ID: nht93-8.32

DATE: November 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Leo Chung -- Operational Services, Genstar Container Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/93 from Leo Chung to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9311)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 3, 1993, to Mr. Vinson of this Office, with respect to calculation of the application of conspicuity treatment to container chassis trailers.

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). For 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.

There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes the application of 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.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht93-8.33

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. Z. Peepas -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 11/12/93 from J. Z. Peepas to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of November 12, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, the latest in a series of communications about how the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 are to be applied to gooseneck trailers.

On October 20, we sent you a correction of our earlier interpretation of S5.7.1.4.2(a). Our correction stated that the requirement is that conspicuity treatment not be obscured by trailer cargo. If conspicuity treatment is applied to the gooseneck of a container trailer, we understand that it will be obscured by the container (cargo) when it is in place.

S5.7.1.4.2(a) also specifies that conspicuity treatment "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." 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).

You have suggested that we reevaluate the effect of excluding the gooseneck from compliance with the conspicuity requirements. There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that prohibits a manufacturer from applying retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the entire trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered. An example may clarify this for you. 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, regardless of whether conspicuity treatment is applied to the gooseneck, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108, and the spaces must be distributed as evenly as Practicable. Standard No. 108 does not address the issue of the length of the spaces between strips, and a manufacturer may choose 4 feet or whatever is feasible for the trailer at hand.

On the basis of this interpretation letter, we believe that Selecto-Flash ought to be able to judge whether the conspicuity treatments on Prints A-1, A-2, B-1 and B-2 accord with Standard No. 108.

ID: nht93-8.34

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard L. Plath -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Richard L. Plath to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9327)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office on trailer conspicuity. You ask for confirmation of several points.

Initially, we would like to comment as follows on the 4-point procedure you have outlined:

"1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer."

This is correct. Because the chassis is designed for carrying property and for being towed by a motor vehicle, it is a "trailer" as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

"2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 percent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side.

This is correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108, retroreflective tape "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered...."

"3) In the case of a 48 foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules."

This is partially correct. Under S.7.1.4.2(a), a minimum of 24 feet of reflective material must be applied to the side of a 48-foot trailer. However, S5.7.1.3(a) requires the colors to be red and white, not red and silver. Further, under S5.7.1.3(b) , the permissible lengths of the sheeting are expressed as "each white or red segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm." We note that 450 mm is slightly less than 18 inches.

Standard No. 108 does not specify any maximum permissible "void... between modules." Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), the spaces are to be distributed "as evenly as practicable."

"4) *** when the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis.***"

This is incorrect. Compliance by an unloaded container chassis with the conspicuity requirements is determined as if the container load were in place. S7.5.1.4.2(a) states that "at the location chosen (for conspicuity treatment), the strip shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo." Because the container obscures the gooseneck, the conspicuity treatment mandated by Standard No. 108 cannot identify the extreme front portion of the chassis. Its front termination point will be behind the gooseneck, at a point where it is not obscured by the Container. You have correctly stated this with respect to a loaded chassis but it applies to the unloaded chassis as manufactured:

"... the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) (shall) be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further we understand that the 50 percent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck."

You conclude that a gooseneck chassis traveling without its container would be in violation of Standard No. 108 if its gooseneck were not marked "creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four feet is allowable." You also ask "(i)s there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis?"

As explained previously, Standard No. 108 does not require marking of the gooseneck of a container chassis, and there is ho requirement limiting the spacing between segments of retroreflective material. We believe that the desired conspicuity of the trailer will be maintained by requiring the additional 4 feet of sheeting on the chassis behind the gooseneck when the gooseneck itself will be obscured with the container in place. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a manufacturer from applying conspicuity treatment to the 8-foot gooseneck of a 48 foot trailer if it wishes to do so; however, the manufacturer is still required to apply not less than 24 feet of material in the 40-foot section behind the gooseneck.

We shall be pleased to answer the following four questions you have also raised:

"1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a 48 foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?"

You will have to apply 24 feet of stripping on the portion of a 48-foot chassis that lies behind the gooseneck, but you are not required to mark the gooseneck.

"2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?"

As explained previously, the 24 feet of material is to be applied behind the gooseneck. If you wish to apply evenly spaced conspicuity treatment that includes the gooseneck, you may do so, as long as at least 24 feet of it is behind the gooseneck.

"3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 percent coverage?"

Yes, a tire is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of S5.7.1.4.2(a) forbidding the obscuring of conspicuity treatment. No, you may not deduct the length of the area obscured by the tire from the 50 per cent coverage. You must include it in the 50 per cent computation. Thus, if a tire would obscure 3 feet of conspicuity material on the side of a 48 foot gooseneck trailer, the manufacturer must apply 24 feet of material in the 37 feet that is behind the gooseneck which is not obscured. We note in passing that the prints submitted for our review by J.Z. Peepas of Selecto-Flash depict conspicuity treatment that is above the top of the tire and apparently not obscured by it.

"4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?"

You are not required to place conspicuity treatment on the extendable portion of the chassis provided that not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered when the conspicuity treatment is placed elsewhere. In the event that conspicuity treatment is placed on the extendable portion and is damaged when the trailer is in use, the operator will not be subject to any penalties of this agency. Federal regulations governing the use of commercial vehicles in interstate commerce are issued by another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA requires that vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle (49 CFR 393.11). Therefore, maintenance of the conspicuity treatment on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, is required by the FHWA. If you wish to write FHWA on this topic, you may address James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590.

The individual states may have regulations in this area as well. We are unable to advise you on State requirements, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht93-8.35

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Ray Paradis

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 18, 1993, requesting a clarification of our letter of November 16 as it applies to the rear of the trailers shown in items #5 and #7 which accompanied your letter of August 31, 1993.

As we advised you with respect to rear markings, Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. With respect to the trailer shown in #7, retroreflective tape can be applied across the full width of the "approach ramp" to meet the requirements since the ramp will be in the down position when the trailer is moving.

As we further advised you, paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps. breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps. With respect to #5, we recommend applying red/white conspicuity treatment on either side of the identification lamps, with red material used in the remaining outboard areas.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht93-8.36

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Barry H. Wells -- M.D.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/23/93 from Barry H. Wells to Marvin Shaw

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter describing a device you called an "Emergency Brake Technology" (E.B.T.) system that you believe would eliminate jackknifing and improve the stopping distances of tractor trailers. A video tape accompanying your letter stated that the E.B.T. system operates by having a metal wedge slide below each wheel in response to an action by the driver. You requested the opportunity to testify or submit written comments about the benefits of this device. You also requested that the agency test the E.B.T. system.

As Marvin Show of my staff explained to you, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on September 28, 1993, that addresses the lateral stability and control of medium and heavy vehicles. The agency is proposing to require these vehicles to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) and to comply with a 30 mph braking-in-a-curve test on a low coefficient of friction surface. Mr. Shaw advised you that while the agency does not anticipate holding a public hearing on this rulemaking, you could submit written comments to the NPRM. In addition, we have submitted this correspondence, including your incoming letter and the video tape, to the public docket.

We regret that we are unable to fulfill your request for NHTSA to test the E.B.T. system. Given our limited research budget, it is not possible for us to test every automotive safety-related piece of equipment that is introduced into the marketplace.

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

ID: nht93-8.37

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: Lynn White -- President, Industrial Metal Fabricators

TO: Jeff Boraston -- Remediquip International Manufacturing

TITLE: Portable Trailers 45590 and 50690

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/94 from John Womack to Ramin Bogzaran (A42; VSA 102(3)); Also attached to letter dated 12/1/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to John Womack; Also attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Amar Chhabra to whom it may concern

TEXT:

The above equipment manufactured by IMF, Inc. in 1990 and 1991 meet or exceeded all requirements of the United States Department of Transportation.

I am also sending copies of the original Bill of Lading.

If I can provide additional information, please call.

Attachments (text and graphics omitted):

Exporter's Certificate of Origin Photographs

ID: nht93-8.38

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: Len R. Thies -- C & C Creations

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/18/94 From John Womack To Len R. Thies (A42; Std. 111; Std. 205; Std. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

My partner and I have developed an after-market device for use in commercial and non-commercial vans. The device inhibits the flow of air from the back of the van to the front and vice-versa, in effect reducing the amount of volume to be heated or cooled. The result is a more efficient use of the vehicle's heating/cooling system resulting in more comfort for the driver and passengers especially in cases of extreme temperatures.

The device is composed of a sheet of clear vinyl suspended near the ceiling by a metal bar. The vinyl is also attached to the sides of the vehicle by velcro patches. Visibility is unimpaired, and is easily detached and removed from the vehicle by the owner.

After additional testing we intend to start marketing the device. In order to address all potential regulations, I contacted Ms. Mary Verseilles and Mr. Mark Levine in your office, who have given me their informal opinions. I appreciate their time and commend them for their sincerity in addressing my questions and for guidance through other potential areas of concern.

The only real concern regarding the device is one raised by Mr. Levine and focuses on fire resistence. Vinyl will burn but must have constant ignition in order to do so. Many people might call it a "melt" rather than a burning action.

Basis the foregoing I would request from you a written opinion relative to the acceptability of the device for use in vehicles.

Thank you in advance for your handling of my request.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-8.39

DATE: December 1, 1993

FROM: Lisa A. Norris

TO: Illegible Name

COPYEE: Robert F. Hellmuth

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/27/93 from John Womack to Lisa A. Norris (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

(Illegible text) American Honda referred me to you because they say that your (illegible) applied to this. I would like a copy of this and the interpretation issued by Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson. Thank you for your cooperation. I have a hard time believing that I spent this much money for a car and have items "disconnected" for my "safety".

ID: nht93-8.4

DATE: November 9, 1993

FROM: Jerry Schwebel -- Executive Vice President, Star Comm Ltd.

TO: Walter Myers -- Attorney, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To Jerry Schwebel (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers,

Thank you for the time given to us by you and your associates to discuss our air filled children's car seat.

In accordance with our discussion we are requesting an opinion with respect to the retention of the front strap. This strap is marked in the attached diagram. (Exhibit A)

Description:

The strap is not part of the primary restraint. Its main function is to offer additional side impact protection by keeping the leading side of the seat attached to the opposite side so as to prevent the child from rolling out. The strap is non load bearing in frontal impact.

Summary:

We recommend use of the strap based upon the improved HIC factor, and additional side impact protection. Test data, with and without the strap is included as shown on exhibits respectively B & C to substantiate this.

Your prompt response is appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-8.40

DATE: December 1, 1993

FROM: Ramin Bogzaran -- Remedquip International Manufacturing, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for interpretation 102(3) - Definition of motor vehicle; Reply requested by December 14, 1993

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 26, 1994 from John Womack to Ramin Bogzaran (A42; VSA 102(3); Attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Amar Chhabra to whom it may concern; Also attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston

TEXT:

Further to my discussions with Mr. Vinson I am sending your offices a request for ruling on the definition of motor vehicle and section 591.5(a)(1).

We have two trailers which have specialized equipment mounted on them and were originally manufactured in Greenville, TN in 1991, to U.S. DOT standards. This equipment has been stored on one site since it was delivered to Canada and was never operated or modified. At the time of delivery the manufacturer obtained permits for the trailers to be shipped to Canada and did not place a DOT sticker on the trailers. This equipment was a special order for a now defunct Canadian company. The equipment mounted on the two trailers is a BAGHOUSE which is built for AIR POLLUTION CONTROL.

These units were BUILT TO BE PART OF A TRANSPORTABLE SOIL REMEDIATION PLANT and will be used in the same capacity once imported to the United States. The trailers do not get registered and only get moved with permits as required. The reason for not registering the trailers is that the projects are long term and the trailers hardly see the road in their lifetime.

The trailers will be inspected every time before they are moved to make sure that they are SAFE AND COMPLY WITH ALL SAFETY STANDARDS. As the trailers are in Canada we can check them here to make sure that they comply with all safety regulations in Canada and also the CVSA, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, which is an alliance signed between Canada and the United States to make sure that the commercial vehicles of both countries are safe and road worthy. It is our complete intention to make sure that the equipment is safe to be on the road and we feel that a favorable ruling to transport this equipment from Vancouver, Canada to our shop in San Diego, CA would be justified.

We will have the equipment checked by a United States certified technician once it has arrived to get a permit and make sure that it does comply with all federal safety regulations.

You will find enclosed a copy of the certificate of origin, pictures, a letter from the company which has had the equipment for the past two years stating that the equipment was built in the United States, and a letter from the manufacturer.

I thank you for your kind attention as our company must have this equipment at our facilities as soon as possible. I will be in contact with your office to make sure that you have all the necessary information which you may need to give us a ruling on the above.