ID: nht88-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PAUL A. RENEAU

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER UNDATED TO NHTSA FROM PAUL A. RENEAU, OCC - 1495

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reneau:

This is a response to your undated letter which this agency received in January 1988. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you presented a schematic and an engineering explanation of a power window system design and operation, an d asked whether the system meets Federal safety standard 118, Power-operated Window Systems (49 CFR @ 571.118). Based on my understanding of the information enclosed with your letter, it appears that your power window system would comply with Standard 1 18.

As I understand your system description, there are two electrical circuits that control power window operations. In the principal circuit, when the vehicle ignition key system is in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, the power windows are operable. In m ost power-operated window systems, turning the ignition key to the "OFF" position means that the power windows no longer are operable.

However, in your system, a second, parallel circuit connects to the power window motor, and provides an energy source to allow an operator to close a power window when the ignition key is in the "OFF" position. The parallel energy source permits operati on only for a limited time period controlled by the electronic circuitry. My understanding is that with your design, the parallel circuit includes door switches which stop power window operation irrespective of the ignition key system position, whenever either vehicle front door is opened during the window closing sequence. According to your diagram and explanation, in such a circumstance, an operator must close the door, and return the ignition key to the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position to reactivate th e power window system.

Paragraph S3 of Standard 118 specifies that power window systems may be closed only under certain listed conditions. One of those conditions is when the ignition key is in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, as specified in S3(a). When the ignition key is in the "OFF" position, the power windows may be closed only under the conditions described in S3(b)

(by muscular force unassisted by a vehicle power source), S3(c) (upon activation of a key-locking system on the exterior of the vehicle), or S3(d). Paragraph S3(d) reads as follows:

During the interval between the time the locking device which controls the activation of the vehicle's engine is turned off and the opening of either of a two-door vehicle's doors or, in the case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of e ither of its front doors.

Based on my understanding of the information you supplied, the only time the power windows in your system can be closed with the ignition key in the "OFF" position is during the interval between engine deactivation and opening of either of the vehicle's front doors. Standard 118 expressly permits this, so your system appears to comply with that standard.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: EARL DAHL -- THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/01/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM EARL W. DAHL, OCC - 2106

TEXT: Dear Mr. Dahl:

This responds to your letter of June 1, 1988, seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether Goodyear could engrave its mold for the Tire Identification Number with a style of charact ers that was not specifically authorized in the Notes following Figure 1 of @ 574.5.

Note 1 to Figure 1 of Part 574 specifies only four different print types which may be used for the DOT symbol and tire identification number. The style of print that you wish to use is not one of these designated styles. Nevertheless, Note 4 to Figure 1 states that other print types will be permitted if approved by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). The agency has examined the print type shown in the diagram attached to your letter and has no objections to your company printing the required information in the print type you submitted.

You should be aware that in the final rule establishing Part 574 (35 FR 17257, November 10, 1970), NHTSA explained that the reason for specifying only four print types which would be acceptable without advance agency approval was to ensure that the infor mation would be easily readable by all persons. The print type that you submitted is easily readable and thus satisfies our concerns in that regard. Accordingly, NHTSA approves your print type.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JERRY SWISHER, -- COOPER TIRE & RUBBER CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/20/88 TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA FROM JERRY SWISHER, RE REQUEST FOR OPINION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Swisher:

This responds to your letter of May 20, 1988, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you asked if either of three proposed courses of action would comply with the labeling requirements specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 109. That section reads as follows: "Each tire shall be labeled with the name of the manufacturer, or the brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer in the manner specified in Part 574." None of your proposed courses of action would satisfy this requirement, as explained below.

You first asked if it is permissible to have no identification on the sidewall as to the name of the manufacturer or the brand name owner, but to simply use the identification numbers assigned to Cooper Tire under Part 574. Section S4.3.2 of Standard No . 109 explicitly requires each tire to be labeled with the manufacturer's name or a brand name and the identification number assigned to the manufacturer. Tires that are identified solely by an identification number would not comply with this requiremen t.

Second, you asked if a tire could be labeled with three different brand names. Section S4.3.2 uses the singular tense to identify the name that must appear on the sidewall (name of the manufacturer or the brand name) and connects the alternative with the disjunctive "or." This grammatical structure indicates that only one name, either that of the actual manufacturer or the brand name owner, shall be labeled on the tire. The agency chose this grammatical structure to ensure that consumers would not be c onfused about the identity of the brand name or manufacturer of the tire. Accordingly, S4.3.2 prohibits Cooper from selling passenger car tires labeled with the names of three different brand name owners.

Third, you asked if a generic term such as "All Season" or "Performance" would satisfy the requirement of S4.3.2 that either the name of the manufacturer or a brand name be labeled on the tires. Clearly, a generic term like "Performance" is not the "nam e of the manufacturer," Cooper in this case.

The "brand name" refers to the name under which a tire is sold at retail, whether it is identical to the manufacturer's name (e.g., Firestone), a name owned by the manufacturer and used in place of its corporate name (i.e., a house brand, such as Falls t hat is manufactured by Cooper), or a name owned by someone other than the manufacturer (i.e., a private brand such as Atlas that is made by several manufacturers). My understanding of this proposed course of action is that the tires would be advertised and sold at retail as tires made by one of the three brand name owners, presumably using its brand name, not under the name "All Season" or "Performance." Therefore, these generic terms would not be considered brand names for the purposes of section S4.3 .2.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JIM SCHULD -- MILL SUPPLY INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/20/87 TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA FROM JIM SCHULD, OCC - 1177

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schuld:

This responds to your letter asking for information concerning the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of a jump seat that you said would be "removable and able to be transferred from one truck to another." I apologize for the del ay in responding. Generally, Federal motor vehicle seating standards apply to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase by a consumer, and not to "aftermarket" seating components added to a vehicle after such purchase. However, several of our safety standards could apply to your product if the seat is installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. Federal law would also affect your installation of the jump seat in new or used vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new moto r vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl e Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information pro vided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a removable jump seat sold directly to a consumer. Federal seating standards generally apply only to completed new motor vehicles and not to items of equipment su ch as a removable jump seat. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA

determines that your jump seats contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If your product will be installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, then the manufacturer of the vehicle will have certain responsibilities relating to its obligation under the Safety Act to certify the new vehicle as meet ing all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Federal standards for seating systems (Standard No. 2077) and crash protection (Standard No. 208) apply to designated seating positions in new vehicles. While these standards do not apply to au xiliary seating accommodations (e.g., temporary or folding jump seats), the determination must be made whether your apparatus falls into this latter category and is thus excluded from coverage. Unfortunately, information provided in your letter did not describe your jump seat in sufficient detail for us to offer an opinion as to whether your particular seat is an auxiliary seating accommodation. Photographs or engineering diagrams of your product would assist us in determining whether the seat would be considered an auxiliary seating accommodation, and thus excluded from coverage under Standard Nos. 207 and 208 if installed on new vehicles.

Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard establishes flammability requirements that must be met by certain vehicle components including seat cushions and seat backs on any occupant seat installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. A manufacturer installing your jump seat on a new vehicle would thus be required to ensure that any seat cushion or s eat back on your product conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard.

You should also be aware that there are statutory considerations that affect the installation of your jump seats in new and used vehicles. Section @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicl e repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requir es manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing the jump seat to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the jump seat does not degrade from the safety of existing seating or occupant protection systems on the vehicle. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of $108.

In summary, removable jump seats sold to motor vehicle owners as items of aftermarket equipment are not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The seat could be subject to Federal standards for seating

performance and occupant crash and flammability protection if it is installed on new vehicles prior to the vehicle's first sale. Commercial businesses are prohibited from installing the jump seat if the result renders inoperative the compliance of r equisite safety components or designs with Federal safety standards. Individual owners, however, are not covered by @ 108(a)(2)(A) and may themselves install the jump seat in their vehicles without regard to the rendering inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act. To repeat, you as the equipment manufacturer would be obligated to recall and remedy seats that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, even if the seats were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: R. C. ROST -- PRESIDENT MINNESOTA BODY & EQUIPMENT CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/18/88 TO CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA, FROM R&C ROST RE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COLOR OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED, OCC - 1763; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/11/88 TO SHANON L FOND FROM JERRY SMITH RE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF SCHOOL BUS USER; LETTER DATED 02/25/88 TO SHARON FORD, FROM JERRY SMITH; UNDATED BROCHURES ON SCHOOLBUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rost:

This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1988, bringing our attention to a conflict between a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to school bus lighting, and State requirements applicable to these vehicles.

You have informed us that at least two States, Iowa and Wisconsin, prohibit Head Start buses in effect from being identified as a school bus, either by words or by color, and from having the warning lamp system required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4. 1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires each school bus to be equipped with a four or eight lamp signal system, in addition to other required lighting equipment. You also indicat e that some regional Headstart authorities reportedly do not recognize the interpretations and regulations of this agency regarding school bus safety. You have asked that Head Start buses be exempted from the warning law requirement if a color other tha n school bus yellow is used.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require the issuance of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The amendments defined "school bus" as:

a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school stud ents to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)) (Emphasis added.)

On December 29, 1977, the then Chief Counsel of this agency issued an opinion under 15 U.S.C. 1391(14) that Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools and that buses transporting children to and from those schools are defined as school buses under Federal law and accordingly are subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Specifically, the letter stated:

The NHTSA interprets the term "school" broadly, because the agency believes that this is the intent of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) which directed the creation of the school bus safety standards. Since t his head start program is basically an educational program for preprimary students, the agency had determined that those facilities are schools and buses transporting children to and from them must comply with the Federal school bus safety requirements i f they transport 10 or more passengers.

I am sorry to inform you that we cannot grant your request for an exemption. The 1977 opinion of this agency regarding Congress' 1974 mandate remains operative. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils such as those in the Head Start program. Any manufacturer who omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, or who delivers a bus with the warning lamp system inoperative, is in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject to civil penalties. The manufacturer is also subject to the provisions of the Act for notification and remedy of the noncom pliance with Standard No. 108.

The effect of the preemption provision in section 103(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that St ate standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light requirement as a "higher standard of performance." Thus, regardless of how a State defines "school bus," a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with a school bus warning sys tem that is designed and wired as required by paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads, those State laws may not override Federal laws. The effect of Federal pree mption is that the school bus warning system must continue to operate as required by paragraph S4.1.4(b) (ii), and a State may not directly or indirectly require tampering with that equipment in order to comply with State usage laws.

We are providing copies of this letter to the officials in Iowa and Wisconsin mentioned in your letter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: GLENN L. DUNCAN, -- THORNE, GRODNIK & RANSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBERT J. WAHLS' FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 04/28/77 TO GORDON P. CRESS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 02/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNCAN RE UNITED TOOL AND STAMPING INC FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM; LETTER DATED 11/16/87 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNN RE FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM OCC - 1278

TEXT: Dear Mr. Duncan:

This responds to your letter concerning situations in which seats tested for compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, bend or deform when subjected to the required test forces specified in the standard. You asked whether NHTSA would con sider a seat as passing Standard No. 207 if the seat "gives," but does not separate or break free from the floor. I regret the delay in responding.

The requirements with which you are concerned are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 207. That section provides in pertinent part:

S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces.

(a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction;

(b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction;

* * * * *

(d) In its rearmost position--a force that produces a 3,300 inch-pound moment about the seating reference point for each designated seating position that the seat provides, applied to the upper cross-member of the seat back or that appear seat back, i n a rearward longitudinal direction for forward facing seats and in a forward longitudinal direction for rearward-facing seats.

The agency answered similar questions in letters dated April 28, 1977 and August 30, 1979 to Mr. Gordon P. Cress and to Mr. Robert Wahls, respectively. (Copies enclosed.) In these letters, the agency stated

2 that NHTSA allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that "structural integrity of the seats is maintained." The structural integrity of a seat is determined by the extent to which permanent deformation or separation of seat components and/or seat to floor attachments result from the applied test forces. Examples of possible noncompliances include the following occurring during the application of a forward or rearward load:

(a) the seat frame releases from its adjusted position;

(b) the seat frame or seat adjusters detach from the test vehicle floorpan;

(c) the seat frame detaches from the seat adjuster mechanism;

(d) the seat adjuster mechanism separates; or,

(e) the hinged seat restraining device disengages, or detaches from the seat frame.

Other examples of possible noncompliances are the rear seat back or cushion frame detaching from the test vehicle structure during the application of the specified load, or the folding seat back restraining device releasing from its preset position durin g application of a forward load.

Further, as stated in the two enclosed letters, it has been the longstanding position of the agency that seats which displace to an extent that NHTSA determines occupant safety is threatened would not be in compliance with Standard No. 207.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: RE MORGAN -- MILEAGE TIRE ENGINEERING GOODYEAR TECHNICAL CENTER

TO: MARVIN ORNES -- MANAGER, TECHNICAL SUPPORT REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119; LETTER DATED 09/13/88 FROM JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE TO LARRY COOK -- NHTSA, OCC 2539; LETTER DATE D 09/09/87 FROM R. E. MORGAN TO R. ROGERS RE GOODYEAR MILEAGE TIRES; REF BRUCE RUMAGE PHONE CALL; BOOKLET FROM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT DATED 12/01/87 EST

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ornes:

Goodyear supplies basically two type of tires for Intra City Service. City Cruiser DXT and the City Cruiser XT tire. Both are produced in the same mold and have the same number of plies.

They both are designed for identical service; but the difference comes in the amount of "Tread Rubber." DXT tires have a total of 1.40 inches of tread rubber and the XT tire has 1.18 inches. Marked on the sidewall of the DXT tire is the Max speed of 35 MPH, and on the XT is 55 MPH. The DXT may be used at higher speeds; but not for sustained operation.

Once the tread rubber is worn down for either regrooving or recapping they both become the same tire carcass and may be used for 55 MPH service. Recapping process does not add the extra undertread on the carcass but the regular amount, so the tires will run safely at the 55 MPH speed.

Please contact us if more explanation is needed.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRANK REYNOLDS -- F. E. REYNOLDS ASSOCIATES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO JAMES TYDINGS -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This is in response to your telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, seeking a clarification of my June 16, 1988 letter concerning school bus mirrors under Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17. Specifically, you asked about the meaning of the phrase, "area in front of the bus," as used in section S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111). In your telephone conversation, you stated that a NHTSA staff person told you in a previous telephone conversation that NHTSA h ad defined this phrase to mean "the area three feet in front of the bus." NHTSA has never so interpreted this phrase in Standard No. 111.

For your information, I am enclosing a June 20, 1980 letter to James Tydings that sets forth the agency's interpretation of S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111. This letter notes that the area of concern in S9.2(b) is the region in front of the bus where a drive r is not able to see directly a school age child. As explained in the letter and an earlier notice (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975), the purpose of a crossview mirror is to "address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transportatio n," and this type of mirror "allows the bus driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there before moving the bus." This letter then explains: "The agency used the word 'view' in its ordinary, dictionar y sense to mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus." This is still an accu rate expression of the agency's interpretation of the purpose of a crossview mirror and this phrase.

In your telephone conversation, you also expressed concern about the "legal effect" of Standard No. 111. You should be aware of @ 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which states that

No person shall manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any additional questions, or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/88

FROM: ERNIE J. BUNNELL -- PACIFIC T-TOPS INC.

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNCIL US DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO ERNIE J. BUNNELL; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Taylor,

I was refered to you by the Department of Transportation regarding FMVSS #108 and the following:

The Department of Transportation guidelines for aftermarket and OEM rear spoilers which when mounted on the deck lid of a car obstruct the high mounted stoplamp.

Enclosed you will see (2) versions of rear spoilers (A) and (B):

A) It is designed to be at or below the rear brake light using the 5 degrees measurement as a guide.

B) It is designed to go over the horizontal intensity of the light.

We have been advised that the attachment does not need to comply with the ruling. However, we would like to know what the requirements are so that we can comply if possible.

If you need any additional information regarding this, please contact me. I shall look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht88-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/88

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

TO: JOAN TILGHMAN - NHTSA

TITLE: 2166

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/07/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO SPENCER A DARBY, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 125; LETTER DATED 05/19/88 FROM SPENCER A DARBY TO JOAN TILGHMAN RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 1255, OCC-2166

TEXT: Dear Ms. Tilgham:

Attached is the drawing we referred to this AM on the phone, showing the recommended diagrams to help insure that Warning Device user will know how to erect the Emergency Warning Triangle properly.

As Chairman of the SAE Reflex Devices Subcommittee, I will be including these diagrams (or similar versions) in an updated version of SAE 774, a Recommended Practice document of the Society of Automotive Engineers, in the next approval process due thi s year.

Please call if I can be of any further assistance.

ON ANY TYPE HIGHWAY VEHICLE USING 1 TRIANGLE

Figure 3.

ON A NON-DIVIDED HIGHWAY TRUCK USING 3 TRIANGLES

Figure 4.

ON A DIVIDED HIGHWAY TRUCK USING 3 TRIANGLES

Figure 5.

RECOMMENDED DIAGRAMS TO BE "PERMANENTLY AND LEGIBLY MARKED" ON THE WARNING DEVICE, AND ALSO ON THE "OPAQUE PROTECTIVE REUSABLE CONTAINER".

Sate-lite MFG. CO.

CAD TITLE

125 DIAGRAMS

TRIA-DIA

Drawing Number 880830