrior is about the same as a regular bicycle - and considerably slower than racing cyclists. Even when the mot or is operating at near peak efficiency (and hence reduced speed), the batteries will last no more than 15 miles (24 kilometers) or 1.5 hours. Unlike an internal combustion engine whose fuel tank can be filled in seconds, the EV Warrior generally takes over-night, or at best, a couple of hours to re-charge. Thus there is necessarily a period between each 1-1/2 hour trip when the tires will cool down. It is literally impossible for the EV Warrior to obtain the speeds, or travel anywhere near the non-s top distances contemplated by Standard No. 119]

Standard No. 119, S7.2 Endurance test procedures, require the test for motorcycle tires to be performed at a speed of 55 m.p.h. (90 k.p.h.) for 47 hours.

Standard No. 119, S7.4 High speed performance test procedures, requires testing at speeds of 50 m.p.h. (80 k.p.h.) for two hours, 75 m.p.h. (121 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h. (129 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes and 85 m.p.h. (137 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes.

CONFIDENTIAL

Clearly, these standards are inappropriate for a low-speed, short range electric bicycle such as the EV Warrior. It is not germane whether the EV Warrior's tire/rim combination remains undamaged at 55 mph, because the vehicle can never attain that sp eed. Similarly, the performance characteristics of the tires and rims after 47 hours is not apropos because the, vehicle cannot be operated continuously for that duration. Because it must be recharged after 1.5 hours for 30 minutes to 8 hours (thereby allowing the tires to cool), such a continuous-use endurance test is meaningless. As such, we request an interpretation that, Standard No. 119 cannot reasonably be applied to such a low speed, short range vehicle as the EV Warrior.

We at EBC have joined together to produce an entirely new form of transportation. Children are first introduced to transportation with bicycles. Electric bicycles will allow the smoothest and most natural transition from bikes to electric vehicles. As the first mass marketed electric vehicle, the EV Warrior vehicle will introduce an entire generation to electric vehicles and hasten the electric transportation revolution.

ID: nht95-7.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Adam Englund -- Electric Bicycle Company, LLC

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 1/19/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Adam Englund (A44; Std. 108; Std. 116; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 122)

TEXT: The Electric Bicycle Company, LLC, 3601 Empire Avenue, Burbank CA, 91505 (hereinafter, "EBC") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. EBC hereby requests an interpretation with respect to certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the EV Warrior, an electric/human-powered bicycle to be manufactured by EBC.

Confidentiality

Certain portions of this document contain confidential information and trade secrets related to our product and marketing strategy. We have carefully calculated our market position. Based on that market analysis, we spent a great deal of time, money and effort to develop the EV Warrior. As we are about to launch our initial production run, we are aware that other electric bicycles are also entering the market. Our insistence on compliance with FMVSS sets us apart from our competitors. As such, the very existence, and certainly the content of this Request for Interpretation is confidential and constitutes trade secrets.

We seek an interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with respect to the electric bicycle that we are about to manufacture.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior is essentially a multi-speed bicycle with attached electric motors that drive the rear wheel through a friction drive wheel against the rear tire. The transmissions of each power source - human and electric - are entirely separate. Whereas the bicycle employs six speed derailleur shifting, the electric motor powers the rear wheel through a single drive wheel on a roller clutch against the tire. The EV Warrior employs many standard bicycle components, including wheels, tires, cantilever or optional hydraulic disc bicycle brakes, "Grip Shift" gear shifters, cranks and pedals

The power pack is integrated into the chassis of the cycle and is not intended to be removed, especially by the consumer. However, were the electric assist motor to be removed, the device would still function fully as a bicycle. (Without the assist motor, the EV Warrior's equipment would be regulated under 16 CFR 512 by the Consumer Products Safety Commission - as a bicycle.)

Using the electric motor alone, the EV Warrior is capable of traveling approximately 15 miles at 12 m.p.h. Its maximum speed is under 25 m.p.h. Even with pedaling, it is difficult to push the bike beyond 25 m.p.h. Its total weight is approximately 85 lbs. Separate service brake systems operate the front and rear brakes, respectively.]

A. License Plate Attachment

CONFIDENTIAL

[We would like you to confirm our understanding that marine grade hook-and-loop material is an acceptable method of attaching the license plates. In my conversation with Luke Loy, NHTSA Safety Compliance Engineer, he advised me that since the FMVSS are silent on this issue, such attachment is acceptable.]

B. Adjustability of Headlight Beam, Standard No. 108 Table III, "Headlamps"

This Standard specifies the applicable SAE Recommended Practice for "Headlamp Mountings", SAE J566, Jan. 60. It recommends that:

"Headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that:

1. The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment."

CONFIDENTIAL

One primary rationale for beam adjustability is to compensate for changes in a vehicles suspension system. However, the EV Warrior has no springs or shocks. Rather, it uses a fixed frame and fork. In our experience, bicycle headlamps are continually knocked out of alignment. So, we have designed the headlamp to be secured such that the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service [per SAE J566, Jan. 60, par.]

We request an interpretation that the practical operating conditions for a motor driven cycle, whose top speed is under 25 mph and whose operation will correlate to a normal bicycle, dictate that its headlamp (which meets all other headlamp requirements) need not be adjustable.

C. Hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil. Standard No. 116, "Motor vehicle brake fluids".

CONFIDENTIAL

[Our basic model EV Warrior employs mechanically activated wire cable "cantilever" brakes, front and rear. However, we currently offer a "standard option" hydraulic front disc brake. This brake, made by Sachs of Germany, is far superior to virtually any cantilever brake. It offers excellent braking power; simplicity in set-up, maintenance and operation; reliability; and fine modulation.

The Sachs hydraulic brake uses a green colored biodegradable synthetic oil, Shell Naturelle HF-E 15, that is not in contact with any elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR)."] Standard No. 116, S4. states that:

"Brake fluid means a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system in which it will contact elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR).",

and,

"Hydraulic system mineral oil means a mineral-oil-based fluid designed for use in motor vehicle hydraulic brake systems in which the fluid is not in contact with components made of SBR, EPR or NR."

The synthetic oil employed by the Sachs system is neither a "Brake fluid" because it is not in contact with any components made of SBR, EPR, CR or NR, nor is it an "Hydraulic system mineral oil" as it is not petroleum based.

"S5. Requirements This section specifies performance requirements for DOT 3, DOT 4 and DOT 5 brake fluids; requirements for brake fluid certification; and requirements for container sealing, labeling and color coding for brake fluids and hydraulic system mineral oils . . ."

CONFIDENTIAL

[The standard sets out the requirements for "brake fluid" and other requirements for "hydraulic system mineral oil. However, there are no requirements under S5. for fluids that do not fall within either of these definitions. EBC seeks an interpretation that, by omission, there are no requirements under FMVSS 116 for the hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil as used in the Sachs hydraulic brake system.]

D. Hydraulic Service Brake System Standard No. 122, "Motorcycle brake systems", S5.1.2

CONFIDENTIAL

[The Sachs brake differs from traditional hydraulic systems in that it is a closed system that employs a simple actuator instead of a master cylinder with a reservoir. In open systems, to compensate for brake pad wear, the master cylinder system requires a reservoir. However, the Sachs brake compensates for brake pad wear through a simple screw adjustment in the brake lever. This is an excellent system that is commensurate with the weight and simplicity of our electric bicycle. It is, in fact, much easier to adjust than any cable type bicycle brake.]

Standard No. 122, S5.1.2 Hydraulic service brake systems, requires that:

"Each motorcycle equipped with a hydraulic brake system shall have the equipment specified in S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2."

S5.1.2.1 States that:

"Each master cylinder shall have a separate reservoir for each brake circuit, with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal and cover retention device . . ." (emphasis added) CONFIDENTIAL

[Since the Sachs hydraulic system employs no master cylinders, a simple calculation bears out the premise that when there is no master cylinder, the number of master cylinder reservoirs required is zero.

Alternatively, this standard seems to assume that an hydraulic brake system requires a master cylinder reservoir for its proper operation and does not contemplate an actuator system. We request an alternate interpretation that this standard applies to an open system that requires a reservoir, but not to a closed, actuator system as employed by the EV Warrior. The reservoir serves no purpose in a closed system.

If your interpretation agrees with ours, that a reservoir is not required, then we hope you will also agree that, a fortiori, labeling requirements of S5.1.2.2, for a non-existent reservoir would also not be required.]

E. Tire requirements, Standard No. 119, "Pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars", S6. Requirements.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior's electric motor will propel the vehicle at no more than 25 m.p.h. (40 k.p.h.). Consequently, the maximum speed of the EV Warrior is about the same as a regular bicycle - and considerably slower than racing cyclists. Even when the motor is operating at near peak efficiency (and hence reduced speed), the batteries will last no more than 15 miles (24 kilometers) or 1.5 hours. Unlike an internal combustion engine whose fuel tank can be filled in seconds, the EV Warrior generally takes over-night, or at best, a couple of hours to re-charge. Thus there is necessarily a period between each 1-1/2 hour trip when the tires will cool down. It is literally impossible for the EV Warrior to obtain the speeds, or travel anywhere near the non-stop distances contemplated by Standard No. 119]

Standard No. 119, S7.2 Endurance test procedures, require the test for motorcycle tires to be performed at a speed of 55 m.p.h. (90 k.p.h.) for 47 hours.

Standard No. 119, S7.4 High speed performance test procedures, requires testing at speeds of 50 m.p.h. (80 k.p.h.) for two hours, 75 m.p.h. (121 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h. (129 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes and 85 m.p.h. (137 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes.

CONFIDENTIAL

Clearly, these standards are inappropriate for a low-speed, short range electric bicycle such as the EV Warrior. It is not germane whether the EV Warrior's tire/rim combination remains undamaged at 55 mph, because the vehicle can never attain that speed. Similarly, the performance characteristics of the tires and rims after 47 hours is not apropos because the, vehicle cannot be operated continuously for that duration. Because it must be recharged after 1.5 hours for 30 minutes to 8 hours (thereby allowing the tires to cool), such a continuous-use endurance test is meaningless. As such, we request an interpretation that, Standard No. 119 cannot reasonably be applied to such a low speed, short range vehicle as the EV Warrior.

We at EBC have joined together to produce an entirely new form of transportation. Children are first introduced to transportation with bicycles. Electric bicycles will allow the smoothest and most natural transition from bikes to electric vehicles. As the first mass marketed electric vehicle, the EV Warrior vehicle will introduce an entire generation to electric vehicles and hasten the electric transportation revolution.

ID: nht73-4.48

DATE: 08/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Ralph Nader & Carl E. Nash

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge your letter of July 23, 1973, in which you protested against the categorization of the Volkswagen "Thing" as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

In light of the information you have provided, I have asked my people to review the situation and, as soon as they have presented their views to me for my consideration, I will be back in touch with you.

I certainly appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention.

SINCERELY,

July 23, 1973

James E. Wilson, Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Volkswagen of America, importers of the "most hazardous car currently in use in significant numbers in the United States,"* the Volkswagen Beetle, has outdone itself. It has introduced into the American market a passenger car so lacking in crashworthiness as to become a serious challenger to the earlier Beetles for the dubious distinction of being the most unsafe car in America.

* Center for Auto Safety, Small -- On Safety, Grossman Publishers, New York, 1972, p. 85.

Volkswagen's new offering to highway casualties is a four door, four passenger convertible which they call "The Thing." "The Thing" is built on a Volkswagen Beetle chassis just as is their Karmann Ghia model, but unlike the Karmann Ghia, "The Thing" doesn't even pretend to meet many of the required applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (MVSS). For example, "The Thing" does not meet the following standards:

114 Theft Protection (does not have a warning device indicating that the key has been left in the ignition when the driver's door is opened)

115 Vehicle Identification Number (does not have the VIN located in the required places)

202 Head Restraints (does not have any head restraints)

208 Occupant Crash Protection (does not have an automatic locking retractor for the lap belts nor a warning device for non-use of belts in occupied front seats) 214 Side Door Strength (the doors appear to have virtually no crush resistance and the hinges are not only flimsy, they are designed to separate if the door is lifted)

In addition, "The Thing" does not appear to meet the following applicable MVSS either:

109 New(Illegible Word) Tires (the tires are truck type tires which have probably not been tested against this standard)

110 Tire Selection and Rims (if the tires do not meet MVSS 109, the vehicle does not meet this standard)

201 Occupant Protection from Interior Impact (there is little more than a plastic cloth covering on the upper surface of the dash panel)

212 Windshield Mounting (the windshield folds forward and it is not clear whether it would meet this standard)

215 Exterior Protection (the bumpers are not of the energy absorbing type, so that it is not clear whether it would protect the safety related components of the car in the required low speed crashes)

The safety of occupants of the "The Thing" is further compromised by its complete lack of rollover protection, of upper torso restraint, and of protection against occupant ejection. Although these items are not specifically required by the present inadequate safety standards for convertibles, they are technologically feasible at low cost and should have been included in the design of "The Thing" out of an elementary respect for human life and limb.

Volkswagen of America is irresponsibly attempting to create a wider loophole in the motor vehicle safety standards in a flagrant violation of the law. That loophole is the classification allowed for certain passenger carrying vehicles as "multipurpose passenger vehicles" which are defined as:

A motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.

Multipurpose passenger vehicles are exempted from some of the motor vehicle safety standards, particularly the crash standards as noted above. Since "The Thing" is constructed on a VW automobile chassis, Volkswagen claims that it meets the definition of a multipurpose passenger vehicle by virtue of its special features for off-road use. According to their advertising brochure, these special features are the following:

"Skid Plates. Specially designed to protect protruding engine parts. Very important when operating in off-road conditions." [a feature also of the VW Beetle]

"Body Panels. Reinforced heavy gauge steel for rough treatment from off-road driving." [the Beetle also has body panels of heavy gauge steel] "Trailing arm suspension. Springing by rugged torsion bars. Torsion bars enclosed in a tubular casing to protect against off-road obstacles. Stabilizer bar maximizes road holding." [the suspension is identical with that of the Beetle]

"High Ground Clearance combined with short overhang front and rear makes "The Thing" the ideal car for rough terrain and bad roads. (With its smooth platform type chassis, the control cables rods and brakelines are well protected.)" [the ground clearance is only a couple of inches more than that of the Beetle, and the chassis is otherwise identical to that of the Beetle]

"Front and Rear Bumpers. Rugged, heavy duty bumpers with tow-eyes. Stands the abuse of off road driving." [the Beetle also has bumpers]

"Windshield. When the top is open, the windshield can be folded forward and rested in retaining clips located on the front hood. For off-road driving only."

"Removable Doors. For off-road driving only. Just release retaining spring and lift doors up and off hinges. Storage compartment in the door panels."

"Sloping Hood. Designed so that you can see more of what's ahead. A must when travelling the hills and dunes." [the Beetle also has a sloping hood]

In addition to the specific claims for "The Thing" the advertising for "The Thing" shows it in a number of off-road activities such as driving in sand dunes, on the beach, in water, and through fields. A close look at the so-called "special features" of the new VW shows that most of them are either not relevant to off-road operation (such as the removable doors and folding windshield) or are features taken directly from the VW Beetle from which it was derived. Thus the only special features on "The Thing" are the high ground clearance and the tow-eyes, features which could be built into a standard Beetle at virtually no cost. These special features are hardly sufficient to allow Volkswagen to qualify "The Thing" as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

The advertising for "The Thing" even refers to it as a car: "At last, there's one car that's good for more than one thing." [emphasis added]

If Volkswagen of America is allowed to import and sell this car as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, other manufacturers will exploit this widened loophole to circumvent some of the most important safety standards merely by adding a trivial special feature or two to its normal passenger cars to avoid compliance with the passenger car standards which do not apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Recently the Center for Auto Safety petitioned the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration to eliminate one of the major loopholes in the motor vehicle safety standards. They asked for the elimination of the differential application of the MVSS to multipurpose passenger vehicles and light trucks compared with passenger cars. This petition has our full support. The need for reform of these standards has been amplified with the introduction of "The Thing" into the American market.

More immediately, we urge you to enjoin further importation distribution, and sales of "The Thing" under the authority of 15 U.S.C. @ 1399(a) until these vehicles can be brought into compliance with all applicable standards for passenger cars and that you require the recall of all of these vehicles which are in consumers' hands for retrofitting to meet these standards.

It is absolutely unconscionable that a vehicle so lacking in rudimentary occupant crash protection be marketed, although people have come to expect such irresponsibility from this vehicle manufacturer and its American subsidiary. "The Thing" is completely lacking in(Illegible Word) protection and protection against occupant ejection despite the well-known propensity of Volkswagens to overturn and despite the special hazards of overturning in off-road operations. Even a minor crash in "The Thing" would be likely to produce serious injury if not death to its occupants. To protect those members of the public who are unwittingly buying these disasters, you must take immediate action. That Volkswagen has come this far with "The Thing" is a reflection of its disrespect for the unused authority of your agency -- a disrespect which your predecessors encouraged by their non-enforcement of the law and the non-strengthening of of its standards.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

Carl E. Nash

cc: Senator Warren G. Magnuson Senator Vance Hartke Senator Ted Stevens Representative Harley O. Staggers Representative John E. Moss Secretary Claude S. Brinegar

ID: SUBLEASE.ETL

Marian E. Baldwin, Esq.
Chadbourne & Parke LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112

Dear Ms. Baldwin:

This is in response to your letter of September 12, 1996, in which you request written confirmation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") that the transfer of a leasehold interest in a motor vehicle that you describe in your letter "would not require compliance with the odometer disclosure requirements set forth in . . . 49 CFR Part 580 at the inception of the leasehold transaction," in those states which have given you official written notice that the transaction that you describe is not a transfer of ownership which would require issuance of a new title.

As you describe the transaction that is the subject of your request, the leasing company that owns motor vehicles already under lease to end-users ('the lease company") is to lease the leases of those vehicles to a special-purpose trust ("the trust") (formed for the sole purpose of executing this financial transaction), which will simultaneously sublease the vehicle back to the lease company. Your letter further states that the leases and subleases executed between the lease company and the trust are "subject to" the end-user leases of the customers who lease the vehicles from the automobile lease company. In your letter, you also indicate your understanding that the interpretation you are requesting would apply only with respect to transactions of the nature described in your letter that take place in states that have formally (i.e., in writing, over the signature of an authorized individual) determined that such transactions do not require a transfer of title.

With the above limitation, I can confirm that your understanding is correct. The statute that sets forth Federal odometer disclosure requirements is the Truth-in-Mileage Act of 1986 ("TIMA"), now codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327. Section 32705 of that statute requires a transferor of a motor vehicle to make a signed disclosure of the vehicle's odometer reading at the time that he or she is transferring ownership of a motor vehicle. Section 32705(b) also requires that this disclosure must be made on the vehicle's title. The Federal odometer disclosure regulations implementing this provision (49 CFR Part 580) likewise make it clear that the requirement to disclose the odometer reading arises when there is a transfer that requires the state to issue a new title in the name of a different owner. See 49 CFR 580.5.

NHTSA recognizes that the laws of the individual states differ as to the types of transactions that require the issuance of a title in the name of a different owner. TIMA relies on disclosure of odometer information on the vehicle's title document at the time of title transfer as its principal means of reducing odometer fraud. The integrity of the "paper trail" of written and signed odometer disclosure statements on the vehicle title must be maintained in order to accomplish this purpose.

Accordingly, the critical issue that must be addressed in deciding whether to require an odometer disclosure in a given transaction is whether that transaction requires a transfer of title under state law. The only way to ensure the integrity of the paper trail is to require that an odometer disclosure be made any time there is a transaction involving a motor vehicle otherwise covered by Part 580, that requires retitling of the vehicle in a new name under state law.

In your letter you have attached letters from officials of the states of New York, New Jersey and Florida in which they have stated their determinations that the transaction that you described to them, which is the same as the one that you describe in your letter to NHTSA, is not one which would require issuance of a new title under the laws of those states. We have independently reviewed the information you submitted describing the nature of the transaction, as well as the reasons given by the states for their conclusions that the transaction did not require the issuance of a new title under their laws. We conclude that the conclusions reached by the states regarding the legal status of your proposed transaction are reasonable and well-founded.

The lease company is leasing, rather than selling, the leases it owns in certain vehicles to the trust, which in turn is subleasing that interest back to the lease company. The lease company does not in these transactions relinquish ownership of the vehicle itself, nor does it relinquish ownership of the lease to the end-user. Therefore, there is a reasonable basis for these states to conclude that neither the lease of the

lease to the trust, nor its sublease thereof back to the lease company, are events that constitute a change in ownership interest which would require retitling under their laws.

Therefore, the agency concludes that in the states that have concluded that these events do not require the issuance of a new title, there is no requirement for an odometer disclosure statement either when the leasing company leases its lease to the trust, or when the trust subleases the lease back to the lease company. This opinion is not intended in any way to require, or even suggest, that other states reach the same conclusion as to whether the transaction you describe requires a new title. Whether a transaction involving a motor vehicle requires the issuance of a new title is a matter for each state to decide for itself based on its own laws and regulations governing motor vehicle titling. Accordingly, the conclusions stated herein do not apply to transactions of the type you describe that take place in states other than those that have officially concluded that the transaction does not require retitling.

Your letter is correct in its statement of what the Federal odometer law requires when the trust expires. At that time, the leasing company has the option of whether to buy out the trust's sublease. If it does so, it still retains ownership of the vehicle and the underlying lease to the end-user. Since exercising the option to buy out the lease does not involve a change of ownership, it does not require an odometer disclosure statement. However, if the leasing company does not exercise this option when the sublease expires, the special-purpose trust would take possession of the vehicles and their leases. As your letter correctly points out, this transaction is a change which requires the trust to apply for a new title, which in turn triggers the obligation to comply with all elements of Part 580 that are applicable. This includes both obtaining from the end-user/lessee a disclosure of the odometer mileage in compliance with 49 CFR 580.7, Disclosure of odometer information for leased motor vehicles, as well as the disclosure made by the lease company to the trust pursuant to 49 CFR 580.5.

I hope the information provided above is responsive to your request. If you have any further legal questions concerning the Federal odometer statute and regulations you may address them to this office at the above address, or telephone me at 202-366-9511 or Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:580

d:10/25/96

ID: nht80-2.11

DATE: 04/22/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MPI, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your April 9, 1980, telephone conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked whether a styrofoam board that lies beneath a layer of polyurethane foam would be required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standards No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

As Mr. Tilton explained to you, the standard applies to seating components such as yours only to the extent that they fall within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment air space. This requirement is specified in paragraph S4.2 of the standard. You indicated that your styrofoam board would not fall within 1/2 inch of the compartment because the polyurethane cover will always be thicker than 1/2 inch. Assuming this is true, your styrofoam board would not be required to comply with the standard.

ID: aiam5517

"Dear Mr. Brauninger: This responds to your letter asking whether window shade intended for use on an automobile is motor vehicle equipment. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. From the materials you sent us, we assume that you are referring to the roll-down shades that suction onto the rear side window of vehicles, usually for the purpose of keeping the sun off the faces of children strapped into child safety seats. The answer to your question is yes. The window shades are an accessory (a type of motor vehicle equipment) under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7). As explained in my September 16, 1994, letter from this office to Mr. Harleigh Ewell of your office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an 'accessory.' The two criteria are whether: (1) A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, and (2) it is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to the window shades, we conclude that they are accessories. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. We assume that the window shade you are referring to has packaging that shows that its purpose is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun while the vehicle is in operation. The shade would typically be acquired and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle). Since the shade satisfies both criteria, it is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has issued no safety standards that apply specifically to window shades that are sold separately from the vehicle. However, as you know, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are responsible under our statute for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you will send us the information you have regarding the incidence of accidents caused by these window shades, we will forward it to the appropriate NHTSA office. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 12374-3.pja

Mr. Jean-François Thomas
Manager of Industrial Property
Glaverbel -- Center R&D
Rue de L'Aurore, 2
B-6040 Jumet, Belgium

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This responds to your August 14, 1996, letter asking nine questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors. (49 CFR 571.111). Your questions focus on S11 of FMVSS No. 111, which states

[a] multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of an electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure. (Emphasis added).

For the sake of convenience, this letter refers to this passage as "the phrase." Our response is based on our understanding of the facts set forth in your letter. We assume that these questions refer to multiple reflectance mirrors that require power to maintain their reflectance levels above the 35 percent level.

A. Other sections of Standard 111, such as S5, differentiate between, or address specifically, different types of mirrors, such as outside rear view mirrors, or inside rearview mirrors. In contrast, S11 only refers to a "multi reflectance mirror." Please confirm that S11 applies to both inside and outside rearview mirrors.

Yes. Section S11 states that the "average reflectance of any mirror shall be determined in accordance with" a Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended practice. (Emphasis added) Moreover, there is no limiting language in S11. Therefore, S11 applies to both inside and outside rearview mirrors.

B. We note that the Phrase does not specify the time frame within which the driver must adjust the mirror to the 35% level. Please indicate whether a time frame has been contemplated, and what it is.

While NHTSA did not contemplate a specific time frame, it intended that the adjustment could be done mechanically, in much the same way as a conventional selective prismatic mirror can be adjusted. See 56 FR 58575 (November 20, 1991). This is because the electrical failure could turn the mirror dark at any time, including situations where the driver could not pull over to repair the mirror but would need to brighten the mirror quickly (e.g., while in a tunnel or maneuvering in heavy traffic). NHTSA interprets the phrase to mean that the adjustment would have to be done quickly while driving.

C. Can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that the case of the mirror may contain an attachment that can be removed in the event of an electrical failure, so that, after the removal of such attachment, the portion of the mirror that remains installed in the vehicle achieves the 35% reflectance?

Yes. We are not entirely sure what you mean by "the case of the mirror," but as long as the removal of the attachment could be done quickly by the driver alone, while driving (e.g., pulling off a faceplate), the removal of an attachment could be considered a "means to adjust."

D. Can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that the case of the mirror may contain an additional or replacement components that can be affixed to the mirror in the event of an electrical failure, so that after the driver has added, affixed, or installed such an additional or replacement component onto the mirror, the mirror achieves the 35% reflectance?

No. NHTSA stated in the 1991 final rule that "the rulemaking's overriding focus must be to ensure that mirrors are capable of providing adequate rearview vision at all times during the vehicle's operation." (emphasis added) It is doubtful that this arrangement could provide adequate rearview vision at all times during the vehicle's operation. The driver would have to open the case, remove an item, and affix it. This is a three step process that should not be performed while driving. In contrast, NHTSA envisions a simple action -- such as flipping a lever, turning a knob, or pulling or sliding a panel -- that can be quickly accomplished while driving. An important distinction between the situation here and the situation in question C is that the attachment in question C can always be removed, resulting in a compliant mirror, but a missing attachment cannot be affixed to restore the mirror's reflectance.

E. Can the Phrase be interpreted to include, as a "means to adjust," the removal of a portion of the existing mirror or the addition of a component on top of an existing mirror?

As discussed in our response to question C, the removal of a portion of the existing mirror could be considered a "means to adjust." As discussed in question D, the addition of a component on top of an existing mirror, would not meet this definition. The intent here is to allow for adequate vision at all times during the vehicle's operation.

F. Can the words "be equipped with a means . . . to adjust" be interpreted to allow the driver to stop the vehicle and complete such adjustment within a short time after the occurrence of the electrical failure, using spare parts or tools available within the mirror case? Within the glove compartment, within the trunk?

No. As explained above, such scenarios would be impermissible because they could not be done at all times while the vehicle is in operation.

G. Assuming that Section 11 applies to both inside and outside mirrors, does the "means to adjust the mirror have to be within the drivers reach within the vehicle, i.e., without opening the window to reach the mirror, or without stopping the car and getting out of the car to adjust the mirror. Or, can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that in the case of outside mirrors, which are less accessible than [the] internal mirror, the driver may have the ability to stop the vehicle to adjust the mirror to the appropriate reflectance level.

Yes, the means to adjust the mirror have to be within the driver's reach, but the driver may roll down the driver's side window in order to reach the outside mirrors on that side. The driver would have to be able to accomplish the adjustment quickly, alone, and without stopping the vehicle. Because the driver could not safely reach the passenger side outside rear view mirror, there would have to be some remote means to adjust that mirror to 35 percent reflectance in the event of an electrical failure.

H. Can the Phrase be interpreted to allow the use of a battery, as an alternative source of power? And if yes, does the battery have to be incorporated within the mirror, or is it sufficient if it is provided to the purchasers of the vehicle (and is affixed to the vehicle's trunk or glove compartment), or is it sufficient if the battery is generally available in commerce?

No. Battery backup would not be a "means . . . to adjust." Batteries merely address temporarily certain kinds of electrical failure caused by loss of primary power. The regulatory requirement is meant to address the term "electrical failure" from any cause. For example, if the electrical failure occurred in the contacts to the mirror, the battery power would not maintain mirror reflectance at 35 percent. Moreover, over time the battery would discharge, eventually becoming unavailable for backup.

I. Modern vehicles contain numerous components that can operate only with electricity. Among them, for example, windshield wipers, electrical windows, ABS brakes or airbags. Although the probability is extremely small, electrical failures do at times occur. Since no product can achieve 100 % reliability, we assume that there must be some threshold level of failure. Can Standard 111/11 be interpreted or, has this or any other safety standard been interpreted to allow a "de minimis level" of non compliance? Please provide examples of failure levels that are acceptable.

The probability of failure is irrelevant in this case. The requirement states "in the event of electrical failure . . . " Therefore, no matter how rare it would be in the real world, an electrical failure is an event that the standard specifically addresses. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a multiple reflectance mirror for compliance with S11, the agency will cause an electical failure. NHTSA's current test procedure (TP-111-05, May 9, 1995) states "[i]f [testing] a multiple reflectance mirror remove all electrical power and adjust [the mirror] manually to day mode position, if so equipped." (Emphasis added). If there is a battery backup, NHTSA will disable that, too.

In answer to your second question, our regulations do not allow a "de minimis" level of noncompliance. The standards are written in terms of objective criteria such that a vehicle or a regulated item of equipment passes only if it meets the stated requirements. Except for minor labeling violations or failures that, in NHTSA's judgment, are aberrations rather than systematic problems, most test failures are subject to follow up actions which are directed at obtaining a recall.

In addition to our responses to your specific questions, we have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes a manufacturer's responsibilities to recall and remedy motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with safety related defects and how this agency's standards apply to such products motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:111

d.11/21/96

ID: nht73-1.9

DATE: 10/29/73

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

TO: T. N. O'Leary, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of October 8, 1973, to the Department of Transportation you ask whether it is true that DOT requires trailer braking systems to have stainless steel conduits rather than copper ones.

Neither the Federal motor vehicle safety standards nor the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety contain such a requirement, and we are unaware of any Federal regulation of this nature.

Yours truly,

October 8, 1973

Office of the General Counsel -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

We have been informed that there is a Department of Transportation regulation to the effect that trailers hauled behind motor vehicles must have stainless steel, as opposed to copper conduits for their gravitational braking systems. As I understand it, the idea behind the gravitational braking system is that when the car puts on its brakes, the trailer naturally exerts forward pressure on the hitch, and this pressure in turn activates the conduits or braking system in such a way that brake fluid flows through the conduit and puts the brakes on the crailer in action.

If there is, in fact, such a regulation, I would appreciate your pointing it out to me. Thank you.

Yours very truly,

PAIN & JULIAN --

Thomas N. O'Leary

P.S. Also, I would appreciate knowing the reasons behind such a regulation and the evidentiary effect, if any, in a Court of Law for such a rule.

ID: Copy of Robert Babcock