ID: 1985-01.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dennis Moore -- Sierra Product, Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Dennis Moore Sierra Product, Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore, CA 94550

This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1984, asking whether it is permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to combine a turn signal lamp with a center high mounted stop lamp that is intended for the aftermarket as a retrofit.

As you have noted, the recent amendments to Standard No. 108 cover the center high mounted stop lamp only as an item of original equipment and do not purport to regulate the item as an aftermarket device. This means that the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.1 against combining the center high mounted stop lamp with any other lamp does not apply. The legality of such a combination, indeed, the legality of the auxiliary stop lamp itself, is determinable under the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered and/or operated.

The sole federal restriction on use of aftermarket devices does not appear in Standard No. 108, but in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108 (a)(2)(A) in essence forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. The combination turn signal/center high mounted lamp would not appear to have this effect.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

SIERRA PRODUCTS inc.

In reference to selling a High Center Mount Brake Light Retro-Kit to owners of Pre 198F autos and trucks"our Company is faced with a logistics Problem that includes questions of law and the desire to put out an economical reliable product whereas millions of Americans can easily and economically retrofit their used Autos with a High Center Mount Brake Light and enjoy the safety benefits as will people buying new 1986 cars.

We feel several factors lead us to a conclusion that if a High Center Mount Brake Light were allowed to be combined with a High Turn Signal that millions more retrofits would occur because of the low retail price and greater simplicity and reliability of a typical installation

These factors are:

1. In order to avoid the Federal Requirement of S4.4.1 of Standard 108 on "Retrofit Kits" for Pre 1986 Autos in the U.S., all *"Combined Function" lighted cars must be wired in the front to the Brake Switch or use a 15 to 30 Electronic Component "Separating Circuit" to accomplish the same effect.

2. Most U.S. autos (over half of 130 million) use "combined function lights and the chance of the owners of combined function autos using a High Center Brake Light will be significantly reduced if $7 to $10 is added to the Retail Price of a Retrofit Kit which must be done presently.

3. If "combined function" light auto owners are asked to wire to the Brake Light Switch, this makes for a much more difficult installation then going just a couple of feet into the trunk area. Sales of such a Retrofit package and therefore use of High Center Mount Brake Lights will be significantly reduced.

4. For years, SAE 186 has allowed Combination of High Brake Light with a High Turn Signal and apparently has been used to some degree in the U.S. unchallenged. However, the changing of S4.4.1 now challenges the legality of SAE 186 even when applied to "add on" lighting.

5. Buyers representing auto supply distributors and mass merchandisers are very reluctant to carry different models of a High Center Mount Brake Light (one for separate function and one for combined function lights). They are apt to forget about the more expensive model which would include the electronic converter or not carry such a product at all. One universal, low priced model has a good chance of national distribution. There have been many a good product "die on the vine" in the U.S. because of lack of Distribution and this should not be one of them.

6. If a "Separating Circuit" were to be used on a large scale (as they are beginning to), they should have federal safety specifications to assure reliability to the public. Otherwise the public will be lead into a false feeling of buying something that the government has sanctioned and says helps safety only to find out they are possibly at the mercy of an "unreliable electronic black box" that breaks down because of the lack of a reliable safety specification.

Even though Federal law only requires this device in Post 1986 autos and has no law requiring retrofit lights on Pre 1986 cars, the public will indirectly hold the Federal government responsible for a failure such as this, whether they are directly responsible or not, causing hard feelings and a definite loss of credibility.

7. A High Turn Signal combined with a High Center Brake Light as permitted in SAE 186 is a desirable additional safety feature over the High Center Mount Brake Light and we feel it does not at all confuse the functions of the existing required lights (on Pre 1986 autos).

8. Even though Post 1986 autos will not have the High Center Mount Brake Light combined with any other light, we feel that our design of combining a High Center Mount Brake Light with a High Turn Signal feature must be deemed a modification that is unconsequential to Public Safety. As a matter of fact, we feel it is Consequential To Public Safety but only in a Positive way.

9. In all traffic, especially heavy traffic, it is desirable for the following traffic, both immediately behind and far behind to know when a vehicle is about to change lanes or turn off the highway. Furthermore, lanes of traffic to either side could use this information in a constructive way to avoid accidents. In essence, we subscribe to the proven fact that if a High Center Mount Brake Light is put "Where People Look" and it reduces rear end accidents by over 50%, then the other "intention light", that is the Turn Light, would have a similar savings in "lateral" accidents as they would be also "Where People Look". Even if they were not immediately construed as a Turn Signal from a far distance, it is still a signal to other vehicles that "something that could affect traffic conditions is about to happen" and is valuable information to surrounding autos.

We believe a Study in Lateral initiated accidents would show this; however, we haven't the funds or the resources for such a study.

IN CONCLUSION: We are Petitioning for a Clarification of this Point and as soon as possible as this situation may cost the American Public great sums of money unnecessarily and perhaps undermine the effectiveness of a needed product.

*"Combined Function" autos is an automobile whose Brake and Turn Light are represented by One Filament in one or more bulbs.

ID: 86-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/86 EST

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR NHTSA

TO: RICHARD P. HAHN -- HALFPENNY, HAHN & ROCHE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/25/86 EST, TO GEORGE W KEELEY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29(3), VSA 102 (3); LETTER DATED 03/04/86 TO DIANE K STEED, FROM GEORGE W KEELEY

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hahn:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole on behalf of the Construction Industry Manufacturers Association concerning a recent interpretation letter issued by this agency to Mr. P.J. Pennells. The letter, which you saw reported by the Bureau of National Affairs, concerned the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to construction equipment. I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify the agency's position.

The agency's letter to Mr. Pennells offered some brief general guidelines about the applicability of our safety standards and offered to provide a specific interpretation once we received more detailed information about the design characteristics and use of the particular vehicle Mr. Pennells was concerned about. The letter should not be interpreted as a departure from our long-standing policy on the application of our standards to construction equipment.

It is the agency's position that the statutory definition of motor vehicle contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which uses the highway only to move between job sites 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 and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, we believe that such vehicles are motor vehicles in the statutory sense, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." We believe this position is fully consistent with the court's decision in Koehring Co. v. Adams (452 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Wis. 1978), aff'd, 605 F.2d 280 (7th Cir. 1979)).

I am providing a copy of your letter and my response to Mr. Pennells and the Bureau of National Affairs. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/89

FROM: PATRICK J. HIGGINS -- ANDREINI AND COMPANY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED FEB. 14, 1990 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA TO PATRICK J. HIGGINS, ANDREINI AND COMPANY; A35; STD 302

TEXT: I am writing you on behalf of my insured, Skill-Craft Enterprises.

Skill-Craft is in the process of the design and manufacture of a fiberglass seat that would be installed in the bed of a pickup truck. The seat would be molded and seat belts would be provided for in the design.

Mr. Wood, my question to you is - what standards should my client comply with in order to make this the safest possible product of this type? In my research of this problem I have found that Standards 207, 209, 210 and possibly 302 would apply. Could y ou please advise us on any other standards we should be in compliance with.

ID: nht74-1.41

DATE: 04/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, requesting clarification of the definition of "school bus" as it appears in NHTSA regulations. You point out that school bus is defined for purposes of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean "a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school . . .", but is defined differently in Highway Safety Standard No. 17 (23 CFR 204.4), i.e., "any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 15 pupils to and from school". You also refer to our interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 which states that the term "school bus" as defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 includes buses designed as school buses but which are not intended or sold to transport children to and from school. You state that as a result it is unclear whether buses designed but not used as school buses, including church and civic group buses, must be equipped with warning lamps under S4.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In this regard, you state that you require purchasers to indicate on their purchase order whether the bus will be used primarily to transport children to and from school, and ask whether this is an acceptable form for a manufacturer to use to determine whether a vehicle will be used as a school bus.

We do not interpret Standard No. 108 to require warning lights on buses that are not intended to be used to transport school children. Our interpretation regarding Standard No. 217, exempting school bus-type buses from the emergency exit requirements of that standard (which applies as well to buses manufactured by Blue Bird), was based on what we believed at that time was a special need to exempt such buses from the requirements of that standard. We are aware of the inconsistency in the application of the definition of "school bus" in Standards Nos. 108 and 217 and we intend to modify these requirements so that they will be applied consistently.

The difference between the definition of B school bus in the Highway Safety Act and in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under the Vehicle Safety Act is that the latter statute and the requirements issued thereunder apply to the manufacturing process. The requirements issued under the Highway Safety Act apply more directly to school bus use.

Whether a particular bus is a school bus cannot be ascertained merely by the representation of the purchaser. The manufacturer should base his decision as well on the objective characteristics of the vehicle, so that he can be reasonably certain that the purchaser's representations are bona fide.

SINCERELY,

December 6, 1973

Richard Oyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

REFERENCE: N40-30 (MPP) to Mr. James Tydings, September 25, 1973 N40 30 (MPP) to Mr. G. R. Seward, October 31, 1973

In phone conversations with Mr. Pescoe on November 29 and 30, 1973, we learned of the reference letters which deal with the definition of the term "School Bus" as used in FMVSS 217 Bus Window Retention and Release, S 5.2. Mr. Pescoe has sent us copies of these letters.

In your letter to Mr. Tyiings you say:

School bus is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean,

"a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school. . .

We are of the opinion that buses which share the same design as buses that clearly fall within the definition of "school bus" are school buses under Standard No. 217, and are therefore exempt from the emergency exit provisions of the standard. No modification of the standard is accordingly called for."

In this explanation, you have called attention to the word "designed" in the definition. Highway Safety Program Standard 17, however, uses a different terminology in defining a school bus. In Paragraph III, Definitions, it says:

"Type I school vehicle" means any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. . ." (Illegible Word) the definitions of "school bus" in 49 CFR 571.3 and "Type I (Illegible Word) vehicle" in Highway Safety Standard 17, it is unclear whether it is the way a vehicle is designed or used which determines if it is a school bus or not. We believe that NHTSA should clarify its intent regarding this.

We are concerned with these specific questions:

1. Are all buses which are designed as school buses according to your interpretation in the reference letters required to have warning lamps under FMVSS 108 S 4.1.4? This would include church buses, civic group buses, etc. We believe that such a ruling would defeat the entire purpose of Highway Safety Program No. 17 which attempts to uniquely identify school buses. Accordingly we suggest that only buses used primarily to carry children to and from school be equipped with warning lamps. To tell us when we may delete warning lamps from a bus, we have been asking purchasers or distributors (who sometimes buy stock vehicles) to sign a statement on the purchase order indicating the intended use of the vehicle. See copy of blank purchase order enclosed. Does NHTSA consider this to be an acceptable method of determining if a vehicle is a school bus for the purposes of FMVSS 108 and Highway Safety Standard No. 17?

In closing we would like to indicate our agreement with the NHTSA's interpretation of "school bus" for the purpose of FMVSS 217 which exempts from the emergency exit provisions of that standard, buses which share the same design as those which meet the 49 CFR 571.3 definition but may used for purposes other than the (Illegible Word) of school children. Are the interpretations in the reference (Illegible Word) to Thomas Built Buses, Inc. and Sheller-Globe Corp. legally binding and do they also apply to Blue Bird Body Company?

Thank you for your reply and your continued help in these matters.

W. G. Milby Project Engineer

cc: DAVE PHELPS; JIM MOORMAN

NAME OF AGENCY: Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Routine

TYPE OF MESSAGE: SINGLE

TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION LIMA, OHIO

IN RESPONSE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF DECEMBER 6 NHTSA WOULD CONSIDER THE USE OF A ROOF EMERGENCY EXIT AS APPROPRIATE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO S5.2.1 OF STANDARD NO. 217 IF IT WERE IMPRACTICABLE TO USE A REAR EXIT BECAUSE, AS YOU STATE, RETOOLING AN EXISTING CONFIGURATION WOULD BE EXCESSIVELY EXPENSIVE.

RICHARD B. DYSON ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, N40-30

NAME AND TITLE OF ORIGINATOR: Michael P. Peskoe, Attorney DATE AND TIME PREPARED: Dec. 12, 1973

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. COAST GUARD TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER

12/06/73

LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER, CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON D C 20590 SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION PLANS TO MODIFY EXISTING MOTOR HOME INTO A BUS. MOTOR HOME CONFIGURATION CONTAINS LARGE PICTURE WINDOW IN REAR. COSTS OF TOOLING TO ADD EMERGENCY EXIT EXCESSIVE. ALTERNATE SCHEME IS TO INSTALL EMERGENCY EXIT IN ROOF PERMITTED BY MVSS-217 PARAGRAPH S.5.2.1.

WILL EXIST IN ROOF BE ACCEPTABLE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS?

DUE TO URGENCY, REPLY REQUESTED 12-7-73. R M PREMO, SHELLER-GLOBE CORP, VEHICLE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CENP

ID: nht80-3.50

DATE: 09/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 24 1980 NOA-30

Mr. H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Miyazawa:

This responds to your August 4, 1980, letter asking whether several vehicle components would be required to comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. In particular you ask whether a headlining lamp, a courtesy lamp installed on a door panel, or various pilot indicator lamps and meters installed in the front panel must comply with the requirements.

As you stated in your letter, Section S4.1 of the standard lists the components required to comply with the standard. Further, that section states that materials designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants must comply with the standard. Since the components that you mention are not listed in S4.1 and since they do not appear to be designed to absorb energy on contact by an occupant, we conclude that they are not required to comply with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 4, 1980

Att.: Mr. James B. Gregory Administrator

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator Washington, D. C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re.: The Components to which FMVSS No.302 is Applied

Dear Mr. Gregory,

In FMVSS No.302 S4.1., the following is prescribed and the components to which this standard applies are mentioned.

S4.1 The portions described in S4.2 of the following components of vehicle occupant compartments shall meet the requirements of S4.3: Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

We would like to ask you whether the following components are applied to by this standard.

1. Room lamp installed on the headlining

2. Courtesy lamp installed on the door panel

3. Various pilot indicator lamps and various meters installed on the front panel

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Yours faithfully,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ha/ha

ID: aiam5323

"Dear Mr. Slaughter: This responds to your inquiry about whether logging trailer known as the 'knuckle boom loader trailer' that you manufacture is a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You explained that your trailer stays in the woods the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act' 13 U.S.C. 1392 et seq.) under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term 'motor vehicle' as follows: 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites 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 and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than 'incidental.' Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is not a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the Safety Act. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and brochures that this equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your trailer is not a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. If the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer is a motor vehicle, then the trailer would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers, Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 121 Air Brake Systems which requires automatic slack adjusters and brakes to act on all wheels. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 1984-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William H. Harper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William H. Harper 21109-21st Avenue West Lyonwood, Washington 98306

This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1984, making our opinion with respect to your plan to ship the frame of a 1959 Lotus 11 to England where a new body will be installed on it. The body is a duplicate of the original. You have asked for the status of the assemblage upon its re-entry into the United States, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The jurisdiction of the Act covers "motor vehicles" which are defined in pertinent part as those "manufactured primarily for use on the public roads." The photos you enclosed appear to show the Lotus 11 as a racing machine of single seat configuration. We do not consider single seat machines manufactured for competition purposes, and which are not licensed for use on the public roads, to be "motor vehicles." We also regulate "motor vehicle equipment." It follows that individual equipment items intended for use on a competition vehicle are not considered "motor vehicle equipment" subject to our jurisdiction and regulation. Therefore, if your Lotus 11 has not been licensed for use on the public roads, in our opinion you are not subject to the requirements of this agency including posting a compliance bond upon re-entry of the assemblage.

Even if the Lotus 11 has been licensed for use on the roads and is a "motor vehicle," your responsibilities, if any, would appear to be minimal. Although a "motor vehicle" manufactured before January 1, 1968, is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, those standards do cover certain items of replacement equipment which must themselves conform upon entry into the U.S. You have told us that all equipment items will be detached from the frame before its shipment to England, and that upon its return, the assemblage will consist only of the old frame and the new body, minus its windshield, mirrors, and gas tank, as well as brakes, wheels, lighting equipment, door handles, etc. There are no Federal safety standards for frames or bodies of the nature you describe, and therefore this assemblage of "motor vehicle equipment" may also enter free of a compliance bond. However, if you subsequently decide to import brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, brake fluid, glazing materials, or seat belt assemblies, these items would have to be certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported.

We hope that this has been helpful to you. If you have any further questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 426-9511.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

January 10, 1984 William H. Harper 12209-21st Avenue W Lynwood, Washington 98036

Chief Counsel's Office of NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs,

I am the owner of a 1959 Lotus 11, serial #231, which I am restoring to original condition. As part of this process I am shipping the bare frame of the car back to England where the firm of Williams & Pritchard, who made the original body in 1959, will make a new body for the car. This new body will be an exact duplicate of the original made in 1959. When the body is finished, it will be attached to the frame and shipped back to myself in Seattle, Washington.

In talking to Don Davidson of U.S. Customs in Seattle (206-442-5370) I was advised that I would have to post a compliance bond upon re-entry of the frame/body into the U.S., unless I could get favorable written clarification from the NHTSA on its status. This is in question as to whether or not the car would now have to meet 1984 regulations, whether or not it is now classed as a 1959 or 1984 car, or whether it is a car at all or an "item of motor vehicle equipment".

It is my belief that this new body should be classed as an "item of motor vehicle equipment" and not as a car just because the frame has made a round trip to England to assist in the manufacture of the new body. It is also my belief that since it is being used in the restoration of a car and in absolutely no way associated with a "replica" car that this new body should not have to meet any 1984 standards such as bumpers or door intrusion. What I need from your office is a written ruling/opinion on these matters which will clarify them for U.S. Customs.

The addendum contains information that may assist you in making a decision. If you have further questions I may be reached at 206-775-5728 (home) or 206-655-7814 (work). Collect calls can be accepted at the first number prior to 9:30 EST. Your prompt and speedy reply would be greatly appreciated as the frame was originally scheduled to be shipped to England on January 30 prior to this problem developing. I want to clarify this matter before I ship anything out of the U.S.

Sincerely, Original signed by William H. Harper

Addendum

Only the original bare frame is being sent to England. By bare frame I mean that there is no suspension, axles, brakes, wheels, engine, transmission, or anything else attached to the frame. These parts are all staying in the U.S., will be rebuilt, and will be reinstalled onto the original frame upon its return to the U.S. The original frame will not be modified in any way while in England and is only being sent there so that the new body may be built around and attached to the frame, as the original was. The new body is being made because the original is badly damaged, torn, and corroded. The new body will be made entirely of aluminum and will have no windshield, headlights, taillights, door handles, etc. attached. These parts from the original body will be reattached to the new body in the U.S. All that is coming back to the U.S. is the original frame with a new hare, unpainted aluminum body attached to it.

Enclosed are two photographs. One shows the complete body attached to the frame and the other is with the upper half of the body removed, showing the lower half of the body and part of the frame. The light grey or rusty steel tubing is the frame and anything made of aluminum is what I call the body. These pictures are of the current "old" body and were taken during disassembly of the car prior to begining its restoration. The windshield, mirrors, and gas tank that are shown in the pictures will not be shipped to England nor will duplicates of these parts be made there. When the frame/body combination returns from England it will look like these pictures; except minus windshield, mirrors, and gas tank of course.

Insert picture here

ID: nht88-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/88

FROM: DAIRL BRAGG -- DIRECTOR STATE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS MOTOR AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: WILLIAM S. HIATT -- COMMISSIONER DIV. OF MOTOR VEHICLES NORTH CAROLINA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103 (D), VSA SECTION 108 (A)(2)(A); LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTIN G, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATION WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES, REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DAT ED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, N0A-30; LETTER DATED 04/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

TEXT: Dear Commissioner Hiatt:

Thank you for providing me the opportunity, on behalf of the sunscreen industry, to meet with you and your people to address the problem concerning the implementation of HB-955, the new automotive sunscreen law.

We, as an industry, believe we have acted responsibly in attempting to exercise our right to compete in commerce in the state of North Carolina. We have asked the legislature to regulate our industry and provide us with guidelines as to the level of light transmission in sunscreening materials we may provide the consumer for use upon his or her vehicle. The legislature has provided that guidance by the passage of HB-955 in the 1987 session of the General Assembly. However, because of two factors, we now find ourselves in the precarious position of being unable to do business in your state, in keeping with the guidelines provided us in the new law. One factor is the opinion issued on December 18, 1987 by the Attorney General which concludes that a state law or regulation permitting 35% light transmission on windows in motor vehicles would be in conflict with the federal standard 205 and would be preempted by that standard. The second is the adoption of regulation NCAC.3D.0900-.0904 which change s the light transmission permitted in the new law from 35% to 70%.

As I stated at our meeting last week, preemption is not at issue here. Federal Standard 205 regulates the vehicle manufacturer and is applicable to certain windows in certain new vehicles prior to first sale. The one addition to the requirement of th is standard since it became effective in January 1968 is the 1974 amendment to the 1966 Act, Section 108(a)(2)(A), which extends the requirement and applicability to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. The state law regulates the operation of a motor vehicle in-use upon the public right of way which is

registered or required to be registered in the state and is applicable to the use of approved film upon the windows of that vehicle. The statutory requirements and applicability of standard 205 and the requirements and applicability of the new North Car olina law are clearly two separate and distinct issues. The Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has consistently stated, in the form of written legal opinions, that they do not have the statutory authority to regu late the consumer in what he or she does or has done to their vehicle after its purchase. At our meeting last week, I provided you with copies of some of those opinions which address this specific issue. Additionally, I talked to Susan Schruth on Monda y, May 2, the NHTSA attorney with whom both Ms. Bullock and I have been discussing this issue. Ms. Schruth reaffirmed this steadfast position of NHTSA.

Since the Attorney General's opinion addressed only the federal standard 205 and its preemption of the state law but did not address the specifics of the new state law, particularly the difference in its requirements and applicability from 205, the fo llowing question should be asked: Would the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 preempt a state statute or regulation which permits the operation of a motor vehicle in use upon the public rig ht of way which is registered or required to be registered in the state with sun screen film, approved by the Commissioner, upon the side and rear windows which reduces the light transmission to 35%?

Based upon the numerous legal opinions issued by the Chief Counsel of NHTSA stating that they do not have the statutory authority to regulate the consumer and the vehicle in use, the Attorney General may wish to study and evaluate these documents and consider revising his opinion to reflect this NHTSA position.

We look forward to an early amicable resolution of this issue so that our industry may compete in commerce in North Carolina in keeping with the provisions of the new law as we do in in more than 30 other states which have passed favorable legislation regulating our industry.

If I can be of further assistance or provide you with additional information, please do not hesitate to get back in touch with me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-8.7

DATE: November 10, 1993

FROM: Steven R. Taylor -- S.R. Taylor Toys

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from John Womack to Steven R. Taylor (A42; Part 571)

TEXT:

This letter consists of information about the (ORIGINAL DESIGNER SEATBELT STRAPP). Its function is to serve as a reminder to buckle-up and to entertain a child with his/her favorite cartoon character, etc.

The ingriediants to the (SEATBELT STRAPP) consists of D.O.T. standard nylon seat belt webbing and a double sided tape adhesive. The face of the (SEATBELT STRAPP) has silk screened designs.

The (CHILD SEATBELT STRAPP) model is 15" in length and 1 1/2" in width. The double sided tape adhesive has a backing that peels off, so the adhesive is showing and can now be attached to the existing seat belt. (The adult size is 30" l x 2" w).

(Graphics omitted - see original)

The (ORIGINAL DESIGNER SEATBELT STRAPP) serves only as an entertainment piece and not as a safety device.

Who will buy the child (seatbelt strapp)? Our market target are: parents, grand parents, uncles and aunts.

Who will buy adult (SEATBELT STRAPP)? Hopefully everyone from teenagers to senior citizens.

ID: nht89-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/89

FROM: JERRY L. DOOLEY -- US ARMY DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER NON-LINE OF SIGHT

TO: LEGAL COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO US ARMY; REDBOOK A34; SECTION 572.7

TEXT: Gentlemen:

We are currently making efforts to gather safety standards for vehicles of the military nature, in particular, those that would apply to the M1037 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheel Vehicle (HMMWV). In our search for this information, we have been advi sed that your office would be able to provide the information we need.

We request that you send the applicable standards and/or specifications for the following areas: (1) driver field of view, (2) rear view mirror placement, (3) basic visibility requirements, and (4) ingress/egress safety requrements. Although our prima ry interest is in regard to the M1037 HMMWV, similar information that would apply to the M993 Bradley Fighting Vehicle System (BFVS) is also requested. Any information you can provide will be helpful.

Information and materials can be forwarded to:

COMMANDER U.S. ARMY MISSILE COMMAND (MR. BOB BERGMAN) ATTN: AMCPM-FM-TM REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA 35898-5793

The Point of contact for this office is Mr. Robert Bergman (205-876-5350).

Sincerely,