ID: nht92-5.12

DATE: July 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William E. Lawler -- Manager, Specifications, Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/92 from William E. Lawler to Mary Versailles (OCC 7307)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1992, concerning the test requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your questions concern a final rule published on December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63682) clarifying the definition of "seat belt anchorage." That final rule had the effect of requiring seat belt attachment hardware, which previously was not included within the definition of "seat belt anchorage," to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 210. Your five questions are addressed below.

The first three questions refer to a safety belt design which incorporates a retractor.

1. If a test harness is used, can one end of the harness be attached to the attachment hardware (retractor frame), or must it be attached to the retractor spool?

The use of test harnesses for Standard No. 210 testing was permitted in a final rule published April 30, 1990, and effective September 1, 1992. More specifically, the final rule specified that "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" be used to transfer the test loads from the body block to the anchorages during the Standard No. 210 compliance tests. The amended standard also specifies that the attachment of this material should "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing.

The amended definition of "seat belt anchorage" explicitly states that the seat belt anchorage is

any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the retractor spool breaks during a crash, the safety belt will not remain attached to the vehicle. Therefore, the retractor spool is a part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, and, under the definition set forth above, is part of the seat belt anchorage. If a test harness is used, it must be attached such that the retractor spool is tested as part of the seat belt anchorage. The harness may not be attached directly to the retractor frame, since the retractor spool would not be tested in that instance.

2. If the harness must be attached to the spool, may it be attached around the spool as opposed to being inserted into the spool?

As stated previously, Standard No. 210 specifies use of "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" for Standard No. 210 tests. For compliance tests, NHTSA's preference is to use the original safety belt webbing whenever possible. When this cannot be done, due to elongation or breakage of the original webbing, NHTSA's first choice is to attach substitute webbing or other material to the original webbing near the anchorage. If the substitute material cannot be attached to the original webbing, NHTSA would attach the substitute webbing directly to the retractor spool. If the substitute webbing cannot be inserted into the spool in the same manner as the original webbing, attaching the substitute webbing around the spool would most closely duplicate the geometry of the original webbing.

3. We assume it is the intent of the agency to test only the strength of the attachment hardware--not the locking mechanism of the retractor built in accordance with FMVSS 209.

The strength requirement in S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that anchorages must withstand certain forces when tested under specified conditions. Under S4.2.3, permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. If breakage of the locking mechanism (a part of the anchorage because it is "involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure") caused separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, such breakage would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test, as the anchorage would not have withstood the test forces. However, if the locking mechanism broke or released during the test without allowing the webbing to separate from the vehicle structure, the agency would not consider it a failure of the strength requirement test, since the belt would still be anchored to the vehicle structure.

4. A commonly used design is the "cable buckle". The buckle assembly is positioned in convenient reach of the seat occupant by attaching the buckle to a cable by a method called swaging. The attachment hardware consists of a flat end containing a hole for an attaching bolt and a ferrule which is swaged to the cable. The ferrule and the flat end are made in one piece. Please confirm that the attachment ferrule bolted to the seat/vehicle is what is required to withstand the forces dictated by FMVSS 210; separation of the cable from the ferrule would not constitute malfunction of the test harness and not non-compliance to FMVSS 210.

In the December 5, 1991 final rule, the agency stated that "the definition of seat belt anchorage included only the attachment points of the seat belt, and not the webbing, straps, or similar device, or the buckles which comprise the seat belt itself." For this design, the cable is a "similar device" to seat belt webbing, and would be considered part of the seat belt, not the anchorage. If the cable broke, the agency would consider that an incomplete test, just like breakage of webbing. However, it would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test if the cable pulled out of the ferrule, since such pulling out would result from a failure of the ferrule rather than a broken cable.

5. Please confirm that the test harness could delete the buckle mechanism and attach directly to the upper end of the cable in the cable/ferrule assembly.

The answer to this question is yes. As stated previously, buckles are part of the seat belt, not the anchorage, and therefore, are not subject to the strength requirement of Standard No. 210.

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

ID: nht92-5.13

DATE: July 23, 1992

FROM: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emissions & Safety, Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Mr. Sakai

TITLE: FMVSS 214 Side Impact Protection Quasi-static Door Strength Test

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takashi Odaira (Std. 214)

TEXT:

The side door strength test procedures specified in FMVSS 214 are not quite clear as they relate to pickup trucks. In the attached sheets, we have described three alternative procedures that Isuzu Motors Limited, Japan, plans to follow.

Isuzu Motors requests your agency's view and/or comment on each of these procedures.

I would appreciate receiving your prompt reply.

(Attachments omitted)

ID: nht92-5.14

DATE: July 22, 1992

FROM: Arye Addady -- Maaco

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/11/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Arye Addady (A39; Std. 105)

TEXT:

I am working on an idea (patent pending) that will require installation of a device to the hydraulic brake system of a vehicle, (this will not reduce or alter in any way the integrity of the brakes) and I would like to know if a permission from your department is required. (I am aware, however, that in any event as the alteree I am ultimately responsible for anything that may happen due to the alteration.)

Would you be kind to advise me if a permission is required.

Thank you very much for your swift reply.

ID: nht92-5.15

DATE: July 20, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tim Flagstad

COPYEE: Joan Moniz

TITLE: FAX 617-477-6249

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/19/92 from Jim Flagstad to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7417)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of June 20, 1992, with respect to importation of a 1981 Kenworth truck from Canada. This vehicle bears VIN M911042. You state that you imported the truck on February 12, 1990, through "a licensed broker and all necessary declarations and papers were properly submitted." You have enclosed a letter from Kenworth of Canada dated March 6, 1991, stating that this truck was "in compliance with the U.S. federal laws . . . at the time of delivery", which was August 31, 1981.

Although you experienced no difficulty in titling the truck in California, the purchaser of your truck, resident in another state, is "having a problem registering it" because the VIN has only seven characters. Joan Moniz, the daughter of the purchaser talked with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 23, 24, and 25, 1992, and explained that the problem is that the State of Hawaii is requiring registration as a 1975 vehicle. According to her copy of the HS-7 importation form under which the truck entered the United States, Box 2 was checked, the declaration that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears a certification label to that effect. However, according to her, the truck bears no U.S. certification label, and her records indicate that the date of importation and clearance was January 31, 1990. We are furnishing Ms Moniz a copy of this response.

You ask whether paragraph S2 of Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, exempts this vehicle from the 17-character requirement of paragraph S4.2, "and make it legal in the United States with a seven digit number." Paragraph S2 of Standard No. 115 applies to trucks and other motor vehicles, and states in pertinent part that "Vehicles imported into the United States under Sec. 591.5(f), other than by a corporation which was responsible for the assembly of that vehicle, or a subsidiary of such a corporation are exempt from the requirements of S4.2 . . . ." Section 591.5(f) corresponds to Box 3 on the HS-7 importation form, the declaration that the vehicle to be imported was not manufactured in conformity with the safety standards but will be brought into conformity with them. However, S2 makes it clear that conformity does not require the nonconforming vehicle to meet the requirement of Standard No. 115 that VINs be composed of 17 characters. Indeed, S4.9(a) specifically requires passenger cars imported under part 591 to retain their original VINs.

We note that the truck in question was imported under section 591.5(b) (Box 2), as a conforming vehicle, and, in a legal sense, is not eligible for the exclusion provided for vehicles imported under section 591.5(f). However, importation under section 591.5(b) was erroneous, since the truck bore no certification of compliance. Furthermore, in spite of the letter from Kenworth of Canada stating that the truck was "in compliance with U.S. federal laws" at

the time of its delivery on August 31, 1981, it manifestly failed to comply with Standard No. 115 which, as of September 1, 1980, required trucks to have 17-character VINs. Ms Moniz believes that is also lacks an air brake system as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. Lacking a certification label, the truck should have been imported under section 591.5 (f), which would have excused it from compliance with the 17-digit requirement. I shall shortly address a possible resolution of this dilemma.

You have also asked whether this truck should have been imported through a "registered importer". You state that Taylor Vinson told you in a recent telephone conversation that "as U.S. Customs had accepted the vehicle's compliance to U.S. Safety Standards and had not required a bond, a registered importer was not required."

This opinion was based on the assumption that the letter from Kenworth of Canada attesting to the truck's conformance with U.S. safety standards had accompanied the vehicle's importation, and was accepted by Customs (for the record, NHTSA currently permits importation of Canadian vehicles without bond or reference to a registered importer provided that a conformance letter from the manufacturer has been submitted for the agency's approval before importation). However, we see that our assumption was incorrect; Kenworth's letter is dated March 1991, and could not have accompanied the truck when it was imported in 1990.

If a Canadian-manufactured vehicle is not accompanied by such a letter (or a permanently affixed label certifying compliance to U.S. standards), the vehicle must be entered under section 591.5 (f) (Box 3) by a registered importer or by an importer who has a contract with a registered importer who will assure compliance with all the standards. Therefore, the truck in question was subject to the requirement that it be imported by a registered importer, or by a person who had a contract with a registered importer.

Furthermore, the truck could not have been admitted into the United States unless the Administrator of this agency had determined that it was capable of conformance to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the Administrator had made no such determination. However, the effective date of section 591.5 (f) , the registered importer requirement, and the vehicle capability requirement was January 31, 1990, the date that the truck appears to have been imported into the United States. Both Customs personnel and brokers should have been aware of the new requirements that became effective on that date. However, as of that date (and for some months thereafter), no registered importers had been appointed, and no vehicle capability determinations had been made. Thus, even if the truck had been imported pursuant to section 591.5(f), this could not have been accomplished until much later in 1990 when the agency made a blanket capability determination concerning canadian vehicles.

Because of the passage of time and the apparent present location of the truck in Hawaii, the agency has no interest in requiring re-entry of this vehicle at this date to conform with regulations that went into effect the date that it was imported. As for the problem of the truck's registration, it is curious that Hawaii would wish to register as a 1975 model-year truck a vehicle that was manufactured in 1981. Perhaps the State simply wishes to treat it as a vehicle that conforms to standards in effect in 1975, and does so by assigning it a model year reflecting a time before Standard No. 115 required a

17-character VIN, and before the effective date of Standard No. 121. In any event, Hawaii has recognized that S2 of Standard No. 115 permits the importation of a truck to which the 17-character VIN requirement of S4.2 does not apply.

ID: nht92-5.16

DATE: July 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/8/92 from Michael F. Hecker to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7405)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 8, 1992 concerning how the "R-Bar" should be positioned during testing under Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that, under the test condition set forth in S6.4 of the standard, you believe that the test should be performed with the R-Bar in its most upright position. As discussed below, your understanding is incorrect.

Section S6 of Standard No. 222 sets forth a number of test conditions which apply to the requirements specified in section S5 of the standard. One of these requirements, set forth in section S6.4, reads as follows: "If adjustable, a seat back is adjusted to its most upright position." This test condition addresses seat backs which may be adjusted to different angles for the comfort of the seat occupant. Your letter raises the issue of whether this condition also addresses the position of a restraining bar which is attached to the seat back.

It is our opinion that S6.4 only addresses the position (degree of uprightness) of a seat back as a whole, and not the position of individual components that can separately be placed in different positions without affecting the degree of uprightness of the seat back. In the case of the R-Bar, the position of the R-Bar (up or down) has no effect on the degree of uprightness of the seat back. Therefore, Standard No. 222 does not expressly address the position of a device such as the R-Bar.

As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions.

In the case of Standard No. 222, nothing in the language of the standard suggests that the test procedures is only to be performed with a device such as the R-Bar in only one particular position. Indeed, the purpose of the standard is to reduce the possibility of death or injury to school bus occupants during crashes and sudden driving maneuvers. To serve this purpose, the vehicle must be capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 222 with the R-Bar in any position in which it may be placed, since the R-Bar could be at any such position when the seat is occupied.

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

ID: nht92-5.17

DATE: July 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Josefina McCarty

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation which you made in telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke of my staff. Specifically, you asked if there are requirements for seat belts or any other occupant protection requirements, to protect persons who ride in the cargo beds of pick-up trucks. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our occupant protection requirements for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 sets forth occupant crash protection requirements for occupants in vehicles ranging from small cars all the way up to the largest trucks.

In every case, however, the occupant crash protection requirements are directed toward occupants of "designated seating positions." Pickup trucks, for example, are required to be equipped with a seat belt at each and every "designated seating position." The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR S571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

There are instances where a vehicle manufacturer installs seats in the cargo bed of a pickup truck. For instance, Subaru once made a pickup it called the "Brat," that had two rearward-facing seats installed in the cargo bed of the truck, just behind the passenger compartment. Since these were actually seats, and their design was such that the position was likely to be used as seating while the vehicle was in motion, Subaru was required to install seat belts and comply with other occupant crash protection requirements at such seating positions.

However, the overwhelming majority of pickup trucks do not have any seats installed in the cargo bed. When there are no seats installed in the cargo bed, there are no designated seating positions in the cargo bed. As noted above, the occupant crash protection requirements in Standard No. 208 apply only to seating positions that are "designated seating positions." Since there are no "designated seating positions" in the cargo bed of pickups that do not have any seats installed in the cargo bed, persons that ride in the cargo bed of those pick-ups would not be protected by any of the occupant crash protection features.

ID: nht92-5.18

DATE: July 14, 1992

FROM: Bill Traylor -- President, Waste Processing Equipment, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/4/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Bill Traylor (A39; Part 567)

TEXT:

Enclosed is a blueprint on a private motor coach we are constructing on a WCA Series Volvo GMC Class 8 truck chassis.

Please advise in writing whether or not this vehicle will have to be certified by your administration. If certification is required, please advise as to how and what we do during the construction of the vehicle in order to assure certification.

If you need to discuss this matter by phone, please call me at (205) 638-6355.

A quick response will be appreciated since we are starting construction on or about August 1, 1992.

ID: nht92-5.19

DATE: July 13, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Puentes -- President, Sacramento Registration Service

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/2/92 from Jeffrey Puentes to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7402)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for information on laws and regulations administered by this agency that would apply to motorcycle frames, a product that your client wishes to manufacture and sell. Since motorcycle frames would constitute "motor vehicle equipment," the product would be subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction as follows.

Your letter stated that your client intends the frames to be sold to the "retail public" and to be used to replace frames of damaged Harley Davidson motorcycles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your client is a domestic manufacturer, and the term "serial number" in your letter meant vehicle identification numbers (VINs), as specified by this agency.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component ...

In your letter, you stated that your client intends its motorcycle frames to be used to replace frames in damaged motorcycles. Thus, the motorcycle frames would be "motor vehicle equipment" since they are "similar parts" that will be "sold for replacement" of a part.

If your client's motorcycle frames should be installed into a motorcycle by a commercial business, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act could affect such installations. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render 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 (FMVSS).

The above-named businesses could sell the motorcycle frames but could not install them if the installation would adversely affect a motorcycle's compliance with any of the applicable FMVSS's. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her motorcycle. Thus, a motorcycle owner would not violate the Safety Act by replacing the motorcycle

frame, even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her motorcycle.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as motorcycle frames are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your client's company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in the motorcycle frame, that company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

You also asked about vehicle identification numbers (VINs) (referred to in your letter as "serial numbers") and whether motorcycle frames must be identified with VINs. As you may be aware, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115; Vehicle identification number - basic requirements specifies that vehicles manufactured in one or more stages must have a VIN assigned by the manufacturer. Your client is a motorcycle frame manufacturer, not a motor vehicle manufacturer. Therefore, your client should not assign VINs to the motorcycle frames that it manufactures. Please note, however, that NHTSA regulations would not preclude your client from assigning "serial numbers" to the frames it manufactures, if the numbers are for its own inventory, recordkeeping, or other internal purposes.

You further requested information about laws regulating retail businesses that may affect your client. Other than the matters that have previously been discussed in this letter, NHTSA has no laws or regulations affecting your client as a retail business selling motorcycle frames. Regulation of retail businesses is generally a matter of state law. For more specific information, I would suggest you investigate the requirements for each state in which your client intends to begin a retail establishment.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-5.2

DATE: August 3, 1992

FROM: Gary L. Hopkins -- VP & G.M. Control Systems Products, Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124; Accelerator Control Systems (FMVSS #124)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gary L. Hopkins (A39; Std. 124)

TEXT:

Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems of Allied-Signal Inc. (BHVS) manufactures electronic treadle assemblies that are utilized by several vehicle manufacturers as a component of their acceleration control system used with electronically controlled diesel engines. The BHVS electronic treadle assembly (see attachment) modulates an electric signal, received from an outside source, in response to the input of the operator's foot. This signal is an input to the engine electronic controller which in turn provides electronic signals that operate the engine fuel injectors to control engine power. (See attached schematic of a typical electronic engine control system).

The scope and requirements of FMVSS #124, which is a standard last updated in 1973, are specific as to the return of the vehicles throttle to the idle position. The BHVS electronic treadle assembly is not a throttle as it is not a component of the fuel metering device, nor is BHVS aware of any component on an electronic controlled diesel engine that is a throttle as defined by the standard. Therefore, it is our interpretation and opinion that FMVSS #124 is not applicable to the BHVS electronic treadle assemblies and electronic controlled diesel engines.

While BHVS has taken the above stated position on the applicability of FMVSS #124, it is recognized that until an appropriate standard is issued good safety design practices shall continue to be applied. Therefore, a malfunction in the accelerator control system that results in loss of vehicle control would be a safety related issue, not a compliance issue.

To be specific, BHVS is hereby requesting confirmation of our position that vehicles equipped with electronic engine control systems of the type as described and depicted in the schematic and which include an electronic treadle assembly are not covered by the scope and requirements of FMVSS #124.

If additional information is necessary, please contact me at (216) 329-9200.

(Drawings omitted)

ID: nht92-5.20

DATE: July 13, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark W. Russo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Mark W. Russo to Charles Gauthier (OCC 7379)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 27, 1992, to Mr. Charles Gauthier of this agency, which enclosed a copy of R-Bar test data provided by Micho Industries. You requested an "official 'review and comment'" regarding the applicability of Safety Standard 222 to the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System and related issues.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has addressed the use of "safety bars" in school buses on several occasions in the past. Enclosed for your information are copies of five NHTSA letters which address this subject and which, we believe, will also address your concerns. The letters are addressed to Mr. Michael F. Hecker of Micho Industries, dated May 14, 1992; Mr. Scott K. Hiler of the C. E. White Company, dated January 31, 1991; Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, Member of Congress, dated January 8, 1990; and Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll of Transportation Equipment Corporation, dated March 10, 1989 and November 3, 1988.

If, after reviewing the enclosed materials, you still have questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.