ID: 9249

Mr. Jim Davis
President
Russell Performance Products
2645 Gundry Avenue
Signal Hill, CA 90806

Dear Mr. Davis:

This responds to your letters to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, about the requirements of Standard 106, "Brake Hoses," for labeling hydraulic brake hose assemblies. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain in your letters that Russell holds a license to manufacture brake hose assemblies from Titeflex Corporation, a manufacturer of brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies. Titeflex supplies Russell with braided hose, and Russell manufactures the end fittings that Titeflex designed, using Titeflex's engineering drawings. Russell assembles the Titeflex hose with the end fittings, and "markets these hose assemblies [in] the marketplace."

You ask about marking the hose assemblies with a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the assembly, pursuant to S5.2.4 of Standard 106. You ask whether both Russell's and Titeflex's designations are required to be labeled, or only the designation of Russell.

The answer is only Russell's designation is required to be marked. Russell is manufacturing the assemblies and will market the assemblies. Russell's designation will identify Russell as the manufacturer of the assembly in the event of a possible noncompliance or defect with the assembly.

You also ask whether Titeflex's hose must be labeled with the information specified in S5.2.1 and S5.2.2 of Standard 106. The first part of your question asks whether the labeling requirements apply to bulk brake hose "with a stainless braided outer covering." The answer is yes. The standard does not exclude braided brake hoses from the labeling requirements.

The second part of this question asks about the required labeling for hoses that are part of brake hose assemblies. You ask for confirmation that Standard 106 does not require the hose to be labeled once the hose is part of a brake hose assembly. Your understanding is correct with regard to S5.2.2. The last sentence of that paragraph states: "The information [specified in S5.2.2] need not be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose assembly or a motor vehicle." (The quoted sentence was adopted at 56 FR 50520, October 7, 1991, to replace the sentence you referred to.) Accordingly, the hose need not bear the labeling of S5.2.2 when the hose is part of an assembly. However, the hose must still bear the stripes required by S5.2.1 unless, to quote from S5.2.1, the hose is "manufactured for use only in an assembly whose end fittings prevent its installation in a twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at the above address, or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Nicholas S. Copass Sales Manager Titeflex Industrial America 170 Tapley Street Springfield, MA 01104-2893 ref:106 d:5/12/94

ID: 9251

Mr. Larry Grabsky
VML and Colonna Corp.
2122 - 65th St.
Brooklyn, NY 11204

Dear Mr. Grabasky:

This is reply to your recent letter asking our views on the use of decorative neon lamps, or of oscillating or revolving ones.

This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which must be met from the time a motor vehicle is manufactured up until its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. The new car dealer is responsible for ensuring that any lighting equipment that it adds before the sale of the vehicle does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. The determination of whether an impairment exists is made by the person responsible for adding the equipment. If this determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will question it. In addition, all lighting equipment added before the vehicle's first sale must be steady burning when it is used.

If the lighting equipment is added after the vehicle's sale by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, it is subject to the restriction that it not "render inoperative, in whole or in part" any lamp that has been installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether added before or after initial sale of the vehicle, is subject to the laws of States in which the vehicle is operated, even if the equipment is not prohibited under Federal law.

With respect to neon lights, we are aware of aftermarket installations on the underside of vehicles that illuminate the pavement below. If such lamps create glare that distracts another motorist from perceiving, for example, the turn signals in use, we would consider that an impairment and a partially rendering inoperative within the meaning of those terms. We are unable to advise you on State laws regarding the use of neon lights on vehicles, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We are unsure what you mean by "oscillating" but Standard No. 108, in general, requires lamps added before a vehicle's initial sale to be steady burning in use, unless otherwise permitted (such as turn signals and hazard warning signals, and automatic flashing of headlamps for signalling purposes). Installation of a non steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after initial sale could be viewed as a rendering inoperative depending upon the circumstances. Standard No. 108 does allow a motorcycle to be equipped with a modulating headlamp for daytime use. The modulation permitted is 240 +/- 40 cycles per minute. When NHTSA proposed to allow the modulating headlamp, some commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. We believe that the reaction is most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Thus, care should be taken in the use of supplementary lamps that are not steady burning.

As for revolving lamps, we believe that these are generally found on police and emergency vehicles such as ambulances and tow trucks. Whether it is permissible to equip a vehicle with these lamps and to use them is a question to be answered under State law.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/16/93

ID: 9252

Mr. James Schaub
Midas Muffler Shop
180 Gause Blvd.
Slidell, LA 70458

Dear Mr. Schaub:

This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows:

(f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation.

We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:105#570 d:5/18/94

ID: 9263

John B. Walsh
Legal Affairs Manager
Corporate Attorney
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 E. Imperial Highway
P.O. Box 1100
Brea, CA 92622-1100

Dear Mr. Walsh:

This acknowledges receipt of your letter dated October 29, 1993 requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of the recent final rule mandating the installation of air bags in passenger cars and light trucks (58 FR 46551, September 2, 1993). As you suggested in your letter, we believe it would be appropriate to respond to your request in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration of the September 2 final rule.

If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:11//4/93

ID: 9279

Ronald L. Signorino, Director
Health, Safety & Regulatory Affairs
Universal Maritime Service Corp.
Suite 1600
10 Exchange Place
Jersey City, NJ 07302

Dear Mr. Signorino:

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: James Z. Peepas ref:108 d:11/19/93

ID: 9280

Mr. Darryl Cobb
Route 2 Box 685
Abbeville, GA 31001

Dear Mr. Cobb:

This responds to your inquiry about how Federal regulations would affect the sale of an aftermarket rearview mirror you plan to import into the United States. You stated that this mirror system would be installed on the driver's side of a passenger car. A brochure accompanying your letter indicated that the mirror system contains both a portion that is a flat mirror of unit magnification and a portion along the outer edge that is convex. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA issued performance requirements for new vehicle mirrors in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111, copy enclosed). Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in Standard No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in Standard No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle type on which the mirror system is installed. Assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on new vehicles of that type.

Please note that since Standard No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under the Safety Act, the mirror is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle 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 ...." If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced a complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111. Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of the render inoperative provision.

The Safety Act does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they desire on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:111 d:4/7/94

ID: 9281

Mr. Larry R. Lynch
AT & D Corporation
One Pasco Center
San Antonio, FL 33576

Dear Mr. Lynch:

This responds to your inquiry about how Federal safety standards would apply to the "AeroCon System," a new product being developed by your firm. You state that this product is an air deflector/fairing that provides aerodynamic braking. According to your letter, "By opening doors on the fairing unit, the full force of the relative wind speed is redirected to strike the trailer face, greatly decreasing stopping distance. The pneumatic power required to actuate the system's doors utilizes the auxiliary air system of the tractor." (emphasis in original)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about air deflectors or fairings. However, since the AeroCon System "utilizes the auxiliary air system," it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If the AeroCon System is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, 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. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). You may wish to determine whether the AeroCon System adversely affects compliance with any of the requirements in Standard No. 121.

In addition, under the Safety Act, the AeroCon System would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:121 d:3/10/94

ID: 9283

Mr. William J. MacAdam
President & CEO
trans2 Corporation
37682 Enterprise Court
Farmington Hills, MI 48331

Dear Mr. MacAdam:

This responds to your request for an interpretation that an electric vehicle that trans2 plans to manufacture is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Your counsel, Mr. James Freeman, informed Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff that you do not object to the manner in which this letter describes the trans2 vehicle.

We have determined that the trans2 electric vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. "Motor vehicle" is defined at Section 102(3) of the Act as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

It is unclear from your letter whether the trans2 vehicle is manufactured for on-road use. However, NHTSA has stated in past interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles.

These criteria appear to be met by trans2's vehicle. You stated that the top speed of the vehicle is 20 miles per hour. Photographs of trans2's vehicle show that it is approximately the size and height of a golf cart. From the side, the passenger compartment appears to be an oval. From the rear, the vehicle has tail lights built into the two headrests. These unusual body features make the trans2 vehicle readily distinguishable from "motor vehicles."

Accordingly, we determine that trans2's vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Since the trans2 vehicle is not a motor vehicle, none of NHTSA's regulations or standards apply to it.

Please note that except for the features of the trans2's vehicle described herein, the remaining vehicle specifications described in your letter of November 3, 1993 are protected under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. The protection will continue until trans2 discloses details of its vehicle to the public.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: James Freeman, Esq. Hogan and Hartson Columbia Square 555 13th St., NW Washington, DC 20004-1109

ref:VSA d:4/1/94

ID: 9287

Judith Jurin Semo, Esq.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20044-0407

Dear Ms. Semo:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determination. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)(15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to buyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... [S]ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the trucks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. for modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR 591.5, the importer would file a declaration under 591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA102(3)#591 d:4/19/94

ID: 9292

Mr. Herman Myburgh
Executive Vice-President
Allvan Corporation

FAX 1-615-459-0289

Dear Mr. Myburgh:

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:11/22/93