ID: 2499y

Mr. Douglas Mayes
President
Creative Products, Inc.
Number One Carissa
Littleton, CO 80127

Dear Mr. Mayes:

This responds to your letter asking questions in relation to your product called "gyroscopic wheel covers." We apologize for the delay in our response.

According to your letter and accompanying information, you claim that use of "gyroscopic wheel covers" can reduce stopping distance. You stated that Dr. Carl Clark of this agency suggested that you request this office to provide a letter specifically outlining the requirements of the agency's braking test, and a list of the various testing facilities used by the agency when testing a product for this purpose. You then asked for a letter stating the "stopping distance test guidelines" of Safety Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems," and a list of laboratories acceptable to DOT that could be used to test your product. You also asked whether an SAE standard is a proper example of a stopping distance test. You stated that it is your intention to use these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document your product's test results in compliance with the DOT testing standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its products meet applicable standards.

Safety Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems, applies to passenger cars and other motor vehicles. The standard specifies, among other things, a number of stopping distance tests that each motor vehicle must meet. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.

I note that Standard No. l05 was not designed for the purpose of evaluating whether a product such as yours can improve stopping distance. We are unable to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness of using Standard No. l05's stopping distance tests for that purpose, or how such a test program would best be carried out.

This agency does not provide recommendations or endorsements for particular testing laboratories. I have, however, enclosed a list of the independent laboratories conducting compliance tests for NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance during the current fiscal year.

I have also enclosed a copy of an information sheet we have prepared which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l05 d:6/l8/90

ID: nht93-4.7

DATE: May 21, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 01-01-93 EST from Joseph G. Wilson to John Womack (OCC 8594)

TEXT: Thank you for your letter informing us of the Blu-Lite System, which your company developed. You stated that the system "protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision." You enclosed a brochure for our information, and would like to demonstrate your system to us.

We regret that we cannot accept your offer for a demonstration. In addition, as discussed below, we must advise you that Blu-Lite appears to conflict with both Federal and local laws. Your brochure shows that Blu-Lite is a three compartment lamp, consisting of a center compartment with blue lens (described as "emergency stop") flanked by two "red stop lights". Blue-Lite is shown installed in the rear parcel shelf, apparently as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp. In use, Blu-Lite flashes rapidly.

The center highmounted stop lamp has been required as original equipment on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The effect of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) is to forbid any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the center highmounted stop lamp, and replacing it with any lamp that does not meet the requirements for the center lamp that was original equipment. Blu-Lite does not meet the original equipment specifications in lamp color, which must be red, and in operation, which must be steady-burning. Thus, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who substituted Blu-Lite for an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp would appear to be in violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A).

The Safety Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Blu-Lite, or any other person, including manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, from installing it on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, the legality of its use must be determined under state laws. It is our impression that many states allow the use of blue lamps only on emergency vehicles. Additionally, many states have laws similar to the Federal one as it relates to the performance and use of the center highmounted stop lamp. If you wish to confirm this, we suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht73-2.28

DATE: 03/30/73

FROM: GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- ATTORNEY, LEGAL DEPARTMENT NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALER ASSOCIATION

TO: LAUREN SNYDER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: RICHARD B. DYSON; FRANCIS H. BURNS; ED OGLE; JAMES R. GARFIELD

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/02/73 FROM JAMES E. WILSON -- NHTSA TO GALE S. MOLOVINSKY; N40-30; SECTION 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Snyder:

It has been brought to our attention that the Veterans Administration regulations pertaining to veterans requiring adaptive equipment on automobiles financed by the VA pursuant to VA Form 21-4502 compel dealers to furnish the car suitably modified before the veteran is permitted to accept delivery.

Since disabled veterans may require prosthetic service, the VA is concerned that no veteran accept delivery of a vehicle that he cannot operate. DOT regulations, however, prohibit dealers from modifying vehicles where safety standards may be affected. Because of the nature of the disability, veterans frequently need radical alterations of the accelerator, steering column, brake pedals, seat chassis and dashboard. A car which has been modified for an individual who has lost both feet or both hands, for example, could be considered unsafe because it would be unrecognizable and undriveable for an individual without knowledge of such adaptive equipment. Furthermore, such modifications might affect existing structural equipment required by the safety standards.

Dealers are uncertain as to whether or not safety standards are effected and therefore reluctant to unilaterally make equipment changes which might be in violation of the law. Although the dealer wishes to assist the veteran in securing operable, reliable transportation, he is caught between the conflicting policy directives of DOT and the VA. Of course, the disabled veteran suffers the most. I have discussed this problem with the VA and Mr. Dyson of your office and a consensus has developed that perhaps NHTSA could clarify policy to permit dealers to modify cars prior to delivery when ordered for specific physically impaired customers.

2

NADA supports DOT's efforts on behalf of our customers to insure that motor vehicles contain as many safety features as needed to reduce the possibilities of injury. It is not NADA's intention to seek modification or relaxation of any safety standard, but merely to affect a process wherein dealers may render their services to those Americans requiring adaptive equipment without fearing the consequences of violating the law as it now stands.

Mr. Burns of the VA's General Counsel's office and others at that agency are also eager to cooperate on this matter.

I look forward to cooperating with your office toward a speedy resolution of this situation.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht95-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stuart Sacks -- Tradepro, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/25/95 LETTER FROM STUART SACKS TO PHILIP R. RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sacks:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You s tated that the tires do not display the "molded D.O.T. code numbers," and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), "clearly does not require [DOT code n umbers] for non-passenger tires." Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct.

I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by "DOT code numbers" you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5.

49 U.S. Code @ 30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are it ems of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be "raised above or sunk below the tire surface" a speci fied distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)).

Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. Th e TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer.

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

ID: nht71-2.23

DATE: 04/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: American Safety Belt Council, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 25, 1970, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, which was amended on September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14778), and Docket No. 2-15, Notice 5, which was published on the same day. In your letter you state that while S4.4 of Standard No. 213 presumes the continued availability of factory-installed seat belt assemblies, recent proposals on passive restraint systems say result in the reasonsibility for the installation of seat belts passing from the automobile manufacturer to the buyer of children's seats. You are apparently concerned that should this occur, there is insufficient guidance presently available to the customer on having installed in his vehicle a seat belt assembly for use with a child seat. While the Administration does not as a general rule comment on docket submissions, we believe you have raised an important issue, one for which a response is appropriate.

Under the recent amendment to the occupant crash protection standard, which was published March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4600), manufacturers will have the option of using seat belt assemblies to meet restraint requirements until August 1975. At present, we anticipate that most manufacturers will in fact continue to use seat belt assemblies until that time. Consequently, we do not believe modification of Standard No. 213, which you suggest in your letter, is presently necessary. Furthermore, there are other motor vehicle safety standards, which we intend to retain, that would eliminate much of the problem with which you are concerned. Thus, while seat belt assemblies would no longer be required as standard equipment, passenger cars would still be required pursuant to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, to be manufactured with seat belt assembly anchorages that provides a location designed specifically for the attachment of seat belt assemblies and that

can be used by a consumer in the installation of aftermarket seat belts. Moreover, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies," as you know, requires each aftermarket seat belt assembly to contain attachment hardware and instructions for installing the assembly in the vehicle. These requirements together provide consumers with sufficient information and materials for them to have seat belts properly installed for use with a child seating system. If problems do arise in the future that these requirements do not fully deal with, appropriate steps will be taken at that time.

Thank you for your continued interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht88-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/23/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: RALPH HITCHCOCK -- OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/ 07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

I was advised by Mr. Lewis Buchanan that he had forwarded my letter regarding my "Sudden Stop Flasher" (SSF) to you for response. In the event his letter did not reach you yet, I am enclosing another copy.

I should mention to you that I have conceived of several additional features which I did not mention in my letter to Mr. Buchanan because my intent was to communicate the basic concept only. However, I might briefly mention one of them. This the "Cr ash Lock-up Mode." This feature would cause the system to "lock-up" in the rapid warning flash sequence whenever an "impact-level" deceleration is encountered. When drivers have an accident, they are often confused and disoriented and fail to take measu res to protect themselves, such as turn on the hazard warning flashers. The Crash Lock-up feature would automatically send out a continuous warning when an actual crash occurs, thus possibly preventing yet another crash. Several years ago, I read of a 56-car pile up on a Florida Interstate on a very foggy night. I believe if only a few cars in that string of smashed up vehicles had this feature, that major disaster could have been significantly less severe. The Crash Lock-up would remain actuated un til the ignition switch was recycled.

Please accept my apologies for not addressing my original letter to you instead of Mr. Buchanan. Unfortunately, I was advised by the Kansas City Office that Mr. Buchanan would be the proper recipient.

Thank you very much for your attention.

ID: volvov70.crs

Mr. William Shapiro
Director, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter of January 6, 2000, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on vehicles within a new, early 2001 model year passenger car line, to be designated as the "Volvo V70," that Volvo plans to begin offering for sale on or about March 15, 2000.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. As identified in your letter, and in an accompanying drawing, the alternate location for which you have requested approval is on the vehicle's B-pillar, facing the door opening of the rear door on the driver's side. You note that by letter dated April 29, 1998, NHTSA approved this same location for the placement of the certification label on vehicles within the Volvo S80 line. You state that the new Volvo V70 shares with the S80 many safety features that involve structural design, and has the same basic vehicle platform as the S80.

Your letter states that it is not possible for the certification label to be placed in any of the locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4(c) owing to the size of the label, the corresponding surface geometry of each of those locations, and adhesion difficulties owing to the surface properties at some of those locations. You state that the alternate location that Volvo has proposed will meet the requirements of 49 CFR 567.4(c) because it is in "the same general area" as the locations specified in that section, and because a label in the proposed location will be "easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except an outer door."

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for vehicles in the new V70 passenger car line would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.2/22/2000

ID: 18342.wkm

Mr. Scott Rink
OverBuilt, Inc.
780 West Park Avenue NW
Huron, SD 57350

Dear Mr. Rink:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the car crusher your company builds is excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer is yes.

You enclosed a promotional brochure that shows a picture of your car crusher. You described it as weighing 60,000 pounds and is sold either as a stationary or as a portable unit, the only difference being the addition of axles and a fifth wheel. You stated that the equipment is not used to haul anything but itself, and the brochure states that when ready to be transported, the deck is lowered and the equipment towed away. We take that to mean that any cars that have been crushed have been removed and only the crusher itself is transported.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (hereinafter referred as the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S. Code 30102(a)(6).

In reviewing the information you provided, including the brochure enclosed with your letter, it is our opinion that the car crusher you described and as depicted in your brochure is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. It is obviously designed to be used primarily off-road and although it is capable of being transported on-road from the factory to the customer and by the customer from one job site to another, its on-road use is only incidental and not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. Not being a motor vehicle, therefore, your car crusher is not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121.

Moreover, Standard No. 121 applies to "trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems." It does not, however, apply to "Any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating], . . ." Accordingly, since your car crusher is transported by itself with no other cargo or equipment included, it would be excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121 in any case by virtue of paragraph S3(f).

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need further information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.12/1/98

ID: hen2.jeg

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.
Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5339

Dear Mr. Henneberger:

This letter follows up a meeting between you, your client, William A. Leasure, Jr., Executive Director of the Truck Manufacturers Association, and members of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) staff. In the meeting, you and Mr. Leasure raised concerns about our

September 22, 1997, interpretation letter, addressed to Mr. Leasure, concerning Standard No. 208's air bag labeling requirements. The requirements at issue were established in a final rule published on November 27, 1996. In our interpretation letter, we recognized that the rulemaking establishing the requirements focused on light vehicles. However, based on the regulatory text and purpose of the requirements, we concluded that the requirements also apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags.

You and Mr. Leasure raised several concerns about our conclusion. Among other things, it was argued that the air bags used on these vehicles are very different than the ones used on light vehicles, and that the specific attention-getting warning labels developed for light vehicles are not needed for medium and heavy vehicles. It was also noted that the "DATES" section of the final rule establishing the labeling requirements identified a compliance date for light vehicles but not for medium or heavy vehicles.

Upon reconsideration, we have decided to revise our previous position and instead interpret the labeling requirements established in the November 27, 1996, final rule as applying only to passenger cars and to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. These are the vehicles that are required to have air bags under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-40), and they are the ones that NHTSA intended to address in the rulemaking at issue. We believe that this is supported by the preamble and by the DATES section of the final rule.

We agree with your view that different labels may be appropriate for different types of vehicles than the ones addressed in the rulemaking at issue. However, given our revised interpretation, we do not, at this time, see a need to address this subject in rulemaking. Under our interpretation, the labeling of these other vehicles is at the option of the manufacturer. Thus, if a manufacturer believes that the labels specified in Standard No. 208 are appropriate for other vehicles as well, it is free to use those labels. However, if the manufacturer believes that a different label is more appropriate, it is free to use that label.

If you have any further questions about this subject, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.3/23/99

ID: Magrin.jeg

Mr. Bob Magrin
126 Crabapple Road
Trumbull, CN 06611

Dear Mr. Magrin:

This responds to your request by telephone to have the passenger air bag of your car deactivated. You explained that you have a baby who was born very premature and who just came home from the hospital. The baby is on a respirator and heart monitor and requires special monitoring.

As discussed below, we would consider the special needs of your child as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that either temporarily deactivates the passenger-side air bag to accommodate your child, or places a cutoff switch in the vehicle for the same purpose.

Federal law now requires that new cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as a means of complying with that requirement.

The law also prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. However, in very limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate a person's special physical needs, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has in the past stated that we would consider violations of the "make inoperative" provision as technical, justified by public need, and that we would not institute enforcement proceedings.

We would regard a temporary deactivation of the passenger-side air bag in your car, or the addition of a cutoff switch, in the same way. Infants riding in rear-facing child safety seats should never be placed in the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger-side air bag. Since your baby is on a respirator and heart monitor and requires special monitoring, we would consider your situation as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that temporarily deactivates the passenger-side air bag, or installs a cutoff switch, to accommodate your child.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you have the air bag deactivated, we strongly encourage you to have the air bag reactivated by the dealer when your child can ride in the rear seat.

In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that passengers in your vehicle use their safety belts.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d:10/30/96