ID: nht94-5.46

DATE: May 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James Schaub -- Midas Muffler Shop

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/21/93 from James "Bubba" Schaub to John Womack (OCC-9252)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows:

(f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation. We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

ID: nht94-5.47

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from Jeffrey D. Shetler to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement, NHTSA (OCC-9697)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1994, to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. So that we may serve you better in the future, please note that the Office of Chief Counsel is the one to which requests for interpretations should be addressed.

You have asked whether the "proposed application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle" will meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. In this headlamp "the projector beam (lower beam) is located on the left side and the high beam is on the right side." You continue by saying that "the outer lens of the headlamp assembly is symmetrically positioned about the vertical centerline," and you ask whether the headlamp complies with the requirements of Table IV of Standard No. 108.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have at least one headlamp. Table IV requires the headlamp to be located "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." The device you describe contains the upper and lower beams in one housing and hence is a single headlamp. Although your projector beam headlamp would be mounted literally on the vertical centerline, the beams provided by the headlamp are located on either side of the centerline and are therefore asymmetrical in relation to the centerline of the motorcycle when either beam is activated. A redesign of the lamp so that its vertical centerline becomes its horizontal centerline and Line A becomes the vertical centerline would be a configuration that meets Table IV since both beams of the single headlamp would then be located on the vertical centerline. SAE J584 does not specify the location of one beam in relation to the other for dual beam motorcycle headlamps, i.e., whether one beam is to be mounted above or below the other.

Your second question concerns an interpretation of S5.1.1.23. This paragraph provides an alternative for motorcycles to the headlamps specified by Table III, and allows a motorcycle to be equipped with "one half of any headlighting system specified in S7 which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam, and where more than one lamp must be used, the lamps shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable." You have asked whether this means that your proposed headlamp "shall be mounted on the upper half and the high beam shall be on the lower half when using one half of any headlighting system specified in S7," or "is our proposed layout in the attachment acceptable?" As I have explained, your proposed layout in the attachment is not acceptable under Table IV without reorientation. The headlighting systems specified in S7 are those intended for four-wheeled motor vehicles (other than trailers). As we understand it, your proposed headlamp has been developed as a headlamp system for motorcycles and not as half of a headlamp system for vehicles other than motorcycles. Because motorcycle photometrics differ from those for vehicle other than motorcycles, your proposed headlamp could not be half of a system specified in S7 which may be used on motorcycles as an alternative to the headlamps specified by Table III.

ID: nht94-5.48

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ilmars Ozols

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/8/94 From Ilmars Ozols To John Womack (OCC-9663)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ozols:

This responds to your February 8, 1994, letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Serv-o-tray. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations.

It appears from the enclosed technical description and photograph that the Serve-o-tray is a folding adjustable table designed to mount between the driver and passenger seats of a vehicle, and hold food, drinks, etc. As depicted, the Serv-o-tray is secured to the center console with an adhesive pad. The table is mounted on a swiveling, articulated, lockable arm that is composed of two horizontal and two vertical tubular support members. The Serv-o-tray is made of injection molded plastic and is capable of supporting up to 20 pounds, including a laptop computer. You explain that your product is intended to be used while the vehicle is stationary or moving.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" 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 or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that

2

retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the Serv-o-tray, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Serv-o-tray relates to motor vehicle operation, by allowing the occupants to eat while operating the car. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While the Serv-o-tray is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

This agency is very concerned about the safety implications of the Serv-o-tray, especially if it is swiveled in front of the occupants in an air bag-equipped vehicle. Under the provisions of FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," all new cars-and trucks must be equipped with a driver side and passenger side air bag by September 1, 1998. Manufacturers are already producing ever increasing numbers of air bag-equipped cars and trucks. The enclosed document entitled "Sudden Impact" describes the speed with which an air bag deploys. Should the Serv-o-tray be installed in an air bag-equipped vehicle, the occupants could be at risk of injury or death from the interaction of the deploying air bag and the Serv-o-tray or its contents. To protect the occupant, this agency will require that every new vehicle with an air bag be provided with a caution label that states, among other things, "TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY . . . Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag and yourself." As you can see, the installation of a Serv-o-tray could be contrary to this warning.

There are other potential safety problems associated with the Serv-o-tray. Even without being propelled by an air bag, the Serv-o-tray or its contents could impact the occupant's head,

3

abdomen or lower extremities during a collision. It also seems possible that the Serv-o-tray could interfere with the driver's use of the vehicle's transmission shift lever in an emergency situation. We ask that you consider these and all possible safety impacts of the Serv-o-tray.

If the Serv-o-tray were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Serv-o-tray installed, complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by the Serv-o-tray installation are Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact" (copy enclosed), and Standard No. 208.

A commercial business that installs the Serv-o-tray would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your product if the Serv-o-tray renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, installing the Serv-o-tray in front of the driver or passenger could degrade the performance of an air bag or the seat belts in the vehicle. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Serv-o-tray in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your product would be permitted.

4

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely

Enclosure

ID: nht94-5.49

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: David L. Ori -- Manager Vehicle Control Division, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation

TO: Jim Gilkey -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to David Ori (A42; STD. 205; Part 567

TEXT: I would like to thank you for the assistance you gave to one of my staff members, Kris Singer, when she recently telephoned you regarding Federal glazing standards relating to limousines. Since the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is addressing this issue at the present time, I would appreciate your assistance in confirming the information which Mrs. Singer received.

You explained that limousines which seat less than ten persons are categorized as passenger cars for the purpose of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 (FMVSS 205). As such, these vehicles may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product which does not meet FMVSS 205. This prohibition also applies to vehicle modifications completed during the second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process. Further, the company which alters the original vehicle is required to certify that the finished product is still in compliance with FMVSS 205.

Limousines which seat ten or more persons are categorized as buses and, therefore, would not be restricted regarding the use of sun screening products on windows located behind the driver's area of the vehicle. These vehicles would also require certification from the second stage manufacturer of continued compliance with FMVSS 205.

I would appreciate receiving your confirmation of the above information, at your earliest convenience, at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Room 104, T & S Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120. If there is any additional information which you feel may be pertinent to Pennsylvania's efforts to address this issue, please include it with your response, or contact me at (717) 787-3184.

ID: nht94-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1994

FROM: Robert E. Fouts -- President, Earl's Performance Products

TO: Phillip Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Meeting with Mr. Jim Gilkey 11/05/95

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO ROBERT E. FOUTS (A43; STD. 106)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

Flexible brake hose of extruded teflon armored with stainless steel braid have been the worldwide standard for racing cars since the mid 1960s. The reasons are two-fold:

(1) The virtual elimination of hose swell under pressure results in a significant reduction in brake pedal travel.

(2) The same reduction in hose swell gives a much firmer brake pedal feel - allowing the driver to modulate braking force more precisely.

For the same reasons there is a significant market demand for these hoses on road going vehicles, especially high performance vehicles and cars that have been retro-fitted with upgraded brake systems. There is also interest from OEM vehicle manufacturer s for limited production vehicles.

Earl's Performance Products Inc. has been the leading supplier of this type of hose, as well as other types of high performance fluid handling hoses and fittings, to the racing industry for more than twenty years.

The stainless braid armored brake hoses of teflon, supplied to the racing industry, easily meet all of the physical specifications of FMVSS No. 106 with the exception of the whip test. The whip test requires that one end of the hose be fixed to a normal end fitting while the other is attached to a disc of 8 inch diameter. The assembly is pressurized and the disc is rotated at 800 revolutions per minute. The hose assembly must endure 35 continuous hours of cycling without losing pressure.

The standard racing specification hoses typically fail at the interface between the hose and the upstream end of the swedge collar at the fixed end of the assembly. The failure is due to the aggravated cyclic stress.

Earl's determination to develop a flexible brake hose of stainless steel braid armored extruded teflon has led us to design and manufacture our own in house whip test machine to the specifications set forth in FMVSS No. 106.

After some years of experimentation and testing we have developed our "whip dampener" device which allows our hose assemblies to easily surpass the whip test. We have successfully tested hose assemblies from 9.0" to 24.0".

Briefly, the whip dampener consists of a spherical bearing enclosed in a machined housing. The housing clips into the OEM bracket where the OEM hard brake tubing joins to the flexible brake hose. The flexible brake hose of stainless armored teflon is i nserted through the bearing on assembly and cannot be removed. Suitable threaded couplings to JIC, DIN etc. standards are provided at each end of the assembly to match the OEM threads at the end of the hard lines and at the caliper of wheel cylinder. D etails of these couplings are dependant on the specifications of the individual vehicle and installation. No modifications are required (or allowed) to the threaded couplings or ports on the vehicle.

We intend to meet the marking requirements of Section S 5.2.1 by marking a clear plastic extruded overlay with the required lay lines, manufacturer's ID # etc. or by etching the same information onto the stainless steel braid.

Assemblies will be supplied with clear and graphically detailed instructions.

We met yesterday in Washington with Mr. Jim Gilkey of the enforcement division. Mr. Gilkey stated that he felt that our assembly was a reasonable approach to the requirements of Section S 5.3.3 but, since this is a new concept and no device of this natur e had been seen before, your office should be informed. We have left samples, photographs, descriptive literature and a model of the whip dampener test device with Mr. Gilkey.

Upon receipt of a favorable reply we will submit sample assemblies to an independent testing lab for certification with regard to the complete requirements of FMVSS No. 106 and proceed to apply for a manufacturer's ID #.

We are prepared to return to Washington when required. In the meantime, should you or your staff require further information please feel free to contact me at any time.

ID: nht94-5.50

DATE: May 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from Tilman Spingler to John Womack (OCC-9889)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1994, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to integral beam headlighting systems.

You reference a letter of this office to Toyota in which we permit location of the light source control module outside the headlamp housing but permanently attached to it by a cable. You have asked whether there are "requirements for this cable concerning indivisibility and integration...."

There are no such requirements for the cable in Standard No. 108, and the headlamp manufacturer may adopt the construction that it has determined is most suitable for its design.

ID: nht94-5.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 9, 1994

FROM: Mr. R.E. Wareham -- Technical Director, Total Vehicle Security Ltd.

TO: J. Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor/SYNCRO LITE.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/21/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO R. F. WAREHAM (A42; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1/26/93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DAVID H. B. LEE

TEXT: I am writing to you with regards to discussions held between your office and Mr. David Lee of the Lee Family Corporation, together with correspondence on or around December 92 to January 93.

I am specifically wanting to re-confirm the status of your understanding with regards to the marketing and sale of this product into the US aftermarket. We have been granted the rights to distribute the product under our trade name of 'SYNCRO LITE' by t he Lee family and are wanting to commence a marketing campaign early in 95.

Specifically we intend to seek a 'licensee' who is able to drive sales of SYNCRO LITE through after market car accessory outlets, both via single and multiple 'chain store' outlets, the product will marketed as a D.I.Y. installation by the car owner.

We are intending to travel to Washington D C in late January 95 and would very much like the opportunity to meet with you or your associates in order to formalize our respective positions.

ID: nht94-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 12, 1994

FROM: Connie Mack -- U.S. Senate

TO: Department of Transportation, Intergovernmental & Consumer Affairs

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/17/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Connie Mack (A43; Std. 109); Also related to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Bob Graham (A43; Std. 109); Also related to 12/15/94 letter from Bob Graham to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find correspondence from my constituent.

I would appreciate your advising me of your action in this matter and returning the letter with your reply. Please respond to Helen Bina at my Fort Myers Regional Office, located at 1342 Colonial Boulevard, Suite 27, Fort Myers, Florida 33907, (813) 275-6252.

Thank you for your prompt attention.

Sincerely

ENCLOSURE 1:

December 5, 1994

The Honorable Connie Mack Constituent Service Center 1342 Colonial Blvd. Suite 27 Fort Meyers, FL 33907

Dear Senator Mack:

Thank You for your efforts on our behalf regarding the proposed bill before the Puerto Rican Senate regarding the importation of used tires. We have not as of yet received any response.

In these days of the NAFTA and G.A.T.T. Treaties this proposed bill seams like an attempt by the new tire manufactures for a restraint of trade that started in South America and has now spread to American Soil.

On November 3 we had written to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on the advise of the U.S. Department of Commerce but have not received a response as of today. We are trying to find out from them if Puerto Rico is under their jurisdict ion and what the laws are regarding tire tread depth.

With your help I am sure we will get the answers to our inquiries.

Sincerely,

Howard J. Levy -- Vice-President, USED TIRE INTERNATIONAL

enclosures

ENCLOSURE 2:

December 5, 1994

Dr. Ricardo Martinez Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Martinez:

On November 3, 1994 I wrote to you about the proposed bill before the Senate in Puerto Rico. As of this letter I have not heard from you or your agency. As I stated in my first letter to you this bills passage will mean the end of our industry in Puert o Rico.

WE NEED YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER!!!!!

Would it also be possible for you to send a copy of the laws pertaining to tread depth in the U.S. and it's territories.

Sincerely,

Howard J. Levy Vice-President, USED TIRE INTERNATIONAL

ID: nht94-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 15, 1994

FROM: Bob Graham -- U.S. Senate

TO: John Womack -- Chief Council, Legislation Division, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Bob Graham (A43; Std. 109); Also related to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Connie Mack (Std. 109; A43); Also related to 12/12/94 letter from Connie Mack to the DOT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Howard Levy, who has concerns regarding guidelines used by states regarding tire tread requirements and whether they also apply to Puerto Rico.

I would appreciate your reviewing this situation and providing me with your comments. Please send your response to my state office: Post Office Box 3050, Tallahassee, Florida 32315, Attention: Sharon McLanahan.

I am grateful for your cooperation and assistance. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

With kind regards,

Sincerely

Enclosure 1:

December 6, 1994

The Honorable Bob Graham Post Office Box 3050 Tallahasse, FL 32315

Dear Senator Graham:

On October 6, 1994 I wrote to you about the proposed bill before the Senate in Puerto Rico, with the regards to the importation of used tires.

In these days of the N.F.T.A. and G.A.T.T. agreements it seams that the new tire manufacturers are pressing for a restraint of trade by pressing for the passage of this bill.

We have contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce they in turn have directed us to the National Highway Safety & Traffic Administration. We had written them on November 6, but as of today we have not gotten any response. We would like to get a copy of the laws regarding tire tread depth here in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico and we would like to know if they have jurisdiction in Puerto Rico. We need your help in getting this vital information.

If this bill passes it will surely mean the end of our industry in Puerto Rico

WE URGE YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER!!!!

Sincerely,

Howard J. Levy Vice-President, Used Tire International

Enclosure 2:

November 3, 1994

DR. Ricardo Martinez Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Martinez:

Used Tire International, INC. is an Exporter of Quality Used Tires Worldwide. There is a very serious situation that has arisen in Puerto Rico in regards to the importation of Used Tires, a proposed bill is before the senate there that would require all Used Tires being imported to have a minimum 5/32" tread depth and a tax of $ 10.00 each. The tread depth of 5/32" is 3/32" more than the 2/32" that is required by U.S. law. Does the NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Pue rto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety.

If this proposed Bill is passed this would mean the end of the Used Tire industry on the island. This is an industry that many people count on there because many people cannot afford to purchase new tire which I will add some new tires only have 4/32" t read. To inact a law that would require a Used Tire to have more or as much tread as a new tire would further hurt our industry.

WE URGE YOUR AGENCIES HELP IN THIS MATTER!!!!!

Sincerely,

Howard Levy Vice President

Enclosure 3:

10/28/94

Mr. Howard J. Levy Vice-President Used Tire International 837 S.E. 8th Ave., Suite 202 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Dear Mr. Levy: On behalf of Secretary Brown, I am pleased to respond to your letter regarding a proposed bill in Puerto Rico which would change tread depth regulations for selling used tires.

The U.S. Government agency responsible for developing guidelines used by states regarding tread requirements is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The NHTSA would also be able to respond to your concerns regarding Puerto Rico. You may wish to contact directly the NHTSA:

Mr. Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 tel: (202) 366-1836

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

Sincerely,

Walter Bastian Director Office of Latin America and the Caribbean U.S. Dept. of Commerce

Enclosure 4:

December 5, 1994

Dr. Ricardo Martinez Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Martinez:

On November 3, 1994 I wrote to you about the proposed bill before the Senate in Puerto Rico. As of this letter I have not heard from you or your agency.

As I stated in my first letter to you this bills passage will mean the end of our industry in Puerto Rico.

WE NEED YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER!!!!!

Would it also be possible for you to send a copy of the laws pertaining to tread depth in the U.S. and it's territories.

Sincerely,

Howard J. Levy Vice-President

ID: nht94-5.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 15, 1994

FROM: Gerard Bonvin -- Automobile Cheyenne USA, Inc

TO: Philip Recht -- Chief Council Office, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/2/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Gerard Bonvin (A43; Part 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht

Automobile Cheyenne USA, INC, is a California corporation, and an affiliate of Automobile Cheyenne S.A. (France) a successful manufacturer of small passenger and utility Vehicles with a proven ten years track record.

Automobile Cheyenne's main product is the "Cheyenne", a small Jeep type, a lightweight, front-wheel drive utility vehicle which is stylish, reliable, very economical, and inexpensive. Automobile Cheyenne USA, has been formed for the purpose of distri bution in North America. Our preliminary schedule has our first year of production beginning July 1996.

After our brief conversation dated the December 14, I would like to take the opportunity to ask you questions about DOT regulations.

- What are the procedure to follow in order to be categorize Small Volume manufacturer?

- Is there really a big difference on the test in order to certified between small volume and over 10000 vehicles?

- Is there any difference between two seaters or four seaters on crash test?

- Is there a rear crash impact?

- Do we need Air Bags if we have Seat belts?

- Do we need a buzzer for the Seat Belt?

- Is the dashboard need to be padded?

- Is there any specific ways on how to install the windshield?

- What is the surface of the windshield that need to wiped?

- As far as Windshield Wipers, how many cycles and how many different speed?

I hope that these questions will not infringe on your time, and I would like to thank in advance for your help. I wish you a happy holidays.

Truly Yours