ID: 86-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Brian Peck

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Peck President Rearscope International (U.S.A.) Ltd. 15255 Hesperian Boulevard San Leandro, CA 94578

Dear Mr. Peck:

Thank you for your letter of May 19, 1986, asking how our regulations apply to your product, which is called the "Rearscope Wide Angle Lens." Your letter and the brochure you enclosed describes your product as a wide angle acrylic lens which mounts on the rear window of a bus and gives the driver a wider field of view to the rear of the vehicle. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

"We have 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) as well as other performance requirements for glazing.

Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to add-on window coverings, such as tinting films, sunscreening devices, and lens. However, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install a device on the glazing, such as the viewing lens 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 vehicle 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 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 section 108(a)(2)(A) 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 themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install any type of device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the performance of the window. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to regulate the use of viewing devices in vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 19, 1986

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

REAR SCOPE WIDE ANGLE LENS

Dear Sirs,

As per letter dated 4/25/86 (copy enclosed) I am writing to determine the status of our product the "REARSCOPE WIDE ANGLE LENS" as to the requirements oF current Federal Glazing standards, Our product which mounts on the rear window of Bus r Coach is made of Diakon by I.C.I. Ltd. of Great Britain, This acrylic product is similar. to DuPonts "Lexan" with which you are undoubtedly familiar.

If you feel a need to examine the product I would be more than willing to mail you a lens for testing purposes, In the meantime I am enclosing a brochure so that you might evaluate the situation, I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Brian Peck President

April 25, 1986

Mr. Brian Peck Rearscope International Limited 15255 Hesperian Boulevard San Leandro, California 94578

Dear Mr. Peck:

This is in answer to your letter of April 2, 1986: concerning the use of the Rearscope Wide Angle Lense in Pennsylvania.

After receiving your letter, I contacted the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to see if there were any applicable federal standards on glazing which had to be met. NHTSA indicated that they would review this request and suggested that you write to they for this information at the following address: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel, 400 7th Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

If you have already contacted NHTSA for approval, please forward their response to this Department. Pending receipt of this written notification from NHTSA, this Department will determine if your lens meets all Pennsylvania requirements.

Sincerely,

John A. Pachuta, Director Bureau or Motor Vehicles

ID: 86-4.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: J. L. HENDRICKS -- MANAGER, PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CUMMINS ENGINE COMPANY, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/06/86, TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM J.L HENDRICKS, OCC-0033

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hendricks:

This responds to your letter regarding the difficulty, during an ongoing safety defect campaign (NHTSA 85E-016), of locating current owners of heavy-duty diesel engines and replacement engine products which are installed in trucks selected by the original equipment manufacturer. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

The information contained in your letter and in telephone conversations with agency staff indicates your concern with the delay in your efforts to locate the current owners in Connecticut of Cummins engines and replacement equipment involved in this voluntary recall. This problem arose when a large number of original recall notices mailed to the most recent known purchasers of this equipment were returned to you. You then contacted each State and requested a search of their motor vehicle files using the truck vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) in order to locate the current owners. We understand that special procedures followed by Connecticut to protect individual privacy have led to delays in your obtaining the names and addresses of current owners.

In your letter, you mention Connecticut's practice of requiring a formal declaration of VIN's and a justification for conducting a search of their vehicle registration files. While we agree with the statement in your letter that each State has the right to safeguard individual privacy and place restrictions on access to lists of motor vehicle owners, we also regret the delay, which is apparently caused by Connecticut's procedure, in notifying the current owners of the equipment involved in this campaign.

You indicate that this delay is increased by Connecticut's practice of requiring the services of a third party agency who, by contractual agreement, obtains the registration information and sells it to the party conducting the safety recall campaign.

These difficulties do not, of course, diminish the responsibility of manufacturers to conduct notification campaigns. We appreciate the difficulty of locating current owners of trucks with original and replacement Cummins equipment, and commend your efforts to locate them. However, this agency cannot interfere in the efforts of a State to protect the privacy of Connecticut motor vehicle owners. Further, this agency cannot interfere in a contractual agreement between a State and a third party.

You indicate that the task of locating current owners is additionally complicated by at least two factors. First, we understand that Cummins receives a list of VIN's from the original vehicle manufacturer with the names and addresses of the first purchasers of trucks on which your equipment is installed. These purchasers may or may not be the actual users of the trucks. Second, the owners/operators of the trucks on which these engines and replacement equipment are installed tend to be very mobile in their operations and registration practices. The result has been a large number of safety-related defect notices returned to your company, because the current owners cannot be located.

In your letter, you also request that this agency write to the Connecticut Bureau of Motor Vehicles and solicit their assistance in negotiating with Cummins a program to enable your company to maintain an on-going system to obtain vehicle registration on a timely basis. We think that such a program could be appropriate during a specific safety recall campaign. While not wishing to interfere with a State's decision to set reasonable procedures to safeguard lists of vehicle owner names and addresses, the agency believes that a request to Connecticut to assist you could be helpful in locating the current owners of Cummins equipment involved in this recall campaign. For these reasons, NHTSA, by separate letter, is requesting the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles to provide assistance to Cummins, as expeditiously as possible, in supplying the names and addresses of the equipment owners requested by your company.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ann Boriskie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION !PAR=AUTHOR

TEXT:

Ms. Ann Boriskie 6738 Firelight Lane Dallas, TX 75248

Dear Ms. Boriskie:

Thank you for your letter of June 2, 1986, asking for approval of a device you have invented which is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle of a safety belt. As you requested, the agency will not disclose the details of your proprietary product. Although we understand your concern that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985)

Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)12)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have issued two safety standards which affect safety belts. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, requires the push-button release for a safety belt to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business would be prohibited since it completely covers the safety belt push-button. In addition, Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that a safety belt no longer met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

I am returning, under separate cover, the samples of your device that you sent the agency. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Larry H. McEntire -- Administrator, School Transportation, Florida Dept of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Larry H McEntire Administrator, School Transportation Florida Department of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32301

I regret the delay in responding to your letter to this office asking whether certain "mini-vans" designed to carry a maximum of eight persons are classified by NHTSA as "passenger cars" or "multi-purpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's), for purposes of complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I would like to begin by clarifying that the classification of a particular vehicle is determined in the first instance by its manufacturer, and not by NHTSA. Under our certification requirements, (49 CFR Part 567), manufacturers are required to specify the type of their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in part 571.3 of our regulations and must certify that their motor vehicles comply with all the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. We define an MPV in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle . . . designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Information we have received regarding manufacturer certification discloses that manufacturers classify cargo-carrying models of the Ford Aerostar, and G.M. Astro and Safari as "trucks". A "truck" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle . . . except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." We understand that passenger models of mini- vans designed to carry up to eight passengers utilize the same type of chassis used in truck models. It is likely, therefore, that the passenger model mini-vans you asked about would be classified by the "MVP" classification given by manufacturers to the Chrysler mini-van and Toyota Van.

On a related matter, you asked for our comments on your Department's recommendation to their school boards that they not condone parent's use of conventional vans (i.e., vans not meeting Federal or State school bus safety regulations) to transport school children to school-related events. Mr. Arnold Spencer of Rockledge, Florida, recently wrote to our office concerning the above recommendation and requested us to explain how our school bus regulations apply to persons owning vans. I have enclosed a copy of our April 25, 1986 response to Mr. Spencer which you might find helpful.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

May 9, 1986

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing in regards to an earlier letter written to you on December 9, 1985 requesting your assistance in clarifying whether mini-vans are defined as "passenger cars" or "multi-purpose vehicles".

Attached is a copy of the earlier correspondence for your information. Your earliest response would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation

LHM/cs

attachment

December 9, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Your assistance is needed in responding to a concern being expressed by various school districts in Florida.

Florida currently has a law, Section 234.051, Florida Statutes, which requires the local school districts to use school buses meeting all state and federal requirements for transporting children to school or school related activities. The same law also specifically exempts passenger cars from having to meet school bus specifications.

Based upon the above law, Florida does not permit local school boards to use conventional vans for transporting students. Only those units which have been converted to meet all federal and state school bus requirements and for which a letter of certification is on file from the manufacturer are permitted to be used by the school districts.

Lately, a number of school districts have inquired to the Department concerning the use of the new "mini-vans" for transporting students. Specifically, the Chrysler mini-vans, Ford Aerostar, General Motors Astro and Safari, Toyota Van and Volkswagon Vanagon which transport a maximum of eight people including the driver.

My specific request to you is how are these units defined under the federal definitions by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? Are they defined as "passenger cars" or "multi- purpose vehicles"?

Along these same lines, the Florida Department of Education has taken the position recommending to school boards that when parents volunteer to transport children to activities which are condoned, sponsored, or under the authority of the school board, they should not permit the transportation of these students in conventional vans. This position is based upon the fact these units do not meet school bus specifications or standards; are not specifically exempt as with passenger cars; and, the risk of liability to the school board becomes highly magnified.

Any comments you may provide regarding this position is also appreciated.

Your assistance in addressing the above issues would be very helpful in my responding to the local school boards in Florida.

Sincerely,

Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation

ID: 86-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert G. Russell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert G. Russell, Acting Director Division of School Traffic Safety and Emergency Planning Indiana Department of Education Room 229 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2798

Dear Mr. Russell:

This responds to your letter asking about NHTSA's regulations for school buses and the relationship between State and Federal school bus definitions and regulations. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

According to your letter, Indiana distinguishes "special purpose buses from "school buses." Under your State's law, "school buses" are defined as motor vehicles, other than special purpose buses, designed for more than 10 passengers and used to transport school children. "Special purpose buses" are motor vehicles accommodating more than six passenger; used by schools to transport handicapped students to special programs, or school children and supervisors to extracurricular school activities. Special purpose buses are prohibited from being used on a regular basis to carry students between their residences and schools and are not required to meet any State identification, construction or equipment standards for school buses.

You asked whether Indiana's definitions of "school buses" and "special purpose buses" conflict with our school bus definition, and how Federal law might preempt State law in this matter.

To begin, it is important to keep in mind how State and Federal school bus definitions and regulations differ in their application. She standards we have issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to vehicles according to our motor vehicle type classifications regardless of the classifications used by the various states. Our safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. Our regulatory definitions, set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.3, define a "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 or more passengers plus a driver, sold for purpose; that include carrying students to or from school or related events. Our definitions do not include one for "special purpose buses." A vehicle that is designed to carry 10 or more passengers and meets the Indiana definition of "special purpose buses" is considered a "school bus" under Federal law since it is intended for pupil transportation, not-withstanding its exclusion from Indiana's school bus definition.

Therefore, each person selling l0-passenger or larger "special purpose buses" is required under the Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that those vehicles are certified school buses. Violation of this Federal requirement by sellers of new school buses is punishable by civil penalties of up to 81,000. The requirement applies to new school bus sellers regardless of whether a vehicle is considered a "school bus" under the laws of a particular State.

Further, the preemption provisions in section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act are not limited in their effect by the fact that this agency's classification of a vehicle differs from that of one or more of the States. Regardless of how Indiana classifies a vehicle, Indiana may not apply to that vehicle standards which cover the same aspects of performance as Federal standards but are not identical to the Federal standards. The only exception is a State may set higher standards of performance for vehicles procured for the State's own use.

A State's definition of a "school bus" is, of course, determinative of the application of State requirements to the operation of school buses, such as inspection, maintenance and identification requirements. appears that the provision in Indiana's definitions that special purpose buses are not "school buses" excludes those vehicles from the application of Indiana' school bus operational requirement. While Indiana is responsible for determining requirements for vehicles operating in that State, NHTSA recommends that each State consider carefully setting operational requirements for all vehicles used to carry school children. Recommendations for specific aspects of States' pupil transportation programs have been issued in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), which was promulgated by NHTSA under the Highway Safety Act in connection with the Federal funding of State highway safety programs. While not required to do so, individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of Program Standard No. 17's recommendations and Indiana might want to consider then for their special purpose buses.

You asked whether schools are permitted at any time under Federal law to transport school children to or from school related activities in a vehicle other than a school bus. Strictly speaking, the answer is yes, for two reasons. This is because, first, the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act apply to new school bus manufacturers and sellers, and not to school bus users. Therefore, we cannot prohibit schools from using noncomplying buses to transport children although we do prohibit the manufacture and sale of new noncomplying school buses. Second, manufacturers and dealers are required to sell complying school buses only if they sell new buses for pupil transportation purposes. Other types of vehicles, for example "multi-purpose passenger vehicles" (vehicles constructed on truck chassis which carry nine or fewer passengers), may be sold to carry school children to school or school-related events.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

April 10, 1986

Chief Counsel Office Erika, Z. Jones NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

F/Sgt. Michael Smith of the Indiana State Police and myself spoke with a member of your staff last week in reference to an Indiana law which appears to be in conflict with federal law. Ms. Deirdre Hom was very helpful to us and suggested we write your office for a response.

Indiana enacted a law in 1981 which established a "special purpose bus". By definition, (see page 1 of enclosed statutes), a "special purpose bus means any motor vehicle designed and constructed for the accommodation of more than six (6) passengers, and used by a school corporation for transportation purposes not appropriate for school buses." This type of vehicle is not required to meet any construction or equipment standards in the State. It is only required to be inspected by the State Police once a year. (page 18 IC 20-9.1-4-5)

Page 21 of the enclosure explains the uses of the special purpose buses (IC 20-9.1-5-2.6). They may not be used to provide regular transportation of school children. However, they may be used to transport children and their supervisors, coaches, managers, and sponsors to athletic events, field trips, and other school related activities. Also, these types of vehicles may be used to transport persons enrolled in special education programs for developmentally disabled or physically handicapped persons.

Indiana's definition of a school bus (page 1) is, "any motor vehicle other than a special purpose bus, designed and constructed for the accommodation of more than ten (10) passengers, which is used for the transportation of Indiana school children. The term includes either the chassis or the body or both the chassis and the body." This definition seems to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from such school or events related to such schools."

Further, federal law has established Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 15 USCS Section 13???. Paragraph d states, "Supremacy of Federal standards; allowable higher standards for vehicles used by Federal or state governments. Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title 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 . . . etc."

Based on the information previously mentioned, is Indiana's law on special purpose buses and school buses in conflict with Federal law? What recommendations or advice do you give other states regarding this issue? Is it permissible at any time, to transport school children to or from school related activities in a vehicle other than a school bus by schools?

Your written comments and recommendations to these questions would be appreciated. If further information is needed, please call or write this office at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Russell, Acting Director Division of School Traffic Safety/Emergency Planning

RGR/tlg

Enc.

ID: 86-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert E. Mileham

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 18, 1985, regarding the trailer-mounted aerial personnel lift or "cherry picker" which your company manufactures. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You ask whether a vehicle identification number (VIN) is required on these trailers. You state that the sole purpose of the trailer is to take the aerial lift to and from a job site and estimate that the trailer will not spend more than 10% to 15% of its time traveling on the highway.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that vehicles which fall within the statutory definition of the term "motor vehicle" must comply with applicable safety standards. That definition includes vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)). The agency has taken the position that this definition does not encompass mobile constructior equipment which uses the highways only to move between job sites, whose job sites are normally located off the public roads, and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle is manufactured.

The information in the brochure enclosed with your letter indicates that the job site of your cherry picker is typically in the streets, not off the road. Based on that information, it appears that your cherry picker may spend virtually its entire operating life on public roads. When a vehicle frequently uses the highway going to and from job sites, and its job site is frequently on the road, the agency's position is that the vehicle is a "motor vehicle." Therefore, these trailers are required to comply with Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number -- Basic Requirements, and other standards applicable to trailers.

You also ask in your letter if these trailers could be considered the same as mobile air compressors, mobile cement mixers, or mobile generators, which the state of Iowa apparently licenses as "Special Mobile Equipment," not requiring a VIN. Whether a state requires a VIN on your trailer lifts, for purposes of licensing or registration, is not determinative of Federal regulatory questions. This agency has taken the position that mobile cement mixers, for example, are motor vehicles because of their use of the public roadways in traveling from job site to job site and their typically short time at any particular site. Therefore, they must comply with Standard No. 115 as well as other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

DURNELL ENGINEERING, INC.

September 18, 1985

Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

We are a manufacturer of truck and van mounted aerial personnel lifts. They are sometime referred to as cherry pickers.

We are establishing a trailer mounted series, to compliment the truck and van models. The sole purpose of the trailer components is to take the aerial lift to and from a job site. There is no additional carrying capacity on this unit for anything. We estimate the unit will not spend more than 10% to 15% of its time, in a transport mode, on the highway.

While the lift is in operation at the job site, the trailer components, consisting of axle, wheels, tongue, and tongue wheel, do not contribute to the stability of the lift. For the lift to be stable and operate, it is necessary for the manually operated outriggers to be extended, lift the rear wheels and tongue wheel completely off the ground.

The question has been asked if these units require V.I.N.'s. Our thinking and understanding was, that one of these units could be considered the same as a mobile air compressor, mobile cement mixer, mobile generator, or related piece of equipment. In Iowa the above can be licensed as Special Mobile Equipment. The purpose of this letter is to obtain your opinion on whether or not V.I.N.'s are needed on these units.

I have enclosed a brochure for your study and reference. If I can supply any further information, please contact me.

Yours truly,

Robert E. Mileham -- Operations Manager

Enclosure: 1

(Graphics omitted)

(Illegible Table)

STANDARD FEATURES:

* Full control in bucket with manual override inside trailer * (Illegible Word) bucket capacity 300 lbs (136 kg). * (Illegible Word) tie down strap. * (Illegible Word) color white. * Fully enclosed direct worm drive rotation 360 degrees non-continuous * Stability achieved with four manual outriggers.

* Maximum operating pressure 1800 PSI (127 kpa). * Built-in battery charger inside trailer. * Generator start/stop on engine generator models. * Upper boom limit switch on articulated models. * Control System Choices: 12v D C Electric-Hydraulic with single or dual pumps and motors (Batteries included) Single, two-speed or variable speed engine generator (generator not included). * Bucket Choices: Square fiberglass with steel frame, square all fiberglass, steel work platform.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE:

* 115v weatherproof outlet at bucket on non-insulated models. * 12v D.C. back-up for engine generator models. * Battery pack for engine generator models. * Hydraulic self-leveling (telescopic only). * Special paint. * Bucketoptions: Cover, cable TV test compartment, access ladder, scuff pad, e-z step.

SAFETY FEATURES:

* Limit switch on each outrigger and axle of trailer to insure fully extended and completely supporting trailer. * Electric rotation limit switch included. * Holding valves mounted on each cylinder and lock in event of line failure. * Worm drive rotation to prevent free wheeling in event of line failure. * (Illegible Word) insulated models rated up to 69 kv * Over-ride switch located inside trailer. * Safety belt shipped with all units. * Stability test load, horizontally extended:

On level ground -- 450 lbs. (205 kg).

On 5 degrees slope -- 400 lbs. (182 kg) * Meets or exceeds ANSI A92.5.

[Illustration Omitted]

DURNELL engineering, inc. Highway 4 South (Illegible Word) Iowa 50636 - Phone 712-852-2611

Distributed by:

ID: 86-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ivan Chien

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL.

Mr. Ivan Chien Manager Lee-Chien, Inc. P.O. Box 56-104 Taipei, TAIWAN R.O.C.

Dear Mr. Chien:

This responds to your letter dated May 28, 1986, asking for information about certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Enclosed are copies of an information sheet for new manufacturers, a form for ordering copies of safety standards, and the copy of Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, which you requested.

This agency has issued no safety standard regarding fog lamps. However, S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, Lamp Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, provides that no additional lighting equipment, such as fog lamps, which impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 shall be installed on motor vehicles. This prohibition applies to parties installing your product on vehicles, and not to you as the manufacturer of the product. This is because the installed is the only party which can ensure that the reflectors are installed so that they do not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Generally speaking, this requirement of Standard No. 108 applies only to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith for purpose other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories added to a vehicle after that purchase. The general rule is that aftermarket accessories may be added to vehicles.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108 (a )(2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended ( the Act) . That section specifies: "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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard". NHTSA considers it an element of design on vehicles that they have lightning and other equipment which are required by Standard No. 108 and whose effectiveness is not impaired by additional lighting equipment. Therefore, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing a fog lamp would have to take care that the fog lamp, by its intensity, color or placement, does not impair the performance of required lighting equipment.

If the installation of your fog lamps would impair that effectiveness, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing such fog lamps would be rendering inoperative that design element of the vehicle, and thereby violating section 108 (a) (2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each vehicle on which this element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation. You should note that the prohibitions of section 108(a) (2) (A) do not apply to a vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design on his or her vehicle. Hence, if your aftermarket reflectors are sold to and installed by vehicle owners, those persons would not be subject to the prohibition of section 108 referenced above.

You should also be aware of the responsibilities imposed by the Act on manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as reflective mirrors or fog lamps. If either you, as a manufacturer, or this agency determines that your product does not comply with an applicable safety standard or that the products contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would be required to remedy that noncompliance or defect. Section 154(a) (2) (B) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1411(a) (2)(b)) specifies that, if an item of motor vehicle equipment fails to comply with an applicable standard or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either:

1. repair the product so that the noncompliance or defect is removed;

or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the noncompliance or defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, you as the manufacturer must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

May 28, 1986

DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC 400 7TH STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S.A

Dear Sirs,

Thanks your letter of May 13. We are the professional manufacturer & exporter of Auto Parts and Accessories. We want to expand our business line about (1) Traffic Alarm System Equipment and (2) Safety Accessories. So we would like to know the relative of the following goods:

(1) Rear Mirror (2) Fog Lamp

Could you send us all regulations which D.O.T. required for selling these products in states of U.S.A. in due form.

Thanks in advance.

Very Sincerely Yours, LEECHIEN INC.

Manager: Ivan Chien

ID: 86-4.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: W. K. Sherman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W. K. Sherman Manager Inventors Research Foundation P.O. Box 02588 Portland, OR 97202

Dear Mr. Sherman:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1986, with reference to the possible interest of this agency in an illuminated license plate holder which is lit when the ignition is turned on.

The agency does not "approve" or promote proprietary items of lighting equipment. It does require illumination of the rear license plate in the manner set forth in SAE J587 October 81 (incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Laps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) but there is no requirement for illumination of the font plate; however, consideration is being given to proposing the installation of a daytime running light on the front of vehicles, as Canada has recently done. Should the agency issue a formal proposal your client may wish to submit comments to the docket with reference to its device. Your client may also wish to examine current Federal rear lighting requirements to determine whether a vehicle equipped with its device would meet Standard No. 108 If so, it may wish to market the device as original or aftermarket equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 30, 1986

Chairman National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 7th and D S.W. Washington, D.C.20007

Gentlemen:

Neil Goldschmidt of Oregon has suggested we refer our client's auto license plate concept to you for possible interest.

This device is an illuminated auto license plate holder which is a metal box with translucent plastic front, permanently attached to an auto. Two lights are turned on with the ignition, thus contributing considerably to the visibility and safety of motor vehicles.

If you would like to know more details we shall be glad to oblige.

The device has been registered with th Patent office under the Disclosure Document Act.

We anticipate your interest.

Sincerely,

INVENTORS RESEARCH FOUNDATION (IRF) W. K. Sherman, manager

WKS/bd cc:Client

ID: 86-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph Hitchcock for Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Harry H. Kazakian -- President, Corleone International Traders, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Harry H. Kazakian President Corleone International Traders, Inc. P.O. Box 3417 Los Angeles, Calif. 90028

This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1986 to which was attached a "Magic Eyes Brake Light". This device consists of two small lamps. whose primary functions are to flash automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use" The purpose of the device is to reduce rear end collisions. The artwork the package shows the lamps mounted at the base of the rear window on either side of the vehicle's vertical centerline. You asked that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking to require the device as original equipment, or for the aftermarket.

I regret that we have decided to deny your petition that the device be required as original equipment. The agency's research has shown that the most effective device for reducing rear end collisions is the single center high-mounted stop lamp, and the agency now requires that device to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars. You have presented no facts that demonstrate that an amendment of the nature you have requested is necessary. Although the agency has specified no requirements for aftermarket supplementary stop lamps (other than those that replace original equipment), on the basis of the agency's research, we believe that aftermarket equipment should meet as closely as possible the specifications for original equipment. Therefore, we are also denying your petition for aftermarket equipment.

We would like to advise you that there are no Federal restrictions on the importation and sale of "Magic Eyes". However, any State may impose its own restrictions on the use of this lamp on roads within its borders, and you should consult these laws before selling the device.

As a final note, the copy for model JA 201 on the package states "To comply with latest United States' regulations, this single lamp lights on automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use". Please delete the reference to United States regulations on your packages. The single lamp required by the United States is steady burning and has but one function, to indicate application of the brake pedal. It cannot be combined with any other light or device. In comparison, your lamp has two functions, and appears to flash in each.

As an accessory item of motor vehicle equipment, your lamp is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that if a safety related defect occurs in the lamp, the manufacturer or importer is obligated to inform dealers, distributors and purchasers to repair, repurchase, or replace the item. We are returning your device with this letter.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

Enclosure

APRIL 29, 1986

OUR REF. COR/030886 BANKERS: CALIFORNIA OVERSEAS BANK

INTERPRETATION CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Rm. # 5219 # 400, 7th St. South West Washington D.C. 20590

ATT: Erika Z Johns

Dear Erika,

In response to our conversation with Mr. Bob Nikelson in Department of Traffic Safety after a long conversation over the phone about the "Magic Eyes Brake Lights" we were advised to get your attention with this safety device,which could reduce a large quantity of rear endings, help saving lives in U. S. highways an street roads and at the mean time be helpfull financially. Therefore we would certainly appreciate to get your precious time and attention, if you would, to explain about this safety device after a small brief about our business.

Corleone International Traders Inc. is known as well established incorporation in U. S. A. with many satisfied customers. We have relations all over the world, we specialize medical items, auto accessories, foodstuff and many novelties. We also represent variety of manufacturers overseas on exclusive basis.

We would like to take this opportunity to introduce you one of our new sophisticated low coast brake light system which was invented and made with few of our engineers to reduce tail gating and rearending in U.S. highways. This magnificent system is "The Third Brake Light" of the car which has a built in sensor device. This system flashes automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use.

Our main goal is to see less rear endings in U.S. highways. Therefore we would like to have this sophisticated light activated sensors to be included in every auto's brake system is being built in U.S.A.

We sincerely would like to ask to have this "Safety Device" to be treated as a petition for rule making to require this device or permited originally or after market "Vehicle Safety Standard Cod- -108."

For your research and study we are including a sample of this device on the back of the carton explains product No."JA 101 WARNING LIGHTS" and "JA 105 MAGIC EYE SENSOR".

Dear Chief Council, we are taking this opportunities very seriously and depending on your full research and your answer.

At the mean time we are at your disposal for any information you may need or any questions you may ask. We are sincerely thanking you for your time and your attention at this matter and hoping to hear from you soon about your opinion, until than we remain

HARRY H. KAZAKIAN PRESIDENT

HHK/mb/lb

ID: 86-4.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William H. Spain

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1986, asking how our regulations would apply to a wooden steering wheel you manufacture. You explained that you use a standard steering wheel with a steel outer rim. The steel outer rim is then veneered with wood, which is covered with a protective finish. The finished wheel will then be use as an item of original equipment by a vehicle manufacturer. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

The agency has issued two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set occupant crash protection performance requirements for vehicle steering systems, which includes the steering wheel. Those standards are Standard No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering System, and Standard No. 204, Steering Column Rearward Displacement. Those two standards do not regulate the types of material that may be used in the steering wheel, but instead set performance requirements that the steering systems must meet under certain test conditions. Therefore, a manufacturer may use any material in its steering wheel, as long as the steering system still complies with the performance requirements of Standard Nos. 203 and 204.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

NATIONAL MANAGEMENT, INC.

May 20, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones,

Confirming our telephone conversation of May 20, 1986 with your Mr. Steve Oesch, we have a tenative inquiry from a small manufacturer of automobiles for the purchase of wood steering wheels.

The steering wheels would be installed by the manufacturer as original equipment. We would use a standard steering wheel with a steel outer rim. The steel outer rim would be veneered with wood and then covered with protective coats of clear polyeutherene finish. There would be no modification to the steering wheel hub itself.

The manufacturer asked if there would be any problems with your office on this approach. I have discussed this briefly with your testing and engineering people and their first impression is that the material of which the rim is constructed is of no consequence so long as the steering assembly complies with the applicable regulations.

We would appreciate your taking the time to confirm whether or not we should anticipate any difficulties with your department using this approach.

Your department's time and courtesy are appreciated.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIES

William H. Spain