Interpretation 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