ID: nht94-4.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: H. Kristie Jones, President -- P.J.'s Fabrication, Inc., Stanfield, OR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/18/94 letter from H. Kristie Jones to John Womach

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). You explained that P.J.'s Fabrication (P.J.), which manufacturers trailers, entered into a contract with Coulson Co mmander Trailers (Coulson) to manufacture trailers that will be marketed under Coulson's name. Skip Jones of your company has told Dorothy Nakama of my staff that he does not believe Coulson has any manufacturing capability or that Coulson manufacturers trailers. You ask whether under Standard No. 115, P.J. assigns the VIN to the vehicles. The answer is yes.

S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that "Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer." The term "manufacturer" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment." According to the information provided in your letter, P.J. fits this definition of a manufacturer. Moreover, you also state that P.J.'s accepts responsibility for warranty work and quality control to meet DOT specifications ." This statement indicates that P.J.'s is certifying the trailers' compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), as a manufacturer must under our certification requirements. Accordingly, all the information presented to us indic ates that P.J. is the trailer manufacturer, and it is therefore appropriate for P.J. to assign the VIN to the trailers.

As noted above, you indicate that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Since FMVSS No. 115 applies to the trailers and requires each new trailer to have a VIN, P.J. must assign a VIN to the vehicle in order to correct ly certify that the vehicle meets the FMVSS's (namely, FMVSS No. 115). In other words, since the FMVSS's require a VIN, the trailers must have a VIN by the time P.J. certifies the vehicles as complying with the FMVSS's.

You also asked which company issues the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO), that your letter referred to as the "Certificate of Origin." Since MSOs are regulated by state law, for information about each state's requirements, you must contact the st ate's department of motor vehicles. A source of information about each state's requirements is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22203. The telephone number for the AAMV A is (703) 522-4200. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Unrath, Albert W., Sr. -- President, Albert W. Unrath, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 7/5/94 From Albert W. Unrath, SR. To John Womack (OCC 10204)

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA's regulations apply to your company's plans to refurbish used vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that after refurbishing, the vehicles wil l have lower gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs). You wish to know whether you could add a label showing the lower GVWR to the vehicles' original certification label (which you refer to as the "original Vin Plate").

As explained below, NHTSA does not require the supplementary label on a refurbished -- and not newly manufactured -- used vehicle. We would, however, encourage you to add the label on the refurbished vehicles, since the label would provide important saf ety information to the vehicle operator. On the other hand, the modifications you make to the vehicle could be so extensive that the resulting vehicle is considered "new" under our regulations. If the vehicle is a new vehicle, you must certify the vehi cle as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), and include on your certification label the new GVWR of the vehicle.

Based on the information you provided, the vehicles you are refurbishing are "trucks" under section 571.3 of our regulations. Section 571.3 defines a "truck" as a motor vehicle with motive power "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." You provided two photographs of the vehicles after they have been refurbished. Your photographs show the refurbished vehicles as carrying 4' x 8' "Advanced Warning Flashing Arrow" signs on flat beds. Since your vehicles are designed for transporting property or special purpose equipment, the vehicles are "trucks" under 571.3.

You describe your refurbishing process in your letter. You state that you will take a used truck with a GVWR of 45,000 or 80,000 pounds (lbs.), "scrap" the body, and check remaining truck parts such as the subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, and s uspension. You will repair and replace those parts, as needed. Next, you will clean and paint the frame and running gear, and add a new support frame and "attenuator mounting hardware with braces." After the vehicle is refurbished, its GVWR will be app roximately 25,500 lbs.

As a general rule, NHTSA has no requirements for "used" vehicles. Whether a vehicle is considered new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle that was previously registere d for use on the public roads to be a "used" vehicle and therefore not subject to the FMVSS's. When a modified chassis is being used in the refurbishment, NHTSA has a regulation (49 CFR section 571.7(e)) for determining when the modifications to the use d chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the FMVSS's. Section 571.7(e) states:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . ., unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

It does not appear that you plan to add a new engine, transmission, or drive axle to each refurbished truck. If you leave the requisite components specified in section 571.7(e) in place from the previous vehicle, we would consider the vehicle you produc e to be a used vehicle. However, please keep in mind that you would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. section 30122(b), which provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard . . .

This means that the refurbished truck must continue to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification, such as those for braking, lighting and safety belt systems. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

You ask whether, after refurbishing the used truck, your company may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to reflect the lower GVWR. Since NHTSA generally does not regulate used vehicles, we do not require or prohibit the addition of a supplementary GVWR label. However, we would encourage you to add the supplementary GVWR label to the vehicle.

American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), NHTSA recognized that certain modifications that might be made to a used vehicle (e.g., adding or deleting an axle) could make the originally assigned GVWR inappropriate for the vehicle as modified. In the let ter to the AABA, NHTSA stated that although it is not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in these situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle. Similarly, in your case, since the GVWR of the refurbished trucks would be much lower than that indicated on the certification label, we believe it would be appropriate for your company to add a label to the trucks which indicates the appropriate loaded weigt of the r efurbished truck.

As noted at the beginning of this letter, it is possible that your modifications could result in a "new" vehicle. You indicate that, if needed, you could replace the vehicle's subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, suspension, and/or support frame. If you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the original vehicle and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable FMVSS's in effect on the date of the remanufacture of the new vehicle.

You also asked that NHTSA "approve" your proposed operations. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" refurbishing operations. Under our regulations, manufacturers of new vehicles "self-certify" that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Like wise, businesses refurbishing used vehicles must assure themselves that the resulting vehicle continues to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification. NHTSA can examine the refurbisher's determination in the context of an enforcement proceedin g.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1994

FROM: Robert L. Hart -- Manager - Legal & Engineering Services, Gerry Baby Products Company

TO: Dee Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/95 letter from Philip Recht to Robert L. Hart (A43; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Fujita:

Several weeks ago I discussed our new child restraint with you. It is our model #632 with a preliminary name of Gerry Belt Right II Booster/Toddler Car Seat. A copy of the proof from our 1995 catalog describing this product is enclosed.

Model #632 has a removable 5 point restraint system. When the restraint is removed, it is a booster seat according to the definition in FMVSS 213.

Gerry is developing the final name for the product from these nine choices and we want to make sure we are not in violation of the standard if we use any of these names.

Belt Right 20 to 60 Lb. Car Seat

Belt Right Booster Car Seat

Belt Right Convertible Car Seat

Belt Right Convertible/Booster

Belt Right Convertible Toddler Seat

Belt Right Toddler Car Seat

Belt Right Baby to Toddler Car Seat

Belt Right Baby to Booster Car Seat

Belt Right Beyond Baby Car Seat

Please review these names at your earliest convenience and let me know if there are any problems. Thank you very much for your help.

Enclosure (Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Je, C. H. -- Doosan Corporation, Pusan Branch, Chungku, Pusan, Korea

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 6/28/94 Letter From C. H. Je To Vehicle Safety Standards

TEXT: This responds to your letter identifying your company as a "trading company" and asking for permission from the U.S. Department of Transportation to sell air bags in the United States. As I explain below, no such permission is necessary, but there are s ome requirements you should be aware of before you begin importing air bags.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for n ew motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 3 01 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(5)(B) as "a person . . . manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment [or] importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has exercised its authority under Chapter 301 to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Also, a phase-in of a utomatic crash protection requirements for light trucks is in progress. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requi rements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash pro tection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" t he performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dim ensions, actuation time, and the like.

It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as origi nal equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag is add ed to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply wit h all of the safety standards affected by the installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of St andard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the "make inoperative" prohibition in U.S. Code Section 30122(b), which provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard . . .

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to m otor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protec tion benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you c arefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. Please note the re gulations concerning manufacturer identification and designation of agent.

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.

ID: nht94-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1994

FROM: H. Kristie Jones -- President, P.J.'s Fabrication Inc., Stanfield, OR

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/05/94 letter from Philip R. Recht to H. Kristie Jones (A42; std. 115)

TEXT: P.J.'s Fabrication Inc. is a trailer manufacturing business. We are a new company and need assistance with rules and regulations regarding VIN numbers.

We have contracted with Coulson Commander Trailers, Boise, Idaho to build trailers under Coulson's name. As the manufacturer, P.J.'s accepts responsibility for warranty work and quality control to meet DOT specifications. My question, who issues the VIN number and Certificate of Origin?

I called Dorothy Nacomma on 8-18-94, she has informed me that P.J.'s Fabrication will issue the VIN number, but suggested I write to you for written confirmation of such.

At your earliest convenience, could you possibly sent us this confirmation.

Your time and consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1994

FROM: Antonio Salvetti

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/29/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT/JOHN WOMACK TO ANTONIO SALVETTI (A42; PART 567)

TEXT: I am very interested in buying a new vehicle manufactured by Advanced Generation Motors Inc. called the AGM "PLAYA" which is based on a Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift unit.

The conversion consists on taking out all doors of the hatchback, cutting the roof and redesigning the vehicle in fiberglass as far as it was explained to me. The Playa has no doors and comes with a full enclosure in canvas.

My questions are:

1) Is this vehicle approved to be on the streets? 2) How do I know that they comply with all the safety requirements? 3) How are they responsible for any vehicles problems? 4) Are there any other requirements beside safety to meet?

Thank you in advanced for the information.

ID: nht94-4.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1994

FROM: Recht, R. Philip -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larson, Victor P. E. -- Cryenco, Inc. (COLORADO)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 5/17/94 From Victor Larson To John Womack (OCC 9984)

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of May 17, 1994, with reference to the application of conspicuity material to the sides of cryogenic tank trailers.

You point out that the only side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road is at the center of the tank, approximately 90 inches above the road surface. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that conspicuity material can be placed at this location "if that is the only available mounting area" and that it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface.

We confirm your understanding. Standard No. 108 specified an original mounting height for conspicuity material as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicab le to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers should mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers, in order to achieve the full conspicu ity benefits of the material. In the case of your tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at a belt line that is 90 inches above the road surface would be considered to have been mounted as c lose as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

You inform us that some trailers have rear and midship cabinets that could be used, in conjunction with the belt line location, to provide a location for striping, although this would result in a non-aligned striping pattern. With respect to trailers eq uipped with cabinets, you asked whether compliance would be satisfied if only the belt-line location is used. The answer is yes, provided that the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) is met, i.e., which provides that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." Since the strip need not be continuous, this would allow discontinuities in a strip mounted at 90 inches in which the cabinet s were not used.

Your final question is the required orientation of striping for conspicuity; some of your customers have requested placement of material at a downward angle of approximately 30 degrees to accommodate their graphics better. The standard does not explicit ly address the issue of orientation. However, as noted in response to your first question, trailer manufacturers should mount conspicuity material in a vertical plane, or as nearly thereto as the trailer shape allows, so that the full conspicuity benefi ts of the material may be realized. If there is no available vertical surface on which the material can be mounted, we urge that a wider stripe of conspicuity material be used to provide the minimum required performance at the installed downward angle. The manufacturer of the conspicuity material which you use should be able to determine whether an increase in the width of the striping would allow the material mounted at or near the downward angle that your customer prefers to provide performance comp arable to a narrower strip mounted in a vertical plane.

ID: nht94-4.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kover, Joe

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 7/25/94 From Joe Kover To Jere Medlin (OCC 10216)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 25, 1994, to Jere Medlin of this agency. You have presented several questions regarding an electric circuit that you have designed for use in motor vehicles, and which you call a Light Control Unit (LCU).

The LCU automatically turns off the headlamps and tail and parking lamps when the ignition is turned off if the lamps have been activated. The LCU also automatically turns on the headlamps and the tail and parking lamps whenever the windshield wipers ar e turned on. If the LCU fails when the lights are on, a Light Bus Monitor will automatically restore them.

You have the following questions:

"Would a motor vehicle operator be in violation of the federal motor vehicle safety standards by maintaining both the head and tail/park lights on during the hours of daylight?"

No. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not tell an owner when it is or is not permissible to use safety equipment.

"Does the LCU meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards? Could the LCU be integrated into the light system of new production vehicles or currently registered vehicles;"

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, Standard No. 108, does not apply to supplementary lighting devices such as the LCU. The LCU is permissible on new vehicles provided it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment require d by the standard. We do not see that it has this effect. It is permissible to be installed on currently registered vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses provided that it does not make inoperable any part i nstalled in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We do not see that the LCU has this effect either.

You have also told us that the LCU may be used to operate lamps as Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) by maintaining the light switch in the on position when the wiper switch has been turned off. One feature of this function is that the LCU "allows the operat or to turn off either the head lights only or both the head lights and tail/park lights via the light switch." Your question is "If the operator should elect to employ the LCU as a DRL unit does it meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards?" Under Standard No. 108, a DRL system is a system of any pair of lamps on the front of a vehicle (other than parking lamps or fog lamps) that is automatically activated and that is automatically deactivated when the operator places the headlamp control in the on position. Further, DRLs can be lower beam headlamps operated at full voltage. Assuming that the LCU turns the lower beam headlamps on rather than the upper beam ones, your system would function as a DRL meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lower beam headlamps are automatically activated by the windshield wipers and deactivated by turning off the ignition. However, the feature that allows the headlamps to be turned off manually (whether or not simultaneously turning off the p arking lamps and taillamps) is not part of a DRL system as specified by Standard No. 108.

Your final request is that we "include the federal specifications for electronic devices." We are unsure what you mean by this as we have no "specifications for electronic devices." I enclose a copy of S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108, the DRL specifications.

(ENCLOSURE OMITTED.)

ID: nht94-4.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1994

FROM: Randal Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretation of FMVSS 208 S7.1.2

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/5/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Randal Busick (A43; Std. 208; Std. 210)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is to request a clarification of FMVSS 208 S7.1.2. More specifically, would a seat belt system as shown on the attached drawing be in compliance with S7.1.2 as a so-called "semi-integrated" seat belt?

As shown on the drawing, the inboard lower FMVSS 210 anchorage, n1 is located on the seat frame and thus, as the seat moves fore and aft, the system allows a minimum of two seat belt adjustment positions and the distance between the two extreme adjustmen t positions of the system is more than 5 cm.

n1 The belt which holds the buckle is attached to this inboard anchorage.

We look forward to your response. If you have any questions, kindly contact the undersigned.

Sincerely

Enclosure

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 18, 1994

FROM: Roger W. Cole -- Vice President, Sales, Twin Tire U.S.A., Inc.

TO: Walters Meyers, Esquire -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO ROGER W. COLE (A42; REDBOOK 4; STD. 109; PART 575.105

TEXT: It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning on the telephone.

To review our conversation, we are in the business of marketing and selling the Twin Tire system in the USA and abroad and are currently in discussions with various tire manufacturers. Most recently, our tires have been manufactured by Yokohama Rubber C orporation. These tires were manufactured as recently as 1991. All of these tires have a D.O.T. designation and a U.T.Q.G. designation. Yokohama has recently breached their contract to manufacture these tires under the premises of US regulations.

Please confirm in writing that once the tires have received the D.O.T. and U.T.Q.G. approvals and ratings which are molded on the exterior of the tire that they are legal to sell in the US.

I thank you very much and would appreciate a quick response as we are urgently in need of product.