ID: nht72-3.44

DATE: 05/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kangol Magnet Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your telegram of April 4, 1972, in which you asked whether it is permissible for the engine starting system of a vehicle conforming to the interlock requirements of Motor Vehicle Standard No. 208 to be operable when there are no occupants in the front seats by reaching through an open door or window to turn the ignition key.

Our reply is that the standard does not prohibit a system that operates in this way. Such a system is therefore permissible.

ID: nht92-8.33

DATE: March 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marc C. Gravino, Esq. -- Williams & McCarthy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Marc C. Gravino to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6960)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 7, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, you ask whether the standard contains any requirement that the parking lamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps operate independently of the ignition switch so that when they are activated they will remain activated regardless of whether or not the ignition switch is in the on or off position. You have reviewed Standard No. 108, and reference paragraphs S5.5.3, S5.5.4, S5.5.5, and S5.5.7, copies of which you have enclosed.

The answer is no. Under paragraph S5.5.5, the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is required to operate independently of the ignition switch, but no other lamp is required by the standard to do so.

ID: aiam5517

"Dear Mr. Brauninger: This responds to your letter asking whether window shade intended for use on an automobile is motor vehicle equipment. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. From the materials you sent us, we assume that you are referring to the roll-down shades that suction onto the rear side window of vehicles, usually for the purpose of keeping the sun off the faces of children strapped into child safety seats. The answer to your question is yes. The window shades are an accessory (a type of motor vehicle equipment) under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7). As explained in my September 16, 1994, letter from this office to Mr. Harleigh Ewell of your office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an 'accessory.' The two criteria are whether: (1) A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, and (2) it is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to the window shades, we conclude that they are accessories. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. We assume that the window shade you are referring to has packaging that shows that its purpose is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun while the vehicle is in operation. The shade would typically be acquired and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle). Since the shade satisfies both criteria, it is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has issued no safety standards that apply specifically to window shades that are sold separately from the vehicle. However, as you know, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are responsible under our statute for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you will send us the information you have regarding the incidence of accidents caused by these window shades, we will forward it to the appropriate NHTSA office. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht74-2.13

DATE: 09/30/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nabors Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 21, 1974, question whether a "logging pole trailer", which consists of a beam to which an axle-mounted bolster can be clamped at different points to accomodate different log lengths, qualifies as a heavy hauler trailer as that term is defined in Standard No. 121, Air brake systems:

"Heavy hauler trailer" means a trailer with one or more of the following characteristics:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent "front-end structure" as that term is used in @ 393.106 of this title.

This also acknowledges receipt of your September 5 and September 17, 1974, letters on the same subject.

The logging pole trailer you describe is a heavy hauler trailer, and as such, Standard No. 121 does not apply to this trailer until September 1, 1976. The beam or "reach", together with the bolster, constitutes the frame of the trailer, and the brake lines are designed to adapt to extension of the bolster element along the beam.

This arrangement differs from the standard highway van which has a one-piece frame with an adjustable tandem axle. The purpose of this sliding arrangement is unrelated to an extension of the frame itself to accomodate the transportation of heavy or oversize loads.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

NABORS TRAILERS, INC.

Sept. 17, 1974

Sidney Williams -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Williams:

It should be of interest and concern to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that we have not had the sight nor the specifications nor the price of a brake equipped axle assembly that can be certified to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121. We are wholly dependent upon the one source for our brake axle assemblies. From that source we have been told that they have encountered one delay after another in their program to develop and test brakes that will meet the new requirements. Their best hope now is that by the end of October they will be able to give us technical information and sometime in November they will be able to begin shipping certifiable brakes.

The same situation prevails with respect to wheel and drum assemblies. Our supplier of drums have told us that they are conducting tests now and that they should be able to tell us in November what drums will be required for compliance with the new Safety Standard.

You can guess from this information the predicament in which we find ourselves when trailers that we put into production in December scheduled for completion in January will be required by law to be in compliance with SS 121. We are certain that there are many other trailer manufacturers who are dependent upon the same sources of supply that we are who are in the same predicament. There may be other sources of supply for brake axle assemblies and for wheels and drums who are ready to describe and certify their products to meet the new Safety Standard, but we, for one, could not at this time get in schedule with new suppliers.

Sincerely yours, B. H. Smith -- President

NABORS TRAILERS, INC.

Sept. 5, 1974

Sidney Williams -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Williams:

On November 15, 1973 I sent a collection of our pole trailer catalogs and of photographs of logging pole trailers in service to the Truck Trailers Manufacturers Association in Washington. I thought that these had been sent over to your offices. Perhaps they never did get there. My letter went to Mr. M. L. Higgins who at that time was handling these matters for TTMA, and very shortly after that he resigned and Mr. Burt Weller took his place.

With this letter I am sending you two each of our Catalog 196 and our Form 198 describing our standard types of pole trailers.

The logging pole trailers described in Catalog 196 are those about which we are primarily concerned with respect to MVSS 121. Those trailers are designed and used exclusively in logging operations and move logs from the woods to the saw mills or to storage areas. Logging pole trailers are subjected to unbelievably difficult conditions, or at least unbelievable to those who have never witnessed difficult logging operations. Maintaining brakes and lights on logging pole trailers when the very minimum of equipment is used is difficult and often impossible. When the hardware that is required for compliance with MVSS 121 is added to braking equipment as now being used, the difficulties of maintenance will be multiplied and the likelihood that the brakes will be kept operational is reduced.

On the inside of Catalog 196 you will see good views of the rear assembly of our two popular models, the Logmaster and the SPR. These two trailers are identical in capacity and in usage, and the two models are built simply because some loggers like one type and some like the other. In both models you will see that the rear bolster sits on a frame that sits on the two-spring suspension that sits on the axles. A pole or drawbar connects the front bolster assembly to the rear assembly. The rear assembly can slide along the pole to change the distance between the front and rear bolsters to accommodate various log lengths. If you look closely you will see that the rear assembly is locked into place on the pole by means of clamping collors around the coupling pole ahead of and behind the rear assembly. Also, for safety purposes a pin is dropped through the pole at the rear to avoid the possibility that the trailer might slide off the pole.

You will see in the illustrations that the two hoses for the brakes and the cable for the lighting on the rear assembly are connected to the truck or to the front bolster assembly at the front and are connected to the rear assembly at the rear with quick detachable couplings. You will see that when the distance between the bolsters is relatively short these brake and light lines must be coiled up and supported by the pole. If the trailer should be extended in length, the full length of these lines would be required. It is a characteristic of these trailers that the brake lines are designed to adapt to permitting the distance between the front and rear bolsters to contract and to expand.

Another common practice in the use of logging pole trailers is to load the rear frame assembly on the back end of the truck when the trailer and truck are being carried unloaded back into the woods. This practice is for both economic and safety reasons. When the rear assembly is loaded on the truck the brake lines must be disconnected. Also, no part of the brake system can extend below the bottom of the axles because the axles must rest on the truck frame or on the runners that are put on the truck frame to carry the trailer.

When you look closely at these pictures of these logging pole trailers you will observe that the space between the axles and the load-carrying bolster is limited and is filled with equipment with current types of brakes. The trailers shown have only one air reservoir. In order to comply with MVSS 121 another larger air reservoir will have to be added. There simply is no place to put it on these logging pole trailers without interfering severely with their intended usage. If in addition to this other air reservoir we must add spring-loaded power chambers and the valves and logic boxes and electrical connections required for the anti-skid brake system, it is up to now inconceivable to us how to add that hardware in such a way that it could reasonably be expected to stay on the trailers when they are used in the log woods.

The Models TP and TPC Pole Trailers illustrated in our Form 198 are designed and used primarily for hauling pipe and poles and reinforcing rods and long steel beams and other, long and self-supporting objects. The same difficulties in adding the anti-skid brake equipment and the spring loaded power chambers apply to these trailers as to the logging pole trailers. However, since these two models are used primarily on improved roads the difficulties of maintaining the equipment would not be as great. Trailers of these two models constitute no more than perhaps 50 units a year for us. They do have the same characteristic of logging pole trailers in that the brake lines are designed to be adapted to permitting the distance between the front and rear bolsters to change. There would be the same difficulties on these trailers in getting the speed of brake application and release that there would be on other pole trailers.

I can understand the difficulty of writing an exemption for any one class or category of trailers without letting the exemption be subject to unintended interpretations. However, it has seemed to me since we first became concerned with the problems of MVSS 121 that pole trailers as defined in Part 371.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards could be exempted without any reasonable misunderstandings. Pole trailers as defined in Part 371.3 were exempted from the requirements of MVSS 108 and have been exempted from certification requirements. I have not understood why they could no also be exempted from MVSS 121, and I think that their categorical exemption would be beneficial rather than detrimental to the highway safety program. I have made all of these statements previously in letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and to the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association.

We appreciate very much your consideration of our problems and I thank you again for your telephone call on September 3rd in response to our letter of August 21st.

If it might be helpful to giving you and others concerned a better understanding of our problems, which we think are shared by many others, I would be willing to come to Washington for a conference.

Sincerely yours, B. H. Smith -- President

Enclosures

NABORS TRAILERS, INC.

August 21, 1974

Sidney Williams -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS 121 - Air Brake Systems, Docket #74-10, Notice 5

Dear Mr. Williams:

We are unable to determine from the subject Notice 5 and from the discussions and considerations that preceded it whether or not it is the intention of NHTSA that Logging Pole Trailers be considered "Heavy Hauler Trailers" within the definition of that category.

In one way of looking at it nearly all Logging Pole Trailers come within Characteristic (1) of the definition because the brake lines are designed to adapt to permitting the rear frame assembly of the pole trailer to slide on the pole or drawbar and thereby to adapt to extension or contraction of the effective length between the load bearing members. In another way of looking at it, pole trailers would not come within Characteristic (1) because there is no actual separation or extension of the vehicle frame. Actually, in pole trailers there is no frame as such connecting the front and rear load bearing members.

The one consistent and definitive characteristic of pole trailers, as we understand them, is that they consist of a front bolster that rests on the towing tractor and a rear bolster that rests on the trailer suspension and axles with the two connected with a pole on which the rear assembly can slide forward and backward.

In some logging operations the length between the front and rear bolsters is changed frequently, maybe daily. In some operations the length between the bolsters is changed only as the species or types of logs being hauled change. In some operations, on every unloaded trip the rear assembly is moved forward on the pole and is loaded on the truck to be hauled back into the woods. Since logging conditions and practices require different effective lengths between the front and rear bolsters and different problems with respect to the brake lines, practically all of our Logging Pole Trailers are rigged out with quick disconnectors for the brake and light lines at the rear assembly, and to that extent the rigging is similar to that on extendable platform trailers. The difficulties of maintaining good air line connections and unrestricted flow of air are certainly as great on pole trailers as on extendable frame trailers.

There are other inherent problems in applying and maintaining brakes on Logging Pole Trailers that in our opinion should be considered before there is a requirement upon trailer manufacturers to add anti-skid devices, spring loaded power chambers, dual or triple air reservoirs, and the other hardware that goes with the system. For example, up to now we have not been able to devise a way to put spring loaded power chambers on the axles of Logging Pole Trailers without swinging them under the axles. We definitely do not have sufficient clearance for putting the spring loaded power chambers over the axles with the suspensions and construction that we are using now. To put the (Illegible Word) chambers under the axles on pole trailers that are destined for the logging woods is, in our opinion, impracticable. The operators will not be able to keep the power chambers in place. The net result will be that they will knock them off or take them off the trailers and run the trailers without brakes. We run into similar but not insoluble problems with respect to installing additional air reservoirs and all of the other wiring and hardware required in an anti-skid system, but the trailers will have to be redesigned, they will be made substantially more expensive, and they will be less suited to their purpose.

Opinions have been expressed that we should simply assume that the definition of Heavy Hauler Trailers does embrace Logging Pole Trailers and that we should bother ourselves and our customers no more about the problem. We are not willing to leave it there because we cannot afford to be found in violation of the law and to be required to go back and add equipment which we did not furnish when the trailers were built. If we must put the anti-skid equipment on Logging Pole Trailers we must be getting ready for it in our designs and in our production methods, and we must be preparing our customers for the added cost and for the maintenance problems that will be inevitable.

Pole Trailers make up hardly more than 1% of the truck trailers that are manufactured. According to the Bureau of the Census Industrial Report for May, 1974, 189 pole trailers were shipped in May 1974, 214 in April 1974, and 177 in May 1973. For ourselves, the total volume in pole trailers is less than 300 units per year, but that is a substantial portion of our total volume and we are one of the largest suppliers of such trailers to the Southern lumber industry. Could you tell me exactly where we stand with respect to Logging Pole Trailers and MVSS 121?

Sincerely yours, B. H. Smith -- President

ID: 07-002869--21 Aug 07

ID: nht92-2.28

DATE: November 16, 1992

FROM: Bill Dobberteen -- Product Launch Engineer, Prince Corporation

TO: Office of the Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/4/93 from John Womack to Bill Dobberteen (A40; Part 576; VSA 102)

TEXT:

We are developing an overhead storage compartment for a utility vehicle. The bin will be secured to the headliner in back of the rear seat. We are requesting to know all regulations this product must meet. Enclosed is a sketch of product placement and function.

(Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht76-2.32

DATE: 07/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. H. Willcox, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1976, asking several questions with respect to the applicability of 15 USC 1397(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) to a product manufactured by your client, the W.B. Marvin Manufacturing Company. This product is "a screen which fits on the front part of the automobile and protects the radiator, headlamps and other lower parts of the car" from bugs.

W.B. Marvin would not be in violation of either the Act or Standard No. 108 by manufacturing and selling these screens. Such liability as may exist centers on the installation of them. Standard No. 108 establishes requirements for lighting equipment on new motor vehicles, and for replacement equipment. One of the requirements of SAE Standard J580a, Sealed Beam Headlamp, June 1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, is that "a headlamp, when in use, shall not have any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens." Since the screen is positioned in front of the headlamps it would be an "other feature" of the type intended to be prohibited by the standard if, as appears likely, it affects compliance with headlamp photometrics (SAE Standard J579) or headlamp aim (SAE Standard J580). If installation results in a noncompliance, the screen could not, therefore, be legally installed by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, or dealer as original equipment on a motor vehicle.

As for replacement equipment, under Section 1397 (a)(2)(A) of the Act an automobile owner may himself modify his vehicle in any manner he chooses, but modifications performed at his request by others may not "render inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." If installation of the screen affects compliance with headlamp photometrics or other requirements, then it would appear to "render inoperative" a lighting device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, within the meaning of Section 1397(a)(2)(A). Installation by the auto service center of the retailer would therefore be prohibited, since such a facility is deemed a "motor vehicle repair business."

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the screen as an item of motor vehicle equipment, nor do I know of any other Federal regulation affecting it.

I hope this letter is responsive to your questions.

YOURS TRULY,

CHESTER, HOFFMAN, PARK, WILLCOX & ROSE June 16, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Re: W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co.

Our firm represents The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. of Urbana, Ohio. They have contacted us concerning a product they wish to manufacture for use on automobiles which may involve the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly Standard 108 relating to headlamps. I personally have talked with Mr. Vinson of your office concerning the problem and he has advised me to write to you requesting an opinion concerning this situation. There is also a question as to the applicability of Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act as amended in 1974.

The residents of south Florida have been bothered for years by the "lovebug" problem. These bugs appear in large numbers and accumulate on the headlamps and windshields and other parts of the cars driven on the south Florida highways. The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. has designed a screen which fits on the front part of the automobile and protects the radiator, headlamps and other lower parts of the car from these bugs. At the same time, it is designed to direct the air flow in such a fashion that the bugs are diverted over the windshield so that they do not have an opportunity to come in contact with the windshield at all. This screen has been tested in Florida and had proved to be very successful. Pictures of the screen are enclosed for your information. The screen is designed for easy installation and removal. Tubes are attached to the front bumper of the car. The screen is attached to the car by sliding tubes affixed to the screen into the tubes affixed to the front bumper. Because of this design, the screen can be assembled relatively simply by the car owner or any auto service center. The car owner by himself may then mount the screen on the front of the car or remove it as required.

Without the screen, the bugs are plastered against the headlamps, thus affecting the amount of light coming from the headlamps. With the screen, the bugs will be on the screen, which is easily cleaned, rather than the headlamps. However, there is no question that when installed the screen will reduce the amount of light produced by the headlamps on to the roadway and this raises the question as to the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

It is W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Company's intention to manufacture this screen and sell it to a retailer such as Sears Roebuck & Co. The retailer would sell the screen directly to the car owner who could either install it himself or have it installed at the retailer's auto service center.

Our client is ready to manufacture this screen and sell it to a retailer or retailers as described above. However, we do not want to advise them to proceed if the manufacturing of the screen or the manner in which the screen is sold and installed in any way violates any applicable Federal laws, rules or regulations. We are therefore requesting your opinion as to the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to the manufacture, sale and installation of this screen. In this regard, we raise the following questions: 1. Do the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and in particular, Standard 108, apply to this screen as manufactured by The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co.?

2. By manufacturing and selling the screen described above, is The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. in violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and in particular Standard 108?

3. By manufacturing and selling the screen as described above, is The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. in violation of Section 108, Subparagraphs A (1) and A (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended in 1974?

4. Is there any violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if the screen in question is manufactured by W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co., sold by them to a retailer such as Sears Roebuck & Co. and sold by the retailer to the automobile owner who installs the screen himself?

5. If the car owner purchases the screen from a retailer and has the screen installed at the retailer's auto service center, is the retailer and/or the manufacturer in violation of Section 108, Subparagraphs A (1) and A (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended in 1974?

6. Does the auto service center of the retailer constitute a "motor vehicle repair business" as used in Section 108, Subparagraphs A (2) (a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

7. Does the manufacturing, sale and installation of the screen in question come within the meaning of the phrase "render inoperative" as that phrase is used in Section 108, Subparagraph A (2) (a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

8. To your knowledge, are there any other Federal statutes or regulations which would prevent the manufacturing and sale of this screen?

As indicated before without the use of the screen the bugs will be plastered against the headlamps and windshield of the vehicle, thus affecting the visibility of the driver. With the screen, the bugs will be contained on the screen from which they can be easily removed and will be diverted over the windshield. In view of this, it does not appear to us that the use of the bug screen renders the vehicle less safe than without the screen. Therefore, if it is your opinion that Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is applicable to this situation, we hereby request that you exempt the manufacturer and the retailer from the application of Section 108.

If you need additional information, please call the undersigned and I will provide you with what you need if possible. Thank you for your consideration of this problem.

Roderick H. Willcox

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-9.22

DATE: February 5, 1992

FROM: Frederick Harris -- Proprietor, Frederick Harris Associates

TO: National Highway Traffic Safety Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Paul J. Rice to Frederick Harris (A39; Std. 302; VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

I am planning to put on the market a cloth device containing light weight plastic items useful to a baby while in an automobile. The cloth item will be adjacent to but not touching a child sitting or laying in a nearby safety seat.

Please advise what national safety standards/regulations may apply to such a device from the viewpoint of need to be fire-safe, or any other safety considerations.

ID: nht92-1.30

DATE: December 10, 1992

FROM: Curtis J. Crist -- Product Development, US Marine

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Curtis J. Crist (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 10/08/76 from Frank Berndt (signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Donald I. Reed; Also attached to letter dated 12/21/77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to Warren M. Heath

TEXT:

Please confirm that the enclosed 1976 and 1977 clarifications relative to front side marker lamps on boat trailers are still valid.

Also, I would like to attempt to eliminate the requirement for rear "identification lamps" on boat trailers 80 or more inches in overall width. Many of today's boat trailers have rear crossmembers positioned as much as 24 inches forward of the aft end of their frame. Consequently, the identification lamps are essentially hidden from view by the boat's hull bottom and outdrive or outboard lower unit. Please advise me as to what action I must take to have elimination of this requirement considered.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht87-2.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Laurie J. Schonauer -- Bethell Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ms. Laurie J. Schonauer Bethell Company P.O. Box 191 Colton, CA 92324-0087

Your letter of May 14, 1987, addressed to the office of Vehicle Safety Standards, was referred to me for reply. Along with your letter, you sent marketing literature, and samples of your product, a device you are marketing under the name "Insta-cone." Yo ur literature indicates your intention to market this device principally as an emergency traffic warning device. The product is made of bright orange corrugated paper and has three connected triangular faces. You shipped your product folded along the leg s of the triangles, and packaged in a clear paper wrapper. A user unfolds your device, and connects tabs and slots along the legs of the triangles to form a pyramid. At the base of two triangles that form the pyramid is a long tab with covered adhesive s trips. According to your literature, a user assembles your product, uncovers the adhesive, and secures it to the ground with these adhesive taps. Buried in one leg of the triangle is a small nail for securing the product in ground where the adhesive will not take hold.

You ask the questions. The first is whether this agency will send you a letter stating that your product may he used to indicate the presence of a disabled passenger vehicle. The second question is whether this agency will send you a "statement. . .that it is a good idea for passenger vehicles to have a first aid kit, (your product), or even flares in the trunk in case of an accident or breakdown." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Department of Transportation, and has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does no t approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse and commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

Standard 125, Warning Devices, sets uniform design specifications for devices used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a disabled vehicle. The Standard applies to any such device without a self-contained energy source that is designed to be ca rried in motor vehicles and erected when needed to warn approaching traffic. Your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and falls under this Standard. Thus, the "Insta-Cone" must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configurat ion, color, and selectivity. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards. In answer to your first question, you do not need a letter from this agency to market your device as motor vehicle equipment for use to warn approaching traffic of the pr esence of a stopped vehicle, so long as your device meets FMVSS 125 requirements. However, NHTSA's preliminary review of your product indicates that the "Insta-cone" may not comply with the color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability requir ements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market and sell it as a warning device.

As I stated earlier in this letter, this agency does not endorse commercial products. In answer to your second question, NHTSA must decline to supply you with the kind of statement you suggest. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure Standard No. 125 - omitted

May 14, 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Vehicle Safety Standards 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Safety Cones

As per Captain Wood of the California Highway Patrol in Sacramento, I am sending a sample and general information about a new safety cone.

It is my understanding that an item of this nature does not need approval. I have a couple reasons for writing this letter. First, is it possible to get a letter from you stating that these cones may be used on the shoulder to indicate the presence of a disabled passenger vehicle as shown in the illustration on the package. Second, in order for us to try to promote safety, can we get a statement from the Safety Administration that it is a good idea for passenger vehicles to have a first aid kit, safety cones, or even flares in the trunk in case of an accident or breakdown?

To give you an idea of the massive programs being set up to help promote safety and our disabled citizens, I am forwarding copies of letters sent that will more explain what we are doing. If I could get some support from this Administration we can possib ly help save some lives, as well as promote workshops for the disabled. Please contact me at your earliest convenience or write. We will be starting this program on July 1st, 1987.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Bethell Co.

Laurie J. Schonauer

LJS/kb Enclosures cc: Easter Seal Society/ CBS News / California Highway Patrol PRODUCTION DESCRIPTION "Insta-Cone" Emergency Traffic Safety Cones are a new, low cost, 12" safety cone made of ridged corrugated cardboard. Three bright fluorescent cones are neatly shrink - wrapped together for easy storage in the trunk of a passenger vehicle or behind the seat, out of the way until you need it.

*Visible: Eye catching reflective surface gets attention. *Durable: Withstand high winds because of the sturdy 3 dimension design and six pressure sensitive adhesive tabs. *Convenient: Instantly snaps together for quick use. November 18, 1986

File No.: 62.A218.A6078

Laurie J. Schonauer Bethall Company P.O. Box 191 Colton, CA 92324-0087

Dear Ms. Schonauer:

The pyramidal foldable Insta-Cones described in the attachments to your letter of October 31, 1986, are a type of device that does not require approval by this Department. They may be faced on the shoulder to indicate the presence of a disabled passenger vehicle as shown in the illustration on the package. The Insta-Cones are not a legal substitute for the triangular emergency reflectors that are required to be carried by trucks, truck tractors, and travel trailers that are 80 or more inches wide. Those reflectors must meet the regulations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, copy enclosed. Further information on that standard may be obtained from:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Vehicle Safety Standards 470 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

We hope this information will be helpful to you. The samples you sent for our review are being returned with this letter. Very truly yours,

L. P. WOOD, Captain Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section

Enclosures April 28, 1987

Ms. Laurie J. Schonauer Bethell Company P.O. BOX 191 Colton, CA 92324-0087

Dear Laurie,

Thank you for your decision to utilize the Easter Seal Rehabilitation Workshop for assembly and packaging of the INSTA-CONE Safety Cone and Auto-Pack. We look forward to accomplishing your work with quality and efficiency in a timely manner.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline M. Peel Executive Director

JMP/cb

cc: Robert LaPage Plant Manager

PROPOSAL TO CBS/KNX NEWS RADIO (omitted)