Interpretation ID: nht93-7.48

DATE: November 3, 1993

FROM: Ronald L. Signorino -- Director, Health, Safety & Regulatory Affairs, Universal Maritime Service Corp.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: VIA FAX: 202 366 3820

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/19/93 from John Womack to Ronald L. Signorino (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I write representing Maersk Line, Inc., a shipping corporation having considerable interests in intermodal transportation issues worldwide.

Maersk Line is poised to have production begun on a very large number of intermodal container chassis. They will be fabricated by manufacturers in the United States. Indeed, Maersk Line's purchasing representatives are due to view prototype chassis next week; authorization to begin actual production is expected at that time.

Desiring to remain consistent with the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Conspicuity Rule, Maersk Line sought the assistance of Selecto- Flash, Inc., of Orange, New Jersey. Selecto-Flash has for some time serviced the marking, stenciling, and decaling needs of intermodal interests, and was thought to be well-positioned in determining proper routes of compliance with the conspicuity requirements.

To that end, they had been in contact with FHWA and had been given advice relative to the conspicuity marking of intermodal container chassis. Once in receipt of that advice Selecto-Flash shared it with Maersk Line, hoping to provide them with the benefit of FHWA's considered interpretation. Subsequently, Selecto-Flash received a letter from you dated October 20, 1993, in which you reversed that FHWA interpretation. That reversal gives rise to this communication in which I, as the individual responsible for regulatory issues to this firm's parent, Maersk Line, Inc., am compelled to gain a clearer understanding of FHWA's conspicuity position. This is necessary so that Maersk Line may effectively act next week in approving prototype versions of U.S. manufactured intermodal container chassis.

My understanding can be gained by providing you with a set of given facts and posing one question.

Fact: With particular reference to Maersk Line's prospective order for forty-foot gooseneck chassis (drawing accompanies this fax), your October 20 letter makes clear that calculable conspicuity treatments must not be obscured by trailer cargo;

Fact: In calculating the area of conspicuity treatment for such chassis, the gooseneck section, as it is often hidden from view by mounted intermodal containers (trailer cargo), cannot properly be considered as an appropriate site; and

Fact: In determining the fifty percent of side surface area to receive conspicuity treatment on such chassis, the length of the chassis, from its rear bolster to its point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus, is

solely relevant.

Question: Are the foregoing facts right, or wrong?

Please appreciate, Mr. Womack, that the timeliness of your response is important to all parties concerned in this matter. Given the contrasting nature of positions on this matter emanating from FHWA, I know you will make every effort to be sympathetic to Maersk Line's production schedule. With kindest regards.