ID: nht95-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 7, 1995

FROM: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 201)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

This letter is in regard to a request for legal interpretation falling under the regulations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201- Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. MGA Research Corporation is an independent automotive safety te sting laboratory. FMVSS 201 falls under my testing responsibilities at MGA. Recently, I was requested to conduct FMVSS 201 impacts on a front bucket seat.

The seat has an inertial latch on the recliner. During the first few tests, the seat back dumped forward due to the inertial latch not engaging. Then, my customer requested that the inertial latch and adjustable tracks be welded in place to avoid th e previous test result. I conducted a test under such conditions and the seat back did not dump forward. In my final test report, my customer would like me to make a statement that says that this seat "passes" FMVSS 201 and all its criteria are met. I would like to obtain a legal interpretation of FMVSS 201 relative to pre- and post-test latch position and its view on inertial latches.

Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: 04-009675drn

Mr. Ira Schaffer
State of New York
328 State Street
Schenectady, NY 12305




Dear Mr. Schaffer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether a Type 2 seat belt for the drivers seating position in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds, may be replaced with a Type 1 belt. You write that owner/operators of the school buses are making changes to their own vehicles. The answer is yes, the Type 2 seat belt may be replaced with a Type 1 seat belt.

Requirements for buses (including school buses) with GVWRs over 10,000 pounds are at S4.4.3, Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. S4.4.3.1 provides that each bus with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds shall comply with the requirements of S4.4.2.1 or S4.4.2.2. Most manufacturers meet S4.4.3.1 by installing a seat belt at the drivers position, as provided in S4.4.2.2Second option -belt system- driver only. S4.4.2.2 states in part:

The vehicle shall, at the drivers designated seating position, have either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to 571.209 of this part [FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies] and S7.2 of this Standard. A Type 1 belt assembly or the pelvic portion of a dual retractor Type 2 belt assembly installed at the drivers seating position shall include either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor.

Thus, for a school bus with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds (manufactured on or after September 1, 1991), FMVSS No. 208 permits the drivers designated seating position to have either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly.

As you are aware, after the first retail sale of a vehicle, 30122 of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Therefore, any modifications to the existing seat belt system made by an entity in the categories listed in 30122 must be made in such a way so that the vehicle continues to conform to existing standards. Since FMVSS No. 208 permits either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at the drivers designated seating position, an entity listed in 30122 may install a Type 1 seat belt assembly (in place of the Type 2 assembly). However, the modification must be made such that the Type 1 seat belt assembly meets the FMVSSs for seat belt strength, webbing, positioning, locking, retraction/stowage, latch mechanism, and other requirements.

It is possible the Type 1 replacement seat belts will not have retractors. As stated above, FMVSS No. 208 requires either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor. Without retractors, it is likely the seat belts would also, not meet the latch mechanism requirement of S7.2 of FMVSS No. 208 which states: "The components of the latch mechanism shall be accessible to a seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions".

Section 30122 does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, the operators may install the lap belts without regard to the "make inoperative" prohibition. However, we strongly recommend that modifications be made without degrading the safety of the vehicles.

Even though the safety standards allow Type 1 seat belts under the circumstances discussed above, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been requiring more seating positions to have Type 2 belts in lighter vehicles. In addition, the bus manufacturer determined that the Type 2 seat belt was appropriate for its bus. Therefore, it is not clear this modification is the best for safety.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208#209#222
d.2/9/05

ID: nht75-2.44

DATE: 12/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; illustration; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letter of November 8, 1975, concerning the design of four headlamps as illustrated in the drawing attached to your letter.

In response to your questions, and also based on our review of your drawing, we offer the following comments:

1. FMVSS No. 108 permits the use of metal-backed headlamp units, provided the units are hermetically sealed.

2. Headlamp units must be indivisible without damage (units with replaceable bulbs do not meet this requirement).

3. Headlamps must be mechanically (Illegible Word).

4. The Type number (1, 2, 1A or 2A) of the headlamp unit must be molded in the lens (see SAE J57lb).

From our review of your drawing, it appears that except for the Type number markings, your headlamps will meet the above requirements and may be used on motor vehicles. This finding does not, however, exempt a manufacturer (of headlamps or vehicles) from certifying that his headlamps conform to all requirements of FMVSS No. 103.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Elwood T. Driver, Director -- Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

November 8, 1975

Subject: Configuration and Definition of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units in use for Motor Vehicles

Dear Sir:

In reference to the sealed beam headlamp units specified in the applicable Standard SAE J579a (- Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles) which is incorporated in Table-1 of the current FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, we hereby would ask you to advise us about the following configuration.

In the sections of Scope and Definitions of the said SAE J579a, it is so prescribed that:

In Scope: "These specifications apply to sealed beam units (hermetically sealed) --------"

In Definitions: "Sealed Beam Unit - An integral and indivisible optical assembly with the name molded in the lens."

Our question is as to whether the four(4) kinds of headlamp unit configuration as shown in the attached sheet, designed under a conception of "hermetically sealed" and "an integral and indivisible optical assembly" could be used for motor vehicles.

These proposed headlamp units are not of All Glass Sealed Beam Units, but are so-called Metal-backed Sealed Units as shown in the attached sheet, and of course, those dimensional, phtometric and other electrical specifications are designed to comply with all requirements of the FMVSS No. 108 S.4.1.1.21, the applicable SAE J579a, J571b and J573d.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your favourable advice on applicability of these Metal-backed Sealed Beam Headlamp Units in use for motor vehicles would be highly appreciated.

Thanking you in anticipation of your prompt reply, and we remain,

Yours faithfully,

M. Iwase -- Chief

Overseas Technical Section, Engineering Department

Attached: Figs showing an proposed configuration.

(Graphics omitted)

FIG. 3:

Recutangular Headlamp Unit with the equivalent configuration to FIG. 1.

FIG. 4:

Recutangular Headlamp Unit with the equivalent configuration to FIG. 2.

ID: 10755

Mr. David T. Holland
President
Europa International, Inc.
1570A Pacheco Street
Santa Fe, NM 87505

Dear Mr. Holland:

This responds to your letter of February 24, 1995, regarding the passive restraint phase-in requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether an importer which "imports Canadian specification MPV's (multipurpose passenger vehicles), such as the Chrysler Minivan, that meets (sic) the MPV passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 ... can count these vehicles toward the required percentage."

Section S4.2.5.6.1(a) states, "(a) vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer." Thus, to determine compliance with the passive restraint phase-in requirements, Europa International should (1) count all trucks, buses, and mpv's with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, (2) count all such vehicles which meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208, and (3) determine if that class of vehicles is a sufficient percentage of the first class of vehicles to satisfy the phase-in requirements. However, as Mary Versailles of my staff cautioned you on the phone, some manufacturers are installing European (face) air bags but are not certifying that vehicles with such air bags meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208. Therefore, you should verify that any vehicle with an air bag is in fact certified to FMVSS 208's passive restraint requirements.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:208 d:4/3/95

ID: tri-mark.rbm

Mr. Larry Wright
RV Market Manager
Tri/Mark
Industrial Park
New Hampton, IA 50659





Dear Mr. Wright:





This responds to your letter asking whether your side door locking system would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (49 CFR 571.206). The answer is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter and presented in subsequent conversations with Rebecca MacPherson of my staff.

You have requested confidentiality of your incoming request, and we have granted that confidentiality. In order to adequately address your request, however, we must provide a brief, general description of your door retention system.

You stated that your side door locking system consists of two separate locks. One can be locked and unlocked from either the inside or the outside of the vehicle. This lock, which is not attached to the door handle, is the vehicle's primary locking system. The second can only be locked from the outside of the vehicle, but when so locked, will not prevent an individual inside the vehicle from opening the door. This lock serves as a security feature when the vehicle is parked. The door may be the only door on the vehicle or it may be supplemental to traditional front doors. It typically would not qualify as a front door because it would generally be located behind the driver seat. ⁽¹⁾

You asked whether your side door locking system would comply with the requirements of S4.1.3, S4.1.3.1, and S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 206.

Paragraph S4.1.3, FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

We have interpreted S4.1.3 to require the following features: each door must have a locking mechanism, and there must be an interior operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. In your letter you state that your system has an interior means for engaging one of the two door locks. Accordingly, the requirement of S4.1.3 would be met.

Paragraph S4.1.3.1, FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Side Front Door Locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

Based on your explanation of your design, it is unlikely that the affected door would qualify as a front door. If it does qualify as a front door, the requirements for S4.1.3.1 would also be met since both locks on your system prevent an individual from opening the door when it is locked.

Paragraph S4.1.3.2, FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Side Rear Door Locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

One of the locks in your system will prevent the door from being opened from either inside or outside the vehicle when the lock is engaged. This lock meets the requirements of S4.1.3.2. The security lock does not meet the requirements of S4.1.3.2. However, this lock is supplemental and is not designed to meet the primary purpose of that section, i.e., preventing individuals from inadvertently opening locked doors while the vehicle is in motion.

Thus, the primary locking mechanism would meet the requirements of either S4.1.3.1 or S4.1.3.2, depending on the placement of the door relative to the driver seat. We note that even though the locking mechanism is not directly linked to the door handle, the door's latch release control, it does render the door handle inoperative since the door remains closed when the locking mechanism is engaged.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or desire additional information, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.7/26/00

1. FMVSS No. 206 defines a side front door as a door that in a side view has 50% or more of its opening area forward of the rearmost point on the driver's seatback when the driver's seat is adjusted to its most vertical and rearward position. The Standard defines a side rear door as a door that in a side view has 50% or more of its opening area rear of the rearmost point on the driver's seatback when the driver's seat is adjusted to its most vertical and rearward position.

ID: nht94-8.16

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Business Distributor Ass'n, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Attorney Advisor, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (Std. 217; USA 103(d)); Also attached to letter dated 2/20/87 from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

I am following up on the fax that I sent to you dated January 12, 1994.

As of this date - I have not received a response, to the question that was raised during our verbal conversation, and which I requested a formal written response in the aforementioned fax.

Will greatly appreciate your follow-up with the written formal response.

Another question has developed pertaining to the implementation of FMVSS 217 (amended). New York State school bus regulations - Chapter VI transportation regulations - article 3 safety part 721 requires two side emergency doors on vehicles of greater than 67 pupil capacity. New York State also - in the past has required the side emergency doors to be "to the rear of center of the passenger compartment?" - they have just recently amended their regulations to conform t the FMVSS as to location "as near center of passenger compartment" - and have also in my reading have required both the left and right side emergency doors in center - BUT not in the same body section. The question is raised by some of the manufacturers/distributors - can the right side emergency door be located to the rear of the passenger compartment?

TEXT OF RICHARD KREUTZIGER'S 1/12/94 FAX TO WALTER MYERS:

In a follow-up to our morning phone conversation of this date, I hereby formally request a written response (preferably by fax) to the point of discussion in reference to the ability of any individual state agency to require that an entity other than a political sub-division of the state (such as a school district) had only to meet the requirements/standards/regulations of NHTSA and not added individual state regulations, even if such regulations exceed the federal standards.

Example: "ABC" Central School - is required in their purchase of a school bus to transport students to and from home to school - and/or to transport students to school sponsored events - such vehicle must meet the prescribed FMVSS and to further meet the individual state regulations that exceed the FMVSS.

"XYZ" Bus Company - has a contract with "DEF" school district to transport the school pupils of the district to and from home to school, and/or school sponsored events. Because this entity is not a political sub-division the

state enforcement agency relating to school bus regulations can not mandate that this private enterprise meet the state regulations that exceed the FMVSS - the only requirements for this private entity and their school buses are those that are mandated by FMVSS.

I hope my interpretation of our phone conversation, reflects your

ID: nht94-1.58

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Business Distributor Ass'n, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Attorney Advisor, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (Std. 217; USA 103(d)); Also attached to letter dated 2/20/87 from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

I am following up on the fax that I sent to you dated January 12, 1994.

As of this date - I have not received a response, to the question that was raised during our verbal conversation, and which I requested a formal written response in the aforementioned fax.

Will greatly appreciate your follow-up with the written formal response.

Another question has developed pertaining to the implementation of FMVSS 217 (amended). New York State school bus regulations - Chapter VI transportation regulations - article 3 safety part 721 requires two side emergency doors on vehicles of greater th an 67 pupil capacity. New York State also - in the past has required the side emergency doors to be "to the rear of center of the passenger compartment?" - they have just recently amended their regulations to conform t the FMVSS as to location "as near center of passenger compartment" - and have also in my reading have required both the left and right side emergency doors in center - BUT not in the same body section. The question is raised by some of the manufacturers/distributors - can the right side emergency door be located to the rear of the passenger compartment?

TEXT OF RICHARD KREUTZIGER'S 1/12/94 FAX TO WALTER MYERS:

In a follow-up to our morning phone conversation of this date, I hereby formally request a written response (preferably by fax) to the point of discussion in reference to the ability of any individual state agency to require that an entity other than a p olitical sub-division of the state (such as a school district) had only to meet the requirements/standards/regulations of NHTSA and not added individual state regulations, even if such regulations exceed the federal standards.

Example: "ABC" Central School - is required in their purchase of a school bus to transport students to and from home to school - and/or to transport students to school sponsored events - such vehicle must meet the prescribed FMVSS and to further meet the individual state regulations that exceed the FMVSS.

"XYZ" Bus Company - has a contract with "DEF" school district to transport the school pupils of the district to and from home to school, and/or school sponsored events. Because this entity is not a political sub-division the

state enforcement agency relating to school bus regulations can not mandate that this private enterprise meet the state regulations that exceed the FMVSS - the only requirements for this private entity and their school buses are those that are mandated b y FMVSS.

I hope my interpretation of our phone conversation, reflects your

ID: 9588

Mr. Allan Garman
M.F. Bank & Co., Inc.
2505 W. 2nd Avenue
Suite 14
Denver, CO 80219-1655

Dear Mr. Garman:

This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about the responsibilities of various parties after child restraint systems have been involved in a collision and fire during transit from the manufacturer (Gerry Products) to a retail outlet (Toys R Us). I apologize for the delay in responding.

You indicate in your letter that the child restraint manufacturer, Gerry Baby Products, has determined that the DOT certification on the child restraints is no longer valid because the restraints were subjected to potential stress by the impact of the truck accident. We understand from your letter that M.F. Bank is storing the child restraint systems damaged in transit, and is prepared to liquidate the stock if directed to do so by the insurer of the transit company. However, the insurer has asked that M.F. Bank ask this agency whether the child restraint systems involved in the loss can be sold as salvage to the public. You state your belief that the systems are salvagable because they did not experience structural damage in the incident.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. sections 1381 et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR '571.213) to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs or is not covered by a certification of compliance with the applicable FMVSSs. Thus, each new child restraint system must comply with FMVSS No. 213 and must be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold.

You first ask whether Federal law would prohibit the sale of the child restraint systems as salvage. The answer is yes, since according to your letter and telephone call, Gerry has indicated that its certification is no longer valid, and has thereby withdrawn the certification. If the child seats are not certified, selling them would violate '108(a)(1)(A). Section 109 of the Act provides any violation of Section 108 is punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations.

You ask in your telephone call whether Federal law prohibits Gerry from concluding that the certification remains valid. If your question is whether the Safety Act or our regulations require Gerry to withdraw the certification simply because the seats were involved in an incident, the answer is no. However, '108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from certifying that a child restraint system complies with Standard 213 if that person, in the exercise of due care, has reason to know that the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Gerry is therefore required by the Safety Act to withdraw the certification of the unsold seats if it believes the certification is invalid. If a manufacturer determines, for any reason, that the unsold seats do not comply, NHTSA will not second guess the decision to withdraw the certification.

Finally, you ask if it would be possible for NHTSA to send someone to your warehouse to inspect the child restraint systems to determine whether the systems comply with FMVSS No. 213. The answer is no; NHTSA does not inspect products for compliance outside the context of its enforcement activities. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which child restraint manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you need further information, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#VSA d:5/31/94

ID: nht94-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/21/94 From Allan Garman To Walt Myers

TEXT: Dear Mr. Garman:

This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about the responsibilities of various parties after child restraint systems have been involved in a collision and fire during transit from the manufacturer (Gerry Products) to a ret ail outlet (Toys R Us). I apologize for the delay in responding.

You indicate in your letter that the child restraint manufacturer, Gerry Baby Products, has determined that the DOT certification on the child restraints is no longer valid because the restraints were subjected to potential stress by the impact of the tr uck accident. We understand from your letter that M.F. Bank is storing the child restraint systems damaged in transit, and is prepared to liquidate the stock if directed to do so by the insurer of the transit company. However, the insurer has asked that M.F. Bank ask this agency whether the child restraint systems involved in the loss can be sold as salvage to the public. You state your belief that the systems are salvagable because they did not experience structural damage in the incident.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. sections 1381 et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new m otor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR @ 571.213) to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs or is not covered by a certification of compliance with the applicable FMVSSs. Thus, each new child restraint system must comply with FMVSS No. 213 and must be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold.

2

You first ask whether Federal law would prohibit the sale of the child restraint systems as salvage. The answer is yes, since according to your letter and telephone call, Gerry has indicated that its certification is no longer valid, and has thereby wit hdrawn the certification. If the child seats are not certified, selling them would violate @ 108(a)(1)(A). Section 109 of the Act provides any violation of Section 108 is punishable by civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

You ask in your telephone call whether Federal law prohibits Gerry from concluding that the certification remains valid. If your question is whether the Safety Act or our regulations require Gerry to withdraw the certification simply because the seats w ere involved in an incident, the answer is no. However, @ 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from certifying that a child restraint system complies with Standard 213 if that person, in the exercise of due care, has reason to know that th e certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Gerry is therefore required by the Safety Act to withdraw the certification of the unsold seats if it believes the certification is invalid. If a manufacturer determines, for any reason, that the unsold seats do not comply, NHTSA will not second guess the decision to withdraw the certification.

Finally, you ask if it would be possible for NHTSA to send someone to your warehouse to inspect the child restraint systems to determine whether the systems comply with FMVSS No. 213. The answer is no; NHTSA does not inspect products for compliance outs ide the context of its enforcement activities. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which child restraint manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you need further information, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/88

FROM: SPENCER A. DARBY -- SATE-LITE MFG CO

TO: JOAN TILGHMAN -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 125

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/07/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO SPENCER A DARBY, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 125; TELECOPY DATED 08/30/88 FROM SPENCER A DARBY TO JOAN TILGHMAN RE 2166

TEXT: Dear Ms. Tilghman:

Sate-Lite Manufacturing Co. is one of the countries leading manufacturers of FMVSS 125 complaint Emergency Warning Triangles, and has been so since 1974. In a recent engineering review of the current FMVSS 125, some serious concerns have arisen, and I w ould appreciate your interpretation of the three areas stated below.

We understand that the applicable law requiring the three bi-directional emergency reflective triangles to be carried by vehicles over 80" wide used in" interstate commerce is a requirement of the Federal Highway Administration. And we further understan d that the triangles when used must be in conformance to FMVSS 125 as administered by NHTSA.

QUESTION #1: If the FHA requires three triangles, and since Para S5.1.5.(c) requires that "Figure 3" be included in the instructions for erection, why does Figure 3 show a passenger vehicle with only one triangle erected? For years Sate-Lite has placed the generally accepted diagrams for the over 80" tractor-trailer rig on either a divided highway, or a two lane highway on the inside of the container for the three triangles, as well as on the lower arm of the individual triangle, (see enclosed samples) per the S5.1.5.(c) requirement and is now concerned about the correctness of this practice. When used by the trucking industry, are these currently used diagrams correct, and in compliance with the requirements of S5.1.5?

QUESTION #2: More and more single triangles are being used in a non-required manner by passenger cars, especially the European imports. For this application, Sate-Lite has included on the inside cover of the single triangle container the "Figure 3" diag ram for proper erection of a single triangle when used by a passenger car. However, the triangle itself does not have the single triangle placement diagram for lack of room on the moldings. It is our opinion that since the single triangle is not regula ted for under 80" vehicle width usage, and since the usage by a passenger car owner is voluntary, the diagram does not have to be on the triangle itself. Is this a correct assumption?

QUESTION #3: Should not FMVSS 125 be amended to include a "Figure 4" for over 80" vehicles on a dividend highway, and a "Figure 5" for over 80" vehicles on a two lane highway? And if amended, should not Para S5.1.5 be revised to include specific ere ction requirements depending on the type vehicle?

As a major supplier of the Emergency Warning Triangles to the industry, we are naturally concerned. Our sales are to a few OEM Lighting manufacturers, or representatives, who then resell them to the ultimate consumer. We have no control over the end us age, and would not know if it were to be used as required by the FHA on over 80" wide trucks, or individually by the driver of an automobile or van. I can see problems arising if we were required to manufacturer two or three versions of the triangle, di ffering only in the erection diagram molded into the lower arm. Please advise

If I have raised more questions than I have asked, please feel free to call me at 312-647-1515 and we can discuss them of the phone.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

ENCLOSURE