ID: 86-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: RUDY VALDEZ -- PRODUCT MANAGER MR GASKET COMPANY

TO: NAT. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/23/86 EST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO RUDY VALDEZ, REDBOOK A29, STANDARD 108, AFTERMARKET DECORATIVE LIGHT

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

We are a company which manufactures and sells products for the Automotive Aftermarket. We are currently developing a product for this market and need an interpretation concerning its' legality. The unit in question is a splash guard designed for automobiles and light trucks. When the running lights are turned on, a light in the splash guard will light up at the same time. Our concern is in the location of the light. Although purely decorative, would placing a light in this area violate any state or federal standards or codes? With this letter, you will find a crude lay out of the instructions for this item. This will hopefully give you a clear idea of what this unit will be doing. Any help that you can give us with this product would be helpful.

Secondly, any information you can give us related to the collision avoidance light will be a great help. We are most interested in the direction your department is going in relation with the aftermarket.

We have seen a number of these units which do not appear to meet the federal regulation related to this item. Will the D.O.T. regulation for new automobiles soon pertain to those already on the road. If the D.O.T. regulation will not be required for vehicles already on the road, how closely will the retro fit unit need to be?

Clarification on these points will be helpful to both us and our customers. We thank you in advance for any help you can give us in both of these matters. If there is any problems that need clarification, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely

ID: 86-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Hutton, Jr. -- Curtis, Bamburg and Crosse

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert A. Hutton, Hr., Esq. Curtis, Bamburg & Crossen Attorneys at Law 230 South Bemiston St. Louis, MO 63105

Dear Mr. Hutton:

This responds to your letter asking about inertial-locking seatbelts and seatbacks. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that your firm represents a woman who was injured in a 1983 Ford Escort GT. According to your letter, while braking to exit a highway, the driver's seatback was thrown forward, not locking, causing your client to lose control of the car and crash into a guardrail. You asked for information about inertial-lock mechanisms on automobiles, particularly for seat backs and belts in that car, and references to government safety standards. You specifically asked whether there was a standard for the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The of our standards are revelant to inertial-lock mechanisms.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies requirements for inertial-locking safety belts. Section S4.3(j) specifies the following:

(j) Emergency-locking retractor. An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)--

(1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g. . . .

Thus, for safety belts, there is a specific requirement for the maximum distance the webbing may extend before locking under load.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR S571.207), specifies requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats and seat backs. See section S4.3. The standard requires that such seats be equipped with self-locking restraining devices, and specifies both static force and acceleration performance requirements which the restraining devices must meet once engaged. However, the standard does not specify either the load at which an inertial-locking seatback must lock or the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load.

In response to your request for information that relates to the particular car involved in your client's accident, He have enclosed a computer printout listing relevant vehicle owner reports which allege problems similar to that identified by your letter.

I hope this information is helpful. There is no fee for the information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 5, 1985

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Re: Inertial-locking Seatbelts and Seatbacks.

Dear Sir or Madam:

This firm represents a woman who was injured in a 1983 Ford Escort GT. The car is equipped with inertial-locking seatbelts and seatbacks on the front seats. While braking to exit a highway, the driver's seatback was thrown forward -- it did not lock -- causing my client to lose control of the car and crashing into a guardrail.

I an interested i any information you may have concerning inertial-lock mechanisms on automobiles, and particularly seatbacks and belts for that particular car. Any reference to government safety standards, including any standard for the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load would be extremely helpful.

If there is any fee involved in compiling this information, please advise.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Hutton, Jr.

RAH/h

ID: 86-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jacques M. Delphin, M.D.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Jacques M. Delphin, M.D. 84 Haight Avenue Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12603

Dear Dr. Delphin:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1986, enclosing a description of your device to improve car signals, and asking about the regulations applicable to it.

According to the information that you furnished, the device "cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn". The purpose of the device is to eliminate "the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch". The effect of the device is "to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals".

As you know, pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, have been required to have self-cancelling turn signal indicators. However, there are no performance requirements for the self-cancelling feature. As a general rule, motor vehicle lighting equipment not required by Standard No. 108 is permissible as original equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and as aftermarket equipment if its installation can be accomplished without crafting a noncompliance. The device as you have described it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the turn signal operating unit, or create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 (the requirements of SAE Standard J589 Turn Signal Operating Unit, April 1964, which is incorporated by reference). Since Standard No. 108 does not preclude its use, the question of its legality is therefore determinable under the laws of each State where it will be used.

Although there is no Federal safety standard that applies to it, the device is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1411) if its manufacturer or this agency determines that it incorporates a safety related defect.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 2, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration Room 5219 407 St, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I appreciate the privilege to communicate with you regarding my device to improve traffic safety.

I am enclosing a copy of the description of the product. Please advise me as to the regulations such a device will fall under.

Respectfully yours,

Jacques M. Delphin M.D.

JMD/bp

RCC-237 DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS

A Poughkeepsie, New York inventor has developed an automotive accessory which monitors and controls the operation of a vehicle's turn signal equipment.

DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn. Equipped with an electronic timer, the device automatically triggers the vehicle's standard signal release mechanism and returns the signal switch to the off position. The device is sensitive to all turns of the steering wheel, regardless of the degree of the turn. Installation of the device eliminates the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch. Use of DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS is designed to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals.

The original design was submitted to the Rochester Office of INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED, a national invention development organization for research and marketing. INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED is currently offering this invention for licensing to manufacturers interested in research and development.

Details May Be Obtained By Contacting: NEW PRODUCT LICENSING DEPT. INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED TRIANGLE BUILDING - 701 SMITHFIELD ST. PITTSBURGH, PA 15222

Note: We are unable to reveal working details of this invention, and this release does not constitute an offer for sale. This data is available only to qualified manufacturers and marketing agents on a confidential basis.

ID: 86-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Messrs. Waimey and Hansell:

This responds to your letter asking two questions about Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. First you asked if the 17-character vehicle identification number (VIN) required on original equipment engines and transmissions had to appear in a single line. You stated that your Client would like to mark the engines and transmissions by splitting the VIN into two groups, with the second group of characters directly below the first. Such markings could comply with Part 541. Second, you asked if your client could use a trademark that has less than one centimeter high for marking replacement parts. Markings less than one centimeter high would not comply with the requirements of Part 541 applicable to replacement parts. These conclusions are explained in detail below.

If a vehicle manufacturer was not identifying its engines and/of transmissions with at least an 8-Character VIN derivative as of October 24, 1984, S541.5(b)(1) requires the engine and transmission to be marked with the full 17-character VIN. That section does not require that the 17 Characters appear on the same line. However, the preamble to the final rule establishing Part 541 explained the-policy reasons for requiring the full 17-Character VIN as follows:

One of the primary purposes of the Theft not is to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to establish that a vehicle or a major part is stolen. ... If this purpose is to be promoted,this standard must ensure that police officers learning of suspicious, potentially stolen vehicle parts can quickly verify whether those parts are stolen. 50 FR 43168, October 24, 1985.

In the agency's view, S511.5(b)(1) requires that the full 17-character VIN be marked in such a way that police can easily determine what VIN is marked on the part, and then check to see if that part is stolen. If a VIN is divided into segments, the proper sequence of those segments must be readily determinable. If the VIN here placed on the lines, beginning on the first line with the remainder of the VIN directly below the first line, as suggested in your letter, we do not believe it would be confusing or difficult for law enforcement officers to easily read the marking in the correct order. Accordingly, we conclude that marking the VIN on two separate lines, with the second directly below the first, would not violate any of the requirements of Part 541.

Your second question Has whether your Client could mark replacement parts by using a trademark that was one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter high. You explained that your client's trademark is wider than it is tall. After noting that the one centimeter height requirement was adopted so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit (50 FR 43177), you stated your opinion that a one centimeter wide trademark would serve these purposes as effectively as a one centimeter high trademark.

Section 541.6(c) reads as follows: "The trademark and the letter "R" required by paragraph (a) of this section must be at least one centimeter high." Any marking of the trademark which is less than one Centimeter high would not comply with this requirement, regardless of how wide the marking is.

However, the stated reasons for promulgating the minimum height requirement for trademarks were to ensure that they would be both clearly legible for investigators and more difficult for thieves to counterfeit. See 50 FR 43177, 43178, October 24, 1985. The agency did not specifically consider the situation where a trademark is wider than it is high. When a trademark is wider than it is high, it would be as clearly legible and as difficult to Counterfeit as a trademark that is higher than it is wide. However, the wider trademark might not comply with the standard while the higher trademark would. It does not appear that any purpose of the theft prevention standard is served by this anomalous result.

Accordingly, we have treated your letter as a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552, and it is hereby granted. We will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on this topic shortly. Please note that, unless and until an amendment becomes effective as a final rule, S541.6(c) requires the trademark on replacement parts to be one centimeter high.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 7, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Regulatory Interpretation 49 CFR Parts 541 and 556 Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Dear Ms. Jones:

Porsche has two questions concerning the final rule implementing the Motor Vehicle Theft Enforcement Act of 1984 (49 CFR Parts 541 and 567).

First, may the seventeen digit Vehicle Identification Number marking to be placed on the engine and on the transmission be affixed on two lines rather than on a single line, assuming that the second line is directly below the first? Securing a flat surface on the transmission and on the engine with sufficient length to place a seventeen digit number on a single line is extremely difficult, and Could tend to impair the legibility of the number. Allowing the marking to be placed on two lines, one directly below the other, would afford is substantially greater flexibility and would improve its readability. There is no prohibition we could find in the rules to placing the VIN number on two lines, with the second line directly below the first. (See 49 CFR Sections 541.5 and 567.4(g)).

Second, may Porsche use a trademark which is at least one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter tall on the replacement parts? Replacement parts must be marked with the manufacturer's register trademark. 49 CFR 541.6. However, Porsche has an implementation problem in that its trademark is longer than it is tall.

A trademark is to have a minimum height of one centimeter. 49 CFR 541 6(c). The rationale for the minimum size for the trademark is to insure its visibility and to make it more difficult to counterfeit. As the Statement of Consideration for the final rule provides:

"NHTSA proposed the one cm minimum height for these markings so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit."

50 Fed. Reg. 43,177(1985) Porsche completely agrees with NHTSA's two interests but believes they would be equally well met with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in length as with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in height. Such an alternative standard would permit Porsche to position the trademark in the optimal location.

We would appreciate your early response to these issues.

Your truly,

Dean Hansell

cc: Stephen P. Wood, Esq., Associate Chief Counsel for Rule Making

Stephen R. Kratzke Esq., Office of General Counsel

Brian McLaughlin, Office of Market Incentives

ID: 86-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roland L. Lafleur

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of May 5, 1986, to our former Chief Counsel, Jeffrey Miller, asking about comparative costs of a center high-mounted stop lamp. You read that the cost of such a lamp was $4 to $7, but in fact it cost you $136.18, tax included, to have one installed on your 1984 Cadillac.

The figures of $4 to $7 represent the agency's conclusions as to the cost to a vehicle manufacturer to install the new lamp as standard equipment when its installation became mandatory for new vehicles. As the new requirement does not extend to aftermarket equipment such as the lamp you bought for your 1984 Cadillac, the agency's cost estimates should not be read as applying to it. Also, our estimate was for the "average" vehicle. Costs will vary by manufacturer and by carline within a given manufacturers' fleet according to the particular design and placement chosen. In spite of your dissatisfaction over the cost you have nevertheless wisely equipped your car with a safety device which should lessen the likelihood of expensive rear end collisions and the injuries to passengers that can occur. We appreciate your interest in the lamp.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

OPELOUSAS, LA 5/5/86

DEAR MR. JEFFREY MILLER

I am retired & 71 years old, having time on my hands I read A lots. I am A auto (MUSTANG) NUT. 65 & 70 MUSTANG convertibles, I also bought A CADILLAC FLEETWOOD August 1984. I subscribe to 5 auto magazine one of which is HOME MECHANIX. In the JUNE 1986 issue I read on page 78 an article safety & (NHTSA) about NEW CENTER HIGH-MOUNTED STOPLIGHT, The article states that the light cost about $4 to $7 per car. The light was installed before I read the article, & it looks as if factory installed. I agreed the light is very good, but the price you stated like FANTICY-LAND. I took my CADILLAC to the CADILLAC dealer where it was bought. I now have the light you mention in Home Mechanix. The light & wires cost me $55.19 The labor listed by CADILLAC MOTOR CO, was 2.7 HRS. to install, Labor in Lafayette, LA. at CADILLAC is $32.00, so get you adding machine & figure the total cost. Also we in LOUISIANA have A 6% TAX. this amount is quite different from your estimate of $4 to $7. I know that the factory can install much cheaper. But $136.18 is unreasonable higher than $4 or $7.

When I read an article in a magazine I take it for granted that I am reading true articles. Lets try to get things straight before printing it.

THANKS A LOTS

JUST

PS Please advise if I am off or you off

ROLAND L. LAFLEUR 1155 W. GROLEE, ST. OFELOUSAS, LA. 70570

ID: 86-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Terry W. Wagar

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Terry W. Wagar Technical Services Bureau Division of Vehicle Safety Services Department of Motor Vehicles State of New York Albany, NY 12228 Dear Mr. Wagar:

This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1985, with reference to the "Pulse" and "Litestar" motor vehicles. You have asked several questions regarding the registration category and highway safety records of these vehicles. I hope the following information will be helpful.

There are no Federal categories for vehicle registration. Each State is free to define vehicles as it wishes for registration purposes. The State definition need not conform to the Federal categorization assigned for purposes of the safety standards. However, regardless of how a State defines a vehicle, under the preemption clause of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392(d)) a State may not require compliance of that vehicle with a State standard that differs from a Federal safety standard covering the same aspect of conformance. Such a State standard must be identical with the Federal one. For example, a State could require a horn as a prerequisite to registration since there is no corresponding Federal requirement, but it could not require a motorcycle to be equipped with two headlamps, since Federal Standard No. 108 allows a manufacturer a choice of one or two headlamps.

With reference to the Litestar and Pulse vehicles, we understand that both vehicles have small outrigger wheels, which support the vehicles at rest. For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a "motorcycle" is a motor vehicle that is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. If the outrigger wheels are used only to provide stabilization in turns while the vehicle is in motion, then we would view the vehicle as a "motorcycle' since it is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. However, if this type of vehicle is designed to travel on all four wheels, or capable of it according to outrigger adjustment, the vehicle would not be a motorcycle, but would be a "passenger car" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. (See definition of "motorcycle" at 49 CFR Sec. 571.3(b)). We have not formally investigated these vehicles for compliance, nor do we have any information regarding their highway safety records.

You also asked whether the "Litestar" had been brought to our attention previously, The answer is yes, James Bede, the apparent originator of this type of vehicle, brought one to the headquarters of the Department some years ago and obtained our informal concurrence that it could be classified as a "motorcycle."

I hope that this is of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 27, 1985

Ms. Erika C. Jones Chief Council NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

The subject of my inquiry is a vehicle recognized by the trade names "Pulse" or "Litestar". Our concerns are:

1. How to register; Motorcycle or Motor Vehicle?

2. What if any are the highway safety records of this vehicle?

3. What is the opinion of the NHTSA regarding registration category and compliance with federal safety standards?

I understand that the "Litestar" has been brought to the attention of the Chief Council in the past. Is this correct?

I have enclosed some information on both the "Pulse" and "Litestar" for your reference.

Thank you for any assistance you may give us.

Sincerely, Terry W. Wagar Technical Services Bureau

TWW:nl Encs.

ID: 86-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allen F. Brauninger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Allen F. Brauninger Esq. Office of the General Counsel U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207

Dear Mr. Brauninger:

Thank you for your letter of March 20, 1986, concerning whether a nylon tow strap would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment as defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As discussed below, we have determined that a nylon tow strap is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines, in part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (Emphasis added.)

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory" the agency has looked at the following two factors, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. On first impression, it would seem that the nylon tow strap in question could have purposes, such as work with agricultural equipment, which do not involve motor vehicles covered by the Vehicle Safety Act. However, the advertising and promotional literature and articles you have provided show that the strap is intended to be used by motorists to pull one motor vehicle with another motor vehicle. The literature consistently refers to the use of the strap to pull a stuck motor vehicle out of mud, snow, and sand. Likewise, the illustrations in the advertisements and promotion literature show the straps being used to pull motor vehicles.

The material you enclosed also makes clear that the nylon tow straps are being offered to vehicle owners for use with conventional passenger cars and off-road, utility-type vehicles. Given those considerations, we would consider the nylon tow straps in question to be vehicle accessories and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Vehicle Safety Act.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Stephen Oesch, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation -- Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

As you know, section 3 (a) (1) (C) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 2052 (a) (1) (C) ) excludes "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by section 102 (4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1391 (4)) from those "consumer products" which are subject to the authority of this agency.

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether a nylon tow strap promoted for use in extricating a vehicle stuck in mud or snow is an item of "motor vehicle equipment." As you repeated during our telephone conversation on March 19, 1986, I am enclosing copies of advertising and promotional materials for the product in question, and two articles which describe the product and its use.

After you have had an opportunity to examine these materials, I would like to discuss them with you.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Allen F. Brauninger Attorney

Enclosure

ID: 86-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/12/86

FROM: JAMES J. DABROWSKI -- REGULATIONS/STATISTICS COORDINATOR JAGUAR

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/15/86 TO, JAMES J. DABROWSKI, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29 (4); SEC 102, 151; RECALL LETTER TO GRAY MARKET VEHICLE OWNERS FROM JAGUAR CARS INC AND RELEASE DATED 06/12/86 EST

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Attached you will find a copy of our letter to individuals or firms who have been identified as being in possession of or who have imported a Gray Market Jaguar vehicle that may be subject to a manufacturer's recall campaign. Also attached is a standard release form which we will require the owner/importer to sign before we attempt any recall repair.

As we understand, Jaguar Cars has no legal responsibility to notify owners of these vehicles or to repair these vehicles. Therefore, the usual NHTSA recall notification, owner letter, and reporting, etc., requirements are not binding. By way of explanation, however, the fact that we are not bound by these regulations is not the reason for our "abbreviated" owner notification approach.

The convoluted nature of virtually all aspects of this undertaking from sorting out complicated and often poor attempts at compliance modifications, unknown technology and unknown repair times to logistical questions regarding a cooperating dealer and arranging for a pre-repair inspection, etc., dictate a simple letter. It would be impossible under these circumstances to produce an all encompassing owner notification letter. In this instance, it is more efficient to liaise with the customer via phone.

We would like to make you aware of our endeavor. Mr. D. Allen of your office has, via Mr. F. Armstrong, seen our letters and expressed no objection. Would you please be kind enough to review the attached documents and confirm that Jaguar Cars is not bound by normal NHTSA recall procedures.

ATTACHMENT

Yours sincerely,

ID: 86-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/12/86 EST

FROM: JAGUAR CARS INC

TO: GRAY MARKET JAGUAR VEHICLE OWNERS

TITLE: RECALL LETTER TO GRAY MARKET VEHICLE OWNERS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/15/86 TO JAMES J DABROWSKI FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29 (4); LETTER DATED 06/12/86, TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM J. DABROWSKI, OCC - 0838

TEXT: This is to advise you that your (year, model, VIN or vehicle identification - whatever information is available) is included in a range of vehicles which the manufacturer has determined contain a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. Specifically, there exists a potential for fuel leakage in the vehicle's engine compartment which, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in an engine compartment fire or the destruction of the vehicle's ignition distributor cap. This could, in turn, result in personal injury. This condition can be rectified by the installation of a new fuel rail assembly and a modified ignition system.

Since you vehicle was not manufactured to meet United States safety and emission control standards, it may be necessary to make special arrangements in order to have this recall repair performed on your vehicle.

Please contact the Zone Service Department (listed below) closest to you for further information.

Very truly yours,

R E L E A S E

This Release containe herein is made with respect to the following facts:

WHEREAS, , is the purchaser and registered owner of a 19 Jaguar 12 cylinder vehicle, VIN (the "Vehicle"); and

WHEREAS, the Vehicle was not manufactured to comply with United States safety and environmental standards and was not imported into the United States by Jaguar Cars Inc. ("Jaguar"); and

WHEREAS, Jaguar has arranged through to install, at no cost to me, a 12 cylinder fuel rail kit (the "fuel rail kit") in accordance with safety recall D291; and

WHEREAS, neither Jaguar nor has attempted to repair or modify the Vehicle to comply with United States safety or environmental standards; and

WHEREAS, neither Jaguar, , nor any representative or agent of either has made any representation(s) whatsoever that the Vehicle, as repaired, complies with the aforesaid safety or environmental standards; NOW, THEREFORE, I, , in consideration of certain repairs and other work performed on the Vehicle, including but not limited to installation of the fuel rail kit and other good and valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, release and discharge and by these presents to for myself, my heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, release, acquit and forever discharge RELEASEES, Jaguar Cars Inc. and , and all their past, present and future associated companies and any and

all other persons, firms and corporations, of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims or demands for damages, costs, loss of use, loss of services, expenses, compensation, consequential damage or any other thing whatsoever on account of or in any way arising out of any and all known or unknown claims arising from the installation of the fuel rail kit or other repair, by or at the direction of Jaguar, of the Vehicle purchased by me from on or about the day of 198

No promise or inducement which is not herein expressly stated has been made to me, and, in executing this Release, I do not rely on any other statement or representation made by any person, firm or corporation hereby released, or any agent or any other person representing them or any of them.

This document contains the ENTIRE AGREEMENT between the parties hereto and the terms of this agreement may not be changed orally.

I further state that I have carefully read the foregoing Release and know the contents thereof, and I sign the same being of lawful age, as my own free act.

Sworn to before me this

day of 198

Notary Public

ID: 86-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/86

FROM: M. ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/28/86 TO M ARISAKA, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A29, (3) STANDARD 108;

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

We are thinking to sell an optional rear spoiler, in which a high-mounted stop lamp (HMSL) is built, because the optional spoiler prevents the signal of originally equipped HMSL from being seen.

Since an electrical connector is removed from the original HMSL and connected with another HMSL in the optional spoiler (See the following drawing), the original HMSL never lights up. In a word, the original HMSL has no function in a car. Therefore, we think it is allowed to leave the original HMSL equipped in a car.

(DRAWINGS OMITTED)

Please let us know your opinion towords this matter.

We are looking forward to your reply.

Very truly yours,