Amendment_000001.docx.pdf

(x)

DTNH22-13-R-00669

x x copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

Washington DC 20590

JONES

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Office of Acquisition Management

DOT/NHTSA/NPO-320

Sheronda Jones

Washington, DC 20590

NPO-320

W51-310 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

DOT/NHTSA/NPO-320

Office Of Acquisition Management

06/21/2013000001

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

05/29/2013

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Title: Mass Reduction for Light-Duty Vehicles for Models Years 2017-2025

RFP DTNH22-13-R-00647 is amended to 1) Provide responses to questions submitted during questions and responses period; and 2) Provide a Request for Proposal extension from June

28, 2013 to July 3, 2013.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

ROBIN D. GATES

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

sheronda.jones Typewritten Text sheronda.jones Typewritten Text Original signed copy is in the file. 9/21/2013 sheronda.jones Typewritten Text sheronda.jones Typewritten Text

DTNH22-13-R-00669

Mass Reduction for Light-Duty Vehicles for Models Years 2017-2025 Amendment 000001 Responses to Questions and Answers

Responses to Questions and Answers

Question 1:

The proposal lists the Ford and GM trucks as examples of current reduced mass trucks. Are these the target masses or would NHTSA approve a heavier baseline pick-up that meets the GVW and annual sales requirements?

NHTSA Response:

In the RFP, NHTSA asks the Contractor to propose a baseline vehicle as appropriate and document the reason for the selection. The baseline vehicle should be representative for the current pickup truck fleet because the amount of mass reduction and cost derived from this study will be applied to the pickup truck vehicle segment later on by NHTSA. If a non-representative vehicle is chosen as the baseline vehicle, the results from the study have to be adjusted to reflect the baseline fleet, which will introduce another complexity. If a heavier (comparing to Ford and GM truck) baseline pickup truck is more representative, NHTSA is not against using it as the baseline as long as all justifications for the decision are well documented in the report and are acceptable to NHTSA after NHTSA’s review.

Question 2:

Please define “Public opinion”; it is not clear if this is consumer input or expert technical input.

NHTSA Response:

Public opinion refers to general input from individuals outside the government. The agency is concerned that eliciting input from technical experts or even consumers (if determined necessary) may implicate paperwork reduction act requirements under the contract. These requirements apply to contractors working for Federal agencies. So that there are no issues that may impact the agency’s ability to rely on and use the information developed under the contract, the agency is requesting that contractors coordinate contacts with the general public (including technical experts or consumers) prior to collecting information.

Question 3:

Does NHTSA require that the previous generation pick-up, e.g., 2006 vs. 2012, be torn down and fully evaluated (mass, cost, NVH, modals, bending/torsion, materials, construction, etc.) to the same level as the selected/approved baseline truck?

NHTSA Response:

No. NHTSA only asks to tear down a truck representing the baseline generation, not the previous generation.

Amendment 000001 Responses to Questions and Answers

Question 4:

How many design cycles does NHTSA advise using for this study relative to the MY used for this design? One? Two? Three? This varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Depending on the baseline vehicle selected, this could be only one iteration due to a new release and a much longer cycle time between major redesigns. Can the bidder use a projected maximum time, e.g., three cycles, if the baseline vehicle is new in 2014?

NHTSA Response:

The next CAFE rulemaking time frame is MYs 2022-2025. If the vehicle is redesigned in MY 2014 and the target is MYs 2022-2025, there are 7-11 years covered by the study. So 2 design cycles is a good assumption.

Question 5:

The proposal lists 2021 MY, 2020 – 2030 time frame and 2025 MY. Please define the SOP MY that is required for this design.

NHTSA Response:

The study should cover MYs 2021-2025 for next round of CAFE rulemaking. When the offeror suggest technologies for the light-weighted vehicle, technologies should be mature for high volume production for MYs 2021-2025.

Question 6:

Product development costs vary from OEM to OEM and within each OEM, from platform to platform. In addition, all new vehicle programs (such as this one) incur product development costs; to quote a singular number implies that this is a plus cost as opposed to a standard NRE cost. Is it acceptable to put in a projected range for product development costs? Is it acceptable to put in a +/- % delta vs. projected product development costs as opposed to a singular number?

NHTSA Response:

If we have an estimate of the baseline product development cost, it is acceptable to put in a +/- % delta versus a single point projection. Having a range of cost is acceptable and assumptions for high and low bound should be documented.

Amendment 000001 Responses to Questions and Answers

Questions 7:

Direct and indirect costs can be defined differently depending on the company. Can NHTSA supply definitions for these costs so there is no interpretation required by peer reviewers or the general public when reading the report?

NHTSA Response:

For the history and how NHTSA treated direct and indirect cost in CAFE rulemaking, information can be found on page 763-788 in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis at the following link: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/FRIA_2017-2025.pdf. Only direct manufacturing cost is required for this study. Indirect manufacturing cost will be added back by NHTSA when used in the rulemaking analysis. But NHTSA requires the Offeror to estimate the capital expenses (tooling, machine upgrades, assembly plant changes, etc.) for mass reduction technologies.

Question 8:

To clarify, the +/- 10% cost allowance is a total vehicle constraint; any mass reductions that reduce or increase the total vehicle cost more than 10% are not allowable. Is this a correct interpretation?

NHTSA Response:

Yes, the +/- 10% cost allowance is a total vehicle constraint. When the contractors select technologies for mass reduction, the direct manufacturing cost cannot increase more than 10% from the baseline vehicle direct manufacturing cost. In the meantime, the Offeror should also be conscious that the result from this study will be used in future CAFE rulemaking analysis and the ultimate goal for CAFE is to increase vehicle fuel economy. Mass reduction is only one of the technologies that can be used to increase fuel efficiency. The contractor should set their mind as an OEM. If the cost for certain mass reduction technology is too high, OEMs probably will not pursue that high cost mass reduction technology. Instead they will pursue other fuel economy technologies that will give more bang-for-the-buck in terms of fuel efficiency. If paths other than mass reduction are expected to be pursued, it may be reasonable to assume that an upper limit of practicable mass reduction has been reached, even if the mass reduction cost curve has not yet reached +/- 10% levels.

Question 9:

Are capital expenses (tooling, machine upgrades, assembly plant changes, etc.) to be amortized into the +/- 10% total vehicle cost number or are they to be identified in a line item format?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/FRIA_2017-2025.pdf

Amendment 000001 Responses to Questions and Answers

NHTSA Response:

Capital expenses should be identified in a line item format. If it is not over burden, it is preferable to have two sets of costs, one with capital expenses amortized and one without.

Question 10:

Are cap ex items to be costed in a +/- % delta format relative to the normal projected expenses for a new (baseline) vehicle or should they be line items noted at full value?

NHTSA Response:

It is preferred to have the capital expense item be line items at full value. Deltas can be calculated afterwards.

Question 11:

Can we assume that by 2020/2030 the US Light Duty Fleet will still be governed by the current Tier 2 emissions standards, and also that the current Certification Bins will not have changed? In other words, no change to today’s certification standards.

NHTSA Response:

NHTSA would suggest assuming Tier 3 in place by 2020. From EPA’s fact sheet: “The proposed tailpipe standards include different phase-in schedules that vary by vehicle class but generally phase in between model years 2017 and 2025” and “The Tier 3 proposal is aligned with and designed to be implemented over the same timeframe as EPA’s program for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light duty vehicles starting in model year 2017.” There are a couple of tables about the phase-in schedule on page 8 (FR notice page 29822) of the preamble at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-21/pdf/2013-08500.pdf. But NHTSA wants to caution the offerors that this assumption of Tier 3 in place by 2020 is simply based on the statements on EPA’s website. Also without the finalized standard, the final details covered by the standards won’t be known. NHTSA asks the Offeror to clarify in the proposal how Tier III will be used for in the analysis.

Question 12:

SOW Section M.4.4 “ Project Personnel” Can an FFRDC (Federally Funded Research and Development Center) be part of a team that responds to this RFP?

NHTSA Response:

Yes.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-21/pdf/2013-08500.pdf

Amendment 000001 Responses to Questions and Answers

a) If the answer to #1 is “Yes”, should the FFRDC be a subcontractor to the prime contractor and all costs included in the proposal, or would the FFRDC be funded separately from the resulting contract?

NHTSA Response:

The FFRDC should be a subcontractor to the prime.

b) Will inclusion of an FFRDC create conflicts of interest?

The inclusion of a FFRDC will be evaluated prior to award to determine if a conflict of interest exists in accordance with H.31 Conflict of Interest in the RFP.

c) Will inclusion of an FFRDC be viewed or graded negatively?

No, the inclusion of a FFRDC will not be viewed or graded negatively. However, NHTSA will still determine Conflict of Interest in accordance with H.31, in the RFP.

Question 13:

SOW Section M.4.4 “Project Personnel” Can companies be included in more than one proposal and be on more than one team?

NHTSA Response:

Yes, companies can be involved in more than one proposal and be on more than one team.

However, the company shall show evidence and commit to the proposed hours in its proposal.

Offerors must submit a letter of commitment under each prime proposal.

Question 14:

SOW Section M.4 “Technical Proposal Evaluation” What is the proposal scoring criteria? Can NHTSA provide more definition on how the proposals will be scored? (e.g. provide the total point scale of each of the 4 factors: Technical Approach/Capability, Engineering & Cost Analysis, Corporate Experience & Past Performance, Project Personnel).

Amendment 000001 Responses to Questions and Answers

NHTSA Response:

The technical evaluations factors will be scored of equal importance, which means each factor has the same value. (i.e.100 points may be the total value, divided by 4 factors are 25 points a piece.)

Question 15:

SOW Section M.1 “Evaluation, Negotiations and Award Process” RE – Phase Two: Evaluation of Cost Proposals What is the proposal scoring criteria? Can NHTSA provide more definition regarding the breakdown of scoring elements the cost proposal will be assessed on and the total points available for each set of criteria?

NHTSA Response:

There are no scoring criteria for Cost Proposals.

Question 16:

SOW Section C.5.1.1 “Decision on the Baseline Truck Build and Model” As market availability timing of the latest generation of pick-up trucks isn’t yet confirmed, some may not be available until CY 2014, is there potential within NHTSA overall timing for a delay in start of project to accommodate vehicle availability?

NHTSA Response:

This study will be used to support NHTSA’s future CAFE rulemaking. Therefore it has to conform to the overall rulemaking timeline. A general high level timeline for next rulemaking can be found at slide 5 of the following presentation. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/MSS/0-Tamm- NHTSA_Mass_Safety_Intro_2013.pdf .

If the Offeror chooses to suggest alternative timeline in the proposal, NHTSA suggests the Offeror provide two sets of timeline, one with what’s in the RFP and one with Offeror’s alternative. NHTSA will review these timelines based on NHTSA’s internal timeline and make a decision.

Question 17:

SOW Section L.9 “Part I b. Cost/price Information Breakdown” Can a subcontractor provide cost worksheet detail separately to NHTSA (referencing Offeror proposal)?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/MSS/0-Tamm-NHTSA_Mass_Safety_Intro_2013.pdf http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/MSS/0-Tamm-NHTSA_Mass_Safety_Intro_2013.pdf

Amendment 000001 Responses to Questions and Answers

NHTSA Response:

Yes, a subcontractor may cost worksheet detail separately to NHTSA. However, the Prime’s total proposed cost shall include the subcontractor’s total cost.

Question 18:

SOW Section L.9 “Part I b. Cost/price Information Breakdown” When completing the cost worksheet can NHTSA confirm that columns are to be completed by task identified in C.4 and C.5?

NHTSA Response:

Yes

Question 19:

SOW Section L.9 Part I “Estimated Level of Effort” Will proposals that exceed the NHTSA estimated effort be rejected?

NHTSA Response:

No, proposals exceeding the estimated effort will not be rejected. Offerors should propose based on their own estimates of labor hours and categories needed to complete the requirements of the Statement of Work.

Question 20:

SOW Section L.9 Part I “Estimated Level of Effort” Does the NHTSA estimated effort level include the optional study item detailed in Section C.5.4?

NHTSA Response:

NHTSA is revising the below chart in Section L.9 and a second chart for Optional Task has been incorporated in Section L.9.

Labor Category Estimated

Hours Executive Director 7 Program Director 1,540 Program Assistant 770 Technical Project Manager 2,866 Lead Engineer 8,612

Amendment 000001

Computer Aided Design Engineer

11,280

Computer Aided Engineering, Engineer

11,280

Technical Report Writer 540

Labor Category (for Optional Study C.5.4)

Estimated Hours

Executive Director 1 Program Director 20 Program Assistant 10 Technical Project Manager 480 Lead Engineer 960 Computer Aided Design Engineer

Computer Aided Engineering, Engineer

Technical Report Writer 60

Question 21:

SOW Section C.5.2.8 “Phase II deliverables” Can NHTSA provide more detail around the expected level of concept design maturity to meet a ‘preliminary design of concept’ condition for delivery to NHTSA?

NHTSA Response:

At the end of preliminary design of concept, a preliminary CAE model should have been built with technologies and materials selected during the white paper phase. Preliminary analysis for torsional and bending stiffness, durability and other CAE analysis should have been done for at least one round. Preliminary FEA model should have been built and at least NCAP frontal crash simulation could be run.

Question 22:

SOW Section C.5.4 “Optional Requirement “Mass Reduction for Other Light Duty Vehicles” Can NHTSA expand on the level of effort and analysis expected to deliver this activity?

NHTSA Response:

In the midsize passenger car project, it is requested in the RFP that “The contractor also shall provide a report with details about the amount of mass reduction that is feasible for each of the vehicle subclasses stated above used in the CAFE model and phase-in caps for amount of mass

Amendment 000001 Responses to Questions and Answers reduction for each subclass for model year 2017-2025. The report shall be supported with detailed analysis.”

In the current RFP, it is stated “In the mid-size passenger car light-weighting project, there are mass reduction estimates for other vehicle classes. The Contractor shall re-visit the results from that project and update the project with any information new to this contract. The mass reduction technologies from this contract might have more direct impact on the light truck vehicle subclasses.”

Overall NHTSA is looking for estimated mass reduction for other vehicle classes based on the technologies studied in the mid-size passenger car project and this pickup truck study. The analysis has to be supported by data. Using the axle for midsize pickup truck as an example, the contractor shall document what is the current status of material and technology usage for axles on the current in-production midsize pickup trucks with citation and supporting information. If the contractor is going to suggest using aluminum instead of current widely used steel, the contractor shall estimate the amount of mass savings and how this is derived.

Question 23:

SOW Section L.1, “Proposal Delivery” Can NHTSA allow an extension of the proposal delivery date to allow offerors more time to complete the response?

NHTSA Response:

A proposal extension will be acceptable. Proposals shall be submitted by 3:00 PM Wednesday, July 3, 2013.

Question 24:

SOW Section L.7, “Proposal Format, Volume II –Cost/Business Proposal” Forms J33, J1 and J3 require a signature. Is a scanned original document delivered by email sufficient or does NHTSA require the original hard copy, if so what is preferred delivery method.

NHTSA Response:

Yes, electronic scanned copies for attachment signature pages will be acceptable.

Question 25:

SOW Section L.9, “Part I – Cost/Price Information; 5. Other Direct Costs” Can NHTSA provide a breakdown of their assumption around this value?

Amendment 000001 Responses to Questions and Answers

NHTSA Response:

NHTSA ODCs include material and equipment.

Question 26:

SOW Section L.9, “Part I – Cost/Price Information; 7. Travel” Can NHTSA provide a breakdown of their assumption around this value? At first sight this value would appear insufficient to support monthly or bi-monthly visits to NHTSA headquarters by the Project Manager over the duration of the project.

NHTSA Response:

A total of twelve trips to Washington, DC are anticipated during the entire period of performance.

Question 27:

SOW Section L1. “When and how to Submit”

Question 1: Is there a need to enter anything into the SAM system?

NHTSA Response:

Vendors must be registered in SAMs before receiving an award for the Government. The process may take some time. Therefore, it is recommended that all interested vendors register in SAMs.

Question 2: Just e-mail offers to the address in SOW?

Proposals shall be submitted in accordance to the RFP e-mail address at NHTSAOAM@.do.tgov

Question 28:

SOW Section C.5.4 “Optional Requirement Mass Reduction for Other Light-Duty Vehicles”.

Question 1: What is to be provided in the offer under this section. Statement of our interest in proving this service?

The proposal shall identify the Offeror’s approach in how to perform the analysis.

mailto:NHTSAOAM@.do.tgov

Amendment 000001

Question 2: Is expectation similar to white paper in Section 5.2.1 less the plan for design and execution?

In the midsize passenger car project, it is requested in the RFP that “The contractor also shall provide a report with details about the amount of mass reduction that is feasible for each of the vehicle subclasses stated above used in the CAFE model and phase-in caps for amount of mass reduction for each subclass for model year 2017-2025. The report shall be supported with detailed analysis.”

In the current RFP, it is stated “In the mid-size passenger car light-weighting project, there are mass reduction estimates for other vehicle classes. The Contractor shall re-visit the results from that project and update the project with any information new to this contract. The mass reduction technologies from this contract might have more direct impact on the light truck vehicle subclasses.”

Overall NHTSA is looking for estimated mass reduction for other vehicle classes based on the technologies studied in the mid-size passenger car project and this pickup truck study. The analysis has to be supported by data. Using the axle for midsize pickup truck as an example, the contractor shall document what is the current status of material and technology usage for axles on the current in-production midsize pickup trucks with citation and supporting information. If the contractor is going to suggest using aluminum instead of current widely used steel, the contractor shall estimate the amount of mass savings and how this is derived.

Question 29:

C.5.1.2 “Baseline Vehicle Teardown and Finite Element Analysis LS-DYNA Model” Question: Is only the FEA Model required? Are fully surfaced CAD models required for delivery?

NHTSA Response:

Beside FEA models, NHTSA is also looking for analysis to show that the durability, stiffness and NVH are maintained at the same level as the baseline. In order to do this, CAD/CAE models at certain fidelity level are needed.

Question 30:

C.5.1.3 “Cost Model for Baseline Vehicle”

Question 1: Will NHTSA provide generic labour and capital rates to be used for development of costs?

Amendment 000001

The contractor shall perform all tasks independently. NHTSA can provide help and point the contractors to the appropriate sources if needed. For an example, labor rate may be obtained from BLS wage data (should use full wage data that includes benefit). Capital rates can similarly be obtained from market data.

Question 2: Which labour market should we assume? NA/EU, BRIC? This assumption can cause significant impact to a global program build cost. Can we assume this is the US labor market?

The contractor should assume US labor market.

Question 3: What material market are we operating in? Are global material suppliers required? Is US specific material required?

The Offeror shall have a good understanding for the industry and the how the industry get the raw material supplies. The material market assumption shall be made accordingly. All assumptions should be documented clearly and backed up by data and analysis in the report. It is difficult to project material price into the future. Recent spot material prices are valid to use. However if price has been volatile, a moving average may be substituted.

Question 4: Should OEM labour rates or supply tier labour rates be used?

OEM parts and supplier parts should use different labor rates accordingly. The contractor should have familiarity with the industry to determine which rate to apply in which case.

Question 5: Do we need to show a tiered cost structure mimicking todays supply chain [i.e. OEM, Tier 1, Tier2……ma and pa shop] for varied part types?

Yes

Question 6: Has NHTSA currently negotiated a material price structure within the Auto Steel Partnership [ASP] or Aluminum supply base, etc.?

Amendment 000001

No, NHTSA does not negotiate material price with any material supplier.

Question 31:

C.5.2.8 Phase II “Deliverables” Question: Is 3D CAD data required as deliverable? If so, which software package? Can

IGES/STEP data be provided?

NHTSA Response:

See answers to C.5.1.2.

Question 32:

C.5.2.1 “White Paper” Question: In phase II of project specific detail is provided regarding investigations into body, chassis and powertrain. Is detailed design investigation and light weighting of all other subsytems [i.e. interior trim and seats] expected?

NHTSA is looking for designs at the appropriate level to justify cost implications and mechanical performance. NHTSA is not expecting the contractor to redesign every single part in the vehicle.

Nonetheless, simply scaling dimension, cost, and/or mass for major components that provide crash protection or structural/NVH performance without engineering verification would not be sufficient. For certain subsystem and/or component, if it depends on certain supplier expertise, the contractor can consult suppliers. But how the results of mass reduction and cost are derived needs to be clearly documented.

Question 33:

C.5.2.3 “Engineering and Functional Analysis” Question: Based on review of the RFP kinematic occupant analysis or airbag modeling is not required during development. Can you confirm this is correct?

NHTSA Response:

It is correct that the kinematic occupant analysis or airbag modeling is not required in the development. But the IP, steering column and seats needs to be properly positioned and attached for future studies for kinematic occupant analysis.

Amendment 000001 Responses to Questions and Answers

Question 34:

C.5.2 “Task 2: Design and Optimization of the Light-Weighted Pickup Truck” Question: Which market should vehicle be developed for sale? NA/EU, BRIC? This assumption can cause significant impact to a global program. Can we assume this is the US market only?

NHTSA Response:

The pickup truck should be designed for US market to support future US CAFÉ rulemaking.

Question 35:

C 5.4. “Optional Requirement Mass Reduction for Other Light-Duty Vehicles” Question: Which market should vehicle be developed for sale? NA/EU, BRIC? This assumption can cause significant impact to a global program. Can we assume this is the US market only?

The vehicles should be designed for US market to support future US CAFÉ rulemaking.

(End of Amendment 000001)