ID: 2252y

Mr. Allen R. Andrlik
Australian Trade Commission
Australian Consulate General
Suite 2930
321 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60610

Dear Mr. Andrlik:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal regulations that would apply to the "Milford Cargo Barrier" that Milford Industries, an Australian company, manufactures. Your enclosure indicates that the barrier is a type of wire screen that is generally anchored to the sides and floor of a vehicle directly behind the front seat(s). The barrier is intended to protect occupants in a crash from impact with objects carried in the rear of cars, trucks and vans.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you describe. Our standard for glazing materials (Standard No. 205) applies only to interior barriers or partitions that contain glazing, and not to wire screens.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of Milford's barriers. If the barrier were installed as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Installation of the barrier could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, installation of the barrier could affect compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, which sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat, to protect occupants in the rear seat who may be thrown forward in a crash. The barrier could also affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (safety belts and other restraint systems), and Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (driver field of view). Copies of each of these standards are enclosed.

If the barrier were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle (e.g., a completed van) prior to the vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR /567.7. This would occur if the installation of the barrier constituted something other than a "readily attachable" component (such as tires or rim assemblies). To determine whether installation of the barrier involves a readily attachable component, the agency considers factors such as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise in installing the barrier.

The advertising brochure you enclosed states: "Expert installation available Australia wide." It also indicates that the barriers are "designed...to the individual dimensions" of the consumer's motor vehicle and are "load rated" (which we understand to mean that the barrier and its attachment are capable of withstanding a rated load). These factors appear to indicate that a degree of special expertise and analysis are needed to install the barrier so that it will perform in the manner intended. In light of these considerations, the barrier appears to be something other than a readily attachable component under /567.7. (If Milford would like to send us information indicating otherwise, we would be happy to review it.)

If the cargo barrier were installed in a new or used vehicle by a commercial business such as a motor vehicle dealer or repair shop, the installer would be subject to Safety Act considerations affecting the installation. Section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "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...." Thus, the commercial installer would have to make sure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards (such as Standards 111, 201 and 208). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

In addition to the FMVSS considerations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment should also be aware that they are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed a copy of our regulation for defect responsibility of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers (49 CFR Part 579) for your information. Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

In addition to the regulations described above, we also bring to your attention a procedural rule which applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. Subpart D of 49 CFR Part 55l, Procedural Rules, requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

l. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:VSA#201#567 d:l/9/90

ID: 1985-03.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

Dear Mr. Burke:

Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr. Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an "alterer." Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

If your company is modifying used vehicles, then its actions would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.....

Thus, manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Dick Burdette U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Public Affairs Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Burdette:

I am writing to you today because I need your assistance in preparing a new automobile safety package for the U.S. Market which Hess & Eisenhardt is about to introduce. We think your input, based on your experience and supported by statistics will prove invaluable.

Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company is the oldest and largest armored car manufacturer in the world. Hess & Eisenhardt originally founded in 1876, was first asked to assist in the design of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Parade Car. For the last forty years, we have provided the armored vehicles for every United States President. Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company currently supplies armored vehicles to over thirty Heads of State worldwide as well as Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers, Diplomats, Industry Leaders, and private citizens.

Let me hasten to point out that we do not intend to introduce an "armored car" into the U.S. Market. Our product is definitely an automobile safety package. We believe that the experience we have gained in the many years we have been involved in automobile security can be provided to the public in a very cost effective manner. We have done extensive market research over the past twelve months and have received an enthusiastic response from the corporate world as well as many individuals. Please forward to me any information and statistics you might be able to provide that would pertain to the following components of our proposed safety package:

o Run Flat Tire Devices. o "New Generation" Shatter Resistant Glass (primarily intended to resist intrusion from the outside while providing an unprecedented shatter resistance to the standard tempered glass used in sidelights. o A highly sophisticated remote alarm system. o Dual batteries. o A trunk release mounted inside the trunk. o A fuel tank protector (with looking gas cap). o An emergency kit to include minor survival components such as: drinking water, flashlight, etc. o A door lock system that would prevent access to a stranger from the outside even if the driver forgets to lock the doors. o Anti-explosive gas tank. o An automatic engine fire suppression system. o Auxiliary fan. o Inside to outside intercom.

Any information you can provide will be greatly appreciated. We are now in the final stages of selecting the safety equipment which will go into our package and your input can help in the final design. As this product is primarily in the interest or the safety of the occupants, we would certainly not want to miss the opportunity to provide some safety feature you thought important. Please contact me directly if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

HESS & EISENHARDT ARMORING COMPANY

Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales

TJB/7/vah

ID: 1985-04.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert C. Blunt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert C. Blunt Papy, Poole, Weissenborn & Papy 201 Alhambra Circle Suite 502 Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Dear Mr. Blunt:

This responds to your two letters to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller in which you sought information concerning our Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

In your first letter, you enclosed a copy of a newspaper article that appeared in the Miami Herald. That article stated that a "Federal study" rated projected mileage for 134 different radial tires, and ranked the "best" and "worst" tires. You asked for a copy of this study, along with the standards used by the agency to grade treadwear, traction, and temperature-resistance for tires. Your second letter indicates you subsequently received a copy of our UTQGS (49 CFR S575.104), which sets forth the procedures the tire manufacturers use to grade their tires. As discussed below, the "Federal study" referenced in the newspaper article is merely information taken from tire manufacturers' UTQGS submissions to the agency.

As set forth in the UTQGS, this agency requires the tire manufacturers to assign grades to each of their tire designs. NHTSA then makes available to the public the grade assignments reported to it by the tire manufacturers. Hence, the tests to which the article referred were conducted entirely by the individual tire manufacturers, not by the Federal government.

Neither the tire manufacturers nor the agency made, or could make, any total tire mileage projections from the reported treadwear grades. If one were to project total mileage from the treadwear grade, one could say only that a certain tire might get x miles if driven over the same roads at the same speeds on the same vehicles with the same careful maintenance performed daily on those vehicles. A projection of a tire's treadlife which did not include all of these caveats would be misleading.

Finally, the agency does not categorize particular tires as the best or the worst based solely on the treadwear grades assigned by the manufacturers. Such an approach ignores the importance of the traction and temperature resistance grades, both of which have far greater significance from a safety standpoint than does the treadwear grade. Because of the many variables involved in selecting the most appropriate tire, this agency cannot state that any particular tire is the best for most drivers.

In your second letter, you stated that you had received a 1982 publication entitled "Tire Grading System Information," and requested a copy of the 1983 and 1984 updates of that publication. The agency did not update that publication during those years. Instead, all interested consumers have been provided with a complete listing of all grades which have been reported to the agency, together with an explanatory sheet telling how to use those grades. I have enclosed a copy of those grades for your information.

For your information, NHTSA suspended treadwear grading requirements under the UTQGS, effective February 8, 1983. This action was announced after the agency found high levels of variability in treadwear test results and in the grade assignment practices of the various tire manufacturers. This variability resulted in a substantial likelihood that treadwear information being provided to the public under this program would be misleading; i.e., that the assigned treadwear grades could, in many instances, incorrectly rank the actual treadwear performance of different tires.

On April 24, 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the agency's suspension of the treadwear grading requirements in Public Citizen v. Steed, 733 F.2d 93. Accordingly, the agency published a final rule reimplementing the treadwear grading require-agency published a final rule reimplementing the treadwear grading requirements on December 19, 1984 (49 FR 49293; copy enclosed). Hence, if you were seeking treadwear grades for 1983 and 1984, none were assigned during those years.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

August 8, 1985

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Commission 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20 90

Attention: Jeffrey R. Miller, Esq.

Dear Mr. Miller:

Thank you for the "Uniform Tire Quality Grade Consumer Information" documents and the Uniform Tire Grade Standards regulations.

Some time ago we received from you the 1982 bulletin entitled Tire Grading System Information. We would appreciate your advising us if there has been an update on that information for the years 1983 and 1984, which are the years when those studies and results would be most helpful to us. Should there be such new information on tire grading, would you please be so kind as to mail it to us. If there is a charge, please let us know and we would be more than happy to mail you a check by return mail.

Your cooperation is very much appreciated.

Very truly yours, Robert C. Blunt RCB:en

July 31, 1985

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Commission 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Jeffrey R. Miller, Esq.

Re: NHTSA Treadwear Testing - 1985

Dear Mr. Miller:

Reference is made to my letter to you of April 30, 1985 reference D.O.T.-HS-806 091.

Enclosed please find a copy of an article which appeared in the Tuesday, July 30, 1985 edition of the Miami Herald as a United Press International release.

Could you please be so kind as to forward to this office a copy of the complete study referred to in the UPI article along with any available standards used by your agency to grade treadwear, traction and temperature-resistance.

We will, of course, be happy to reimburse your agency for your cost in locating and copying the above-requested documents.

Your continued cooperation is appreciated. Very truly yours, Robert C. Blunt RCB:en cc: Mr. Art Casanova Mr. Joe Annis Enclosure

ID: 86-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Burdick:

Thank You for Your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Lorraine Holgerson concerning requirements for identifying school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Ms. Holgerson is concerned that yellow school buses in North Dakota lack identifying features which notify following motorists that the bus is a school bus. Your constituent suggests Federal law address this problem by setting school bus identification requirements for features such as "School Bus" signs, or distinctive lights.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Ms. Holgerson's concern. would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA has two sets of regulations for school buses that contain special requirements facilitating the recognition of those vehicles by motorists. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes the motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, are the highway safety program standards applicable to Federal funding of states' highway safety programs.

One of the motor vehicle safety standards applying to school buses issued under the Vehicle Safety Act is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This standard requires school bus warning lamps on the rear of all new school buses. The presence of the lighting system alerts other motorists that the vehicle is a school bus, and activation of the lights warns motorists around the vehicle that school children are boarding or leaving the bus. Each school bus manufactured in or imported to this country must be equipped with the distinctive warning lamp system.

The additional identifying features that your constituent recommends for school buses have been included in the highway safety program standard we issued for pupil transportation safety (Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17). I have enclosed a copy of this standard for your information.

Standard No. 17 recommends that states require additional features for school buses such as prominent "School Bus" signs and the familiar yellow paint and black trim for the bus body, to distinguish them from other types of vehicles. Requirements for school bus identification are regularly included in states' highway safety programs to facilitate safe transportation of school children, and some or all of the recommendations of Standard No. 17 have been adopted by most of the states.

While we urge states to adopt a strong pupil transportation program consistent with Standard No. 17's guidelines, the effect of the standard on school buses operating in North Dakota is a matter for the State to decide. State officials are given discretion in adopting Standard No. 17 and may specify requirements for school bus operation that are appropriate for their particular highway safety needs. Ms. Holgerson might want to express her concerns and suggestions to North Dakota state officials, since they have the authority to set requirements for "School Bus" signs and other identifying features of school buses.

We appreciate Ms. Holgerson's concern for school bus safety. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Burdick:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Lorraine Holgerson..

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

David P. Sloane Director, Office of Congressional Affairs February 27, 1986

Mr. David Sloane Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

Enclosed is a letter I have recently received from Lorraine Holgerson regarding her concern about the lack of appropriate reflectors on the back of North Dakota school buses.

I would appreciate your Looking into the matter Ms. Holgerson has described and responding to my office with your findings. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

Quentin N. Burdick QNB:mvj Honorable Senator Burdick:

Dear Mr. Burdick,

Could it be possible that a bill be passed to make North Dakota school buses more visible from the back?

School buses now have two directional lights back there, and a row of small lights across the top. This is really not very much on that large background of yellow.

Even the words "School bus" in black or reflective letterings should help.

Some truckers that drive the big rigs have lights all around the top of their cabs, and even a row of lights around the trailer.

Anything that could be done to make the school buses safer would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Lorraine Holgerson

ID: 86-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Hofmann Product Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

Dear Mr. Hofmann:

This responds to your letter, asking three questions about any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements for labeling tires as "all-season" tires. I will answer your questions in the order they were presented in your letter.

1. Is there a definition issued by NHTSA regarding mud and snow tire tread design characteristics?

No, NHTSA has not issued any such specifications. For all of our tire regulations, except the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS: 49 CFR 5575.104), a tire is subject to the same requirements, regardless of its specific design characteristics. That is, all new passenger car tires must satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 109 and be labeled in accordance with Part 574. This is true whether the new passenger car tire is a mud and snow tire, all-season tire, high speed-rated tire, temporary spare tire, or a normal highway service tire. Accordingly, the agency has had no reason to define particular characteristics of a mud and snow tire for any regulation or standard besides the UTQGS, and the agency has not done so.

The UTQGS apply to all new passenger car tires with a few exceptions. One of the groups of new passenger car tires not subject to the UTQGS is "deep tread, winter-type snow tires." When all- season tires were first introduced, several manufacturers asked whether all-season tires qualified as deep tread, winter-type snow tires. The agency responded to these questions with an explanation of what the UTQGS means by the phrase "deep tread, winter-type snow tires." This discussion appeared at 44 FR 30140, May 24, 1979, and reads as follows:

"While all-weather tires may share some characteristics of snow tires under industry categorization systems, they are not limited in acceptable use to winter periods by virtue of their construction. The qualifying language 'deep tread, winter-type' indicates NHTSA's intention to except only a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger automobiles inadvisable. Since all-weather tires are designed with a tread depth which permits and is in fact intended for safe operation throughout the year, they do not qualify as 'deep tread, winter-type snow tires' for purposes of the applicability of the UTQG Standards."

Hence, for the purposes of the UTQGS, it is the manufacturer who must, in the first instance, determine if a passenger car tire design incorporates a tread depth and design such that the tire qualifies as a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. A manufacturer making such a determination is not required to label the tire as a mud and snow tire; instead, the manufacturer simply is not required to comply with the UTQGS requirements for that tire design. In the course of its compliance enforcement for tires, the agency may reexamine the question of whether a particular tire design is a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. This is the only context in which the agency has ever addressed the issue of what constitutes a snow tire.

2. Can a tire have a paper label affixed stating that it is a mud and snow tire even if the symbol for a mud and snow tire is not molded into the tire sidewall?

NHTSA has no regulatory requirements specifying how or that a tire be labeled as a mud and snow tire. Therefore, your company may label mud and snow tires in any manner you wish without violating any NHTSA requirements.

It is possible that the Federal Trade Commission has established some requirements for the marketing of a tire as a mud and snow tire, under its authority to prevent "unfair or deceptive" marketing practices. To learn if the Federal Trade Commission has any requirements, you may write to: Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

You may also wish to learn if there are any voluntary industry standards for the labeling of mud and snow tires. The American standardization organization for tires is the Tire and Rim Association, Inc. You may contact them at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. Naturally, the decision of whether to follow those voluntary industry standards is left to the discretion of your company.

3. Can a tire be labeled as an all-season tire even if no marking showing it is a mud and snow tire or all-season tire is molded into the sidewall?

The answer to this question is identical to the answer given above for question number 2. NHTSA has no regulations specifying that an all-season tire must be so labeled on the sidewall, so your company will not violate any NHTSA requirements by marketing the tire as an all-season tire without molding information into the sidewall. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission to learn if they have any requirements and the Tire & Rim Association to learn if there is any voluntary industry practice in this area.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 13, 1986

Mrs. Erika Jones Chief Council - NOA-3O NHTSA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Jones:

We have the following questions regarding All Season tire labeling:

- Is there a definition in existence regarding M + S tread design characteristics issued by the NHTSA?

- Can a tire be labeled with M + S (paper sticker), even though the M + S is not embossed in the sidewall?

- Can we label a tire -All Season- even though no marking referring to M + S or All Season is embossed in the sidewall?

We would appreciate an answer to the above as soon as possible, as we are about to introduce new product lines in the All Season category.

Sincerely,

Peter Hofmann Product Manager

PH/emp

ID: 86-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Don Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo, Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Dear Mr. Black:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, requesting an interpretation of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you stated that Alfa Romeo plans to label its front and rear bumpers in the following locations. The front bumper would have a label attached to the bumper assembly in the area where it would not be visible if a front license plate was attached to the bumper. The rear bumper would have a label attached to the rear bumper in an area that will be covered by a plastic snap-in molding. This molding must be removed to remove the rear bumper from the vehicle. You asked whether these planned locations would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(iii) that the labels be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle." It is NHTSA's opinion that the locations specified for marking bumpers in your letter would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(iii).

Your planned location for labeling the front bumpers is in an area where those labels will be visible at the time the cars arrive at the dealer and will remain visible unless and until a front license plate is installed on the car. NHTSA must thus determine whether the possible need to remove a front license plate would result in labels in this location failing to satisfy the requirement that labels be placed so that they will be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle." It appears not to be necessary to remove the front license plate in order to remove the front bumper from your vehicles. Hence, one might conclude that such location would not satisfy this requirement.

However, the intent underlying this requirement was clearly set forth in the rulemaking proceeding that established Part 541. The preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking contained the following sentence: "Both commenters agreed, however, that NHTSA's regulations should ensure that investigators will not have to conduct any additional dismantling (over and above what chop shops, parts dealers, or thieves have ordinarily done) to locate the identifier on parts removed from a vehicle." (Emphasis in original) 50 FR 19731, May 10, 1985. NHTSA believes that license plates are routinely removed from front bumpers by legitimate parts dealers prior to reselling the bumper. Law enforcement groups have assured us that license plates are removed from stolen bumpers, so that the stolen part cannot be traced to its rightful owner. In these circumstances, the agency has no reason to believe that labels for front bumpers that are covered by the front license plate will require investigators to conduct additional dismantling of the front bumpers. Accordingly, we conclude that labels on front bumpers that are clearly visible when the front license plate is removed satisfy the requirement that those labels be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle."

With respect to the rear bumpers, the situation is simpler. According to your letter, the plastic molding covering the labels must be removed to remove the bumper from the vehicle. Thus, the label would be visible without further disassembly once the bumper has been removed from the vehicle. As such, it would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(l)(iii).

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ref. #027 February 18, 1986

Mr. Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - Part 531 F.M.V.T.P.S.

Dear Mr. Felrice:

The enclosed sketches depict Alfa Romeo's intended bumper markings.

Sketch "A" - Shows the front bumper assembly. The complete bumper is covered with a semi-rigid plastic to protect it against minor damages. The label is attached to the actual bumper which is an aluminum extrusion. The label is visible following vehicle manufacture and at any time the front plate is not installed. These are two obvious cases where no front plate is used:

a) In states where only a rear plate is used.

b) On stolen vehicles, where the plates are removed.

Sketch "B" - Is a cross section of the bumper itself, an aluminum extrusion. This is to be considered the permanent part of the bumper assembly, while the semi-rigid decorative/protective cover mentioned above is considered a "wear" or "aesthetic" part subject to replacement.

Sketch "C" - Depicts the rear bumper, also an aluminum extrusion covered by a semi-rigid facing as used on the front bumper. The label is located in a groove in the facing where the aluminum extrusion is exposed adjacent to the mounting bolts for the bumper structural extrusion.

Ref. #027 Mr. Barry Felrice N.H.T.S.A. February 18, 1986 Page two

The label and the bumper bolts are covered by a small plastic snap-in moulding. To remove the bumper, the moulding must be removed followed by removal of the bumper bolts. It is worthy to note that with this design there is no location on which to place a label on a permanent part of the bumper since it is covered by the semi-rigid facing, which is again a "disposable" part of the bumper assembly.

Sketch "D" - Is a vertical view of the horizontal section carrying the label. Here the snap-in moulding can be seen covering the bumper bolts.

Alfa Romeo's opinion is that, considering the bumper design, these locations meet the requirements of "VISIBILITY" for the actual bumper since the facing itself would not likely be a theft target. We hope that N.H.T.S.A. will concur with Alfa Romeo's choice of location.

Respectfully,

ALFA ROMEO, INC.

Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office

DB/as

Enclosure

cc: B. McLauglin - N.H.T.S.A. Fogliata - Dires Sego Guelfi - Tires Carr Francioni - Marketing Prodotto M. Kole - ARI T. Tooley - ARI

ID: 86-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 3/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter M. Kopanon -- Vehicle Inspection Services, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 22, 1985 letter to our office concerning Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381). You asked several questions about the provision in @ 103(d) which permits a State to establish higher safety requirements for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use. In a January 31 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that you were interested in how @ 103(d) applies to vehicles procured for school transportation purposes.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter 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 vehcile 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. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Your first question asked whether vehicles "directly owned" by the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions fall within the category of vehicles procured by the State or its subdivisions for its own use. The answer is yes, if the governmental entities have purchased the vehicles for their own use. While governmental entities may specify additional safety features in their own vehicles, keep in mind that section 103(d) does not permit them to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

Your second question, referred to buses that are owned and operated by a private contractor who has contracted with Massachusetts or its political subdivisions to provide pupil transportation to and from public schools. You asked whether "vehicles privately owned while under contract with the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions" are considered "vehicles procured for the State's own use." The answer to your question is yes.

NHTSA addressed this question in an interpretation to the New York Department of Transportation in May 1976 (copy enclosed). In that letter, we concluded that a contractual arrangement between a State and a private contractor for the supply and operation of school buses for public school transportation is a "procurement" of those vehicles for the State's own use. The agency made this determination after reviewing the legislative history of @ 103(d), which indicated that Congress intended the term "procured for its own use" to refer to established practices used by governmental entities for obtaining goods and services. Those practices have included contracting for services from a private contractor who owns or leases the materials involved. Therefore, the State's provision of public school transportation is a service which can be obtained by contract from a private contractor, and those vehicles provided by the contractor would be considered "procured" for the State's own use. Massachusetts may therefore set requirements for those vehicles which impose a higher standard of performance than Federal standards, if the additional safety features do not prevent the vehicles from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

As stated in our 1976 interpretation, however, vehicles "procured for [the State's] own use" would not include vehicles provided by a private contractor to transport students to private schools. Therefore, in response to your third question which asked whether the State may prescribe nonidentical safety standards for privately-owned school buses that transport children to private schools, the answer is no.

We note that your questions about @ 103(d) referred to motor vehicles which operate intrastate. Whether a vehicle operates in interstate commerce is not a condition affecting the applicability of @ 103(d) to the States. We believe that Congress intended the Vehicle Safety Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of all new motor vehicles, and did not limit the Act's requirements to vehicles which cross State lines. Further, as a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any vehicle would never be in interstate commerce at some time during its lifetime. For example, the delivery of the vehicle from its place of manufacturer to its original place of sale will generally involve movement in interstate commerce. In addition, whether or not the vehicles cross State lines, their use on public roads substantially affects interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law. Thus, the effect of @ 103(d) on State standards is not conditioned on vehicle usage in interstate commerce.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hestate to contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Registry of Motor Vehicles

November 22, 1985

OCC 1599

Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel for RULEMAKING, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wood: Thank you for your prompt and thorough response to my recent telephone inquiry regarding the transportation of school pupils. I am sure you understand the problems that arise when one attempts to dovetail Federal laws, rules and regulations with State laws, rules and regulations and then intelligently advises and/or directs others.

As I mentioned on the telephone, I have, and am sure will continue to have, questions in this regard and certainly appreciate your cooperation.

Attached is a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Section 1392. My concern is how you interpret the third sentence. Specifically, what is meant by "equipment procured for their own use"? Does this mean that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may prescribe standards higher than a Federal standard on vehicles operated intrastate under the following conditions:

1. Directly owned by the Commonwealth or by any of its political subdivisions;

2. Vehicles privately owned while under contract with the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions;

3. Vehicles privately owned and operated transporting persons for hire.

Thank you for giving consideration to this request for information.

Very truly yours,

Peter M. Koparon, Director -- Vehicle Inspection Services

Enc.

ID: 86-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Elizabeth Hanford Dole; NHTSA

TO: William von Raab -- Commissioner of Customs, U.S. Customs Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William von Raab The Commissioner of Customs United States Customs Service 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D,C. 20229

This responds to your letter suggesting a potential enforcement problem with the new Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As you noted, the Customs Service will be the agency responsible for enforcing the provisions in the theft prevention standard requiring subject vehicles and parts to be properly marked and certified before they are imported into the United States. You stated that it was essential that the Customs Service be provided a list of "authorized individuals or companies which have been found by (the Department of Transportation) to possess the capability and integrity to properly certify imported vehicles and parts." Accordingly, you requested that we provide you with such a list. The Department of Transportation does not authorize individuals or companies to engage in the business of importing and modifying vehicles. Therefore, we cannot provide you with a list such as you requested.

This issue arises primarily with respect to "direct importers". These direct importers are individuals and commercial enterprises that obtain foreign cars not originally manufactured for sale in the United States, bring them into this country under bond, and modify the cars so that they can be certified as being in compliance with the U.S. vehicle safety, emissions, and bumper standards. This is commonly referred to as the automotive "gray market". The statutes mandating the Federal safety, emissions, and bumper standards (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7522(b)(2), and 15 U.S.C. 1916(b)(3)) explicitly authorize vehicles not in compliance to be brought into this country under bond. However, the Theft Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.) contains no such provision. Therefore, direct importers must modify all their subject vehicles to comply with the theft prevention standard before the vehicles are imported, and must certify that the vehicles are in compliance at the time of entry.

You stated in your letter that the theft prevention standard could be read to allow any person to certify compliance of an imported vehicle with the standard and that the Customs Service would have no way to judge the authenticity of the certification or the "ability of the party to certify to compliance at the time of importation." You suggested that vehicles and parts could be imported without being properly marked, if Customs had to accept the certification of any person importing such vehicles or parts.

We do not believe that reliance on the importers' certifications will cause the enforcement problems you fear. If subject vehicles or parts bear a certification that complies with the requirements of the theft prevention standard, the Customs Service should allow those vehicles or parts to be imported. NHTSA enforcement personnel will conduct spot checks of the direct importers' vehicles and parts. If we discover that some direct importers are certifying compliance with the theft prevention standard without actually marking in accordance with that standard, we will take appropriate enforcement actions. We expect these actions will help deter any direct importers or other manufacturers who are tempted to falsely certify compliance with the theft prevention standard.

Although we share your concern that all authorized manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard, we have no authority to require any person or entity to register with the Department of Transportation and show a capability to comply with the standard before importing a vehicle. We do currently collect information about importers after they have imported a vehicle, as does the Customs Service. However, the fact that a potential importer has not previously imported a vehicle has no legal significance for our enforcement efforts.

I appreciate your concern for the effective enforcement of our theft prevention standard. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further suggestions or ideas in this regard.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Elizabeth Hanford Dole

Dear Secretary Dole:

I am writing with respect to the recently issued regulations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, 50 Fed. Reg. 43166 (October 24, 1985). As you may be aware, the Customs Service is developing regulations for the implementation of the export provisions of the Act as it applies to motor vehicle exports. In addition, the Service is also directed to enforce the import restriction set forth in the Act and implemented by the October 24, 1985 Federal Register notice. I want to direct your attention to a potential enforcement problem which has been brought to my attention with respect to the final regulations issued by NHTSA.

The regulations as issued can be read to allow any person to place a certification label for vehicle identification marking on an imported vehicle. If this is the Department of Transportation's interpretation, the Customs Service will have no basis for judging the authenticity of the certification or the ability of the party to certify to compliance at the time of importation. This raises a significant enforcement issue within the Service. If the Service must accept the certification of any person importing a vehicle or parts, these items may in fact be imported without being properly marked in accordance with the statute. If, however, a list of parties who have the ability to certify compliance can be established and utilized by the Customs Service to approve imported vehicles and parts, the Service could, as it does today, spot check the individuals on this list and carefully check for possible exclusion any other importers. We believe, from an enforcement standpoint, to carry out the purposes of the Motor Vehicle Theft Act that it is essential that the Service have a list of authorized individuals or companies which have been found by your Department to possess the capability and integrity to properly certify imported vehicles and parts.

In order to assure effective enforcement of the Act's regulations, I would appreciate receiving a listing identifying those parties who are authorized to certify compliance as soon as possible so we may proceed with our implementation plans and instructions to the field in a timely fashion.

Yours faithfully,

The Honorable Elizabeth Hanford Dole Secretary of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

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: 86-4.42

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