ID: 3144o

Mr. Andrew P. Kallman
Tu-Grooves
Kallman Building
205 West Saginaw Street
Lansing, Michigan 48933

Dear Mr. Kallman:

This responds to your letter asking for further clarification of a March 1, 1985 letter to you from the Chief Counsel of this agency. Your company is marketing a process in which parallel grooves are ground into the lower portion of the windshield of vehicles. In our March 1, 1985 letter to you, we set forth a general description of the requirements that would apply if the process were used on new vehicles or new windshields sold as an item of replacement equipment, and those requirements that would apply if the process were used on vehicles that had already been sold to the first purchaser or windshields that were already installed in vehicles. Your letter explains that your company now uses this process only on vehicles that have already been sold to a first purchaser and windshields already installed in vehicles. You asked for clarification of several issues in your letter.

1. Your company has obtained test reports from two laboratories on the process of grinding these parallel grooves into the lower portions of windshields. One of these reports specifically states that windshields with these grooves fully comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). You asked whether the steps your company has taken are "sufficient to show compliance with Standard No. 205."

Response: The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not permit this agency to assure any person or entity that its products or processes comply with all applicable requirements or to "approve" some product or process. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 205 requires that the windshields installed in new vehicles and new windshields sold as replacement equipment to meet certain performance requirements, and requires the windshield to be certified as complying with those requirements. You have stated that your company's process of grinding grooves into windshields will not be used on new vehicles or new windshields. Standard No. 205 does not require that windshields be certified as continuing to comply after being treated by aftermarket processes, such as your company's grooving process. Accordingly, if your grooving process is used only in aftermarket applications, your company is not required to certify that those windshields continue to comply with Standard No. 205 after grooves have been ground into the windshield. However, continued compliance with Standard 205 is important, for a different reason, discussed below.

Even though Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to your process, and your company does not have to certify continued compliance with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) does impose an obligation on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses, including your licensees, with respect to aftermarket processes. That section provides: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..."

In this case, a number of elements of design have been installed in the windshield of motor vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 205, including impact and penetration resistance, optical deviation limitations and limitations on visual distortion. If grinding grooves into the windshield by means of your company's process would cause the windshield to no longer comply with these or some other requirements of Standard No. 205, grinding the grooves into the windshield would be a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act.

The Safety Act imposes a responsibility on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to ensure, in the first instance, that none of the aftermarket operations they perform will result in a violation of the "render inoperative" provision. NHTSA reexamines the initial determinations made by any of these parties only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. If your company has concluded that the test reports enclosed with your letter show no "rendering inoperative" when grooves are ground into windshields, NHTSA will not express any view on that conclusion unless and until the agency begins some enforcement proceeding to examine this grooving process.

In keeping with this statutory scheme, neither our March 1, 1985 letter nor this letter expressed any agency opinion as to whether dealers using your company's process to grind grooves into windshields of vehicles would or would not render inoperative the windshield's compliance with Standard No. 205. Instead, both these letters are intended only to alert your company to the elements of design that might be rendered inoperative by grinding grooves in windshields by your process.

2. Would it be possible for your company to indicate on the windshields in which you grind these grooves that your company has "shown compliance with Standard No. 205," for example, by affixing a clear sticker to that effect?

Response: As explained above, only new windshields or windshields installed in new vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 205. There is no requirement that windshields subjected to aftermarket processes be certified as still complying with the standard. If your company voluntarily chooses to provide some indication of continuing compliance, it is free to do so. NHTSA has long said that the only restriction on voluntary markings is that those markings must not obscure or confuse the meaning of any required markings on the product. Assuming that your voluntary markings will not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required markings on the windshield, the voluntary marking would not violate any Federal requirements. You should be aware, however, that some State laws restrict stickers and other items placed on automobile windshields.

3. Is your company required to show continuing compliance with Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting (49 CFR /571.212) for vehicles whose windshields have grooves ground in accordance with your company's process?

Response: The vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that each of its new vehicles complies with the requirements of Standard No. 212. There is no obligation for any person that performs aftermarket operations on the vehicle or its windshield to certify continuing compliance with Standard No. 212.

As explained above, the only requirement applicable to aftermarket operations on a vehicle is that manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard, including Standard No. 212. Standard No. 212 requires a vehicle to retain a specified percentage of the windshield periphery. To avoid violating the "render inoperative" prohibition, I suggest that you carefully examine the process by which grooves are ground into windshields and determine whether the installation of those grooves in accordance with your company's process would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 212. Your company is obliged to determine that this grooving process will not result in a rendering inoperative violation with respect to Standard No. 212. As explained above, NHTSA will not express any views about your company's determination except in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#205#212 d:l0/28/88

ID: 3145o

Mr. Gary M. Ceazan
Vice President
Riken-America, Inc.
PO Box 3698 Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, CA 90051

Dear Mr. Ceazan:

This is in response to your letter asking whether tires marked with both an ETRTO (European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization) size designation and a different ISO (International Standardization Organization) size designation can legally be imported into the United States. As discussed below, such tires cannot be imported into the United States, because they do not comply with the applicable safety standards. I regret the delay in this response.

All new pneumatic tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.109), and all new pneumatic tires imported for use on motor vehicles other than passenger vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.119). Both of these standards prohibit "dual-size markings," or labeling two different size designations on one tire.

In the case of passenger car tires, section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." (emphasis added). This agency expressly prohibited dual-size markings on passenger car tires in a preamble amending Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. This prohibition was expressly repeated in subsequent amendments that addressed the question of tire labeling under Standard No. 109; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974; and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

In the case of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, there is no express prohibition in Standard No. 119 against dual size markings. However, section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire and size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." NHTSA has interpreted the use of the singular in the phrase "tire size designation," rather than the plural "tire size designations," to be a prohibition against marking more than one tire size designation on these tires. See the enclosed copies of my January 7, 1988 letter to Mr. E.W. Dahl and my February 16, 1988 letter to Mr. Mike Kaizaki.

Since tires marked with two size designations would not comply with our tire standards, they could not legally be imported into the United States, according to the requirement specified in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). If you have any further questions about our tire standards or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:l09#ll9 d:ll/l/88

ID: 3146o

Mr. Dave Anderson
Sales Manager
Gist Ornamental Iron Works, Inc.
l2l27 Woodside Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter about Federal requirements for trailers. According to your letter, you are in the planning stages of becoming a manufacturer of, and dealer for, automobile trailers. The trailers would hitch to the back of automobiles and be designed to carry cargo. You noted that in response to an earlier inquiry, you received a copy of the handout entitled "Information For New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." You stated that you are unclear just how this applies to automobile trailers. You asked what you need to do to comply with any applicable Federal regulations, and what regulations apply to trailers of the kind you plan to build.

Trailers are considered motor vehicles under Federal law. As a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. The procedure is specified in 49 CFR Part 567.

The following safety standards apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, Safety Standard No. ll5, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, Safety Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, Safety Standard No. l20, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, trailers with certain braking systems must meet Safety Standard No. l06, Brake Hoses, Safety Standard No. ll6, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and Safety Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems. All of these safety standards are found in 49 CFR Part 57l.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref: 571 d:ll/l/88

ID: 3147o

The Honorable Beverly B. Byron
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives
Westminster District Office
6 North Court Street
Westminster, MD 21157

Dear Ms. Byron:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requirements. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with windows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on the side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows.

However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Maryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, not the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Washington Office Constituent's Correspondence

ref:VSA#205 d:l0/27/88

ID: 3148o

Mr. Max J. Mizejewski
Foreign Marketing Specialists, Inc.
14451 Chambers Rd., Suite 155
Tustin, CA 92680

Dear Mr. Mizejewski:

This is in response to your letter in which you asked whether a product your company plans to import would be subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). According to your letter, this product, which you refer to as a "Roadreader," attaches to the front of a motor vehicle and has two sensors which give a visual and audible alarm when the vehicle drifts off a road. You indicated that this product would be connected to the wiring related to the turn signals. You noted that this device does not affect vehicle functions such as acceleration, braking, lighting, or visibility. You further stated that if required, you would provide the device to NHTSA or another government agency for inspection.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Title 49 CFR Part 571 contains the safety standards promulgated by the agency. Although you stated that this device does not affect the electrical wiring related to the turn lights, I suggest you closely review Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (Copy enclosed). This safety standard applies to both motor vehicle equipment installed in new motor vehicles and replacement equipment sold in the aftermarket.

While I cannot conclusively say that this standard is or is not applicable to your product based on the limited facts in your letter, this standard may apply to your product because the wiring for your device is connected to components (i.e., turn lights) subject to the standard. For instance, S4.5.11 requires that components including the turn signal lamps must be wired to flash. More generally, S4.1.3 forbids the installation of an additional piece of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Therefore, a device such as yours is permissible as original vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard.

As for the sale of your product in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, Section 108 of the Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a FMVSS. Since an importer is defined by the Safety Act as a manufacturer, you should assure that installation of your device does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, the turn signal lamp or any other item of motor vehicle equipment subject to Standard No. 108.

As for your second question concerning inspection and approval of your product, you should be aware that NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under Section 114 of the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. Further, as you noted, you would be responsible for recalling any safety-related defects which you or this agency finds in your product.

You also should be aware that laws from particular States may apply to your device. Therefore, you may wish to contact the State and local transportation authorities in the areas where you intend to market your product. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203) may also be able to provide information about State laws concerning devices similar to your product.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:VSA#108#108 d:ll/3/88

ID: 3149o

Mr. Brian Hall
President, VS Technology
3046 E. Dover St.
Mesa, AZ 85213

Dear Mr. Hall:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter to Mr. Vinson of this Office. You have described a safety apparatus and have requested "approval" from the Department. The apparatus is a red light that is worn on the back of a rider on small open vehicles such as motorcycles. The light connects to the stop lamp system on the vehicle and is activated at the same time as the vehicle's stop lamp.

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" specific concepts or equipment. However, it can advise whether such is permissible or impermissible under Federal statutes or Departmental regulations. Yours is a unique device, and there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to it. Our primary concern is whether its operation would in any way interfere with the effectiveness of the vehicle's stop lamp, such as a power drain that would make that light less bright. Because the apparatus is "apparel not a system part...which is intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers...from risk of accident, injury, or death", it meets the statutory definition of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that the apparatus is subject to Federal notification and remedy provisions in the event a determination is made that it incorporates a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety.

Because the Department has no authority to regulate how a vehicle is used on the public roads, you may wish to investigate whether the apparatus is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to provide you with an answer. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate your interest in improving safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:ll/3/88

ID: 3150o

Mr. Mark Jansen
Chevy Duty Pickup Parts
4600 N.W. 52nd St.
Kansas City, Mo. 64151

Dear Mr. Jansen:

This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1988, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You would like to have parking lamp and tail lamp lenses "remanufactured" for use on l947-66 Chevrolet and GMC pickup trucks, and have requested our views.

We assume that you wish to have lenses manufactured to replace original equipment lenses on the trucks produced in the years indicated. Essentially, your operation appears unaffected by the requirements of this Department. The Federal motor vehicle lighting standard applies only to lenses intended to replace original lenses on vehicles manufactured on and after January l, l972, and would not cover lenses for use on l947-66 trucks. However, if the lenses you intend to manufacture are interchangeable with those on vehicles manufactured on and after January l, l972, you may have an obligation to ensure that they meet Federal requirements. If this is the case, we would be pleased to advise you further.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, all replacement lenses are equipment that is subject to Federal notification and remedy provisions if they incorporate a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. In your case, this likelihood may be remote as the item concerned is a simple one, but attention should be paid to quality control.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:ll/3/88

ID: 3151o

Mr. Ernie J. Bunnell
Vice President/General Manager
Pacific T-Top, Inc.
l5241 Transistor Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Dear Mr. Bunnell:

This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1988, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have provided diagrams of two types of deck lid spoiler installations, intended as either OEM or aftermarket equipment, and have asked how these relate to requirements for the center highmounted stop lamp. You understand that the spoiler itself does not have to meet the lighting standard, but would like to comply if possible.

You are correct that the spoiler itself is not subject to the lighting standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08); however, its installation has the potential for creating a noncompliance with that standard. The basic requirements for the lamp is that it must meet the photometric intensities at each of the test points specified in Figure l0 of the standard, and the visibility (and other) requirements of paragraph S4.l.l.41. Photometric testing is conducted according to SAE Recommended Practice J186a, with the photometer at a distance of at least l0 feet from the lamp. Test points lie above and below the horizontal axis of the lamp, and to the left and right of the vertical axis.

According to your first design, the spoiler is "at or below the rear brake light using the 5 degree measurement as a guide." You are correct in taking into account the necessity of meeting the 5 degree down test points. But compliance will be affected by the location of the lamp and slope of the deck lid as well as the shape of the spoiler. The second spoiler is designed "to go over the horizontal intensity of the light." We interpret this as recognition of the need to meet the test points lying 5 and l0 degrees above the horizontal. Our comments are the same as for the first spoiler. In short, if a spoiler design is not vehicle specific there may be no practicable way for you, as the manufacturer of the spoiler, to determine whether its installation would create a noncompliance. If your design is vehicle specific, the SAE photometric test could be conducted with the spoiler installed.

The responsibility for compliance with Standard No. l08 is initially that of the vehicle manufacturer. If the spoiler is installed as part of the vehicle manufacturing process, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards would cover the center lamp with the spoiler in place. But the dealer also must ensure that a certified vehicle remains in conformance at the time it is delivered to its first purchaser. Therefore, a dealer could be reluctant to install a spoiler that is not vehicle specific in the absence of some showing that it does not create a noncompliance with Standard No. l08.

Once the vehicle is sold, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in effect forbids the dealer, or any motor vehicle repair business, from modifications that affect compliance of equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. This prohibition, however, does not extend to the vehicle owner, who may modify the vehicle as (s)he wishes, subject to State laws. We are not aware of any State laws that would forbid spoilers of the designs indicated.

We have enclosed a copy of paragraph S4.l.l.41 and Figure l0 for your information, and appreciate your interest in learning more about Standard No. l08.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:108 d:ll/3/88

ID: 3156o

Mr. A. L. Bragg
Laboratory Manager
Truck-Lite Co., Inc.
310 East Elmwood Avenue
Falconer, NY 14733

Dear Mr. Bragg:

This is in reply to your letter of June 22, l988, to Mr. Vinson of this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

It is your understanding that for purposes of measuring the effective projected illuminated area of a lens, the reflex area, if any, must be subtracted from the total lens area. Your company manufactures a combination lamp which "has four square inches of reflector area and eight square inches of stop, tail and turn area." You have asked if you may advise your customers that this lamp may be used on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more:

"A) Singularly (that is one on each side of the vehicle in the rear) as a stop, turn, tail and reflex reflector?

B) In combination of two's or three's (on each side of the rear of the vehicle), provided that the lamps are separated by at least twenty-two inches?"

Your understanding is correct, that the effective projected illuminated lens area must be determined without reference to any reflex reflector that may be combined with it. If the turn signal function in your lamp is met by one compartment, your lamp is acceptable under "A)." But if the turn signal function is met by more than one compartment, your lamp would not be acceptable as the area of each compartment is less than l2 square inches. With regard to "B)," the lamps could be used in combinations of twos and threes if they are mounted more than 22 inches apart but could not be used if mounted closer than 22 inches. You also asked about the relationship to paragraph S4.1.1.7. This paragraph covers replacement equipment only, without reference to its location on a vehicle. It applies only to turn signal lamps intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, June l966. The current original equipment requirement is SAE Standard J588e September l970.

You should be aware that the Truck Safety Equipment Institute has petitioned for rulemaking the effect of which would be to extend the l2-inch requirement to lamps used on all wide vehicles without reference to the 22-inch spacing. At present the agency is reviewing this petition.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ ref.l08 d:ll/3/88

ID: 3157o

W.E. Baldwin, Ph.D.
President, K-R Industries
418 Crestwood Avenue
Feasterville, PA 19047

Dear Dr. Baldwin:

This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1988, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.5.11(e) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

You have developed a center highmounted stop lamp "containing 5 bulbs, where each bulb is illuminated in sequential order." You state that the "time between each lamp illumination is less than 250 ms, providing a steady photometric value, meeting S4.1.1.41(c)", and that "the red lens of the lamp is steadily illuminated, with the illuminated area moveing (sic) in a back and forth motion." In your opinion, the invention meets the requirement of S4.5.11(e) that lamps, other than those enumerated, be steady-burning.

We cannot provide the interpretation you seek. Under paragraph S4.5.4, "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon activation of the service brakes." This means that all bulbs providing the center stop lamp signal must be simultaneously activated, not sequentially. In addition, we do not consider a lamp with a moving illuminated area to be one that is steady-burning within the meaning to S4.5.11(e).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:ll/3/88