ID: nht95-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHSTA

TO: Nancy Tavarez -- Bietrix Industries

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/08/95 LETTER FROM NANCY TAVAREZ TO JOHN WOMACK (WALMA) (OCC 11118)

TEXT: Dear Ms Tavarez:

This is in response to your FAX of August 8, 1995, with respect to the importation of "Phoenix Halogen Auto Bulbs H4 series, H3, H1 and 9000 series-HB1 for the USA market." We understand that you presently have a shipment of these awaiting entry. You st ate that "Mr. Taylor Benson recently informed us that these lights required DOT approval."

Taylor Vinson repeatedly informed you on the phone that DOT does not approve bulbs or any other kind of equipment. If there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect covering an item of equipment, the manufacturer (or importer for resale) is responsible for certifying that the equipment complies with that standard. The certifier does not need DOT permission or approval for that action.

The appropriate Federal regulations in this instance are Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment and 49 CFR Part 564 Replaceable Light Source Information.

There is no Federal regulation that applies to the H4 bulb. Although the H4 bulb is legal for use only in motorcycle headlamps, neither Standard No. 108 nor Part 564 applies to motorcycle headlamp bulbs, and it is not necessary for H4 bulbs to be certif ied in order to enter the United States. H4 bulbs may not be used in headlamps for motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, the HB2 bulb, based on the H4, is legal for use in headlamps for all types of motor vehicles.

If the H1 and H3 bulbs are to be used for auxiliary lamps such as fog lamps, there is no Federal regulation that requires their certification either.

However, if the H1 and H3 bulbs are intended for use in headlamps (the markings on their boxes may indicate this), they are subject to both Standard No. 108 and Part 564. What we require is that the bulb be marked with (1) the name and/or trademark regi stered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of its manufacturer or of its importer (Bietrix); (2) the ANSI number, ECE identifier, and manufacturer's part number, individually or in any combination; and (3) a DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is the certi fication by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the H1 or H3 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications for these bulbs that are on file in Part 564. We believe that Phoenix should be aware of these specifications. For your information, "(1)" is re quired by paragraphs S7.7(h) and S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108, "(2)" by paragraph S7.7(h) and section VIII of Appendix A of Part 564, and "(3)" by paragraphs S7.7(g) and (h) of Standard No. 108. I am FAXing a copy of paragraph S7.7 and Part 564 for your information.

The HB1 light source is required to be marked with the same information as the H1 and H3 as indicated above, but the authority for this is paragraph S7.7(f); this also requires the base to be marked "HB1". However, the DOT symbol in this instance would represent the certification by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the HB1 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications of paragraphs S7.7(a) and Figure 3 of Standard No. 108. Again, we believe that Phoenix should be familiar with the specifications f or the HB1 light source.

If the HB1 light sources (or H1s and H3s for headlamp use) you wish to import bear all these markings, you may import them under Box 2A of the HS-7 Declaration Form as equipment certified as meeting the standards. If they do not bear these markings, the y may not be imported until marked and certified by Phoenix or by Bietrix according to the regulations discussed above.

If you have further questions, please call Mr. Vinson at (202)366-5263.

ID: nht95-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 10, 1995

FROM: Edward Mansell -- Chief Engineer, Polar Tank Trailer, Inc.

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/1/95 LETTER FROM Sanuel J. Dubbin to Edward Mansell (Redbook 2; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

We are requesting and interpretation of the language included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, paragraph S5.7 Conspicuit Systems.

The NHTSA has made it clear that the exact location and configuration of conspicuity sheeting is subject to variation based on the practicability of installation. Our request involves the practicability of installation of conspicuity sheeting on the rea r of some Food Grade Tank Trailers (FGTTs).

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) calls for sheeting to be placed across the full width of the trailer as close as practicable to 1.25 meters above the road surface. For many tank trailers the rear bumper, located approximately 0.5 m above the road surface, is th e closest practicable location for installation of conspicuity sheeting. For some FGTTs, however, rear-mounted load/unload ports, pumps and valves are located directly above the center portion of the rear bumper.

Conspicuity sheeting affixed to a bumper under the load/unload ports is subjected to repeat exposure to hot water as run off from wash downs cascades over the sheeting. Typically this area is washed at least once per day with water up to 200 degrees F.

This repeated exposure to hot water degrades the conspicuity sheeting. Modes of failure include: loss of red coloring; delamination; loss of brightness; bubbling; cracking; and loss of adhesion. The deleterious effects of this exposure is evident regar dless of the manufacturer of the sheeting. Analysis shows that sheeting applied to the rear of trailers with designs which do not result in the cascade of hot water over the sheeting do not experience these problems.

P2

We interpret paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) to allow, that since installation of sheeting in a location subject to frequent hot water run off is not practicable, in the case of FGTTs with designs which results in water cascading from the load/unload area over t he center fo the rear bumper, the sheeting may be applied from the extreme ends of the bumper to points no more than 6 inches (150mm) to the left or right of the area directly below the load/unload area. Further, for FGTTs which use a cabinet to enclose the load/unload area, conspicuity sheeting should be mounted on the cabinet doors to augment the sheeting on the bumper.

Otherwise, the center section of the sheeting should be located on the tank, above the load/unload area.

We believe that this proposal meets the intent of Standard 108 by delineating the rear of FGTTs without requiring manufacturers to redesign trailers to redirect the flow of wash water. We look forward to your interpretation of the Standard and await you r reply.

ID: nht95-4.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas K. O'Connor -- Chief of Maintenance and Operations, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/3/95 LETTER FROM THOMAS K. O'CONNOR TO NHTSA (OCC 11189)

TEXT: Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter asking about seat belt requirements for a step van with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. You asked whether lap belts versus lap/shoulder belts are needed for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As discussed below, either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts may be used for this type of vehicle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I note that this standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within th e vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208. That section provides vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, dealing with automatic crash protection, is not relevant to your inquiry. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to install Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) belts at every seating position. Thus, either lap or lap/shoulder belts may be used to me et S4.3.2.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1995

FROM: Gerald R. Stewart -- Office of Safety Performance Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, NHTSA

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation for Safety Grooves

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/13/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Borje Kukka (A43; Std. 104; Std. 205)

TEXT: MEMORANDUM:

At a recent meeting I received a video tape and brochures on safety grooves which are used in Finland and other countries to help keep windshields and wiper blades clean in adverse weather. Mr. Borje Kukka from Helsinki Finland asked for help with regar d to which vehicle safety standards, if any, would be applicable to safety grooves.

I have sent Mr. Kukka a letter with most of the information he needs; however Mr. Felrice suggested that I request an interpretation from Chief Counsel to be sent to Mr. Kukka so that he has a complete understanding of whether safety grooves are consider ed an item of vehicle equipment or not.

I am submitting the video tape, brochures, and a copy of my letter to Mr. Kukka. Please prepare an interpretation letter for Mr. Kukka. If you have questions contact me at 366-5268 or Mr. Kukka at the following:

Borje Kukka Humalistonkatu 5 00250 Helsinki Finland

Phones: 011 358 0 493 013 private 011 358 02 419 820 Fax 011 358 0 407 315 cellular 011 358 49 414 727

Attachment

Mr. Borje Kukka Humalistonkatu 5 00250 Helsinki Finland

Dear Mr. Kukka,

Thank you for inviting me to your meeting with Mr. Nitze to review the safety groove principles and video tape. I was impressed with the simplicity of the process for grinding the grooves into a vehicle windshield and also with the performance of the gr ooves on keeping the windshield and wiper blades clean during adverse conditions.

I contacted the Office of Chief Counsel and a search of interpretations produced an example for a device which cleans windshield wipers. A copy is attached along with some general information which will help you. As I said in the meeting, it is importa nt for you to understand the term "render inoperative" as it refers to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 205 and 104. Copies of these are attached. At the meeting I gave you a copy of the ANS 226 document which is referenced by Standard 205.

At this point, it is important for you to know whether the safety grooves would be considered by our agency as an item of motor vehicle equipment or not. I have provided your video tape and brochures to the Chief Counsel Office with a request for an int erpretation of the question of which vehicle safety standards, if any, are applicable to your safety grooves. An answer should be available within 60 days.

Thank you again for giving me an opportunity to learn about a simple process that can improve a driver's ability to drive safely. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have questions or need more information please do not hesitate to call m e at 202-366-5268.

ID: nht95-4.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1995

FROM: A.D. Fisher

TO: John Womack, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to A.D. Fisher (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Enclosed are two documents covering the operation, features and highway safety attributes of a modified, rear, third signal light for private and commercial vehicles.

We have been advised by Mr. Blane Laubis, of NHTSA, to forward this to you for your evaluation. Please furnish us with your interpretation and comments about this product, including its use application, as applied to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar d (FVMSS) #108.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

THE ENLIGHTNER

Update May 31, 1995

"The Enlightner" replaces the third, center, high-mounted brake light as used in most modern day vehicles.

The light (or lens) has two colors, Red and Amber. The top half of the lens is Amber and the bottom half is Red.

Amber signals "Caution" and the Red signals "Stop" to the driver of the vehicle following a vehicle equipped with "the Enlightner".

Functions of "The Enlightner":

1. The Red portion is lighted when the brake pedal is applied, with the ignition "ON" or "OFF". This function overrides all other functions.

2. The Amber portion is lighted when the transmission selector lever is in any forward position with the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal not depressed. When the brake or accelerator pedals are depressed, the Amber light is "OFF".

When the transmission lever is in Reverse position, the Amber light flashes constantly at the rate of 90 flashes per minute. The flashing is continuous regardless of accelerator pedal and brake pedal positions as long as the transmission selector lev er is in Reverse position. This give a warning to everyone behind the vehicle that it is in Reverse and it about to back up or is backing up.

When the accelerator pedal is released ("OFF"), the Amber portion comes "ON", giving a "Caution" signal to the driver of the vehicle behind the vehicle equipped with "The Enlightner" that deceleration is taking place. When the accelerator and brake are not in use, the Amber portion is lighted. When power is reapplied by depressing the accelerator, the Amber light goes "OFF". When deceleration is taking place, Amber is "ON". When the brakes are applied, Amber goes "OFF" and Red comes "ON".

The advantages of "The Enlightener" over similar products is that it keeps the driver following behind totally informed (enlightened) as to the functions of the vehicle ahead. "The Enlightener" will reduce rear-end collisions (one of the most common acc idents) and reduce highway traffic injuries and fatalities.

Signed by Alfred D. Fisher Date June 1, 1995

Witnessed by Debra A. Thompson Date June 1, 1995

"The Enlightener"

According to U.S. Government statistics, there are over 10,000,000 highway accidents annually costing Americans $98,100,000,000 with an average cost per accident of over $9,800. Of the 10 million accidents, 25.3%, or approximately 2 1/2 million, are re ar-end collisions.

The average reaction time, from the instant the brake signal on a vehicle is seen until the brakes on the vehicle following it are applied, is 3/4 of a second. At 60 miles per hour, a vehicle travels 66 feet in 3/4 of a second. After the brakes are appl ied, the stopping distance for a car travelling at 60 MPH is a minimum of 146 feet. Therefore, the total distance from seeing the brake signal to a full stop is at least 212 feet.

Introducing "The Enlightener".........

featuring a Deceleration Caution Signal (DCS) in addition to the traditional third brake light. The instant the vehicle accelerator pedal is released and before the brake is applied, "The Enlightener" signals deceleration or a change of vehicle operatio n. It is estimated that the use of "The Enlightener" will reduce rear-end collisions over 41% and prevent thousands of highway injuries and fatalities. The reduction in costs to Americans would exceed $10.1 Billion annually.

In addition to the Deceleration Caution Signal (DCS), other features of "The Enlightener" include the DCS being illuminated when the vehicle is in any mode other than stopping or normal forward motion, and a flashing caution light when the vehicle transm ission selector lever is in reverse position.

"The Enlightener" is truly a unique innovation for improving highway safety that will save hundreds of lives, prevent thousands of injuries and save Americans billions of dollars annually.

ID: nht95-4.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1995

FROM: Charles A. Grandy -- Baker and Daniels

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as Applied to Automobile Wheel Manufacturers

ATTACHMT: 1/30/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Charles A. Grandy (A44; Std. 110; Std. 211)

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to submit a formal inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") regarding the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards contained in 49 C.F.R. @ 571 ("Safety Standards") to autom obile wheel manufacturers. Specifically, this letter seeks confirmation that automobile wheel manufacturers are not required to certify that wheels they manufacture comply with any Safety Standards.

As you know, 49 U.S.C. @ 30115 requires that a "manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall certify to the distributor or dealer at delivery that the vehicle or equipment complies with applicable motor vehicle safet y standards prescribed under this chapter." (Emphasis added). Unless a motor vehicle safety standard applies, however, this certification provision does not come into effect. Based on the applicable regulations and our conversation on October 10, 1995, the certification requirement does not appear to apply to automobile wheel manufacturers.

As we discussed on October 10, 1995, and by way of background information, our firm represents an automobile wheel manufacturer that exports wheels to certain automobile manufacturers in the United States to be used in the production of passenger cars . The manufacturer does not produce truck wheels, wheels for sale in the aftermarket or such items as wheel nuts, wheel discs or hub caps. Instead, the manufacturer produces automobile wheels for use exclusively in the OEM market to be used for the pro duction of passenger vehicles. Our question is limited to the delivery of such wheels.

In our recent conversation we concluded that automobile wheels, as such, are not subject to any of the Safety Standards. We discussed specifically the application of the Safety Standards described at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.110 and 49 C.F.R. @ 571.211. Upon review, neither of these provisions appears to apply to automobile wheels and we find no other Safety Standards applicable to automobile wheels. Accordingly, automobile wheel manufacturers should not be subject to the certification requirement describe d at 49 U.S.C. @ 30115 when delivering such automobile wheels.

Please review these issues on an expedited basis and confirm, if you will, our stated conclusions. You may direct all correspondence to the undersigned at the above-referenced address. If you should have any questions or comments, or need any additi onal information, please feel free to contact the undersigned directly at (317) 237-1400. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

ID: nht95-4.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui, -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Service of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/22/95 LETTER FROM SABURO INUI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to Toyota's August 22, 1995, letter regarding the test procedures in this agency's June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (60 FR 30006). You were concerned that the test procedure seems to say that the ser vice brake should be applied at two different steps during the test procedure, without specifying when the service brake should be released in between those two steps. You suggested a revised procedure that specifies a step for releasing the service bra ke, and asked if that procedure conforms with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) test requirement.

After reviewing the issues raised by your letter, we have concluded that a technical amendment should be issued to clarify the test procedure. We expect to issue such an amendment shortly.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Borje Kukka

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/11/95 letter from Gerald R. Stewart to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC 11281)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kukka:

This response to your request for an interpretation whether NHTSA's statutes and regulations would apply to a process you intend to market, in which two horizontal parallel grooves are etched into the lower portion of motor vehicle windshields. The grov es apparently facilitate windshield cleaning by scraping water and debris off the windshield wipers as the wipers pass over the grooves. You provided a videotape on the process and a portion of a windshield etched with the grooves.

I am enclosing two interpretation letters, one dated March 1, 1985 and another dated October 28, 1988, both addressed to Mr. Andrew P. Kallman of Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Kallman asked NHTSA's opinion of a process that is very similar to your process. Th e letters explain how NHTSA's regulations would apply if your process were used on new vehicles or windshields and on windshields of a used vehicle.

Please also note, NHTSA has no authority to "approve" or certify your process. If you understood any previous correspondence from agency personnel to mean that NHTSA approves of your product, has endorsed it an any manner, or has made commendations about it (e.g., it "can improve a driver's ability to drive safely,") that is incorrect, and we apologize for any confusion.

State laws may affect operations that you conduct in that State. If you decide to do business in a particular State, you should seek legal advice on requirements for conducting your type of business in that State, including requirements the State may ha ve for persons modifying windshields or for vehicles with modified windshields.

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions concerning NHTSA's legal authority, please write to me at this address or contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820. I am, un der separate cover, returning your videotape and windshield portion.

ID: nht95-4.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Clement -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/03/95 Letter from Bob Clement to Ricardo Martinez

TEXT: Dear Congressman Clement:

Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr. Pommer has been told that this cannot b e done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is not Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how t he modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are mi nimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture.

After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element o f design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC @ 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disco nnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part, Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the re quirements of Standard No. 209.

In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crast Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position.

A "designated seating position" is defined by NHTSA regulations as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion . . . Any bench or split-bench seat . . . having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions.

Since the 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts.

The "make inoperative" prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt , is is possible that the existing belts and anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without "making inoperative" the compliance of th ose belts and anchorages.

I hope this information has been helpful.

ID: nht95-4.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 16, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical, Federal Mogul Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN C. GOLDEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Golden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a "Lightman," for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the an swer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product.

You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are conce rned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, "Does the mounting of one of these devices . . . take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?"

As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously-certified warning devices.

There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy en closed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on hi s or her equilateral triangle.

As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number:

400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366-1790

We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.