ID: nht93-8.2

DATE: November 8, 1993

FROM: Andrew Tweddle -- AV Technology Corporation

TO: Walter K. Myers -- Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from John Womack to Andrew Tweddle (A42; Part 571.7(c))

TEXT:

AV Technology is in the process of responding to a Department of the Army draft specification for an armored security vehicle. AV Technology will be proposing its combat vehicle, the Dragoon ASV. Our fully armored vehicle will be equipped with the AV Technology manufactured UGWS weapons station, which carries a 40mm grenade launching machine gun, a .50 caliber machine gun, as well as a matched bank of smoke grenade launchers. The Dragoon is capable of being fitted with weapons as heavy as a 105mm anti-tank gun. The dragoon has the capability to defeat Main Battle Tanks, with more agility, and speed than many MBTs in service today. Based on the capabilities of the Dragoon ASV combat vehicle we would like to request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration consider it for exclusion from federal motor vehicle safety standard and requirements.

The Dragoon is constructed of high hardness armor, and includes a permanently mounted weapons station. In addition to its armor and weapons capabilities, the Dragoon features a powerpack system, a configuration usually found only on main battle tanks. Because of these features, as well as the army's own definition of this vehicle as a combat vehicle rather than a tactical vehicle, (ref: Tacom Specification, Sept. 20, 1993 Pg. 12, 21), we feel there are sufficient grounds for exemption.

In a letter addressed to Verne Corporation, a division of AV Technology, dated August 7, 1989 your office stated, "If the vehicle is a motor vehicle that has been manufactured for and sold directly to the armed forces in conformity with contractual specifications, it is not required to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards." In reference to past vehicles sold to the U.S. Armed Forces, the letter states, "This means that the ASVs sold to the armed forces have not been required to conform to the federal standards." Because of the limited number of the Dragoon ASVs to be manufactured for this contract, its role as a combat vehicle, and past precedent set by Verne Corporation, AV Technology expects compliance with MIL-STD-1180, which mirrors the federal motor vehicle specifications in many respects, is adequate to meet the need for on road safety.

If you require any additional information or details on our combat vehicle please don't hesitate to contact us. Thank you for considering the Dragoon armored combat vehicle for exclusion from federal safety standards and regulations, we look forward to hearing from you soon.

ATTACHMENT Dragoon Armored Security Vehicles (ASV) brochure. (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-8.20

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: Jim Davis -- President, Russell Performance Products

TO: David Elias -- DOT

COPYEE: Bill Collins -- Titeflex

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/12/94 from John Womack to Jim Davis (A42; Std. 106), letter dated 10/22/93 from Jim Davis to David Elias (OCC-9249), and letter dated 10/22/93 from Jim Davis to NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division

TEXT:

After our recent phone conversation I re-read my copy of NHTSA's 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-88 Edition) covering the marking of brake hose assemblies. Unless I am reading this incorrectly, it seems that we do not need marking on the hose once it has been made into an assembly.

S5.2.2 says that "Each hydraulic brake hose shell be labelled or cut from bulk brake hose that is labelled, etc." But then it goes on to say that "The formation need not be present on hose once it has become part of a brake hose assembly or after it is installed in a motor vehicle." It would seem to me that the phrase "once it has become a part of a brake hose assembly" would relieve us of the necessity to mark the hose.

The copy that I am reading this from is a very indistinct Xerox that I may be misinterpreting.

I can understand the need for interim marking if the hose is placed in commerce in an unassembled state. But that is not the case here where we are the ONLY customer with Titeflex for this particular hose and we make it into assemblies which otherwise meet all the specifications required by NHTSA.

I will call you in a few days to discuss this with you.

ID: nht93-8.21

DATE: November 17, 1993

FROM: David Shapiro -- RV Designer Collection, Woodbridge, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/10/94 from John Womack to David Shapiro (A42; Std. 302)

TEXT:

We are in the process of preparing a line of decorative products for sale in the recreational vehicle aftermarket.

Products will include drapes and other fabric window coverings, and bedspreads and other fabric bedding.

The products will be designed for use in motorhomes, travel trailers and similar multipurpose passenger vehicles.

All of these products will be sold in the recreational vehicle aftermarket, to consumers who already own recreational vehicles.

We have been told by your department that motor vehicle safety standard 302 does not apply to aftermarket products. We would appreciate receiving a letter from you confirming this.

ID: nht93-8.22

DATE: November 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jason Backs -- Engineering Department, Travis Body and Trailer, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/19/93 from Jason Backs to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of October 19, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a dump trailer manufactured by your company.

With respect to the location of the horizontal side conspicuity treatment, you prefer not to place it on the rubrail because "our present extrusions have raised ridges on the outer surface." You propose to apply the conspicuity treatment between each side stake, resulting in 58% coverage of the trailer side. The tape is "in full view" from a point perpendicular to the side of the trailer, but at approximately 30 degrees from perpendicular, the edge of the tape begins to be obstructed by the side stake. You ask for our concurrence that your proposed treatment is in accordance with Standard No. 108.

We are pleased to provide our concurrence. The mounting height requirements of Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 are specified in terms of practicability. The rule was amended on October 6, 1993, to specify a mounting height of "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The determination of practicability, in the first instance is that of the manufacturer certifying compliance with Standard No. 108. NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. Because of raised ridges, you deem the rubrail not as practicable a location as the slightly higher area. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 allows discontinuities in the side treatment as long as not less than half the side is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable.

Although the sheeting itself must meet the performance indicated at the observation angles specified in Figure 29, there are no visibility requirements that apply to it once it is installed on a trailer. This means that the obscuring of the conspicuity treatment that begins at about 30 degrees from perpendicular under your proposed treatment is not prohibited by Standard No. 108.

ID: nht93-8.23

DATE: November 19, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

COPYEE: James Z. Peepas

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/93 from Ronald L. Signorino to John Womack

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of November 3, 1993, with respect to the trailer conspicuity specifications of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

First, we regret the confusion that has been caused by our letter of October 20, 1993, to James Peepas of Selecto-Flash, Inc., which modified our earlier interpretation dated July 26, 1993. Mr. Peepas has made a number of calls to this Office seeking an understanding of the conspicuity requirements on Maersk's behalf, and, in our view, has pursued the matter with diligence.

You have presented three "Facts" and ask whether each is right or wrong.

"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."

If calculable means "required", this is a correct statement. Our letter of October 20 refers to the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) that "at the location chosen, the strip (of sheeting) shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or 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 an appropriate site; and"

The length of the gooseneck is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of calculating the half length that must be covered by the conspicuity treatment (which, of course, would be greater than half the length behind the gooseneck). There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes the application of auxiliary retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, any conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered.

"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."

This assertion is wrong, and the correct requirement is most clearly illustrated by the following example. Let us say that the overall length of the trailer is 40 feet, including an 8-foot gooseneck. The amount of the side to be covered is not less than 20 feet. The area to be covered is the 32 feet between the rear bolster to the point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus. Thus, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht93-8.24

DATE: November 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herman Myburgh -- Executive Vice-President, Allvan Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/8/93 from Herman Myburgh to John Womack (OCC-9292)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 8, 1993, asking for an interpretation of the conspicuity mounting height requirement of Standard No. 108 as it applies to your curtainsided trailer.

You state that there are no retroreflective tapes that can be affixed to the curtain material itself and ask whether the conspicuity material may be placed on the frame rail. The answer is yes. As you note, in that location the material will be located within the range of mounting heights specified in recent amendments to Standard No. 108.

For your information, submissions to the docket during the course of this rulemaking indicate that there are conspicuity materials that can be affixed to curtain materials. Some trailer manufacturers may prefer this avenue to compliance.

ID: nht93-8.25

DATE: November 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Carver -- Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/01/93 Est. from Bob Carver (OCC-9218)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you referred to this agency's final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, dated November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). Specifically, you referred to S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS 217, as amended, and asked whether it was necessary to outline an emergency roof exit with retroreflective tape even though the tape would not be visible unless the bus is tilted on its side. You also asked whether the tape width requirement will be changed to 1 inch.

As you correctly quoted in your letter, S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS 217, as amended by our final rule of November 2, 1992, provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

The plain language of this provision requires every school bus emergency exit required by the standard to be outlined by the retroreflective tape, including required roof exits. No exceptions are provided in the standard.

I note that the November 1992 final rule required additional emergency exits for school buses, but provided manufacturers various options from which to choose. Roof exits were specified as one option because of their potential safety benefits in rollover situations where the bus comes to rest on its side. Further, roof exits could also serve as potential exit routes where other exit routes were either unavailable or inoperative. The retroreflective tape requirement was intended to increase the conspicuity of emergency exits in low-light situations. In a situation where a bus is resting on its side, the increased conspicuity of a roof exit could be critical for safety.

With regard to the width of the tape, we proposed a 1-inch retroreflective tape in the NPRM. However, in the final rule that 1 inch measurement was inadvertently converted to 3 cm rather than the correct 2.5 cm. We are in the process of issuing a technical amendment to the final rule which will specify that the tape must be not less than 2.5 cm (1 inch) in width rather than 3 cm.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

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.

ID: nht93-8.27

DATE: November 22, 1993

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Build Buses, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Jane L. Dawson (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Last week I requested some clarification from you concerning the final rule to FMVSS 217, and you suggested that I fax you my questions. Please address the following:

1. The definition of "daylight opening" refers to the maximum unobstructed opening. What constitutes an obstruction and how close to the door does an object have to be in order to be considered an obstruction?

2. In the current rule, each school bus must be equipped with either a rear emergency door OR a LS emergency door in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment and a pushout rear window. Has the location of the INITIAL LS emergency door been changed so that it is now required to be as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment or is the INITIAL LS emergency door still required to be in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment, and only a LS door that is used as an additional emergency exit required to be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment?

Walter, I know that this will require a WRITTEN response from you, but I'd appreciate it if you would call me at (910) 841-5798 and go over it verbally before you write a response to save some time.

ID: nht93-8.28

DATE: November 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. C. DeLaney -- Manager, Technical Programs, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/18/93 from J. C. DeLaney to John Womack (OCC-9226)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123; Motorcycle controls and displays. You asked whether a motorcycle side stand complies with Standard No. 123 if the stand passes SAE J1587 Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Test Procedure.

Standard No. 123 specifies at S5.2.4 Stands that: "A stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward." Neither S5.2.4 nor any other provision of Standard No. 123 incorporates by reference, SAE J1587. Thus, if a motorcycle side stand passes the SAE J1587 test procedure, it does not automatically follow that the side stand complies with Standard No. 123.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.