ID: nht79-4.38

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo USA Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 26 1979

NOA-30

Mr. M. Ogata Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Ogata:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the labeling requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You ask whether the brand name of your vehicles, "Mazda", may be dropped from the label on your seat belts.

The answer to your question is yes. Paragraph S4.1(k) of Safety Standard No. 209 requires the seat belt label to include year of manufacture of the assembly, model name or number of the assembly, and trade-mark of manufacturer or distributor. The name of the vehicle on which the assembly will be installed is not required to be on the seat belt assembly label.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 6, 1979

Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear sir,

RE: Request for Interpretation of MVSS 209

Enclosed please find a copy of our seat belt label that we manufacture according to MVSS 209, 4.1 (k). As can be seen on the label, we show the year of manufacture, the model and the name or trademark of manufacture as follows:

MFD. DATE: 1977 MODEL NO: NSB5YB10 MFD. BY NSK-WARNER K.K. FOR TOYO KOGYO CO., LTD.

We have shown the brand name of our vehicles, "MAZDA" on the top of the label for many years.

Presently, we are thinking about deleting the word "MAZDA". Is this possible?

Your earliest response would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

M. Ogata Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Office

Enclosure

ID: nht79-4.39

DATE: 08/03/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1979, letter asking two questions about the test procedures of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention, as they apply to buses you manufacture.

First, you ask whether side service doors can be counted in determining the proper amount of bus emergency exits as required by the standard. As long as side service doors comply with all requirements applicable to emergency doors, they can be considered emergency exits for purposes of compliance with the standard.

Your second question asks whether glazing in a door is tested for window retention, and if so, whether it is tested while the door is installed in a bus. The answer to both parts of this question is yes. All bus glazing, that is of the minimum size specified in the standard, must comply with the window retention requirement. The intent of the window retention requirement is to prevent openings in buses that might result in the ejection of occupants from the vehicle during an accident. In order for this requirement to have meaning, the glazing must be tested as it is installed in the vehicle to ensure the integrity of both the glazing and its surrounding structure. This means that glazing in vehicle doors is tested while the door is in the normal closed condition. If the door opens during the test, the vehicle would not be in compliance with the requirements.

SINCERELY,

Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

JULY 16, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Sir,

This company was the designer and manufacturer of the Orion Mid size Transit bus.

More recently the deliveries to the U.S. market have been taken over by Transportation Manufacturing Corporation of Roswell, New Mexico, who manufacture and market the buses in the U.S.A. under the "Citycruiser" trade name.

A query has arisen concerning the application of MVSS 217 to this model bus on a point that was raised before the introduction of the model and for which a verbal answer was given when the prototype was presented in Washington on October 5th 1977.

The point at issue was to what extent and under what Criteria the service doors can be considered as "unobstructed openings for emergency exit" as required in S 5.2 (provision of emergency exits) and more particularly the "side exits" as required in S 5.2.1 (Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds).

It was verbally confirmed at the time that service doors could be regarded as side exits for emergency exit, provided they met the requirements of S 5.3 (Emergency exit release), S 5.4 (Emergency exit extension) and S 5.5 (Emergency exit identification). Official confirmation of the above is hereby requested.

Finally, a clear ruling was not given on the application of S 5.1 Window retention when applied to the glazing in service doors. It is reasonably clear that the glass in the door frame should meet the requirements. It is less obvious that the door in its frame, when used as a service door, must meet this requirement, ie. the glass be tested in the door, the door being in the bus.

If not, does this requirement become mandatory, when the service door is designated as a side exit?

The doors are presently being constructed so as to meet this requirement, but a ruling on this point is hereby requested.

CC: E. CUMMINGS -- TRANSPORTATION MFG. CO.

ID: nht79-4.4

DATE: 11/02/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 11, 1979, requesting our opinion concerning the proper designated seating capacity of the rear seat in your 1981-model AMC Spirit.

You state that the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat will have approximately 43 inches of hip room. The amended definition of designated seating position specifies that any position likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position, and includes a caveat that bench or split-bench seats having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions. Since the hip room in the rear seat of the 1981 Spirit will be well below the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition, and since you state that the rear seat will be contoured for two persons with distinct recessed areas for each person's buttocks, we conclude that this particular seat would qualify as a two-passenger seat. Under the definition, whether a particular position is "likely to be used" is determined by the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design. Given the limited amount of hip room and the configuration of the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat, it is not likely that more than two persons will occupy the seat.

American Motors Corporation

October 11, 1979

Joan B. Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

This letter addresses our intended passenger seating designation for the rear seat of our planned 1981 model AMC Spirit. We believe our plans are consistent with the intent of the NHTSA. We have based our designation upon our perception of "likely use" as we interpret the history surrounding the definition of designated seating position as published by the NHTSA as 49CFR Part 571.3.

The designation definition was the subject of a rather lengthy discussion at a periodic DOT/Industry meeting conducted in Ann Arbor, Michigan on August 15, 1979. The discussion essentially focused to the confusion surrounding the criteria for establishing the seating capacity of small-car rear seat with hip space less than 50 inches. The NHTSA counsel at the meeting reported to those present that a small-car rear seat with hip space well below 50 inches would not likely be considered a three-passenger seat by the NHTSA.

Our planned 1981 AMC Spirit rear seat has approximately 43 inches of hip space. The seat cushion is contoured for two persons with distict recessed areas for each person's buttocks loacted essentially aft of the two front-seating positions. The recessed areas result in a lower "H" point at the two intended seating positions and thereby provide incremental headroom. The seat is essentially unchanged from our 1979 and 1980 models which we have designated as a two-passenger configuration.

We are planning to designate the 1981 AMC Spirit rear-seat configuration as two-passenger. We believe our determination conforms with the subjective criteria for seating designation specification, as defined, and is responsive to the likely use of Spirit owners. However, to assure avoidance of any post-production discussion of compliance, we hereby ask you and your staff to review our particular configuration and advise us of your determination. We request your concurrence with our two-passenger designation conclusion prior to November 1, 1979.

Thank you for your consideration.

K. W. Schang Director - Vehicle Safety Programs

ID: nht79-4.40

DATE: 09/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1979 asking whether a nonconforming vehicle imported for testing must be removed from the public roads, at the end of one year, if NHTSA has not acted upon the importer's request for an extension of time.

This will confirm that the discussion which your Mr. Reed had with our Mr. Vinson is accurately reflected in your letter. If an application for an extension of time has been filed in accordance with 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(2) for a vehicle imported under 12.80(b)(1)(vii), the vehicle may continue to be operated upon the public roads until final disposition of the petition has been made. Permission to use the roads is considered a "license" and the principle of 5 USC 558(c) is operative: if a government agency receives an application for renewal of a license before it expires, the license continues in effect until final action has been taken on the request for renewal.

I trust that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht79-4.41

DATE: 11/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Delta Six Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 6, 1979, asking for our concurrence in your understanding of your obligation in importing trailers in kit form.

The pertinent part of your letter reads:

"Mr. Vinson advised me that so long as the kits included all proper lighting, rims and tires placards, name plates, etc., as required to be in compliance with Federal standards for such trailers, and adequate written instructions are included with the kit to insure proper assembly, there would be no legal problem preventing the sale of these kits in the United States."

Your understanding is correct. The kit's lighting equipment must meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) and the instructions should indicate installation in locations meeting the requirements of that standard. Tires and rims must comply with Standards Nos. 119 and 120 respectively (49 CFR 571.119, 571.120), and a certification label must be included, to be affixed by the assembler, that conforms to 49 CFR Part 567.

SINCERELY,

DELTA SIX INDUSTRIES, INC.

November 6, 1979

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

During my visit to Washington I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office on October 10, 1979. At that time we discussed the question of importing a small trailer manufactured in Germany for sale in the United States in kit form. My question was, is there any legal problem which could prevent the sale of these import kits in the United States? Mr. Vinson advised me that so long as the kits included all proper lighting, rims and tires, placards, name plates, etc., as required to be in compliance with Federal standards for such trailers, and adequate written instructions are included with the kit to insure proper assembly, there would be no legal problem preventing the sale of these kits in the United States.

On the basis of the above comments by Mr. Vinson we are proceeding with negotiations to enter into this program. If there is any reason in your judgment to change or modify the above, please advise us as soon as possible by return mail. In any event, I would appreciate a letter of concurrence from your office that the above is accurate.

B. Kreitzer

ID: nht79-4.42

DATE: 05/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Show Associates

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1979, asking two questions about a 1977 Ford van of Canadian manufacture that you "take to the U.S. for various shows."

Your first question is:

"1. Our query: - with the new C & S Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulation, what effect will this have on our crossing the border."

I assume you are referring to the amendment of certain U.S. importation regulations effective January 3, 1979, governing motor vehicles and equipment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80). The most significant change is the requirement that each importer must file a declaration concerning compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards, at the time of importation. This requirement may be waived for vehicles of Canadian registry at the border if they conform to U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards and bear the certification label required under U.S. law. This is the "sticker" referenced in your letter.

"2. Is there an inspection certificate we can pick up at the border point to affix to our van to state we comply with the standards."

No. The certificate is that which is affixed by the original manufacturer at the time of manufacture.

It is the agency's policy to require compliance of Canadian-registered vehicles to U.S. requirements if a substantial portion of their operation is on U.S. roads, one example being trucks that haul goods over the border on a day-to-day basis. You do not state the frequency with which you enter the United States and it is possible that Customs officials may consider you in this category.

Several other provisions might apply to you. A non-resident of the U.S. may import a non-conforming vehicle for a period of up to 1 year, for his personal use (19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(v)), and the requirement for a declaration may be waived at the border. Obviously this provision contemplates an extended visit and not frequent border crossings. Under another provision, 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii), a non-conforming vehicle may be imported for "show" provided that it is not licensed for use on the public roads. Thus, use on private property such as show grounds would be consistent with this form of entry. However, a declaration must be filed.

I am enclosing a copy of the regulations for your information.

SINCERELY, February 20, 1979

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Dear Sir:

With reference to C & S Motor Vehicle Safety Standards we have a query which I hope you can answer.

We have a fully customized '77 Ford Van that we take to the U.S. for various shows. Although the van exterior-wise has been drastically changed, the mechanical has not been altered. All emission controls and so forth are still intact.

Our last couple of times across the border (Windsor/Detroit) customs officers were looking for a particular sticker.

The van was completely repainted and all stickers removed save for the identification plate and serial number.

The van is of Canadian manufacture. 1. Our query: - with the new C & S Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulation, what effect will this have on our crossing the border.

2. Is there an inspection certificate we can pick up at the border point to affix to our van to state we comply with the standards.

3. The van is always trailered and driven only during July and August.

Thanking you for your co-operation in this matter.

SHOW ASSOCIATES

Bruce L. Robertson

ID: nht79-4.43

DATE: 08/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bernard Olcott

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 10, 1979 informing us of your wish to import a 1972 Austin taxicab "for purposes of show on my private Southampton, New York property." You have assured us that "it will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads," and you have asked if we will accept an affidavit for these facts so that you may import the taxi without the necessity of bringing it into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Since you are an attorney you know that under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii) a noncomplying vehicle may be imported for "show" without the necessity of posting bond and conforming it. This exception is available for vehicles of technological or historical significance manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, intended for static display to the general public by motor vehicle manufacturers, museums, or other institutions. The Austin taxi and its use on private property do not appear to fall within this exception and we therefore cannot accept an affidavit from you.

However, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance is willing to advise you of the modifications necessary to bring the Austin taxi into compliance as several of them have been brought into the country in recent years. You should write the Director of that office, Francis Armstrong, for further information if you decide to import the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

July 10, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Sir:

I am planning to import a 1972 Austin London Diesel Taxicab for purposes of show on my private Southampton, New York property. It will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads. I am a member of the Bar of the State of New York.

Will your office accept an affidavit from me for all the facts indicated above so that I can import such car by using Form HS-7 and indicating my compliance with Paragraph 7.

Bernard Olcott -- PATENT ATTY.

ID: nht79-4.44

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Montgomery Tire Service Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1979, with respect to your wish to import used truck tire casings for the purposes of recapping. You have been advised in a telephone conversation with our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that there are two ways to do this: the casings must bear DOT markings, or be accompanied by some proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975, the effective date of the truck tire standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. You believe that this is impossible and have requested our advice.

There is an additional solution whose feasibility we will leave to your determination. While Section 108(a)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as we interpret it, prohibits the importation of used truck tires that do not comply with Standard No. 119, Section 108(b)(3) (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)) allows their importation under bond "to insure that any such [tire] will be brought into conformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard" (The corresponding provision of the importation regulation is 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(3)). Since the agency presently has no standard that applies to the retreading of truck tires, the applicable standard would be that in effect when the tire was new - Standard No. 119. Thus, if Montgomery Tire Service can demonstrate that its retreaded truck tires conform to Standard No. 119, and are willing to affix a DOT symbol to each tire as certification of that fact, your casings may enter the country under bond as provided for in 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(3), releasable when upon an affirmation of compliance to Standard No. 119.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Montgomery Tire Service, Inc.

April 26, 1979

National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

Chief Counsel

Subject: Interpretation of existing ruling on importing worn (used) truck tire casings.

Sirs:

Having recently imported from England a shipment of used truck tire casings (tires worn smooth) for the purposes of recapping, we are now told we cannot use these casings.

This was brought to light by John S. Conner, Inc. of Baltimore, acting as brokers for this incoming shipment. It was brought to their attention by newly installed D.O.T. form #HS-7 which they were not familiar with prior to this time.

Having personal knowledge of these casings having been entering this country and having been recapped by other retreaders throughout the U. S. for quite a lengthy period of time we ask your indulgence in our first venture of this nature. As a point of information; I might say that the quality of these casings is much superior to their American made counterpart.

In phone conversation with Mr. George Shifflett of your Department, Mr. Shifflett informed me that the casings have to fall in either one of two categories; that is, (#1) having to have D.O.T. markings, or (#2) information to the fact that they were manufactured prior to March 1, 1975, the date Standard #119 took effect. This is nigh onto impossible.

Needless to say, we would appreciate your indulgence in clarifying this matter; as we have quite an investment involved, and I'm sure customs have time limits before penalties are imposed.

Assuring you of our proper intent, and not choosing to interpret a ruling of which we have no knowledge, we are holding these casing in our warehouse awaiting an interpretive ruling from yourselves concerning our using and recapping said casings.

Awaiting your reply, I remain,

Sincerely,

Raymond L. Smallwood Retread Plant Manager

C.C.: ORION YOUNG -- John S. Conner, Inc.;

Ref. #111755

ID: nht79-4.45

DATE: 01/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHSTA

TO: Grumman Flxible

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

JAN 11 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. L. Ratz, P.E. Product Safety Engineering Grumman Flxible 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43015

Dear Mr. Ratz:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1978, asking whether the front and rear clearance lamps on your Model 870 Urban transit coach comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The front clearance lamps on the Model 870 are combined with the turn signal lamps, side marker lamps, and side reflex reflectors. The units are located "on line with and just outboard of each rectangular headlamp," with lens center 32 inches above the road surface, at a point that appears to be at the vehicle's overall width. The rear clearance lamps are combined with the stop lamps and rear side marker lamps, their horizontal center lines 64 inches above the road surface, at approximately the vehicle's overall width. Front and rear identification lamps are mounted at the top of the vehicle.

The general rule expressed by Table II of Standard No. 108 is that clearance lamps must be mounted "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle ... and as near the top thereof as practicable." But a partial exception is provided by S4.3.1.4.: When the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle."

This means that the mid-body location of the rear clearance lamp is acceptable since the rear identification lamps are at the extreme height of the vehicle. But the exception does not extend to the front clearance lamps. While Standard No. 108 allows the manufacturer to determine what location is "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle", there will be instances when the overall width of the vehicle will not be indicated by the highest location. In such instances the best location will be the one that most closely approximates the intent behind the requirement - to indicate the overall width.

Specifically with reference to the Model 870, it appears to us that the close proximity of the combination lamp to the headlamp may result in the effectiveness of the clearance lamp being impaired by the brightness of the headlamp, and that the most practicable location sufficiently indicating the overall width of the vehicle, would be at the outer edges of the body directly below the windshield.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel

GRUMMAN FLXIBLE 970 PITTSBURGH DRIVE DELAWARE, OHIO 43015 614/369-7671 Telex : 245484 70-0220rlr

December 8, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

References: (a) FMVSS No. 108. Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, current edition. (b) Grumman flxible Model 870 Advanced Design Transit Coach, photographs attached. (c) Certificates of conformance copies attached.

Dear Sirs:

Your assistance is requested with respect to an official interpretation of reference (a) above as it relates to the installation location of the clearance lamps on our new Grumnan Flxible Model 870 urban transit coach as shown in the enclosed photographs.

Refering to Photograph #1, the amber lamp seen on line with and just outboard of each dual, rectangular headlamp is a combination lamp which performs the functions of a turn signal lamp, a clearance lamp, a sidemarker lamp and a side reflex reflector. The lamp contains a single, dual-filament bulb. A 3 c.p. filament provides the light source for the combination clearance/sidemarker lamp functions. and a 32 c.p. filament provides the light source for the front turn signal function. This lamp has been certified as being in conformance with FMVSS No. 108 by the manufacturer (See Attachment #1) and certificates of approval have been issued by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (See Attachment #2) and the Department of California Highway Patrol (See Attachment #3). These lamps are mounted with lense centers 32 inches above road surface, on the outermost edges of the vehicle front view envelope thus indicating the overall width of the Model 870. It should be noted from Photo #1 that the vehicle sides converge from a point just beneath the baseline of the windshield up to the topmost roof corners. The amount of this convergence is such that each roof corner is eleven inches inboard if the base of the windshield cornerpost. Therefore, clearance lamps mounted at the top-most roof corners would identify the vehicle as being twenty-two inches narrower than it actually is.

Our rear exterior lamp configuration is shown in Photo #4. The upper red lamp on each outer edge of the rear view functions as a stop signal lamp, a clearance lamp and a sidemarker lamp. The horizontal center line of this lamp as installed is 64 inches above road surface. The lower red lamp functions as a tail lamp, a turn signal lamp, rear reflex reflector and a side reflex reflector. It's horizontal center line as intalled is 50 inches above road surface. Each lamp contains a single, dual-filament 3 c.p. & 32 c.p.) bulb. The stop signal and turn signal functions utilize the 32 c.p. filament. The clearance, sidemarker and tail lamp functions utilize the 32 c.p. filament.

The white lamp shown between the two red lamps on each side are backup lamps. Attachments #4, #5 and #6 are copies of the certificates associated with these lamp units.

We would greatly appreciate a review and evaluation by the Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, of the installation locations of the clearance lamps on the Model 870 bus as regards to conformance with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

Sincerely,

R.L. Ratz, P.E.

Product Safety Engineering

Enclosures

ID: nht79-4.46

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: LEO BACHYNSKY -- R.E. DIETZ COMPANY

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/01/79, FROM FRANK BERND -- NHTSA TO LEO BACHYNSKY; OPINION BOOK; STANDARD 108, A17

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Our company is presently developing a new product and is in need of a clarification concerning the legality of the proposed product as it pertains to FMVSS 108.

Briefly, the device is a bi-directional Emergency Vehicle Warning Lamp consisting of two 7-1/2 inch diameter lenses. The lenses contain a 5/8 inch wide band of reflex reflector around their periphery. The two lenses are locked to a mounting flange by a special locking feature and two screws. When mounted, the device will have one lens facing to the front of the vehicle and the other to the rear. The device is to be supplied in a variety of colors, red, yellow, blue, and can be used in either a steady or flashing state.

We manufacture a similar device less the reflex reflector area and previous sales data indicates the majority of the market for this type of device is for tow trucks and utility company vehicles.

We are aware of the fact that Emergency Warning Lamps are not regulated by FMVSS 108 or any other Federal standard, but rather our questions concern the reflex reflector area in the device.

The areas that need clarification with respect to our application are the following:

1. Paragraph S.4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 - "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by this standard."

Does this Paragraph S.4.1.3. restrict the use of the reflex reflector in our proposed device as imparing effectiveness of required equipment?

2. Do Tables 1-4 of FMVSS 108 "Required Equipment for Motor Vehicles" and "Locations of Required Equipment" restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear of the vehicle?

An early reply will be appreciated.

Enclosed is our blueprint of the subject device and an advertising poster showing exact application of the intended device.

Sincerely,

Enclosure (2)