ID: 7339

C.N. Littler
Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs
Motor Coach Industries
552 West Stutsman Avenue
Pembina, North Dakota 58271

Dear Mr. Littler:

This responds to your letter of May 25, 1992, concerning possible federal preemption of a bill that has been introduced in the New York State legislature. The bill would require any intercity bus that is operated in the State of New York manufactured on or after July 1, 1993 to be equipped with safety belts at every seating position, unless the bus is operated by a motor carrier which does not operate annually more than 100 days or more than 10,000 vehicle miles within the State of New York. After reviewing the copy of this bill enclosed with your letter, we have concluded that it appears to be preempted by Federal law, to the extent that it requires the installation of seat belts for passenger seats of buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds and that are not State-owned vehicles. This conclusion is explained in detail below.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. Section 103(d) preempts New York's proposed law if that law covers the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and is different from the applicable Federal standard, with one exception. It would not preempt the law to the extent that the law imposes a higher level of performance upon vehicles procured for use by the State or any of its political subdivisions.

In this case, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) "specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes." (S1 of Standard No. 208). Section S4.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protection of bus occupants. Accordingly, there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect and that standard establishes performance requirements for occupant protection in buses. The question then is whether the proposed New York State law, which applies to the same aspect of performance, is either identical to Standard No. 208's requirements.

The applicable performance requirements for occupant protection at passenger seats in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, differ, depending upon whether the vehicle has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less or a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. For buses (other than school buses) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, S4.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a lap/shoulder belt to be provided at every forward-facing outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt to be provided at every other seating position. New York's law, requiring seat belts at every seating position in buses, would not be preempted with respect to these small buses if it were interpreted to require the same types of safety belts as required under Standard No. 208.

With respect to buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, S4.4.3.1 of Standard No. 208 requires compliance with either of two options for the driver's seating position, the installation of an automatic restraint or the installation of either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt, and does not require any type of occupant protection system at any other seating position. NHTSA expressly determined that there is not a safety need for safety belts or another type of occupant crash protection at these seating positions. See, 39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974. With respect to these large buses, the New York bill would be preempted to the extent that it requires seat belts to be installed at seating positions other than the driver's seating position.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:8/19/92

ID: 7353

Mr. Steven Rovtar
General Manager
Blazer International Corp.
2960 Hart Drive
Franklin Park, IL 60131

Dear Mr. Rovtar:

This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, asking for "a written ruling" that the product you described "meets current SAE/DOT guidelines."

The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product "utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle." Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit.

For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" from "rendering inoperative, in whole or in part," mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps.

Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them "partially inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied.

We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:6/17/92

ID: 7378

Mr. Berkley C. Sweet
Vice President
School Bus Manufacturers Institute
7508 Ben Avon Road
Bethesda, MD 20817

Dear Mr. Sweet:

This responds to your letter of May 29, 1992 asking what minimum passenger size (weight and height) was used in developing the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. You noted that several school districts are now transporting newborn and under-school-age children to schools which provide day-care service, and that you have received inquiries concerning the "limits, if any, on passenger size and age that can be safely transported on school bus seats."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, defines a "school bus" as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purposes of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA has never specified a passenger size and/or age range applicable to the compartmentalized school bus seats required by Standard No. 222. In developing the standard, however, NHTSA considered the range of sizes and ages of children attending preprimary through secondary school.

NHTSA has developed approximate size and weight guidelines for child restraint systems. For children from birth to 9-12 months (or up to 20 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of an infant or convertible seat facing the rear. For children from 9-12 months to 4 years (or 20 pounds to 40 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of a convertible or toddler seat. If a school is transporting children in these age and weight ranges, they may want to consider using a school bus with safety belts to secure a child restraint system. I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled "Transporting Your Children Safely" for your information.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:7/28/92

ID: 7379

Mr. Mark W. Russo
1480 West Macopin Road
West Milford, NJ 07480

Dear Mr. Russo:

This responds to your letter of May 27, 1992, to Mr. Charles Gauthier of this agency, which enclosed a copy of R-Bar test data provided by Micho Industries. You requested an "official `review and comment'" regarding the applicability of Safety Standard 222 to the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System and related issues.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has addressed the use of "safety bars" in school buses on several occasions in the past. Enclosed for your information are copies of five NHTSA letters which address this subject and which, we believe, will also address your concerns. The letters are addressed to Mr. Michael F. Hecker of Micho Industries, dated May 14, 1992; Mr. Scott K. Hiler of the C. E. White Company, dated January 31, 1991; Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, Member of Congress, dated January 8, 1990; and Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll of Transportation Equipment Corporation, dated March 10, 1989 and November 3, 1988.

If, after reviewing the enclosed materials, you still have questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures Ref: #222 d:7/l3/92

ID: 7383

Mr. Steven Henderson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield
Montreal PQ H3A 1B1
Canada

Dear Mr. Henderson:

This responds to your letter of August 11, 1992, commenting on my response to you of June 29 with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions regulating the modulation of motorcycle headlighting systems.

In my letter, I informed you that the device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108, and would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with the standard. I also advised you that if a motorcycle owner could install the device, there would be no violation of Federal law, and that the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states.

In your latest letter, you "agree that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands." However, "if the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case," you believe "that the granting of an exception should be considered by the NHTSA."

As I understand it, your principal argument as raised on page 2 of your August 11 letter is that it is improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon the specifications of that section, are misplaced.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, your device becomes subject to another provision of Standard No. 108 that I did not mention in my June letter. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the installation, as original equipment, of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. Application of paragraph S5.1.3 returns us to my comments in June that your device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Thus, under paragraph S5.1.3, installation of the device as aftermarket equipment, if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would continue to be prohibited by Federal law.

Your latest letter also addresses the issues of taillamp and turn signal conformance. You argue that

"a taillight's purpose is to mark the rear of a motor vehicle during nighttime driving when it would otherwise be invisible. For this reason the law requires that taillights be lit at night. The law makes no such requirement during the day. The law does require that motorcycle headlights be lit during the day. * * * At night the taillight will always be steady-burning as required by S5.5.10(d) because the flasher device is only able to induce taillight flicker during daylight hours due to the photocell circuitry incorporated to prevent the headlamp from generating strobe effects at night. Therefore, the device is in compliance with S5.5.10(d) as it will cause the taillight to flash only at times that it is not required by law to be lit."

The law that applies to your argument is Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.7(b) states in pertinent part that "On each . . . motorcycle . . . when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps . . . shall also be activated." Thus, under Standard No. 108 the taillamps must always be activated when the headlamps are activated.

The device also functions through the horn button to cause the turn signal lamps to flash at a rate higher than the maximum permitted by Standard No. 108. In your view, the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are in simultaneous use will be rare. However, if they are used together, "the SAE-specified turn signal flash of 1-2 hz will be perceptually present, the hazard signal flash of 10 hz will also be perceptually present at the same location, and the two signals will not interfere."

We consider that paragraph S5.1.3 applies here as well, and that a flash of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz. There could be another undesirable consequence as well. When NHTSA proposed allowing modulating headlamps, commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction, akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. NHTSA observed that the reaction was most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Although your device does not operate at night, its frequency is at the threshold where photic reactions can occur, and we want to bring this fact to your attention.

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders. You have suggested writing an "exception" in Standard No. 108 for a period of one or two years so that the safety benefits of the device can be evaluated. We have a procedure under which a manufacturer of motorcycles can petition for a temporary exemption of up to two years, applicable to 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that it would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Perhaps you can interest a manufacturer in petitioning for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 108 on this basis.

You may also petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety. The agency has no plans to initiate rulemaking on its own initiative to permit your device.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/28/92

ID: nht90-4.76

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 6, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by S.P.W.

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown, & Platt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-18-90 to S.P. Wood from E.Z. Jones (OCC 5222)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting a confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Stephen Wood of my staff. In that conversation, he informally stated that the attached letter dated January 5, 1990 from Fidelity Tire Manufacturing company c ontained the information necessary to comply with the notification requirements in S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119) for tires and rims not listed in the publication of a specified tire and rim association. This letter c onfirms that Fidelity's letter would satisfy the requirements of section S5.1.

Section S5.1 requires that a listing of the rims which may be used with each tire produced by a manufacturer be provided to the public. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the tire will be mounted only on appropriate rims and that the tire will be mounted on vehicles where its load-carrying capacity will be adequate. That section gives manufacturers the option of using the data provided for the tire size and corresponding rims published in certain standardization organization yearbooks o r listing the appropriate information "in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request, and in duplicate to (NHTSA)." Fidelity's letter which includes the appropriate dimensional and load-carrying data for the tire and rim appears to satisfy this requirement.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht90-4.77

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by S.P.W.

TO: Takahiro Maeda -- Assistant to the Vice President, Engineering Division, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-28-90 to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA from Takahiro Maeda (OCC 5275)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1990, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Table IV of the standard establishes a minimum "edge to edge separation distance" between turn signal lamps and tail or stop lamps installed on motorcycles. You have asked whether the edge in question is the outer edge of the lamp assembly itself, or th e edge of the reflector in the lamp.

The minimum edge to edge separation distance is measured from the edge of the illuminated surface of one lamp to another, that is to say, from the edge of the effective projected luminous area of one lens to the edge of the effective projected luminous a rea of the other. It is unclear from the drawing you enclosed of the "tail/brake lamp" whether the edge of its effective projected luminous area of the lens is at the edge of the reflector, or at the edge of the lamp (as appears to be the case with the "turn signal"). If the former, the distance is measured between the edge of the tail/stop lamp reflector to the edge of the turn signal lamp assembly as you have initially indicated.

ID: nht90-4.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1990

FROM: Chino O'Hara -- Minority Co-Ordinator, Del Mar Manufacturing Company

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA-NCC

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 14, 1991 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chino O'Hara (A37; Std. 108; Std. 121; Std. 302; Std. 105; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Del Mar Manufacturing Co, has been in Business for over 20 years, we are a Certified Minority Owned Business here in Southern Cal. Our product (HUSKY-ANTI SQUEEK) is a breakthrough in the Automotive Aftermarket Brake Industry. Currently this product is being tested by GENERAL MOTORS, FORD, CHRYSLER, TOYOTA, HONDA, NISSAN and some military installations. The question keeps coming up (DO WE NEED DOT APPROVAL FOR OUR PRODUCT). If you can answer this question in a written response to us it would be appr eciated.

Attachment

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET DEL MAR MANUFACTURING CO. 2713-B N. TOWNE AVE. POMONA, CA. 91767 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE: 714-625-0555 SECTION I-PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION

Part Number: AS-88 Product Name: Husky Brake Anti-SqueekChemical Family: Brake Quite

SECTION II-HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS

Ingredients: % TLVGraphite-Carbon Black: 4.8 --- Aliphatic Solvent : 27.0 400 Aromatic Solvents : 28.0 200

SECTION III-PHYSICAL DATA

Boiling Poin: Deg. F/C 181 F/83 C Specific Gravity: 1.1 Vapor Pressure (MM HG): 33 %Volatile Volume: 68 Vapor Density (AIR=1): 1.3 Evaporation Rate: 1.5Solubility in Water: Miscible Water/oil Dist Coeff: 9 Appearance and Odor: High Viscosity Black Liquid, Slightly Sweet Odor. Physical State: Liquid Freeze Pt.: Deg F/C 10F/-14C Threshold Odor.PPM 5PH: N/A

SECTION IV-FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD

Flammability Classification: Flammable Liquid NFPA Rating: 1,3,0 Flash Point Deg. 54/11 C Extinguishing Media: Extinguish With Dry Chemical Water, ray or Fog Special Fire Fighting Procedures: Use Air Supplied Rescue Equipment in Closed Areas. Cool Exposed Container With Water. Explosive Power: Low Impact Sensitive: NoBurning Rate: Low

SECTION V-HEALTH HAZARD DATA

Threshold Limit Value: 390 PPM Effects of Overexposure: May Cause Dizziness, Light Headache, and Difficulty in Breathing in areas of High Concentration of Vapors. Any Victim Should Seek Air Free of Vapors. Emergency and First Aid Procedures: Eyes, Flush Immediately With Plenty of Waters. Skin, Wash with Soap and Water. If Swallowed, Do Not Induce Vomiting and Contact Physician Immediately.

SECTION VI-REACTIVITY DATA

Stability: Yes Conditions to Avoid: Keep Away From Heat, Sparks, Flames or Sources of Ignition. Incompatibility: Strong Oxidizers Hazardous Decomposition Products: No Hazardous Polymerization: No

SECTION VII-SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES

Steps to be Taken in Case Material is Released or Spilled: In Case of Spill: Flush Small Amounts to Sewer With Plenty of Water. Remove All Sources of Ignition, Ventilate Area, Clean up With Absorbent Material Contain and Pick up Waste Material, Put in a Sealed Approved Container. Report Quantity: 10,000 lb. Dispose of Waste In Accordance With Federal, State and Local Regulations.

SECTION VIII-SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION

Respiratory Protection: Use Only in Well Ventilated Areas.

Ventilation-Local: Recommended Mechanical : Required Special : Keep Away From Heat and Flame

Protective Gloves: Vinyl or Leather Solvent Resistant Gloves, Eye Protection : Goggles Other Protective Equipment: Vinyl or Leather Apron & If Ventilation is Inadequate, Wear Approved Respiratory Equipment.

SECTION IX - SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS

Precautions To Be Taken In Handling and Storing: Store in Cool Dry Area, Keep Away From Heat, Sparks, Flames, or Sources of Ignition. Adequate Ventilation Required. Avoid Prolonged or Repeated Breathing of Gas, Fumes, Vapor or Spray Mist. Avoid Prolonged or Repeated Contact With Skin. Do Not Take I nternally. In Case of Accident or Illness, Contact Physician Immediately.

Other Precautions: Keep Out of Reach of Children. Read and Follow Directions on The Product Label.

Neither this data sheet nor any statement contained herein grants or extends any license, express or implied, in connection with patents issued or pending which may be the property of the manufacture or others. The information in this data sheet has bee n assembled by the manufacturer based on its own studies and on the work of others. The manufacturer makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein. The manufacturer shall not be liable (regardless of fault) to the vendee, the vendee's employees, or anyone for any direct, special or consequential damages arising out of or in connection with the accuracy, completeness, adequacy, or furnishing of such information.

BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS STEP 1 : DISASSEMBLY

A : Remove pads from caliper assembly. B : Sand pad surface using a light to medium sand paper or emery cloth. This will remove the glaze (on used pads). STEP 2 : CLEANING

A : Spray (clean) pad surface liberally with brake cleaner. This removes all contaminants from the pad surface. Let dry completely, approximately one minute. STEP 3 : BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK APPLICATION

A : Heat metal backing plate until lining is hot to open pores in the lining. Soak pads in brake anti-squeek for 10 minutes face down to allow solution to penetrate the pads. Note: Metal backing plate must be heated up to promote faster drying. STEP 4 : REASSEMBLY & INSTALLATION

When pad surfaces are compltely dry, assemble and reinstate brake assembly.

STEP 5 : TESTING THE BRAKES

It should be noted that brakes will GRAB & GROAN tremendously during the first two or three stops. This is normal. USE HUSKY BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK, EVERYTIME YOU DO A BRAKE JOB.

Subject: "Husky Brake Anti-squeek (HBAS)" "cure for noisy, nervous brakes" Thank you for stopping at our booth.

The Del Mar manufacturing Co. started business in July 1972 with idea to manufacture and distribute the finest line of automotive chemicals and tire sealing products available at very competative prices. Now after 18 years in business we have reached th is goal of having the highest quality in products available throughout the country for the automobile, bicycle and motorcycle industries. Our products include tire sealers for almost all kinds of tires, brake anti-squeek for disc or regular brakes, D-gu m and Saf-T-Dip: a carburetor parts cleaner and fiberglass metal cleaner and polish. We welcome your orders and look forward to doing business with you.

We have nationwide W.D program for our very unique product "HUSKY BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK". We have manufacturing representatives in all states except east coast and south eastern states.

Unlike many other jelly type products which are applied to the back of the plate, HBAS is applied directly on the pad surface which will stop BRAKE SQUEEKING and will produce a surface that gives better braking.

The following are unique features of HBAS: * Quiets noisy brakes. * Will stop brake squeaking and eliminate pad squeal. * Produce a surface that gives better braking. * Recommended for use on old or new pads, either metallic, semi-metallic, or organic or non-asbestos organic.

Here is some suggested approach that shows you why you should use HUSKY BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK.

1. 87% of all brake job "comebacks" are squeek related. 2. Husky brake anti-squeek should be applied to all brake jobs as "insurance" against squeek comebacks. 3. One can of HBAS will treat 8-10 brake jobs making it a very in- expensive item to the mechanic, less than $0.50 per brake job. (average brake job - $185.00).

This product has been accepted by a great number of new and used car dealers and many big name chains specializing in brake jobs throughout the unites states. We invite you to try this effective solution to a particularly irritating source of noise poll ution. You will be amazed to see the results of your brakes after HBAS application.

This product has been endorsed by top two undercar distributors, TRUSTAR and CYGNUS for their members, private label under their name.

Thank you very much for your time. Please don't hesitate to call us for any question you may have.

BRAKE SQUEAKS DRIVING YOU NUTS !!! Nationally 28% of the brake jobs done come back, of which 87.0% are from squeaks.

The reason is because of lack of time, training and competitive cost of the brake job.

A large part of the squeaks are caused from the rotor and brake pad vibration. Squeaks are vibrations.

To help you understand more fully, think of the rotor being trued up by grinding away the rotor surface from the center to the outside edge of the rotor. By doing so, even on a fine cut, you leave grooves very much like a phonograph record has.

When you install the brake pads face surface to the rotor with groves, the brake pad is softer than the rotor and the rotor cuts grooves in the brake pad. When the rotor turns, the grooves and the brake pads try to follow the rotor grooves to the outsid e edge of the rotor, very much like the record player arm and needle follows the grooves in the phonograph record. We call this record effect, causing a squeak.

With the brake pad it can only travel so far and then snaps back and starts all over again until the rotor and brake pad wear together to a smooth working surface. It takes about 3000 to 5000 miles for this to happen.

This is by far the largest cause of squeaks in the brakes today.

To help correct this , there is a product called "HUSKY", it is an anti- squeek compound, made by Del Mar Manufacturing Company.

It is a compound that is applied to the face surface of the brake pad which soaks into the padding material and has graphite in it to help the pad to slip and not drag on the rotor, therefore eliminating the pad and rotor wearing together to cause a sque ak.

For a few cents per brake job, you can be assured that your customer's brake job will not come back with that all too frequent squeak that cost you time and money and most of all your customers trust you did the job right the first time.

Attachment

One page advertisement for Husky Brake Anti-Squeek (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-4.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Clive Van Orden -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Ref O-3J005

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicl e Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733)

TEXT:

I am indebted to Congressman Ben Blaz for your name and area of responsibility.

I am enclosing some correspondence that will give you some details of our problem. In a nut shell, we want the Federal Government to enforce the FMVSS and FMCSR regulation in the CNMI or wave them completely until such time they are ready and able to im plement and enforce them.

As you may know, there are no pollution problems on Saipan, Tinian or Rota and the speed limit is 25 in most places, 35 maximum. I doubt that it is advantageous to the CNMI residents to pay the extra 3 or $400 for automobile EPA and Safety features that are not needed.

Governor Guerrero has taken a position that these regulations are not needed or desired. I agree with that position 100%. But, I have bigger problems with the regulations being, so called, applicable and not monitored or enforced.

ID: nht90-4.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1990

FROM: Loren Thomson -- Thomson & Weintraub

TO: Dorothy R. Nakama -- Rule Making Attorney, United States Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Loren Thomson (A37; Std. 205; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I represent the Glass Specialty Companies. They, as well as others in the glass repair and replacement industry have concerns with the types of repair being afforded by some members of the industry and with the replacement of original equipment, automob ile glass, with substandard glass.

Edward H. Barnes, the president of Glass Specialty with whom you have talked, indicates to me that you've indicated that the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard, No. 205, is not specific upon standards with respect to the repair or replacement of automobile g lass. The only standard being that the repair or replacement must not leave the vehicle, "inoperable," or render it so.

Our position is that if a windshield or a side glass is likely to shatter or distort the vision of an operator, the vehicle is indeed "inoperable."

We would respectfully request an interpretive letter from your department of what the term "render inoperable" means in safety standard no. 205 as regards a chipped, cracked, or broken windshield.

If you have any questions on the matter, please direct them to me.