ID: aiam5641

Dear Mr. Schroeder: This responds to your inquiry about the Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) with which your trailer must comply. You state that your company plans to manufacture a trailer mounted striper that applies reflective paint stripes to roadways. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that your trailer will spend a significant amount of time traveling on public roads between job sites. Please note that we are returning the photographs attached to your letter that were marked confidential. As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the FMVSSs are promulgated. The statute defines the term motor vehicle as follows: Any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and telephone conversation that the trailer spends extended periods of time on the public roads moving between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be its primary purpose. The following Federal safety standards apply to trailers: Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which address conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers, and Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, while your vehicle is not required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. In addition as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA s safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures;

ID: aiam0238

Dear Mr. Calhoun: This is in further reply to your letter of April 29, 1970, to th National Commission on Products Safety, that has been referred to this office.; In your letter you ask for our advice as to whether or not there ar any accepted standards for passenger car automobile tires such as weight and size limits. We do have standards for passenger car tires such as weight limit versus ply rating and there are accepted tests to determine the reliability of tires. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 has been established for that purpose. the Standard's requirements are for labeling, which includes maximum inflation pressure and maximum load rating, strength, continuous load-carrying endurance and high speed performance under load.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rim - Passenger Cars, requires, among other things, a placard, permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location. The placard must contain all of the information spelled out in part S.4.3 of that Standard, a copy of which is contained in the enclosed booklet on page 19. Tire labeling requirements along with test procedures are listed under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, on pages 12 through 19.; The tire to which you refer is a 2-ply 4-ply rated tire. The loa ratings for a 855-14 tire can be found on page 15 of the enclosed booklet. The maximum load rating is 1,770 lbs, at the maximum inflation pressure of 32 p.s.i.; It is important for you to note that the test procedures have to d with new tires. We have no procedures for testing tires that have failed.; Although we do not become involved in private litigations, There is publication for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, under the title, 'Automobile Accident Litigation - A report to the Federal Judicial Center to the Department of Transportation,' that might be of interest to you. The price for publishing is $s.75.; We are also enclosing the following publications: >>>The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 Summary of 1968 Compliance Tests Arranged by Standard, that includes General 855-14 tire and, a form letter explaining the Bureau's position relative to test results and where they might be obtained.<<<; We trust this information will be useful to you. Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam2153

Dear Mr. Iinuma: This is in response to your November 20, 1975, letter concerning th use of replacement parts which may affect a vehicle's compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is applicable only to vehicles.; You have presented the example of a vehicle that, if equipped with door that does not have guard bars, would not be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214. Because that standard is applicable only to passenger cars, there is no prohibition on the mere *sale* of such doors for use as replacement equipment. However, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended ('the Act'), specifies that; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.<<<; Therefore, the *installation* of a door that does not have guard bar is a violation of the Act, if that installation is performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Installation of such a door by one of your dealers, for example, is not permitted.; Your letter also asked whether the use of such doors would be permitte in the future, in the event that Standard No. 214 is relaxed in a way that would permit the use of such doors on a new vehicle. It is the opinion of this agency that replacement of a door, or any other safety system installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, with a system mandated by a later safety standard (even if the later standard imposes a less stringent level of performance) would not violate Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, as amended.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3905

Dear Mr. Kallman: This responds to your letter of January 14, 1985, concerning wha regulations affect a process you intend to market for new and used cars. The process consists of grinding two parallel grooves into the lower portion of the windshield. The grooves are 2mm wide, 0.1-0.3mm deep, and are 2mm from each other. You stated that the purpose of the grooves is to improve the efficiency of the wipers and increase their life expectancy. The following discussions address the effect of our regulations on the process you described.; First, let me explain how our regulations apply to a new vehicle or t a new windshield sold as an item of replacement equipment. Our agency has issued Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new vehicles or sold as items of replacement equipment. I have enclosed a copy of the standard. If, before they are sold, the safety grooves are ground into either the windshield of a new vehicle or into a new windshield sold as an item of replacement of equipment, the person making the grooves would have to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205 for windshields. I note that the test results enclosed with your letter do not address whether the glazing would continue to comply with the requirements after it has had the safety grooves ground into it. In particular, we would urge you to determine whether the glazing would continue to comply with the requirements regarding impact and penetration resistance, optical deviation and visual distortion after the grooves have been ground into the windshield. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.; If the safety grooves are ground into the windshield of a used vehicle then Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act may apply. That section provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly grind the grooves into a vehicle's windshield if by so doing they would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4022

Dear Mr. Walsh: Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1985, inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a product you have developed. You described the product as a mini-venetian blind that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the blind is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your product.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles. You asked about State laws affecting your product. I suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which may be able to tell you about State laws or refer you to the appropriate officials in the States in which you wish to sell your product. The address for AAMVA is Suite 910, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.; If you need further information, please lt me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1677

Dear Mr. Winiarski: Your letter of October 8, 1974, to Mr. Bobby Boaz has been forwarded t this office for reply. You appear to be interested in obtaining some general statements regarding the applicability of motor vehicle safety standards to different types of motor vehicles.; We attempt to apply each Federal motor vehicle safety standard to a wide range of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment as is reasonable, practicable and appropriate. It is not entirely accurate, however, to say that the standards apply to the performance of equipment which vehicles are required to have. The standards are divided conceptually into three types: those which apply to new vehicles, those which apply to motor vehicle equipment (*e.g.* tires, child seats, etc.) and those which apply to both vehicles and equipment. In case of a standard which applies to vehicles, the tests employed by the standard can take into account vehicle structure, weight, and design. In other words it is the method by which equipment is integrated into a vehicle that is important, rather than the performance of equipment taken alone.; Standards which apply to vehicles specify the particular vehicle type to which they apply. Most early vehicle standards applied only to passenger cars. Since that time we have attempted to expand the applicability of some of these standards to other vehicle types. In each case, as I indicated above, a standard must be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of vehicle to which it is applied. In some cases, this is a matter of technology as you suggest. In other, however, the question may be one of safety need. For example, some standards do not apply to trailers (*e.g.*, Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of interior materials') or to equipment for use in trailers (No. 205. 'Glazing materials') because State laws prohibit people from riding in trailers. In this regard standards can also be directed at particular vehicle types to alleviate safety problems particular to them. A good example of this is Standard No. 217, 'Bus window retention and release.'; Your statements regarding seat belts and the applicability of Standard No. 208,209, and 210 are not correct. While these requirements are somewhat complex, I believe an appropriate summary would be that seat belts and anchorages are required at all permanent seating positions including lateral or rearward positions, in all motor vehicles except trailers, motorcycles, and the passenger seats in buses.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: H. Hakaya -- Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in response to your letter of June 21, 1985 requesting, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512, confidential treatment for your letter of that date and of the two attachments thereto.

Your request has been granted. NHTSA will treat your June 21, 1985 letter and the attachments confidentially. Pursuant to a January 22, 1986 telephone conversation between and Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, our letter to you regarding this matter will be made publicly available to the extent indicated on the copy which is enclosed. Also enclosed is a copy of this confidentiality determination, which indicates the extent to which it will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Kathleen DeMeter Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law

Dear

This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that a proposed mini-van, which would use a front-wheel-drive passenger car platform as its base, would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). The vehicle would have an airduct lying on top of the floor and running longitudinally rearward from the dash area between the two front seats and then turning outboard to enter the bottom of the 'B' pillar. While the top of the airduct would be above the level floor plane in the area between the front seats and immediately behind the front seats, it would not extend under the second or third seats, which would be removable. The floor would otherwise be flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

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 statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classification of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed mini-van would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).

Section 523.5 provides in relevant part:

(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions:

(1) Transport more than 10 persons:

(2) Provide temporary living quarters:

(3) Transport property on an open bed:

(4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume: or

(5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

With respect to the location of the airduct, it is necessary in order to come within section 523.5(a)(5) that the removal of seats creates a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. Since the airduct would not extend under the removable second or third seats, and since the floor is otherwise flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior, it is the agency's opinion that the vehicle would qualify as a light truck under section 523.5(a)(5).

This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed mini-van for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CPR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523. We have enclosed a copy of a letter dated December 1, 1983, which addresses some of the issues involved in making such classification.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (sec, e.g., 49 CFR Part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (in the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meet the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MVP is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into a MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan difference mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Originally Signed By

Frank Herndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/89

FROM: DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: BRAKING DISTANCE TEST & LABORATORIES USED BY D.O.T.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/18/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS; A35; STANDARD 105

TEXT: We have been in contact with Dr. Carl Clark, Inventor Contact Code NRD-12 and George Parker, Compliance Testing, regarding our product i.e. Gyroscopic Wheel Cover and in doing so, Dr. Carl Clark suggested we request a letter from your department specific ally outlining the requirements of the braking test used and a list of the various testing facilities used by the D.O.T., when testing a product for this purpose.

In lieu of the D.O.T. actually testing our product, we are requesting a letter from your office stating the FMVSS (571.105) Stopping Distance Test guidelines and a list of laboratories acceptable by the D.O.T., that could be used to test our product.

Is this a Proper Example? - SAE J299 Stopping Distance Test

Our intention is to use these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document our product's tests results in compliance with the D.O.T. testing standards.

Please return a copy of the specific guidelines used for this kind of test and a list of the acceptable laboratories as soon as possible.

Thank you so much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Douglas Mayes, President CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

Encl: Brochure, introduction, VHS

CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

"THE GYROSCOPIC WHEEL COVERS"

Introduction

This unique product was invented by Mr. Kim Rush, of Anaheim, California. An extensive amount of research has been completed with various governmental and independent testing laboratories in order to substantiate several claims as to the positive effect s this product has on several performances of a vehicle. There are locking devices attached to keep the product from coming off or being stolen off the vehicle. There are several different designs or looks that can be manufactured into the facial appear ances of the wheel cover.

There has been extensive market studies completed on the number of new automobiles being manufactured, estimates on the number of vehicles already in service and operating in the U.S. and foreign countries, as well as some future market projections. Thi s number includes vehicles in fleet service, municipalities, cab companies, etc. In addition, a study or overview of competitive products marketed as a "gas saving device", and "devices that improve automobile highway safety", has been made.

Market Viability

It is important to note that any sales figures would just educated projections only and the potential results of any extensive marketing program is dependent upon a variety of external factors, such as:

* Consumer perceptions of the product

* Retail price

* The distribution structure

* Advertising strategies

* Competition

* Ability of the product to perform as promised

This kind of quality product by providing the safety features and handling enhancements that it does, should be important to everyone, including the government. As an added bonus, this product gives the consumer an actual investment payback on his or he r purchase within a very reasonable period of time in gas savings, extended tire wear, longer shocks and brake life and most importantly the safety benefits to family members and passengers when this unique product is installed on the family and/or busin ess car.

There are huge economic benefits to large fleet owners as well. When this product is used by a whole population of people, this product could have a substantial effect on helping us get through a gasoline shortage.

Product Description & Function

The Gyroscopic Wheel Cover model #1 is very similar in appearance to the conventional fancy spoke wheel covers currently being offered on a variety of expensive new domestic and imported automobiles in the after market. There are 13", 14" and 15" config urations and this unique product is designed to fit almost 95% of all wheels manufactured today. The steel spokes model is made from heavy 12 gauge metal and the spokes are cushion mounted at a 6 degree pitch. As the wheel rotates to a speed of 10-15 m iles per hour, the centrifugal force causes the spokes to flex in and expand, forming a disc.

The magnitude of the rotational force creates a gyroscopic effect which increases wheel stability, creates some 80 foot pounds of inertia or downward pressure at the kiss point of each tire, maximizing road contact, giving better transaction in rain and snow and greater road stability at all times.

The wheel cover can be manufactured in a variety of various type configurations and levels of ornamentation. A specific public demand for design and style can easily be met.

Situational Analysis

The U.S. consumer is at present time able to purchase gasoline at a reasonable price, but will this condition stay that way. Not according to some reports. The public is looking for more ways to save money and conserve energy. Starting in 1980, as you know, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued standards for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for U.S. automobile manufacturers, setting a minimum average fuel economy requirement based upon the manufacturer's total vehicle production. The aver age standard for 1990 is 26 mpg for car manufacturers. The net result forces the auto makers into building smaller cars, smaller engines in the efforts to develop fuel saving methods and whether we like it or not, exposing the buying public to some new dangers, by having less automobile or metal between you and all the other driving public. The next change is plastic engines.

European markets

The foreign car market is an exciting opportunity, especially when gasoline is priced around $ 2.30 per gallon in Europe, and when these users can add 16-20% annually to their fuel economy, that can amount to a lot of dollar savings, as well as energy sa vings. This product could be our part of the overall effort to conserve their energy resources.

Added Safety when using Product.

This product can improve your chances against having an accident in your car while these wheel covers are on your automobile. These wheel covers provide for quicker stops, better handling, less swaying in turns, better stability, lessens greatly the cha nce of hydroplaning in water and snow. We are presently in the process of contacting the insurance industry to try and obtain a auto insurance premium reduction when these wheel covers have been installed. Creative Products expects additional tests wil l have to be performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to substantiate our claims and be able to offer a possible discount. Braking tests prove that this product reduces the stopping distance for automobiles by as much as 10% or more at 55 mph. A set of wheel covers in providing better traction, better stopping and handling capabilities will give the consumer more control, thus less wrecks in all kinds of weather.

Market Opportunities

There are almost two hundred million automobiles in the U.S., or over 40% of the world's totals. Owners with new and used automobiles that need this product and would desire a set of these wheel covers for their car. The U.S. market alone for this prod uct today may exceed $ 10,000,000,000.00, the European market may be just as good with a higher percentage of users. Fleet owners, new car manufacturers would be very interested in this product for their cars, vans and trucks.

Product Costs and Savings At todays' prices, a set of nice wheel covers may cost $ 350.00 or more and they obviously do nothing more for your car than looks. Certainly nothing for saving gas, tire wear or safety. This product will be offered for sale to distributors around the world and the retail price will probably be in the range of $ 350-$ 400 for a set of four. Sizes come in 13", 14", or 15", this price range would not be out of line with the standard priced wheel covers for the more expensive automobiles.

The actual money saved by a consumer when using this product for instances could be if presently they are using; (1) 110 U.S. gallons/mo., (2) getting 18 mpg of gas on the average, (3) the price of gas is at $ 1.20 cost per gallon, (4) when driving 24,00 0 miles of annually, using this product will provide the owner with an annual savings of $ 200.00 or 16% of his total gas bill. Saving this amount of money annually is very attractive to the average consumer and when taking into the consideration the ad ditional benefit of an extended tire life, the consumer gets all of his or her money back in the first year.

CONCLUSION

Creative Products believes this wheel cover will provide several new safety advantages to anyone buying this product. You have to drive your car with a set of these wheel covers on to believe the difference it makes. With this product installed on any car, you will experience a whole new dimension of safety driving in all kinds of adverse weather.

gyroscopic wheel covers[trademark]

energy efficient . . . money saver . . . greater road safety

increase mileage

increase tire life

increase brake life

increase traction in snow

filmed tests indicate vehicle braking reduced by fifteen feet at 55 m.p.h

ID: 19033.drn

Mr. Steven Butcher
Vice President, Technical and Standards
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K St, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Butcher:

This responds to your request for clarification of marking requirements for tires in Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. In a final rule of May 27, 1998 (63 FR 28912), Standard No. 119 was amended to convert English measurements in that standard to metric measurements. Since a five year lead time was provided, the final rule is effective on May 27, 2003. You wish to know whether pound designations for markings specified in Standard No. 119 (at S6.5 Tire markings) may be designated as "lbs" rather than "lb", and whether it is "acceptable to use either upper or lower case letters."

With respect to your question concerning "lb" vs. "lbs", we note that, as a general matter, the examples and language specified in the final rule must be followed exactly. However, given that "lb" and "lbs" represent very minor variations of the same abbreviation, and the standard has in the past used "lbs" instead of "lb", it is our interpretation that either variation may be used.

Standard No. 119 does not specify whether upper case or lower case letters must be used. However, please note that S6.5 states in part: "Except as specified below, each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section." (Emphasis added). S6.5 further specifies permitted locations of the markings, the height of the markings' letters and numerals, and how high above or sunk below the tire surface the markings must be. S6.5 does not specify the case (upper or lower) of the markings that are used. Thus, since S6.5 specifies that the tire must be marked with "the information" specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) and does not further specify whether the information provided must be in letters that are upper or lower case, a manufacturer may use either upper or lower case letters.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:119
d.4/21/99

ID: nht88-3.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T.P. BAILEY -- LEGISLATION ENGINEER, INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-10-88, TO NHTSA, FROM T. BAILEY - INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN, FMVSS 104 WINDSHIELD WIPING & WASHING SYSTEMS

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 10, 1988, in which you asked for an interpretation of Standard NO. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (49 CFR @571.104). More specifically, you asked two questions about the requirements set forth in section S4.1.2, Wiped area, of Standard No. 104.

You first asked whether section S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 applies only to passenger cars. The answer to this question is yes. Section S4.1.2 reads as follows: "When tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield shall . . ." (emphasis added). The underlined language explicitly limits the requirements to passenger car windshields. Hence, the windshields on other vehicle types are not subject to the requirements of S4.1.2.

Your second question involved the dimensions of "Area A" used to determine whether a car complies with the wiped area requirements in section S4.1.2. Section S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104 specifies that the dimensions for "Area A" are established as shown in SAE Recommended Practice J903a, may 1966, and specifies that at least 80 percent of "Area A" must be wiped. Following the procedures set forth in the SAE Recommended Practice, you noted that "Area A" on a hypothetical vehicle would extend to the day light opening area on one side of the windshield and extend beyond the daylight opening area on the other side of the windshield. When calculating the percentage of Area A that is wiped, your letter sets forth four different possible dimensions for Area A and asks which is used to determine whether the vehicle wipes at least 80 percent of Area A. Again section S4.1.2 explicitly answers this question. That section specifies that each passenger car windshield shall wipe 80 percent of Area A that "is wit hin the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 1 inch from the daylight opening."

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information.