ID: nht93-7.55

DATE: November 5, 1993

FROM: Judith Jurin Semo -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Importation from Germany of Demilitarized, Russian-Built, Special Purpose Trucks: Request for Determination That Trucks Are Off-Road Vehicles Not Subject To DOT/NHTSA Safety Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/19/94 from John Womack to Judith Jurin Semo (A42; Part 591; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

On behalf of our client, Agrinvest International, Inc., 8433 N. Black Canyon Highway, Suite 116, Phoenix, Arizona 85021 ("Agrinvest"), we are writing to request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") issue a determination that demilitarized, special purpose, Russian-built trucks (ZIL model 131) are off-road vehicles for purposes of 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), and therefore are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards.

FACTS

Agrinvest plans to import 573 ZIL model 131 trucks into the United States from Germany later this month. Agrinvest acquired two different types of ZIL model 131 trucks at an auction in Germany in early 1993. All of the vehicles are demilitarized trucks that were used by the former East German military and, following re-unification, were sold through auction by the German Government.

DESCRIPTION

Each ZIL truck purchased by Agrinvest is a six-wheel drive vehicle with an eight-cylinder, spark ignition, internal combustion, reciprocating piston engine. Agrinvest purchased two types of ZIL model 131 trucks. Of the 573 ZIL trucks being shipped to the United States, 183 are demilitarized spraying tank trucks ("tank trucks"). The remaining 390 ZIL trucks are former military battalion trucks with various equipment configurations. (*) The battalion trucks are similar to the tank trucks in the basic design of the vehicle, i.e., the cab, chassis, engine, drive train, etc. in the two types of vehicles are the same.

Each ZIL tank truck has a tank constructed from heavy gauge steel, a mechanical pump, a manual pump, wide beam spray nozzles and associated equipment. The tank trucks were built to spray water or neutralizing agents to detoxify or decontaminate areas which have been biologically, chemically, or radiologically contaminated. The U.S. Customs Service has ruled that the tank trucks are classifiable as special purpose vehicles under HTSUS 8705.90.00. A copy of the September 7, 1993 ruling letter from the U.S. Customs Service is enclosed.

The battalion trucks were manufactured approximately five to ten years ago for use by the Soviet military for telecommunications, radar, and other military support purposes. The radio, telecommunications, and radar equipment were disabled and the frequency-carrying pans dismounted under the supervision of the German Ministry of Defense prior to the trucks being sold at auction. We believe that the battalion trucks, like the tank trucks, are special purpose

vehicles and would be classifiable in HTSUS 8705.90.00. Agrinvest has requested a Customs ruling on the classification of the battalion trucks.

Last spring, Agrinvest obtained confirmation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("BATF"), which issues permits for the permanent import of commodities listed on the U.S. Munitions Import List, that the ZIL water tank trucks do not require a BATF permit. A copy of that letter is enclosed. This month, Agrinvest requested similar confirmation from BATF for importation of the ZIL battalion trucks.

INTENDED USE

The ZIL tricks will be reconfigured, modified, and converted in the United States into special purpose, nonmilitary vehicles. After the ZIL trucks are converted and after the approval of the U.S. Department of Commerce is obtained, Agrinvest plans to export most of the trucks for use by civilian purchasers in Eastern Europe, Africa, and other overseas destinations where these types of vehicles are in service and where parts and services for the vehicles are available.

Agrinvest may enter samples of the ZIL vehicles into the United States to test the vehicles against Department of Transportation ("DOT")/NHTSA safety standards and Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") emission standards. After such testing is completed, some 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. Any ZIL vehicles imported into the United States will comply with U.S. regulatory requirements. It is possible that, after the conversion is completed and the vehicles are brought into compliance with all requisite safety and emission standards, Agrinvest will import some of the vehicles for use in its orchard operation in Arizona.

ANALYSIS

Under 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), vehicles which were "not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads" are not considered to be motor vehicles as defined in Section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S 1391). Off-road vehicles are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards. We believe that the ZIL trucks are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards because the trucks were not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

VEHICLE FEATURES

The ZIL trucks were originally designed for military use on rugged terrain and in areas without roads. The trucks have self-inflatable tires which enable an operator to reinflate punctured tires while continuing to drive the vehicle. Moreover, these tires are very large, because they are designed to span gaps in the driving surface of 600 millimeters (approximately 23.6 inches) and to ford water over 1.4 meters high (approximately 55.1 inches). Such heavy duty, off-road capabilities show that the ZIL trucks were not designed primarily for use on public roads.

The ZIL trucks have a maximum permissible cruising speed of 70 kilometers/hour (approximately 42 miles per hour) and a maximum speed of only 80 kilometers/hour (approximately 48 miles per hour). The limited speed at which the trucks operate function as a practical restriction on their ability to be used on public roads; if they had been designed to be used primarily on the public roads, the trucks would operate at faster speeds. In addition, the trucks have a turning radius of 11.2 meters -- approximately 36.7 feet. This turning radius renders use of the trucks on public roads unwieldy and further illustrates that the trucks were not designed primarily for use on public roads.

Each of the ZIL tank trucks has a gross vehicle weight of 10,850 kilograms (approximately 23,900 pounds), which includes a payload of 2,700 liters and a driver and two passengers with a combined weight of 225 kilograms. Each of the ZIL battalion trucks has a gross vehicle weight of 10,185 kilograms (approximately 22,450 pounds), which includes a payload of 3,500 kilograms and a driver and two passengers with a combined weight of 225 kilograms. The trucks are 2,740 millimeters wide (approximately 97 inches). The dimensions and weight of the ZIL trucks indicate that they are slow, heavy, and wide vehicles, which are not practical for use on public roads.

CUSTOMS RULING

The U.S. Customs Service has ruled that, for Customs purposes, the ZIL tank tricks are classified as special purpose vehicles under HTSUS 8705.90.00. Agrinvest has requested that Customs issue a ruling on classification of the battalion trucks. The annotation to HTSUS Heading 8705 provides that "the primary purpose of a vehicle of this heading is NOT the transport of persons or goods" (emphasis in original). Although the Customs ruling on the tank trucks is not binding on NHTSA, it indicates that ZIL 131 trucks are not considered the type of vehicle that is primarily for use on public roads.

CONCLUSION

ZIL model 131 trucks are heavy, cumbersome vehicles, which were designed and built to be used on rough terrains. All of the ZIL 131 trucks will be reconfigured, modified, and converted in the United States. After the trucks are converted and the approval of the Department of Commerce is obtained, most of the ZIL trucks will be exported for use overseas in areas without good road systems. If Agrinvest can satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, it may use some of the trucks in its orchard operation in Arizona.

Photographs of the ZIL trucks and specifications for those trucks are enclosed with this request. Please call me at (202) 626-6606 if you have any questions or would like additional information in order to issue a ruling that the ZIL model 131 trucks are off-road vehicles for purposes of 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), and therefore are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because the trucks are expected to arrive in the United States by the end of the month, we would appreciate an early response. To avoid mail delays, we ask that you call us once the letter has been prepared, so that we may arrange for a messenger to pick it up.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

(*) The 390 battalion trucks consist of 45 dual generator trucks, 90 radio equipment trucks, 62 radio equipment switching center trucks, 62 mobile teletypewriter trucks, 41 paraboloid antenna trucks, 45 mobile workshop trucks, 9 radio link system station trucks, 13 radar station trucks, 7 mobile Robutron/GUM computer trucks, 4 target acquisition trucks, 5 cable drum (with racks) transportation trucks, 3 mobile water treatment unit trucks, 1 telecommunications switching center truck, I mess/boarding truck (with built-in cupboards, shelves, benches, tables, etc.), and two messing/storage trucks (with built-in cupboards and shelves).

Enclosures

(Photos omitted.)

9/7/93 letter from the U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury to Dennis Mack regarding classification. (Text omitted.)

5/5/93 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to Judith Jurin Semo. (Text omitted.)

List of specifications. (Text omitted.)

Portions of the fourteenth edition of Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics (1993-94). (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-7.6

DATE: October 1, 1993 Est.

FROM: Larry Grabsky -- VML and Colonna Corp.

TO: John Wilman -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Larry Grabsky (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Regarding a phone conversation with a member of your staff recently we would appreciate any relevant information pertaining to the following:

Has your agency issued any recent and/or relevant advisory opinion regarding decorative neon lights or the use of oscillating or revolving lights even if they do not diminish the effect or performance of required lighting on a motor vehicle and does such violate FMVSS Section 108.

Once again, we do appreciate your forwarding us information and your agencies assistance in this matter.

ID: nht93-7.7

DATE: October 1, 1993 Est.

FROM: Bob Carver

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A41; Part 571; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I'm an engineer at Wayne Wheeled Vehicles, a commercial and school bus manufacturing company. My job here is to see ensure compliance to FMVSS 217, effective May 1994. I have a question for you in which I need an official ruling concerning FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(c):

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.

If an emergency roof exit is required, is it necessary to outline it with the retroreflective tape even though it is not visible unless the bus is tilted on its side? Also, Charles Hott at NHTSA said that the width requirement will be revised to 1 inch. Can you confirm this?

Thanks in advance for your prompt consideration and assistance concerning this matter.

ID: nht93-7.8

DATE: October 4, 1993

FROM: James E. Walker -- Manager, LSI Laboratories, Lighting Sciences Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to James E. Walker (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Richard Van Iderstein, NHTSA; recently, LSI Laboratories conducted a test on a customer's product - a tail light. At the conclusion of the test LSI Laboratories was unable to determine pass/fail criteria. Our discussion with Mr. Van Iderstein lead us to believe CFR 49, Ch. V Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has a discrepancy. The discrepancy exists in paragraph S5.1.1.11 referencing the tail lamp. S5.1.1.11 states:

A ..., tail lamp, ..., shall meet the minimum percentage specified in Figure 1a of the corresponding minimum allowable value specified in Figure 1b. The values specified in Figure 1a and Table 1 and Table 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps are substituted for those specified in Table 1 of the Following SAE Standards: ..., J585e Tail Lamps (maximum at H or above), ... .

The discrepancy is that para. S5.1.1 requires equipment to be designed to Tables I, II and S7, which references SAE J585e for the Tail Lamp. Para. S5.1.1.11 requires Table 1 of this specification to be substituted for the values achieved by Figures 1a and 1b, and in addition, to substitute Table 1 of SAE 585e by the values achieved by multiplying the percentages of Figure 1a by Tables 1 and 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps.

LSI Laboratories would assume that the photometric requirements are those of Figure 1a, 1b, and 1c of 49 CFR Ch. V Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

It is hoped your clarification would allow LSI Laboratories to compare performance to establish pass/fail criteria. This would allow our customer to begin production or re-design.

ID: nht93-7.9

DATE: October 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Anonymous

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/9/93 from Anonymous to John Womack (Part 541)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). You asked whether "embossing" is permitted to mark engines and transmissions for original and replacement parts. You also asked whether the symbol "DOT" and your company's logo may appear in identical locations on original and replacement parts. As explained below, embossing is permitted, but "DOT" may not appear on original parts.

The relevant Part 541 provisions are Sections 541.5 Requirements for passenger cars and 541.6 Requirements for replacement parts. Section 541.5(a) states that each passenger car subject to the theft prevention standard must have an identifying number "affixed or inscribed" on each of fourteen specified original parts.

Section 541.6(a) states that each replacement part must have the trademark of the replacement part manufacturer and the letter "R" "affixed or inscribed" on such replacement part. Section 541.6(f) states that each replacement part must bear the symbol "DOT," that is "inscribed or affixed."

In response to your first question about embossing, we note the required information on original and replacement parts must be "inscribed or affixed." To determine whether embossing is a means of "inscribing," we have reviewed the dictionary's definition. "Inscribe" means "to mark or engrave (words, symbols, etc.) on some surface." (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Since embossing is a means of marking on a surface, embossing would be included within the definition of "inscribing."

The preamble to the final rule that established Part 541 confirms the above interpretation. NHTSA then stated that it "has no authority to mandate the use of any particular marking system. NHTSA has authority only to establish performance criteria that will accomplish the purposes of the Theft Act. The manufacturers are free to select any marking system that satisfies those criteria." (See 50 FR 43166, at 431701; October 24, 1985.) Thus, if your company believes embossing satisfies Part 541 performance criteria, it may emboss.

Your second question asked whether "DOT" may be marked on original parts, The answer is no. Original parts must be marked with the vehicle identification number. If an original part includes "DOT," the part would be dual marked. "Dual marking" was discussed in Part 541's preamble:

... the agency cannot allow such dual markings under the theft prevention standard. Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stolen original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. ... This would not serve the purpose of the Theft Act of

"decreasing the ease with which certain stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced." (See 50 FR 43166, at 43179).

It would also be inappropriate to mark "DOT" on an original part because "DOT" is a manufacturer's certification that a replacement part conforms to Part 541. (See 49 CFR 541.6(f)). Since an original part would not conform to Part 541's requirements for replacement parts, it would be inappropriate for a manufacturer to certify compliance by placing "DOT" on the original part.

Finally, it was requested that your company not be identified in public copies of this letter, and that your incoming letter be purged of references to your company. In order to save time, we agree to do this. In the future, however, please note that 49 CFR Part 512 Confidential Business Information sets forth procedures for protecting information that your company believes is confidential.

I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If there are further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-8.1

DATE: November 8, 1993

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

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re: FMVSS Part 571.108 on conspicuity striping on truck

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from John Womack to Herman Myburgh (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are manufacturers of curtainsided trailers where the curtain material wraps around the side rails of the trailer. Currently there are no retroreflective tape manufacturer who makes a tape that can stick to or can be RF. welded to the curtain material itself.

Could we attach the conspicuity striping to the trailer frame rail itself in such a manner that it will still comply with the latest amendment of "anywhere from 375mm to 1525mm above the ground"? This will be in the same manner as it will probably be applied to container chassis. Your response to this at your earliest convenience will be appreciated.

ID: nht93-8.10

DATE: November 15, 1993

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

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from John Womack to Richard L. Plath (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I know that Jim Peepas from our company has contacted you concerning the conspicuity program. I am responsible for sales for Selecto Flash and thought I would share with you some of the concerns of the various manufacturer's.

In our discussions with the trailer and container manufacturer's who supply this equipment, there seems to be differences of opinion as to the actual requirements. For this reason I will outline the procedure as we understand it and will further ask for confirmation on several issues set forth within this letter.

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

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

3) In the case of a forty eight 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.

4) It shall be recognized that a chassis may travel both with and without a container. In the case of a gooseneck chassis, the gooseneck portion is not visible when the chassis is loaded with a container. The gooseneck portion is generally about 8 feet in length. 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.

The confusion is the treatment of the same gooseneck chassis that is loaded with a container. It is our understanding that the requirements now are for the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) to 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 per cent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck.

If our interpretation is correct, then the gooseneck chassis illustrated above would be in violation if traveling without benefit of a container.

The eight foot gooseneck would be dangerously unmarked creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four

feet is allowable. It is our feeling that since the chassis travels both loaded and unloaded, if the reflective modules were applied evenly spaced along the total length, that the spirit of the law would be realized. Is there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis? If a chassis is considered to be a trailer for purposes of the conspicuity law, then the evenly spaced treatment would seem to be more consistent.

We would appreciate a confirmation from your office indicating the legal application of the law as it pertains to gooseneck chassis.

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

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

4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film from 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?

We hope that you can respond to these questions well in advance of the December 1st deadline. The application process has already begun and the manufacturer's need to finalize the process.

ID: nht93-8.11

DATE: November 15, 1993

FROM: Amar Chhabra -- Project Manager, Procedair Industries

TO: To Whom It May Concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 26, 1994 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 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston

TEXT:

This letter is to certify that the equipment stored at CES 401 Slater Street, New Westminister, BC V3H 3Y1 was fabricated by IMF INC. located in Greenville, Tennessee, USA.

The above mentioned equipment mainly consists of two (2) trailers complete with Air Pollution Control equipment and accessories.

ID: nht93-8.12

DATE: November 15, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Ben Newberry; Jim Swift

TITLE: Request for Interpretation; REF: 49 CFR Part 571 - Docket No. 90-05; Notice 4, FMVSS 222, Final Rule on Wheelchair Securement Devices and Occupant Restraint Systems

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 222)

TEXT:

Section S5.4.3.2 of the referenced final rule requires that each wheelchair location have at least one anchorage for the upper torso restraint and at least two floor anchorages for pelvic and upper torso restraint.

Section S5.4.3.2 of the rule states:

"Each wheelchair occupant restraint floor anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons applied as specified in paragraphs (a) through (d). When more than one wheelchair occupant restraint share a common anchorage, the anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons multiplied by the number of occupant restraints sharing that anchorage."

It is our understanding that the phrase, "When more than one wheelchair occupant restraint share a common anchorage, . . . ." is intended to address the possible situation where restraints from two different wheelchair occupant restraint systems share a common anchorage. It is not intended to address the common situation where the lower end of an upper torso restraint joins the pelvic restraint and goes to one of the rear floor anchorages of a single occupant's restraint system.

If the phrase was intended to apply to the latter, common situation, then rear floor anchorage could be required to be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 newtons for the upper torso restraint plus 13,344 for the pelvic restraint for a total of 26,688 Newtons (6000 lbs). If the floor anchorage was also as one of the wheelchair securement anchorages, as is typically the case, Section S5.4.3.2(e) would require that the anchorage be capable of withstanding 3 x 13,344 Newtons (9000 lbs) total.

Blue Bird believes that the phrase referenced above was not intended to require double loading of an anchorage if the anchorage is intended to secure only one occupant. Referring to the attached drawings of two typical systems, we believe the following force capability requirements apply to the floor anchorages:

Left front floor anchorage - 13,344 Newtons (3000 lbs) because only one wheelchair securement device is attached.

Right front floor anchorage - 13,344 Newtons (3000 lbs) because only one wheelchair securement device is attached.

Left rear floor anchorage - 2 x 13,344 Newtons (6000 lbs) because both the left side of the pelvic restraint and the left rear wheelchair securement device are attached:

a. For Figure 1 through separate belts.

b. For Figure 2 through a common belt.

Right rear floor anchorage - 2 x 13,344 Newtons (6000 lbs) because the right side of the pelvic restraint and the lower end of the upper torso restraint are for only one occupant and along with the right rear wheelchair securement device are attached:

a. For Figure 1 through separate belts.

b. For Figure 2 through a common belt.

It is our understanding that the intent of Sections S5.4.3.2 and S5.4.3.2(e) of the standard, for single occupant systems as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, is for the rear anchorages to be capable of withstanding 2 x 13,344 Newtons (6000 lbs) rather than 3 x 13,344 newtons (9000 lbs).

Blue Bird is in the final stages of certification testing of several systems and must complete our work immediately in order to meet the January 17, 1994 effective date. We, therefore, request urgent attention be given to this matter and that confirmation of our understanding, as stated above, be provided by FAX or telephone in the next few days. A formal written interpretation can be provided at a later date, but we need the answer immediately.

Thank you for your consideration of this urgent request.

ATTACHMENTS

Figure 1 - Typical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system (separate belts to floor anchorage)

Figure 2 - Typical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system (single belts to floor anchorage)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht93-8.13

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald E. Schmitz -- Engineering Manager, Featherlite Mfg., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from Donald E. Schmitz to Howard M. Smolkin (OCC-9204)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 7, 1993, to Acting Administrator Smolkin which "addresses the TTMA, September 8, 1993, Recommended Practice of Trailer Conspicuity Systems." You inform us that you "will begin applying the conspicuity tape to the trailer's bottom as shown" in the TTMA sketches, and "will assume our interpretation is correct . . . unless we receive a response from your office within ten days."

If you wish an interpretation of the TTMA drawings, you should consult that organization. This agency provides interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to paragraph S5.7, which establishes conspicuity system requirements for large trailers, effective December 1, 1993, the agency published an amendment on October 6, the day before your letter, which modified the mounting height requirements adopted in December 1992. The original requirement of "as close as practicable to 1.25 m above the road surface" has been changed to a range that is "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface...." I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. See paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) for the change.