ID: nht94-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George W. Sudenga -- Esq., Johnson, Sudenga, Latham & Peglow

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/25/94 from George W. Sudenga to Marvin Shaw and letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Neil Rowe.

TEXT: This responds to your letter following up on my May 18, 1994, letter to your client, Mr. Neil Rowe, about Mr. Rowe's product, the "Glad Grip." In my letter, I provided information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requi rements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and explained that NHTSA has not issued a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to a product such as the Glad Grip. In your followup letter, you indicated we did not answer your re quest for "approval of NHTSA in advance of major marketing efforts," concerning your client's product.

I regret that my earlier letter was unclear on the issue of NHTSA "approval" of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. I nstead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As I stated in the earlier letter, t he agency has not issued any safety standards for the Glad Grip. Even if there were an applicable FMVSS, NHTSA would not "approve" the Glad Grip; rather, Mr. Rowe would self-certify his product.

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

ID: nht94-3.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Lawrence Farhat -- President/CEO, Neon Riders of America, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from John Womack to Lawrence Farhat (VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

My name is Lawrence Farhat, President/CEO of NEON RIDERS of America, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. Please accept this as an official written inquiry, regarding under-carriage neon lights, which we have been manufacturing and shipping, both nationally and internationally, for approximately three years.

Unfortunately, there has been some confusion, on a state by state level, as to the acceptability and/or legality of the under-carriage neon lights. There are a very few local and state officers that have issued citations for "improper lighting." To the best of our knowledge, when fought in court, these citations have been dismissed by the judge.

We offer 10 colors in our product line: purple, pink, green, aqua, orange, tangerine, yellow, white, red and blue. It has been deemed by the State of Florida, that displaying red or blue lights, even under the vehicle and concealed, to be illegal when v isible from the front. Granted, this is a gray area of the law, since most all police and rescue vehicles have blue and red lights. However, police and rescue/emergency vehicles display their lights mounted on top of the vehicle, always flashing and ve ry visible. Our product is mounted under the vehicle, and is concealed to the point where you cannot see the neon light bulb itself. Instead, all you see is the reflection of the light onto the ground. Please see the enclosed photograph, which shows e xactly what the lights look like when installed. There are four tubes, (front, rear and both sides), giving the vehicle the appearance of floating on a cloud of light! Hopefully, you have already seen at least one vehicle with these neon lights under it . Neon light ground effects are considered an accessory to all motor vehicle (cars, trucks, vans, tractor-trailers, motorcycles, boats, ATV's, snowmobiles, and even bicycles). These lights not only serve an aesthetic value, but also, and most important ly, as a safety feature. It is obvious that these neon lights are an innocuous accessory, when installed

2

correctly, under the vehicle.

The Jacksonville Sheriff's office has installed blue neon on all of the motorcycles in the department, and their reports have been very, very favorable. A contact name and phone number is available at your request. The New Orleans Police Department, as well as several other city police departments, are also interested in putting neon on their vehicles for safety purposes.

We do not feel that our product falls under the description in your Section 108. Neon is not a poisonous gas, nor can it explode . . . this is a fallacy. We consider our manufacturing process to be THE HIGHEST in the industry for quality and safety. I have enclosed a cut-away section of a tube for your inspection. This will give you an idea of how the tubes are assembled, and how well protected the neon bulb itself is. The tube fits inside a metal shield to conceal the tube from direct visual contact . The neon operates off any 12v battery system, with a transformer that produces 9000v, secondary for neon. This transformer, which is about the size of a beeper, has it's own safety factor built into each unit, causing it to automatically shut off if i t detects any problems. Every tube that we distribute is quality control tested prior to shipping.

Please inquire with your colleagues as to the validity of our existance as a Florida Corp., manufacturing and distributing these neon light ground effects within the continental United States and abroad. I am looking forward to your response. If you ha ve any questions, or you need any additional information or technical data regarding the lights, please do not hesitate to contact me at the toll-free number printed below.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

LF/klp

ID: nht94-3.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Sally O'Cordan -- Legal Assistant, Ashley, Hannula & Halom

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Travel Trailer Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/94 from John Womack to Sally O'Cordan (A42; Std. 205)

TEXT:

We are investigating an accident where an individual was severely injured by the glass of a travel trailer.

Does your office have any federal motor vehicle safety standards regarding the type of glass used in travel trailer windows? If not, do you know of any place where these might be regulated? Any information you can provide to us will be appreciated.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 1-800-477-7056.

ID: nht94-3.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Barbara Pietra -- Dabble, Inc. (Los Angeles, CA)

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, Office of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/94 from John Womack to Barbara Pietra (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Several months ago I spoke with you about the Cair Bag I was developing. This product is designed to be used by children in an automobile (or airplane) who have outgrown their child restraint system (car seat or booster seat). This product allows a chi ld to rest or sleep more comfortably, keeping their seat belt positioned properly.

In the course of consideration of this product the legal department of Toyota USA has asked me to obtain a letter from you stating that the Cair Bag is not a child restraint system as described in FMVSS No. 213. I spoke with Dee Fujita, Esq. and Susan S tack last Friday, who referred me to you.

In the course of the development of this product I spoke to Patricia Breslin, Veronica Ferguson, Carolyn Jeeter of NHTSA, Cheryl Neverman, Susan Stack and Paul Snodgrass of the Department of Transportation, Art Hayes of the FAA and Cecil Smith of the US Products Consumer Safety Commission. Mr. Cecil Smith stated I should state on the label that this product is not intended for use by children under the age of 24 months. Everyone else I spoke with felt this was a great product and the only requirement would be that it not interfere with the automatic locking mechanism of the seat belt, which it dos not do. I felt it was necessary to further state that it is not intended for use by children under 40 pounds, to make it clear that this product is not in tended to compete with or in any way replace child restraint systems (car seats and booster seats).

Great care was taken in designing the Cair Bag product; keeping foremost in mind the comfort, safety and reliability of this product. The Cair Bag is a very lightweight (approximately one pound), under-stuffed styrene pellet bag with a removable, washab le cotton fabric outer bag. The Cair Bag is attached to the lap portion of the seat belt with a reinforced velcro and nylon strap.

When the child gets tired, he can attach the Cair Bag and lean into it, keeping the shoulder and lap belts positioned properly. This product would help to prevent the child from lying down on the seat of the car with the seat belt improperly, uncomforta bly and dangerously positioned.

The weight of the Cair Bag is distributed over the lap of the child, eliminating its force on the lap portion of the seat belt. Because the filling is very moldable in nature, the Cair Bag adapts to the legs and upper body of the child maintaining the proper positioning of the seat belt; taught across the lap and shoulder of the child.

Several months ago a representative from NHTSA sent me the enclosed excerpts from the "Child Passenger Safety Resource Manual". At that time it was determined that the Cair Bag would not interfere with the automatic locking mechanism of the seat belt. Since that time, I have been informed that this product should be recommended for use by children over 50 pounds as to prevent it from being used as a child restraint system. All literature will be changed to show this recommendation.

In conclusion, this product is desparately needed to aid in the comfort and safety of children who rest or sleep in the car. It can be seen as a comfort pillow and direct claims will not be made about the safety factor.

I have enclosed a copy of the label which will be attached to the Cair Bag, several photographs showing how children lie down on the car seat and the literature designed for Toyota for you evaluation.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions about this product at (310) 471-5242.

Attachments Cair Bag label. Cair Bag brochure.

ID: nht94-3.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Michael Winzkowski -- CEO / Managing Director, Farmont Sunroofs Ltd., Odessa, FL

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: DOT Code 205 Manufacturer Certification

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/21/94 letter from John Womack to Michael Winzkowski (A42; STD. 205)

TEXT: We are a US-based subsidiary of a german automotive sunroof manufacturer with a associated glass plant which produces the glass panels for our sunroofs. A number of years ago we have obtained a DOT number for our glass panels, used in the USA. Due to t he fact that the German TUV is certifying and testing such glass panels and the US-DOT is relying on manufacturer self certification, we sometimes have the problem to convey the certification differences between the two countries to the German Authoritie s. The DOT numbers which appear on the glass panels of our product are simply proof of the fact that the manufacturer has obtained a registered number with the US-DOT after complying with the applicable self certification procedures without having to go through a test by your Department similar to the test administered by the German Government Authorities. It would be of great help if you could provide us with a formal letter, citing the applicable procedures for manufacturers regulated by vehicle gla zing code 205 to identify that in fact no US-DOT testing or certification is conducted when DOT numbers are assigned to manufacturers. An attached copy of the latest edition of DOT Code 205 (Vehicle Glazing Code) would be most appreciated.

Our glass manufacturer is FABA Autoglas Produktion in Germany. Farmont Sunroofs Ltd. in Florida is the assigned agent in the US. Our current master DOT number is DOT 500 (followed by manufacturers glass type and model code). I would appreciate to rece ive a letter from your office addressed to FABA Autoglas Produktion c/o Farmont Sunroofs Ltd. (my attention).

Should you have any further question please call me at any time. Thank you very much for your help.

ID: nht94-3.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Unrath, Albert W., Sr. -- President, Construction Consultant, Albert W. Unrath, Inc.

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 10/11/94 From Philip R. Recht To Albert W. Unrath, Sr. (A42; PART 567)

TEXT: We spoke with Dorhy Nakama of your office on June 23, 1994 and again on Tuesday, June 28, 1994. She was very helpful in obtaining information that will allow us to re-classify our Traffic Control Attenuator vehicles. In following the fax of June 28, 19 94 we will attempt to highlight the paragraphs that we believe applies to our specific operations regarding the remanufacturing process. We will supply a brief description of this process as well as describe the vehicles and show pictures.

I. We manufacture between 15 to 18 vehicles per year. Below are photographs of our completed Traffic Control Attenuating vehicles which are totally dedicated to this use.

A) 1977 Chevy Titan, COE, Tandem Axle, 6 cyl. Diesel Engine, 9 spd Transmission, Road Tractor. Combined GVW 80,000# or Single GVW 45,000#. Photo #1 (page 3) shows in the transport/travel mode.

(1) During Remanufacturing:

(a) Truck 5th Wheel or body is removed and scraped.

(b) All air lines and brake systems used in the trailer towing operation are removed and lines are plugged. (will not be needed or reused)

(c) All Sub-frame, brakes, remaining brake lines, engine drive line, rear suspension, and axles are checked. Any items needing repair are repaired and/or replaced.

(d) Steering systems and shocks are checked and are repaired or replaced if needed.

(e) Frame and all running gear is cleaned, prime painted, and finish painted.

(f) A new support frame and truck mounted Attenuator mounting hardware with braces is then installed.

(g) A new Pre-cast concrete counter weight is installed that will bring the completed vehicle to its new GVW of +/- 25,500# and not to exceed 25,999#.

(h) New rear lighting, heavy duty safety lights, and reflectors are then installed in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

(i) A new Advanced Warning Flashing Arrow (4' x 8') sign is installed along with (3) 4D batteries or (6) Deep cycle batteries, a solar battery charging system, and a electronic controller inside the truck cab are installed.

(j) Final installation of Vehicle Attenuation cushion and lift/tilt hydraulics.

(k) Unit is painted if required and then placed in service (lease/purchase) or sold.

(B) 1979 Peterbilt same as Titan except shows Vehicle Attenuating Device in highway operation mode. Photo #2 (page 3)

II. Under 49 CFR ChV (10-1-93 Edition) on (Page 172), we fall within subparagraph (e) combining New and Used components manufacturing; and part of (f) Combining New and Used components in trailer manufacturing (1) & (2).

III. In your letter to John Paul Barber, Esq. (Copy attached) we find that our situation is similar. However, our truck with an original GVW of 45,000# or 80,000# when the unit was constructed. All that we require to meet state specifications is (20,0 00# to 24,000# GVW)

All these vehicles are subject to sales and use taxes if rented, leased or sold and amount is subject to total value.

IV. We are requesting that if you review our re-manufacturing operation as we described along with the photographs we would request that you issue us a ruling similar to those of the other letters. We will, if approved, supply the new Supplementary Vin Plate showing Mfg. Name, Date of Mfg., Vehicle Make and Model, Original Mfg. Vin Number, and NEW Actual GVW. This plate will be attached below the original Vin Plate.

Photo #1 1977 CHEVY TITAN.

[PHOTOGRAPH OMITTED - SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

Photo #2 1979 Peterbilt

[PHOTOGRAPH OMITTED - SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

If you should have any questions on any of these items please call us or fax the request.

ID: nht94-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 24, 1994

FROM: Larry L. Wessels -- President, Rocky Mountain Technology Engineering Corporation

TO: John Womak -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/6/94 from Larry L. Wessels to John Womack (A42; Stds 106)

TEXT: During the past several months we have been in communication with Dr. Gerald Steward of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Dr. Stewart suggested in his letter dated April 18, 1994, that we provide you with pertinent safety and product i nformation regarding our new invention for a safety product, "Handi-Slide", for semitrailers equipped with sliding axle/undercarriage assemblies.

The "Handi-Slide" has the potential to reduce or eliminate existing safety problems as identified in the U.S. Department of Transportation 49 Code of Federal Regulations. Specific Code of Regulations are identified in our information booklet that is enc losed.

We have also enclosed a "Handi-Slide" video that shows and demonstrates the advantages of our pneumatic/air locking pin system compared to the present manual force pin removal system that has been in use since sliding undercarriages were introduced appro ximately 40 years ago. The state-of-the-art "Handi-Slide" system offers the trucking industry improved safety and increased operating efficiency compared to the old manual cantilever system that is currently in use.

We have installed "Handi-Slide" over-the-road test units on several semitrailers. We are receiving numerous favorable comments from truck owners, drivers and trailer manufacturer engineers regarding the "Handi-Slide" test units.

If you have any further questions, please contact us at (303)922-4518. We look forward to receiving your comments regarding our new invention. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-3.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry Wessels -- President, Rocky Mountain Technology Engineering Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/24/94 from Larry L. Wessels to John Womack (OCC-10032)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation about the use of your product, the "Handi-Slide." You state that your invention is a locking system for securing and releasing a sliding semitrailer undercarriage. You further state that the syst em is tied into the trailer's air brake system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle sa fety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your product is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomp lying product that is subject to an FMVSS is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

NHTSA does not have any specific FMVSS for semitrailer undercarriages. However, since the Handi-Slide is tied to a

2

vehicle's air brake system, your product could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems, and specifies performance and equipment requi rements for the braking systems on these vehicles. Your product could also affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for the air brake hoses, fittings and assemblies on the vehicle.

If the Handi-Slide is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 12 1 and 106. If the device were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify t hat, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the Handi-Slide were installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act requires the installer not to knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to vehi cle owners modifying their own vehicles.

I note that you provide an attachment titled "Current NHTSA Locking Pin Safety Concerns" that references several Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Please note that these regulations are administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), n ot NHTSA. If you are interested in the FHWA requirements, you can write to that agency at the address provided in the enclosed information sheet.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Walter Lavis

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/6/94 from Walter Lavis to John Womack (OCC-10080)

TEXT: We have received your letter of June 6, 1994, with respect to your "Saf-T-Flec" reflectors.

You say that you have been informed by a NHTSA representative that "using the standard DOT approved reflector tape would allow the use of my reflector for the trucking industry." Judging from the red, white, and amber samples you have enclosed, your "ref lectors" appear to be retroreflective tape which adheres to a semicircular aluminum base and is intended for vertical mounting on the side and back of vehicles. Several potential customers have asked whether your concept was "DOT approved", and you have asked for a reply.

The Department of Transportation has no authority to "approve" items of motor vehicle equipment. We advise inquires whether manufacture or use of any particular item of equipment is prohibited or permitted under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard s and associated regulations. However, if an item is deemed permissible, this must not be represented as "approval" by DOT.

Your letter is somewhat unclear as to the intended use and market for Saf-T-Flec. The fact that you have enclosed a highlighted copy of S5.1.1.4 leads us to believe that one application you envision for Saf-T-Flec is as a substitute for original equipme nt side reflex reflectors. This substitution is permitted if the reflective material conforms to Federal Specification L-S- 300 (September 7, 1965) and, as used on the vehicle, meets the performance standards of SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors, Jan uary 1977. Accordingly, if your red and amber samples meet these two requirements, they may be used as the side front, intermediate, and rear reflex reflectors that Tables I and III require on trucks and trailers. However, Standard No. 108 does not all ow sheeting material to be used on the rear of vehicles in lieu of reflex reflectors.

What if your reflectors do not meet the two specifications listed above? In this instance, they may be used as supplementary side reflectors to the reflectors that are

2

required by Standard No. 108, and you may employ amber devices for this use as well as red and white. As supplementary equipment, they are subject to the Federal restriction only that they not impair the effectiveness of the required reflex reflectors. We do not believe that additional reflectors would have this effect. Supplementary lighting equipment such as additional reflectors is subject to the laws of the individual states. We are not able to advise you as to their acceptability under state la ws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) provides opinions on state law. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

As you may know, S5.7 of Standard No. 108 requires red and white retroreflective material to be applied to the side and rear of large trailers that have been manufactured since November 30, 1993 (those whose overall width is 80 inches or more and whose G VWR is more than 10,000 pounds). This material may be retroreflective sheeting or reflectors. If sheeting is used, it must meet the photometric specifications of Figure 29. If reflectors are used, they must conform to SAE J594f, and provide specified minimum millicandela/lux at specified light entrance angles. Your initial question indicates that you may be interested in marketing Saf-T-Flec for use as a substitute for the conspicuity materials that conform to Standard No. 108. Manufacturers of con spicuity sheeting certify it with the material in a flat vertical plane (as evidenced by the DOT-C2 marking on your white sample). We have reservations whether the curved red and white Saf-T-Flec devices could meet the photometric specifications of Figu re 29, for sheeting, or J594f and the millicandela/lux specifications of S5.7.2.1(b) or (c) for reflectors. Amber is not one of the specified colors for conspicuity treatment, and could not be used as a substitute.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht94-3.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1994

FROM: Suzanne C. Onos -- Field Representative, House of Representatives

TO: John Horsley -- Acting Director, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/17/94: Letter from John Womack to Honorable Thomas H. Andrews (Std. 208)

TEXT: I was recently contacted by Betty Williams. She states that the design of the seat belt in her 1991 Chrysler is causing her discomfort. Ms. Williams went to her car dealer to have the seat belt changed but was informed that it is against the law to do so. Ms. Williams would like to know if this is true and if there is any alternative means to address this problem.

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.