Interpretation ID: nht93-8.26

DATE: November 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/19/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack (OCC-9229)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 19, 1993, with respect to the trailer conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108.

You report that "(o)ften a new tank trailer will be sold to a customer who will contract with another party to have a lining installed in the tank." Because of the high heat used in the installation of the lining, retroreflective sheeting cannot be applied before the lining is installed.

We believe that the trailer manufacturer is a more appropriate person for ensuring that its product meets the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 than the installer of the lining, or the owner of the trailer. We would like to suggest alternative methods of compliance, other than a direct application of retroreflective tape to the trailer sides, as a resolution of this problem. Standard 108 permits the use of reflex reflectors as an alternative to retroreflective sheeting. If the trailer manufacturer prefers retroreflective sheeting, the sheeting may be applied at a lower level if deemed "practicable", or it may be applied to horizontal strips of aluminum that can be fastened to the sides of tank trailers and removed during the installation of the lining.

You also state that "non-tank trailers may be sold without conspicuity treatment when the owner wishes to contract the application of special paint and logo schemes." Sale of a trailer under these circumstances, without its compliance with the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108, would be an apparent violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.