ID: nht90-1.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/90

FROM: JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL

TITLE: U.S. SUES CAR-WINDOW TINTERS -- LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/9 0 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUIT S; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

TEXT: In the automobile-window tinting business, the government says the law is black and white. The defendants say it's not so clear.

The Justice Department sued six Florida companies Wednesday for violating federal safety standards. It says the companies, including two in Central Florida are selling and installing tinting film that is too dark and unsafe for motorists.

But some window tinters say it's the federal government that has kept them in the dark.

They say they've been following Florida law that requires film to let at least 35 percent of the light pass through driver and front seat windows of cars, 1 and 20 percent through rear and back-seat windows.

The company owners say they were unaware they were violating a federal law that requires automobile tint to let through at least 70 percent of the light

David Spearin, operator of Shakespearin Inc. of Holly Hill, said he was shocked when told he was a defendant in the suit. He said he was unaware of the differences in the federal and state laws until told by a reporter Wednesday

"We've never been asked to cease and desist," said Spearin, operator of five car stereo and window tinting stores in Central Florida. "We've never been informed there was any problem. This is amazing.

We are complying with the [Illegible Word] in Florida. If the federal standards are different than the state standards, then they should get together."

Blue Skies Protects, Inc., of Orlando, which operates as Flying Window. Tinters at [Illegible Word]. Semoran Blvd also was named in one of the suits.

"This is total insanity," said Suzanne Turner owner of Blue Skies, "I really feel picked on. I haven't done anything bad." Officials of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Washington and the U.S. attorneys office in Tampa could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Turner and Spearin said they have lost business because they have refused to install film that is darker than allowed by state law. They argue they are legitmate window-tinting firms, compared with other operations that are willing to break the law t o make a buck.

Turner said she received an inquiry from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration a few years ago asking about tinting products and records. She and her husband packed up their records and flew to Washington to investigate the query, but th e agency representative they met with was "incredibly vague," she said.

Her husband, Tom Turner, who operates a Longwood window-tinting company, said federal transportation officials told the couple the Florida guidelines were considered substandard under federal law. He said he informed the manufacturers of the film, wh o are fighting the government standards.

"They should go after the window-tint manufacturers," Spearin said. "They're the ones selling it. We're just the installers."

A spokesman for Martin Energy Products in Fort Lauderdale, makers of car window tint film with more than 300 customers in Florida, said the tinting industry is trying to get uniform legislation passed that would mirror Florida's standards.

"We are before Congress right now trying to make federal standards a 35 percent law," said company spokesman Glenn Hale.

Hale, Spearin and the Turners say that window tint is not the hazard the government says it is. The tint placed on passenger windows of cars prevents glass from shattering in an accident, they say.

Florida Highway Patrol Lt. Randy Harper in Orlando said troopers often write tickets for motorists who have dark windshield film that violates Florida law. Car owners who tint their rear windows are required to install mirrors on both sides of the veh icle, he said. Those who illegally install film darker than allowed by law face up to 60 days in jail and $ 500 in fines.

Harper said dark tinting has contributed to many night accidents investigated by his agency and has prevented motorists from being able to observe the actions of other drivers helpful for defensive driving.

"It's also a problem in law enforcement walking up to a car and not being able to see what is inside," Harper said.

They should go after the window-tint manufacturers. They're the ones selling it. We're just the installers.

-- David Spearin,

Shakespearin Inc.

ID: nht90-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 30, 1990

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

TO: SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- ENGINEERING PRODUCT MANAGER, IDEAL CORPORATION

TITLE: N

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 1-12-90 to Stephen P. Wood from Samuel Kimmelman

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1990. ideal is a manufacturer of aftermarket variable load turn signal flashers, certified as complying with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, for use as replacements for original equipment flashers.

You call our attention to a turn signal indicator system used in some vehicles over the past few years. The system consists of three indicators that flash sequentially when the turn signal is activated. If a turn signal lamp fails, the flasher changes to a higher flash rate so that the third indicator is not illuminated. This signifies to the driver that the turn signal lamp has failed. HoWever, due to differences in operating characteristics between ideal's flashers and original equipment flashers used in these systems, ideal cannot "guarantee our flashers will provide sufficient 'on' time to allow the dash board indicator arrows to reach the 3rd stage as the corresponding turn signal lamps flash within the requirements" of Standard No. 108. You ask whether Ideal can "list our variable load flashers as replacement flashers for vehicles having three (3) growth stage dash board turn signal arrows?"

If ideal cannot be sure that all its flashers will provide the performance for which the triple indicator system is designed, it would seem appropriate to state that these flashers should not be used in such systems. While use of ideal's flashers would n ot appear to affect the operation of the turn signal system itself, the warning feature of the indicator system might not be realized.

However, these remarks are outside the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. As a manufacturer of replacement equipment, Ideal is required only to certify that its turn signal flashers conform to the requirements of Standard NO. 108, which in this instance are those of SAE Standard J590b Automotive Turn signal Flashers, October 1965, incorporated by reference in standard No. 108. Compliance with these requirements is verified through laboratory testing. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 that ideal ensure that its flashers are compatible with the design of any indicator system in which they may be used.

ID: nht90-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/90

FROM: MICHAEL LOVE -- MANAGER SAFETY COMPLIANCE PORSCHE

TO: JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA

TITLE: 49 CFR PART 543 EXEMPTION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE, A 35 PART 543; LETTER FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL ENTITLED PORSCHE'S MODIFIED ANTITHEFT EXEMPTION, LETTER DATED 04/12/90

TEXT: On January 25, 1989, Porsche submitted petitions for exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard under 49 CFR Part 543 for its 1990 (MY) 911 and 928 models. NHTSA granted the petitions on May 26, 1989, on condition that any modifications to the alarm systems require Porsche to re-petition the NHTSA unless the modifications could be characterized as de minimus.

Porsche is planning to make the modifications set forth below to the alarm systems of MY 1991 911 and 928 model lines. For the following reasons, the changes described below should be considered de minimus:

1) The alarm control unit will be integrated with the central locking and interior light control units in order to save space and simplify the vehicle electrical system.

2) The system changes will be virtually transparent to the operator. The system will still be armed by locking either door with the key.

3) All of the same points of entry (i.e., door, hood, hatch, etc.) will be monitored by the system and the engine disabling and alarm features are the same. The system will be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system.

4) The new system will also monitor the glove box for opening. If the glove box is opened while the alarm is armed, the alarm will be set off (this is important for convertibles).

5) The system will have improved diagnostic capability in order to enhance serviceability.

6) The system will have the capability to accept other inputs (such as motion sensors) if they are desired in the future.

Based on the above, we believe that the alarm systems as modified contains all of the functions and features on which NHTSA based its decision to grant the exemptions. For that reason, we respectfully request a ruling from you that the planned modificat ions are de minimus and thus, obviating the need for a formal petition.

If you have any questions, please call me at (702) 348-3198.

ID: nht90-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/90

FROM: STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS

TITLE: LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS THE LAWSUITS CHARGE THE COMPANIES WITH VIOLATING FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS INSTALLING WINDOW TINTING FILM THAT IS TOO DARK AND UNSAFE FOR MOTORISTS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35, VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/9 0 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR - WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TEXT: The owner of a local automobile window tinting business says a federal lawsuit is not going to stop him from serving his customers.

"It's business as usual," David Spearin said Thursday. "It's steady as she goes."

ShakeSpearin's Inc. of Holly Hill was one of six Central Florida businesses named in civil complaints filed Wednesday by U.S. Attorney Robert W. Genzman of Tampa on behalf of the U.S. Justice Department.

The lawsuits charge the companies with violating federal safety standards by installing window tinting film that is too dark and unsafe for motorists.

Federal regulations require automobile glass that allows at least 70 percent light through its surface. The complaints seek to stop the businesses from violating the regulation [Illegible Word] impose civil [Illegible Word] for the violations.

Spearin and owners of several [Illegible Word] cal window-tinging operations [Illegible Word] follow state standards, which [Illegible Word] stringent, and Spearin said he was unaware of the tougher federal rules. State law permits tinting that allow s only 35 percent of the light to pass through windshield and front-seat windows, and 20 percent through rear and back-seat windows.

"We've always complied with Florida statutes and will continue to do so," Spearin said.

Officials with the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration in Washington, which oversees federal highway safety rules, could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Owners of other local companies in the automobile detailing business not named in the lawsuits said they wore nontheless concerned.

"The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration sent us some form a few years back pertaining to the light transmission qualities of the tinting, but that was the last I heard about it until now," said Ray Gordon, owner of Auto Appearance Cent er in South Daytona.

"Tinting that lets 70 percent of the light in is basically what cars come with," he said. "It's just ridiculous why they're doing something like this."

Gordon said he would start abiding by the federal standard, at least until the issue is resolved.

"It's going to wind up scaring customers away right at the peak of the season," he said. "But a law is a law so I'll follow it."

Lance Puckett, owner of Stardrive Detailing and Tinting of Holly Hill, said he got started in the tinting business only recently.

"I've heard the federal law was [Illegible Word] but nobody told me what it was, [Illegible Word] ways followed the state law," he don't do big volume on window but maybe it's time to start [Illegible Word] gurt."

Solar-X of Daytona was the [Illegible Word] in Volusia County to offer tinting, according to owner Brian [Illegible Word]

"My family got into this businesses years ago and there's always [Illegible Word] continuity between federal law [Illegible Word] law," he said. "Instead of wasting payers' money trying to prosecute people, the federal government [Illegible Word] get with the states and draft a [Illegible Word] law."

Martin Energy Products of Fort dale, makers of tinting film, are Congress to make the federal [Illegible Word] percent.

Smith said he's lost business by to install film darker than allow state law.

"I turn people away almost [Illegible Word] said. "I don't do those gangster [Illegible Word] know Dave (Spearin) doesn't either of the smaller shops, for an [Illegible Word] they'll paint your windows [Illegible Word] want. But I see the Florida la w very sufficient and it's going to [Illegible Word] as usual for me."

[POOR COPY]

ID: nht90-1.94

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 30, 1990

FROM: Malcolm B. Mathieson -- Vice President,Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Michael F. Trentacoste -- Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel; Also attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3- 23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598)

TEXT:

Thomas Built Buses, Inc. has recently received a copy of your letter of August 8, 1989, to Ms. Karen Finkel, Executive Director of the National School Transportation Association, Springfield, Virginia. Thomas is vitally concerned with the opinion you ha ve expressed in your letter regarding the requirements for school buses that, by definition are engaged in "interstate commerce", to comply with the non-school bus requirements for emergency exits as specified in FMVSS No. 217, (571.217), as released on September 1, 1973.

Our concern is rooted in the fact that because of the special requirements of school bus seating, it is patently impossible, in many critical applications, to comply with these requirements.

As you are aware, the NHTSA has revised FMVSS 217 subsequent to the September 1973 issue date. We refer primarily to the revisions made effective October 26, 1976 and February 10, 1982. You are probably not aware of two letters of interpretation receiv ed by Thomas Built Buses, Inc. from the Office of Chief Counsel of NHTSA in 1977 and 1984, as well as recent interpretations received from the legal staff of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge et.al., all of which Thomas believes are in disagreement with the opi nion expressed in your letter of August 8, 1989 to Ms. Finkel. We present for your consideration the following items:

1. Prior to the revisions to FMVSS 217 (571.217) by the NHTSA in 1976 and 1982, the language of FMCSR 393.61(b) (2) requiring that "a bus, including a school bus....must conform with NHTSA's 571.217"....left no alternative but that the schoo l bus "engaged in interstate commerce" would have to meet the non-school bus requirements since, because of the exclusion of school buses by NHTSA from these requirements, only non-school bus requirements were spelled out. The 1976 and 1982 Revisions to FMVSS 217 by NHTSA removed the exclusion for school buses spelled out in the September, 1973 version of FMVSS 217 and added specific emergency exit requirements for school buses of all classes.

Currently, with no revisions to the language of section 393.61(b) (2), the reference of 393.61(b) (2) to 571.217 now points the school bus user to the school bus requirements, and not to the non-school bus requirements.

2. In response to questions from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. to the NHTSA re application of FMVSS 217 to school buses, the NHTSA Chief Counsel (Mr. J. J. Levine, Jr., NOA-30, September 29, 1977) verified that paragraph S5.2 containing the requirements for buses other than school buses does indeed apply only to non-school buses. A copy of this letter is attached.

3. In response to questions from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. to the NHTSA, again re applications of FMVSS 217 to school buses, the NHTSA Chief Counsel (Mr. Frank Berndt, letter to Mr. Ron Marion dated July 5, 1984) verified that even in the cas e of school buses that are also used for "charter buses or general transit vehicles", these buses do not need to meet the requirements of FMVSS 217 for non-school buses. A copy of this letter is attached.

4. In a separate review of the facts of this matter by the legal firm of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, N.C., Thomas Built Buses, Inc. has been advised that in their opinion, school buses are not required, in any instance of usage or travel, to comply with the non-school bus requirements of FMVSS 217. A copy of this letter is attached.

Mr. Trentacoste, in light of the information submitted herein, Thomas Built Buses, Inc. respectfully requests that your office review and revise your letter of August 8, 1989 to Ms. Finkel to bring it into agreement with these interpretations.

We appreciate your taking the time to review this material, and look forward to hearing from your office on this matter.

ID: nht90-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 2, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: DENNIS D. FURR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-28-89 TO DIANE STEED, NHTSA, FROM DENNIS D. FURR ATTACHED.

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and to your telephone conversations with this agency concerning school bus safety. You intended your letter to function as a "petition" to amend S4.1 of Federal motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.2229), and Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR S1204.4).

Ms. Fujita of my staff has discussed with you our difficulty in understanding your petition. With respect to Standard 222, your letter did not clearly set forth the facts which you believe establish that an order is necessary (as specified for petitions under 49 CFR S552.4(c)); nor did you set forth the substance of the order which you think NHTSA should issue (S552.4(d)). (Ms. Fujita has since sent you a copy of these requirements.) This information helps NHTSA adequately understand and evaluate pet itions. In the absence of that information, we have attempted to surmise the essence of your request, based on your past correspondence with NHTSA. Please advise us whether our surmise is correct. To avoid the possibility of our acting on the basis of incorrect assumptions, we will take no further action on this matter until we hear from you.

Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 222 states:

The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.

In your past correspondence, you've expressed concerns about overloaded school buses and the manner in which manufacturers designate the passenger capacity of a school bus. you've suggested that S4.1 of Standard 222 contributes to the overloading of scho ol buses, in that it permits manufacturers to designate a 39-inch bench seat as having three, and not two, seating positions. In our responses, we explained that a 39-inch bench seat is calculated as having three seating positions under S4.1 to ensure t hat the seat will be constructed to provide adequate crash protection when occupied by the maximum number of passengers. it is not Standard 222's intention to require or suggest that the seat should be occupied by the maximum number of passengers, althou gh a 39-inch bench seat is capable of carrying three passengers with a hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female. We also said that the number of seating positions derived from S4.1 is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all sizes of occupants. A bus may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students, but only 43

high school students. (Examples of letters regarding your concerns are NHTSA's letters to Senator Donald Riegle (July 5, 1985), and Congressman Howard Wolpe (February 23, 1989).) We would like to emphasize that Standard 222 does not address the capacity of a school bus. The decision regarding how many passengers should be carried by a school bus is made by the States.

NHTSA recommends in Highway Safety Program Guideline 17 that States should plan school bus routes such that each occupant is provided a seat and to eliminate standees. However, the guideline is non-binding on the States, and NHTSA does not have the autho rity to regulate how school buses are loaded.

In your current letter, you imply that manufacturers are improperly calculating the number of seating positions on a bench seat. Information available to NHTSA indicates that manufacturers are calculating the positions in accordance with S4.1.

Since you seem dissatisfied with S4.1, you appear to believe that S4.1 should be changed. We believe you wish to suggest that S4.1's calculation of seating positions should be based on the hip width of a high school student. Under your suggestion, a 39- inch bench seat would be considered to have two seating positions, and not three (as presently calculated). You apparently believe that calculating three positions on a 39-inch seat is one position too many, in that "one third of the school buses' rated capacity (is placed) outside of the head, and leg impact zones' of compartmentalization. We would like to point out that your suggested change would have the effect of reducing the applied forces and energy for testing the seat, thereby creating a poten tially less safe environment for passengers. You also seem to believe that designating three positions encourages school bus operators to overload the seat. We understand you to suggest that S4.1 be amended such that the number of positions on a bench seat is calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded down to the nearest whole number.

As I stated earlier in this letter, the preceding discussion constitutes our understanding of your "petition" on Standard 222. Before we consider your petition further, you must inform us if we are correct in our understanding.

With respect to Guideline 17, there is no available formal procedure under which interested persons may petition for a change to NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guidelines. However, the agency is preparing to issue a Federal Register notice requesting pu blic comments on proposed revisions to the guideline. We will forward a copy of your letter to the appropriate docket once the notice is published.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht90-1.96

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 2, 1990

FROM: Joan E. Fogleman -- Lund & Pullara Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Dept., NHTSA

TITLE: Temporary importation into the U.S. of non-complying vehicle for repairs.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated April 26, 1990 To Joan E. Fogelman and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; Part 591)

TEXT:

Thank you for your time today concerning our phone conversation pertaining to the 1985 non-complying Mercedes 280S vehicle which has arrived at the Port of Palm Beach from Freeport, Bahamas.

As you explained to me today, this vehiele, being imported solely for repair and return to the Bahamas, does not require the posting of a DOT bond for 150 percent of the value.

We will make formal entry with U. S. Customs, and post a Customs bond to cover the liability.

U.S. Customs wants a reassurance that they will not be held accountable if for some unforseen happening, this vehicle is not properly exported.

Your further advice in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

&s vehiele, being imported sole

ID: nht90-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/90

FROM: MANUEL R. GARCIA

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/26/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO MANUEL R. GARCIA; A35; PART 591; PART 592; PART 593; PART 594

TEXT: I am station overseas and work for the US Government in Civil Service. I recently bought a 1974 BMW model 1602 car made overseas.

Please send me information on EPA and Safety requirements the car must conform to before being shipped to the USA. Can I wait until the car gets to the states to make the necessary repairs or conversion to meet the EPA and Safety requirements?

I would also like the publication that covers the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register.

Please send the information to the following address:

Manuel R. Garcia PSC Box 1865 APO NY 09406

ID: nht90-1.98

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 3, 1990

FROM: Harold Williams

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to H. Williams (A36; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); Std. 111)

TEXT:

My company is making a addon passenger mirror wiper for big truck mirrors. It is air operated and hooks into the trucks air system, what we must know is the requirements for materials to be used on a after market product like this, it will hook into the seat or wiper air supply, we are using industrial grade fittings, hoses and valves at this time, and we want to be within the D.O.T. requirements in marketing a after market product like this, would you please send me all the information that you have re garding the rules and regulations in this area, as soon as possible. Thank you very much

ID: nht90-1.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1990

FROM: Richard E. Portors -- Vice President and General Manager, Royale Limousine Manufacturers

TO: Zachary R. Fraser -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from P.J. Rice to R.E. Portors (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Please give me an advisory on my understanding of requirement 571.108 - S4.1.1.41 high mounted stop lamps section (a) projected area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches.

The 90 Cadillac stop lamps measure 6 sq. inches of area. When installing a boomerang TV antenna the shaft area displaces 1.125 sq. inch of area, this would leave an exposed area of 4 7/8" of light and would exceed the minimum requirements of section (a) . Also, section (b) would not be affected by the boomerang. Without window glazing, section (c) would not be affected either. I feel the boomerang antenna positioned properly would not affect the requirements of 571.108.

Please advise me on your findings as soon as possible.

Attached is a copy of the Federal Register, section 571.108, 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-85- Edition), page 218 (text omitted)