ID: nht93-1.2

DATE: 01-01-93 EST

FROM: Joseph G. Wilson -- President, The Monmouth Corporation

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-21-93 from John Womack to Joseph G. Wilson (A41; Std.108)

TEXT: The Monmouth Corporation has developed a system, which protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision. With BLU-LITE installed in your vehicle, you are able to signal the driver behind you instantly while braking suddenly to avoid an accident.

We would welcome an opportunity to demonstrate our system to you and your staff at your earliest convenience. Until that time we are sending you a brochure describing the advantages of the BLU-LITE SYSTEM FOR YOUR PERUSAL.

I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Attachment: Copy of Blu-Lite brochure "Drive Safely with Blu-Lite." (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-1.20

DATE: January 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack --Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David H.B. Lee -- President, Lee Family, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/29/92 from David H.B. Lee to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8162)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 29, 1992, with respect to a "Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor", for which you have requested a review and testing. You have also asked for our comments and advice on the sale and promotion of this product. We assume that you would like to sell it in the aftermarket to vehicle owners.

We have reviewed the videotape you enclosed, and are able to advise you on this basis. The tape shows that the device is intended for installation by the owner of the vehicle, and, when installed, causes the center highmounted brake lamp to flash in proportion to braking effort (i.e., a panic or quick stop produces a higher flash rate than a stop made at a slower vehicle deceleration).

Motor vehicle lighting in the United States is subject to both Federal and State requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment are the Federal requirements to which I refer. Standard No. 108 prescribes requirements for center highmounted stop lamps that must be followed by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and met at the time the vehicle is sold by the dealer to its first owner. One of these requirements is that the center highmounted stop lamp be steady burning when it is in use. Because the Sensor creates a flashing light, a vehicle manufacturer would not be able to use it as original equipment on a vehicle subject to Standard No. 108's requirements for center lamps. These vehicles are passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, and light trucks and vans manufactured on and after September 1, 1993.

The Safety Act governs modifications to vehicles after their initial sale. This Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from modifications that affect compliance with Standard No. 108 (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). Thus, a vehicle owner may install the Sensor without violation of Federal requirements. However, we interpret the Safety Act as prohibiting the installation of the Sensor by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Under the Act, these persons shall not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In our view, this forbids the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the Act does not forbid the sale of componentry such as the Sensor which creates a noncompliance once it is installed. In summary, under Federal law, any person may sell your device, but only a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may install it.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State prohibit the use of a flashing center highmounted stop lamp, and recommend that you consult

the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We are returning your videotape and sample Sensors.

ID: nht93-1.21

DATE: January 28, 1993

FROM: Steve Flint -- Century Products Co.

TO: Dee Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Car Seat Registration Card

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-24-93 from John Womack to Steve Flint (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT: Attached is our latest registration card version. As I stated, we can add borders (or colors) to separate the English/U.S. card from the other languages.

Please review and let me know your thoughts. Thank you for your time and I appreciate your efforts.

Attachment: Century Products Registration Card (Text omitted.)

ID: nht95-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1995

FROM: Stephen M. Padula -- Industry Standards & Government Regulations, Uniroyal Goodrich

TO: Walter K. Myers -- NHTSA, Office of the Chief Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO STEPHEN M. PADULA (A43; PART 575; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers:

As discussed in our conversation of March 20, I would like to know if a UTQGS Treadwear grade of 00 or 000 is permissible. My contention is that it would be because of the following argument.

According to 49 CFR @ 575.104(d)(2)(i), "Each tire shall be graded for treadwear performance with the word "TREADWEAR" followed by a number of two or three digits representing the tire's grade for treadwear, expressed as a percentage of the NHTSA nominal treadwear value . . .". Further, @ 575.104(e)(2)(ix)(F) requires the computation of "the percentage (P) of the NHTSA nominal treadwear value . . . using the following formula":

P = Projected mileage / 30,000 X 100

The computed value of P is then rounded to the nearest lower 20-point increment (after September 1, 1993).

Using a hypothetical example of a tire with projected mileage of 5,000 miles would result in the following value for P:

P = 5,000 / 30,000 X 100 = 16.67

Rounding the above number to the nearest lower 20 point increment would result in a grade of 0. Since 2 or 3 digits are required the grade would become 00 or 000.

I would appreciate your response as soon as possible.

ID: nht95-2.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 12, 1995

FROM: Robert C. Maltzahn -- Attorney At Law

TO: John Womack Esq -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Jet Edge Mobile Equipment

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/27/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT CHARLES MALTZAHN (A43; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I am corporate counsel for Jet Edge, a company that manufactures ultra-high pressure waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Jet Edge sells the equipment throughout the United States and internationally and some of the equi pment is manufactured as a mobile trailer. I have included a piece of literature from Jet Edge which shows one of the older pumps, but the newer pumps, which are now designated as 36-250D's, are very similar and weigh approximately the same amount.

The equipment is manufactured for use in the construction industry for hydrodemolition and cleaning and for industrial use or for the rental markets where the end user does not wish to purchase the equipment. The equipment is mobile so as to be towed from job to job or from industrial site to industrial site but is not used primarily on the roadways and highways of the United States.

My question is: does the mobile equipment meet the definition of a trailer set forth in 49 CFR sec. 571.3 so as to come under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations and thus require a vehicle identification number (VIN) which would require us to meet the specifications and regulations and the content requirements for the VIN. We would prefer, obviously, because of the nature of the equipment, not to have to establish a VIN and the content requirement thereof.

Therefore, I would request from you a short letter statement as to your opinion as whether the equipment, as described, does or does not require a VIN so that I might in turn give my opinion to those infrequent individuals that so request from us. I might point out that there are less than 50 of these units manufactured per year and the total number in existence at the time of this letter is, to the best of my knowledge, less than 250 worldwide.

If you have any questions with reference to the above, please contact my office.

Enclosure - Brochure omitted.

ID: nht95-2.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1995

FROM: Douglas C. Helbig -- Vice President, SPENCER TESTING SERVICES, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/7/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DOUGLAS C. HELBIG (A43; STD. 304)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womak:

I am writing in reference to a telephone conversation I had with Marvin Shaw of NHTSA on May 16, 1995 regarding written verification of NHTSA's power to regulate the re-inspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on Altern ative Fuel Vehicles.

It is our understanding that NHSTA does not have any regulatory authority to require periodic reinspection of CNG containers used as a vehicle fuel container. We have been told this by several NHSTA personnel over the phone but they are unwilling to give this to us in writing. Our inability to obtain this in writing has led to considerable confusion for our clients who need to know if D.O.T. or NHTSA does indeed regulate this periodic reinspection.

Simply stated, we need in writing, a letter stating that NHTSA does not have any authority to require periodic inspection of CNG containers used as fuel cells on alternative fuel vehicles.

We thank you for your prompt attention to our request and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.

ID: nht95-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen M. Padula -- Industry Standards and Government Regulations, Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/21/95 LETTER FROM STEPHEN M. PADULA TO WALTER K. MYERS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Padula:

This responds to your letter of March 21, 1995, in which you asked whether it is permissible to have a treadwear grade of 00 or 000 on tires under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104. The answer to your question is yes.

As you know, the UTQGS currently provide that all new passenger car tires sold in the United States must be graded by their manufacturers or brand name owners for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The grades must be assessed in accordance with paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of the UTQGS and must be molded into or onto the tire sidewall.

Paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires the treadwear grade to be expressed as 2 or 3 digits, representing the percentage (P) of the NHTSA nominal treadwear value, computed as follows:

Projected

P = mileage 30,000 X 100

The percentage derived from the above formula is then rounded off to the nearest lower 20-point increment to arrive at the treadwear grade.

In your letter you proposed a hypothetical example of a tire with a projected mileage of 5,000 miles, which would compute as follows:

P = 5,000 30,000 X 100 = 16.67

Rounded off to the nearest lower 20-point increment, the treadwear rating for that tire would be 00 or 000.

Your example would be correct, if tires still exist that have a projected tread life of 5,000 miles. Although NHTSA has not found any tires so rated, under the current provisions of the UTQGS, it is possible, as demonstrated by your example, to have a U TQGS treadwear rating of 00 or 000.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager, Vehicle Regulations, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/13/95 LETTER FROM DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN TO PHILIP R. RECHT (OCC 10790)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 118, Power-operated window, partition, and roof panel systems. You asked whether the "squeezing force limitation" of S5 applies only to the first attempt to close a power operated window , partition, or roof panel system (power-operated system) and not to immediately following attempts to close. You explained that an operator may initiate more than one closing attempt in order to assure the closing of the power operated system under adv erse conditions such as low temperature or the presence of ice in the power operated system's track. As discussed below, the S5 squeezing force limitation applies to each closing attempt.

By way of background information, Standard No. 118 requires that a power operated system, while closing, must comply with one of two alternative provisions. The first, S4, generally specifies requirements for situations where a person is expected to be in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle to supervise the closing. The second, S5, covers "unsupervised" closings, i.e., automatic closings or closings where the person initiating the closing is further away from the vehicle.

In the rulemaking establishing S5, NHTSA recognized that unsupervised closings increase the risk that persons, especially children, could be caught between a closing system and the frame. Therefore, to the extent that a power operated system permits uns upervised closings, the agency decided to require an automatic reversal mechanism that reverses the window direction upon its meeting an obstruction. More specifically, if an obstruction is between 4 and 200 mm from any part of the vehicle structure wit h which the closing system mates, S5 requires window reversal before a force of 100 Newtons is encountered.

S5 does not specify different squeezing force limitation requirements for different closing attempts. Therefore, a power operated system must meet the same requirements for each closing attempt. We note that since the requirements of S5 address unsuper vised closings, the same safety concerns about children being caught between a closing system and frame would be relevant to each closing attempt.

I note that NHTSA decided not to apply the S5 squeezing force limitation requirement to unsupervised closings within the area between 4 mm and any part of the vehicle structure with which the closing system mates. The agency recognized that injury from system closure is not possible in this area, and that unnecessary automatic reversal could result from the system's misalignment or obstruction from ice. Thus, during unsupervised closing, if the system encounters an obstruction less than 4 mm from any part of the vehicle structure with which the closing system mates, the power operated system need not reverse.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1995

FROM: Phyllis Armstrong -- General Sales Manager, Saturn of Puyallup (Washington)

TO: Phillip Reckt, Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Phone Conference Evonne Ropell and Dick Morris

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/28/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Phyllis Armstrong (A43; Part 580); Also attached to 7/20/89 letter from Kathleen DeMeter to B.L. Swank

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reckt:

On May 17th, 1995, I called Nancy Kelly, Administrator of Department of Licensing for the State of Washington, regarding the towing mileage on the Saturn. As you may or may not be aware, the mileage on the Saturn does not register as the car is being to wed. Only driven miles record on the odometer. Nancy Kelly said she would investigate by having her office communicate with the National Highway Traffic Safety Association in Washington, D.C. and have a definitive answer for me today.

I soon received a phone call from Evonne Ropell, Nancy Kelly's assistant, who had just completed a phone conference with Dick Morris. Evonne said that the NHTSA was well aware that Saturns did not record towed miles, and that the actual miles driven are what is to be recorded on the odometer statements. For example if a Saturn is towed and reflects 10,000 miles on the odometer, then the odometer statement should show 10,000.

I am requesting a letter confirming these findings, as it is crucial information in our daily business affairs. It is terrific to have an agency that is readily available and supportive.

ID: nht95-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1995

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JANE L. DAWSON (A43; STD. 217; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers,

Please provide an interpretation on the following:

In the final rule for FMVSS 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release published in the Federal Register May 9, 1995, what are the location requirements (fore and aft) for emergency windows which may now be used as the first additional eme rgency exit?

Your quick response is appreciated.