ID: nht71-5.9

DATE: 12/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Penn-Ohio Chapter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of November 23, 1971, you asked how your members could make sure that the seat belts they install in their trucks conform to the applicable motor vehicle safety standards. As far as the belts themselves are concerned, each belt made after the seat belt standard (No. 209) became effective in 1967 is required to marked with the year of manufacture. So long as the belt bears a date after 1967, it will have had to conform to the seat belt standard and your members should use the date as a guide in purchasing belts.

The provision of anchorages for the belts is a somewhat more complex problem. A new truck - manufactured after July 1, 1971 is required to have anchorages for lap belts at all seating positions (and, in some cases, anchorages for shoulder belts). Although older trucks were sometimes provided with anchorages, many were not, and for these you will have to follow the location and instructions of Standard No. 210 in order to comply with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Although the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations do not establish strength requirements for anchorages, their strength should be of concern to you and in this area you may have to rely on the manufacturer, rather than the dealer, for advice on reinforcement of the vehicle structure.

Our legal staff is centralized in Washington and there are no field representatives of the agency who could assist you in matters relating to the standards. As much as we would like to send someone to address your group, the workload of the upcoming

months prevents such a trip. However, we have found that many questions can be satisfactorily answered by letter. If your group could assemble a detailed list of questions, we will try to answer them as fully as possible.

ID: nht67-1.28

DATE: 10/04/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 16 in which you attached a letter from your constituent, Mrs. Beverly Hoffman of San Diego. Mrs. Hoffman asked if there is any Federal or state regulation, or city ordinance, which forbids the removal or concealment of passenger seat belts in taxicabs. Mrs. Hoffman has raised an important question and one which is of vital concern to the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966: the retention of a safety equipment in a vehicle after its original purchase.

Since I expect that California law is of most interest to both Mrs. Hoffman and you, I will answer her question on the basis of the California Vehicle Code. Since January 1, 1964, Section 27309 has made it an offense to sell in California any new passenger vehicle which does not have at least two state approved restraint belts or harnesses in its front seat. Retention of the front seat belts by the vehicle owner is indirectly required by Section 40001(b) (2) which makes it unlawful for "an owner to request, cause, or permit the operation of any vehicle which is not equipped as required in this Code." (emphasis supplied) Since California has no annual motor vehicle inspection, enforcement of this law has presumably been by spot inspection. Members of the California Highway Patrol (Section 2804) and city traffic officers (Section 2806) have the authority to inspect a vehicle to determine whether its equipment is in compliance with the code.

With respect to rear seat-belts which most directly concern Mrs. Hoffman as a passenger, their installation has not been required by the Code. Such belts as she may have seen in the rear of California taxis have been provided as a courtesy of the owner rather than as a requirement of the law. But, as she directly notes, all passenger cars including taxicabs manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these, Standard No. 208, will require taxis to be manufactured with lap restraint belts installed in each rear seating position. But if the California legislature has not amended the Vehicle Code itself to require their installation it would appear that there is no legal reason why a cab owner may not remove rear seat belts should he wish to go to the trouble.

Under the Act, the Secretary of Transportation does not have the authority to directly regulate motor vehicles "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." Instead, Congress intended that used vehicles be regulated by periodic state inspection. To implement this intent the Secretary has been directed to study state inspection systems and, in due course, to establish uniform standards applicable to all used motor vehicles. A hypothetical standard and one which we shall consider -- requiring the presence of original equipment safety items at time of each inspection would be sufficient to cover retention of rear seat safety belts. But the Act establishes no requirement that the states or any individual follow any used vehicle standard. For the probable enforcement mechanism of used car standards it is necessary to turn to the companion Highway Safety Act of 1966. Under this Act each state is required to have a highway safety program in accordance with standards promulgated by the Secretary. One such standard, already issued, establishes minimum requirements for periodic motor vehicle inspection. Eventually it is possible that used car standards will be suggested to the states through this motor vehicle inspection standard, but enforcement of the used car standards will be left to the states.

Concerning concealment of the belts, I am aware of no legislation, Federal, state, or municipal, which requires that a safety item not only be retained but also available for use. But I believe that sufficient authority may exist in the Highway Safety Act's mandate to the Bureau to include "vehicle operation" in the highway safety program standards to warrant our serious consideration of it.

I hope that this has answered Mrs. Hoffman's questions and I appreciate her interest in traffic safety.

ID: aiam0593

Dear Mr. Schuppert: This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1971, concerning th Certification regulations, and the regulations governing 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 567, 568). You state that you do not believe the publication of December 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 23571), responds to certain questions you raised in your docket submission of October 27, 1971, and request that we clarify these points for you.; You stated that one problem not dealt with by the amendment of Decembe 10 is that it is impractical for you to place multiple tire sizes (you use an example of nine sizes for one model line) on a small certification label. However, we believe the preamble to the notice of December 10 deals directly with the problem you raise. It said, 'as on some vehicles it will be difficult to affix the required label in the designated location, because of space limitations, . . .' 'multicolumn labels or adjacent labels in two or more parts are permitted.' The provision for listing multiple tire sizes is optional with the manufacturer, and if it presents difficulties a manufacturer may list a single GAWR and GVWR based on the specific tires with which the vehicle, as manufactured, is equipped.; Your letter of October 27, 1971, indicates that you have traditionall furnished a vehicle identification plate with vehicles you manufacture which specifies a 'maximum GVW rating' and you raise questions concerning possible discrepancies between the 'maximum GVW rating' on the Vehicle Identification Plate and 'GAWR' and 'GVWR' on the Certification label. The position taken by NHTSA is that the only values that should be provided for gross vehicle or gross axle weight rating are those on the certification label. Any other capacity placed on the vehicle should be clearly and unambiguously described, and should not be represented in any way that it could be confused with GAWR and GVWR. Furthermore, while the GAWR and GVWR may be placed on a vehicle identification plate in the case of a vehicle for which you are the final-stage manufacturer, it may cause problems if the vehicle is an incomplete vehicle (unless pursuant to S 567.5(b) and 568.7, you as the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assume the legal responsibility for the vehicle). The value on the identification plate might conflict with the GAWR and GVWR placed on the certification label affixed by the final-stage manufacturer.; The answer to the issues raised in your October 27 letter are a follows:; 1. Your first problem appears to be that vehicles previously rated a Class 8 under State law, based on axle capability, will under the definitions of GVWR and GAWR now be Class 7 due to the tires generally furnished with the vehicle. The GVWR rating on the certification label is not intended to replace the method under which vehicles are classified under State laws. If States use GVWR as a basis for classification without understanding that the criteria for determining this figure differ from those used previously, the problem should be brought to the States' attention by affected parties.; 2. Your second and third questions concern the differences between th vehicle identification plate and the GVWR on the certification label when the final manufacturer makes changes in the chassis equipment. Your question appears to assume that you will have the responsibility for the certification label on an incomplete vehicle. This is not the case. Except when the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes complete legal responsibility under S 567.5(b) and 568.7, the certification label including GVWR and GAWR, is the responsibility of the final-stage manufacturer. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer's duty is to furnish information concerning weight ratings and conformity with the standards in the Part 568 document, in which you can easily provide as detailed information as you wish. Any permanent labels that you affix as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer are not part of our regulatory scheme and are your own responsibility. If your own 'identification plate' causes you problems, discontinuing the practice would be a possible solution.; In your question 4, you ask whether the ultimate retail customer i considered a final manufacturer if he makes changes that affect GVWR and GAWR. The answer is that the ultimate retail customer is a final-stage manufacturer if he fulfills the definition of that category in S 568.3. If the vehicle he purchases is an incomplete vehicle as defined in that section, then he has the same responsibility as any other final-stage manufacturer to affix a label with the correct GVWR and GAWR information. If he purchases a complete vehicle, then he is not a manufacturer and need not make changes in the labels regardless of what he does with the tires. Merely changing tires, or purchasing a vehicle complete except for tires, would not make such a purchaser a final-stage manufacturer.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-6.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1995

FROM: Hai Tee Young

TO: Secretary of Transportation, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/15/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Hai Tee Young (A43; Std. 205)

TEXT: I invented and designed slats for passenger transportations (see my disclosure document to Patent and Trade Mark Commisioner), but my patent lawyer thought this is "almost certainly going to be objected to as being hazardous . . . safety regulations preventing this" (see his letter dated August 11, 1995)

But I don't see why this will be objected by law or safety regulation, this is not only no hazardous, on contrary, eliminate hazards. Firstly, if the slats are made of fine and thin materials, those slats will appear as fine lines in driver's and passengers' eyes, it does not hinder driver's sight and vision, Secondly, if the edges of slats are also soft, in a case of car collision, the driver or passengers either sit on front or back seats without fastening belt, their heads and hands hit the glasses, these slats will not make cuts on them, on contrary, will slow down the speed of their bodies to finally hit the glasses, thus reduce the degree of injury. We can even design double glasses and install those slats between the double glasses adjustable by either manually or electric automatic control. There will be no any reason to oppose such a device.

Will Your Honor tell me whether my patent attorney's guess is true that there may exist any law and safety regulation against such kind of device? If there really exist such law and regulation, as my analyses point out above, since my this device makes every good thing without side effects, there shall have no reason to be opposed, but such law and regulation shall be revised.

Please help me with Your Honor's best. This is my beginning inventions, not my ending ones. If I can succeed on those beginning ones, I shall march forward from here toward greater and greatest inventions which will give human being great help. So I bessech you to give me your best help in order to encourage my future real great inventions which can help all mankind greatly.

Looking forward your prompt respond and help,

(Brochure and graphics omitted.)

Enclosure

August 11, 1995

Hai Tee Young 10313 Lower Azusa Road Temple City, CA 91780

Re: SUNSHINE SHELTERS FOR ALL PASSENGERS TRANSPORTATION

Dear Mr. Young:

I am in receipt of your disclosure entitled as above and relating to the use of conventional multiple-slat blinds on windows of automobiles, aircraft, trains, or the like.

Use of blinds or slats on a front window of an automobile or aircraft is almost certainly going to be objected to as being hazardous. If you check, I am sure you will find that there are safety regulations preventing this.

If you find that this is permitted by law, details of the slats' construction, how they are mounted, and, if adjustable, how adjustment is made should be determined before filing a patent application. As I view your disclosure materials, they pertain to a broad "idea" and not to a specific piece of equipment.

I do not take an interest in an invention as payment for patenting services.

Very truly yours, GEORGE J. NETTER, ESQ

ID: nht80-2.15

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: TRW, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 24, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Nicholas M. Stefano Manager, Mechanical Device Development Advanced Systems Engineering TRW, Inc. Building E2, Room 4O62 One Space Park Redondo Beach, California 90278

Dear Mr. Stefano:

This responds to your letter of January 7, 1980, in which you described an automotive, electronic display device being designed by TRW and asked for a legal opinion as to its potential compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. You noted that, upon installation in a motor vehicle, TRW's device would continuously display vehicle and engine speed readings in the form of a bargraph. In potentially hazardous situations requiring the driver to take extra caution or to shut down the vehicle's engine, the TRW device would intermittently interrupt the display of vehicle and engine speeds with sequences of verbal messages. In light of this, you asked whether the fact that TRW's device would not display the vehicle speed during every moment of vehicle operation would prevent it from complying with Safety Standard No. 127.

Based on our understanding of your design, it appears that alternating the display of speed and verbal messages would not violate the standard. Although the future development of electronic digital speedometers was considered in the development of Safety Standard No. 127, the specific type of device described in your letter was not contemplated. The agency had expected that all speedometers would continuously display vehicle speed. While the intermittent display feature would apparently not violate Safety Sandard No. 127 as it is now written, we are concerned about the possible adverse impact upon traffic safety that this feature might have. In particular, we have in mind the effects of a driver's being unable to determine vehicle speed when he or she is approaching or negotiating a curve or exit ramp. Rapid deceleration to a particular speed is typically necessary in auch situations. In the case of a speedometer which periodically does not display vehicle speed for periods of 5 seconds, a vehicle that interval and a vehicle traveling at 40 mph, approximately 300 feet.

Although your alternative mode of operation would reduce this interval through flashing the speed for periods of 0.10 seconds, we question whether such a short period would be sufficient to enable drivers to read their speedometers. We solicit any tests or research that TRW has done on the safety side effects of your design. A member of the agency's accident avoidance division will contact you to discuss this issue further.

In looking at your design, we noted several aspects of it that would apparently not comply with Safety Standard No. 127. The design does not appear to be graduated in both miles and kilometers per hour as required by Section 9.1.2. Further, the design neither has the numeral 55 nor highlights either that numeral or the point at which vehicle speed equals 55 mph as required by section 4.1.5.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter represents only the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not formally render judgment on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the law to determine whether its vehicle or equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

1272.1-80-02 January 7, 1980

Legal Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 127

Dear Sir:

TRW is in the process of designing electronic display devices for the drivers of automobiles, trucks, tractors, off-highway vehicles, and agricultural equipment. One design concept utilizes a fluorescent display tube with 20 character positions which displays in bargraph form the vehicle speed and the engine RPM. The display is driven by a microprocessor. The microprocessor also collects data from a number of sensors that check the water level in the radiator, the water temperature and engine oil pressure. We intend to use the same display tube that shows speed and RPM to alert the driver to (1) conditions requiring caution on his part; or (2) to "dangerous" conditions requiring shutdown of the engine to avoid serious damage to the engine.

The microprocessor can drive the tube to provide a sequence of displays as shown in Figures 1 and 2 attached. In Figure 1 the top line shows a box for each of the 20 character positions. The speed is 48 MPH as indicated by the top bargraph; and the engine is running at 1220 RPM, as seen from the bottom bargraph in the top display. When the microprocessor detects a "caution" or "danger" condition, it immediately removes both bargraph messages and conveys a message to the driver in a series of 0.9 second ON and 0. 1 second OFF displays, as can be seen by reading the messages on each display line, reading from top to bottom.

In the case of the "caution" message, after 5 seconds the bargraphs return to a steady display condition for 15 seconds. The "caution" message is then repeated for 5 seconds, followed by 15 seconds of steady bargraph display. This message mode is continued until (1) the driver takes some action to change the situation; or (2) the situation changes from a "caution" to a "danger" condition. Figure 2 shows what happens in the latter case.

Subject regulation No. 127 does not offer any guidance to the engineer concerned with these new display concepts since the concepts were not anticipated at the time the regulation was prepared. If the legal interpretation is that the driver must have the vehicle speed displayed to him at every moment, an alternative mode of programming the display would utilize the 0.10 second OFF time slot to display the bargraph for MPH. In this case, the MPH information would not be seen by the driver for only 0.9 seconds (instead of 5 seconds, as in the previous sequence mode).

In either scheme, the basic reason for using one tube to display both MPH/ RPM and caution/danger messages is that the driver is constantly scanning MPH and RPM and will therefore be alerted sooner to a potential breakdown. It is also less costly to the truck purchaser because the cost of the second tube and its associated wiring is eliminated.

We would very much appreciate your guidance in this matter. We have talked by telephone to NHTSA technical personnel at your San Francisco and Washington offices and they have advised that we should seek your legal interpretation.

Very truly yours,

Nicholas M. Stefano

NMS:ml Attachments (2): Figure 1. Caution Message Sequence (Typical) Figure 2. Danger Message Sequence (Typical)

ID: nht95-6.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Arent Fox

TO: John Womack, Esquire -- Acting Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (REDBOOK 2; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I am enclosing a copy of a letter you signed on June 6, 1995, to a plaintiff's attorney named C. Rufus Pennington, III, in which you commented on NHTSA's position on "designated seating positions."

In reading your letter, I have concluded that the Agency is not taking a position as to whether there are "designated seating positions" in the rear of the 1979 911 SC Porsche. Could you confirm that I am correct in my conclusion.

I am also satisfied that your letter was not intended to influence any private litigation concerning the 911 SC Porsche. But as the matter has now become an issue, could you advise as to whether the Agency had any such interest.

ID: nht95-4.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Arent Fox

TO: John Womack, Esquire -- Acting Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (REDBOOK 2; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I am enclosing a copy of a letter you signed on June 6, 1995, to a plaintiff's attorney named C. Rufus Pennington, III, in which you commented on NHTSA's position on "designated seating positions."

In reading your letter, I have concluded that the Agency is not taking a position as to whether there are "designated seating positions" in the rear of the 1979 911 SC Porsche. Could you confirm that I am correct in my conclusion.

I am also satisfied that your letter was not intended to influence any private litigation concerning the 911 SC Porsche. But as the matter has now become an issue, could you advise as to whether the Agency had any such interest.

ID: 24100.ztv

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865





Dear Mr. Yousry:

This is in reply to your e-mails of February 21 and 22, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You referenced S5.1.1.18 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which states that a backup lamp is not required to meet minimum photometric values at each test point specified in Table 1 of SAE Standard J593c if the sum of the candlepower measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 2 of Standard No. 108 is not less than the group totals specified in that figure. You have tested a backup lamp that exceeds the 300 cd maximum at test point H-V by 80 cd, but meets the group total requirements, and ask whether the lamp is acceptable.

The answer is no. Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 require back up lamps to be designed to conform with SAE Standard J593c, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under the SAE Standard, when one or more back up lamps are used, the maximum intensity at any point in each lamp must not exceed 300 cd.

The SAE standard establishes 22 discrete test points. Figure 2 of Standard No. 108 clusters these test points into six groups and totals the minimum photometric value of each test point in the group for a group total. If a manufacturer tests a back up lamp for photometric conformance and the lamp does not meet the minimum value specified at any one of the 22 test points, under S5.1.1.18, the lamp will pass the photometric test if the value measured at the failed test point, when added to the measured value of other test

points in the group, results in a total that equals or exceeds the total required for the group as a whole. But Figure 2 in no way affects the limitation of 300 cd imposed by SAE Standard J593c.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/4/02

ID: aiam5267

"Dear Mr. Signorino: We have received your FAX of November 3, 1993 with respect to the trailer conspicuity specifications of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. First, we regret the confusion that has been caused by our letter of October 20, 1993, to James Peepas of Selecto-Flash, Inc., which modified our earlier interpretation dated July 26, 1993. Mr. Peepas has made a number of calls to this Office seeking an understanding of the conspicuity requirements on Maersk's behalf, and, in our view, has pursued the matter with diligence. You have presented three 'Facts' and ask whether each is right or wrong. 'Fact: With particular reference to Maersk Line's prospective order for forty-foot gooseneck chassis (drawing accompanies this fax) your October 20 letter makes clear that calculable conspicuity treatments must not be obscured by trailer cargo.' If calculable means 'required', this is a correct statement. Our letter of October 20 refers to the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) that 'at the location chosen, the strip of sheeting shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo.' 'Fact: In calculating the area of conspicuity treatment for such chassis, the gooseneck section, as it is often hidden from view by mounted intermodal containers (trailer cargo), cannot properly be considered an appropriate site, and' The length of the gooseneck is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of calculating the half length that must be covered by the conspicuity treatment (which, of course, would be greater than half the length behind the gooseneck). There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes the application of auxiliary retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, any conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered. 'Fact: In determining the fifty percent of side surface area to receive conspicuity treatment on such chassis, the length of the chassis, from its rear bolster to its point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus, is solely relevant.' This assertion is wrong, and the correct requirement is most clearly illustrated by the following example. Let us say that the overall length of the trailer is 40 feet, including an 8-foot gooseneck. The amount of the side to be covered is not less than 20 feet. The area to be covered is the 32 feet between the rear bolster to the point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus. Thus, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108. I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: James Z. Peepas";

ID: aiam5066

"Dear Mr. Darby: This responds to your inquiry about whether a warnin device would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR 571.125). You were specifically concerned about the implications of adding a battery operated flashing light to a warning device that otherwise complies with the Standard. You stated that placing flashing lights between the reflex reflectors would enhance the device's conspicuity at night. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the 'Safety Act') gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations. As your letter states, Standard No. 125 applies to 'devices, without self- contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle.' (emphasis added, see section S3) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that the phrase 'self-contained energy sources' includes such things as battery powered lights. Accordingly, a warning device to which a battery operated flashing light was added would not be subject to Standard No. 125. You also asked whether a vehicle required to have three '125 warning triangles' would be required to have three non-lighted complying triangles set out as well. Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate the use of warning devices. I am forwarding your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate some motor vehicle operators and vehicle operations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";