ID: nht95-5.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer; Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JANE DAWSON TO WALTER MYERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office regarding the May 9, 1995, amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. For your future reference, Mr. Myers is no longer assigned to our school bus standards. You may address requests for interpretation directly to me.

The May 9 amendment (60 FR 24562) to FMVSS No. 217 permitted, among other things, bus manufacturers to meet the additional emergency exit area (AEEA) requirements of S5.2 by permitting manufacturers to install two emergency exit windows as an alternative to an emergency exit door. You asked what the location requirements (fore and aft) are for the emergency windows that are used as the first additional emergency exit.

FMVSS No. 217 contains no explicit fore and aft location requirements for the two additional emergency exit windows. However, the intent of the final rule was to substitute the location requirements of the side exit door when the windows are used to satisfy the requirement for the first additional emergency exit. This intention is reflected in the use of the conjunctive word "or" in Tables 1 and 2 of the May 9, 1995, amendment. If a left side exit door would have been installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i), then S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires that it be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. The same fore-aft location should be used for the windows. In cases where the fore-aft location is not specified, such as a right side exit door installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b)(2)(i), then the windows should be placed so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable.

Also note the explicit location requirement in S5.2.3.2(c) that exit windows be evenly divided between the left and right sides of the bus. For example, if two exit windows are used instead of a left side exit door, they should be placed on opposite sides at the midpoint of the bus.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek at this address or by calling (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George E. Walton -- International Manufacturer's Consultants, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 07/13/95 LETTER FROM GEORGE WALTON TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11044)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walton:

This responds to your July 13, 1995 letter requesting an interpretation regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You stated in your letter that your client wants to know if Standard No. 205 permits the use of laminated AS-1 glass in motorcycle windshields.

The answer to your question is yes. ANSI Z26.1-1977, which has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 205, explicitly refers to item 1 glazing (defined as including laminated glass) as "Safety Glazing Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle." Motorcycles are motor vehicles. Therefore, item 1 glazing is permitted in that application.

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

ID: nht95-5.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/07/95 LETTER FROM HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tim Phillips -- International Tire Marketers

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/21/95 LETTER FROM TIM PHILLIPS TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10999)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your letter of June 21, 1995, in which you asked us to update your information on new tire sizing codes used in the DOT identification of tires. Please be advised that this agency no longer specifies tire size codes.

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) @ 574.5, Tire identification requirements (copy enclosed), requires tire manufacturers to label on one sidewall of each tire it produces a tire identification number (TIN), and specifies that the TIN will be composed of four groupings, the second of which "shall be used to identify the tire size."

The size requirement in the TIN was first promulgated as @ 574.4 on November 10, 1970 (35 FR 17257). At that time, NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) specified in Table 1 of the regulation the codes to be used to designate the various tire sizes. In the following two years, the agency amended Table 1 numerous times to add new codes to represent additional tire sizes. On November 8, 1972 NHTSA published a final rule rescinding Table 1 and the agency-specified tire codes (37 FR 23727). The agency explained that because of the many new tire sizes being introduced, available new codes had become exhausted and it was necessary to change the system to one permitting greater flexibility. Accordingly, the agency amended the regulation to permit manufacturers to assign their own two-digit code to represent tire size and to permit retreaders to use either a self-assigned matrix code or a self-assigned tire size code. The November 8, 1972 amendment also required each new tire manufacturer and retreader to maintain a record of each symbol used and provide that information to NHTSA upon written request. Those requirements remain in effect (49 CFR @ 574.5(b)).

In summary, 49 CFR @ 574.5 no longer specifies tire size codes for use as the second grouping of symbols in TINs. Rather, the regulation permits manufacturers and retreaders to use their own tire size codes in that grouping of the TIN.

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

ID: nht95-5.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede e Stabilimenti

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/22/95 LETTER FROM GIUSEPPE DI VITO TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10947)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Di Vito:

This responds to your May 22, 1995, letter requesting an interpretation regarding the testing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that you have been requested to manufacture for BMW some type 15A side window security glazing with an internal spall shield coating. Because of the adhesive with which it is applied, this coating cannot pass test number 4 of ANSI Z.26.1-1977 (the boil test). Nevertheless, you urge that test number 5 (the bake test) be used as a substitute for purposes of compliance certification.

The boil test and the bake test are not equivalent, and your glazing would have to meet the boil test. Although both tests subject the glazing to the same heat for the same period, the bake test applies the heat using an oven, whereas the boil test applies the heat using boiling water. Section 5 of Z.26 explicitly states that the boil test is to be used for safety glass and that the bake test is only to be used for multiple glazed units. The illustrations that you enclosed with your letter show that your glazing is not a multiple glazed unit. Therefore, it has to meet the boil test to be certified for use on motor vehicles sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to write Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or call him at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerel M. Sachs -- General Manager, Automotive Glass, Import Products Glass (IPG)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/26/95 LETTER FROM JEREL M, SACHS TO CLARKE HARPER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 8-4-86 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/14/90 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO NORMAND LAURENDEAU

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sachs:

This responds to your June 26, 1995, letter requesting a manufacturer's code mark for automotive glazing to comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated in your letter that you "intend to engage in the manufacture and/or contract manufacture of automotive safety glass in the United States and overseas." Your letter also stated that you were negotiating for the tooling, machinery, and the code mark of Lin's Glass Company in Taiwan.

In a June 29, 1995, phone conversation between Paul Atelsek and a member of your staff, we learned that IPG only imports and distributes; but does not actually make, glazing. He was also told that Lin's has gone out of business, and that you had switched to another supplier in Taiwan. In a July 13, 1995, phone conversation with Mr. Atelsek, you confirmed that IPG makes no glazing and that your new supplier has a code mark assigned by NHTSA, but said that you preferred to use a "fresh" number assigned to your company. You said that other companies that do not make glazing have code marks assigned to them, and named another company that you said imports "cheap" Chinese glass and applies its own manufacturer's code mark in order to disguise the origin of the glass from its buyers. In a July 13, 1995, letter in support of your request, you stated that IPG would be doing contract manufacturing with a supplier who is also supplying other customers, and that having your own number would help you monitor quality control and track your product in the marketplace. You believe that having your own number would also benefit NHTSA because the agency would have an easier time implementing a recall through IPG than through the Taiwanese supplier.

As Mr. Atelsek explained on the telephone, we cannot issue a number to your company because you are not a "prime glazing manufacturer." Standard 205, at S6.1, defines "prime glazing material manufacturer" as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." As your company does none of these things, we cannot issue a code mark to IPG. To show you that this is a matter of longstanding legal interpretation, I have enclosed some interpretation letters we have written to others asking this question and related questions.

The glass should be marked with the number we have assigned to your supplier, the prime glazing manufacturer in Taiwan. The practice you mentioned of using code marks to disguise the identity of the manufacturer is directly contrary to our policy. This code mark is supposed to help NHTSA identify the prime manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Therefore, the code mark on a particular piece of glazing needs to refer to the company that actually, made the glazing, and code marks should never be applied to glazing made by anyone else.

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

ID: nht95-5.56

DATE: August 7, 1995

FROM: Karey Clock -- Moriden America, Inc.

TO: John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KAREY CLOCK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I need to obtain some clarification regarding the FMVSS302 Flammability specification. The specification states the following information:

A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an addition U-shaped frame, wider that the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 10-mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

What material does the above mentioned statement pertain to. Currently, Moriden America is testing the following types of materials and need to determine if it is acceptable to use wires during the test:

* Flat Woven * Double Raschel * Tricot * Moquette

All of these materials also are laminated by two types of foam backings, CK scrim and 780 Dow Film. The material's thickness varies from 0mm to 8mm. I would appreciate if you could determine if the material should be tested with wires.

If you have any questions, please call.

ID: nht95-5.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 20, 1995

FROM: Charles E. Grassley -- United States Senator

TO: Thomas D. Larson -- Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 1/29/96 letter from Carol Stroebel to Charles E. Grassley (A44; Std. 208); 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Dorothy Jean Arnold; 9/24/95 letter from Dorothy J. Arnold to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel

TEXT: I have been contacted by Dr. D. Jean Arnold who is disabled and would like to have the air bag from her car legally removed.

I would appreciate any information you could provide pertaining to this matter. Please mark your return correspondence to the attention of Dawn Latham when responding to my office.

Thank you for your attention to my request.

ID: nht95-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1995

FROM: Kenneth N. Weinstein -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, NHTSA

TO: Lewis H. Goldfarb, Esq. -- Assistant General Counsel, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: Compliance of MY 1995 Cirrus/Stratus with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210

ATTACHMT: 12/12/95 letter from Lewis H. Goldfarb to Kenneth Weinstein

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1995, which transmitted a memorandum containing Chrysler Corporation's legal position on whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may rely on a July 11, 1995 compliance test to demons trate that model year 1995 Chrysler Cirrus and Dodge Stratus vehicles fail to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210.

In the July 10 test, NHTSA's contractor placed the pelvic body block several inches forward from the seat back. n1 In that test, and in subsequent tests conducted by Chrysler with the body block in that location, the rear seat anchorage in the Cirrus/Str atus failed before the 3000 pound test load set out in S5.2 of Standard No. 210 was reached. Chrysler has submitted a summary report describing a recent test in which the anchorage did not fail when the body block was positioned against the seat back, w hich is the position that Chrysler customarily uses when it tests its vehicles to ascertain whether they comply with Standard No. 210. It is Chrysler's position that since "neither the procedures specified in the standard nor the published laboratory te st protocol specify the location of the body block," its test with the body block against the seat should be accepted by NHTSA as demonstrating compliance with Standard No. 210.

n1 Your memorandum states on several occasions that the body block in the NHTSA test was placed four inches in front of the seat back. This distance represents the post-test location of the body block. In fact, the post-test photographs reveal that the floor structure had been distorted during the test procedure, thus indicating that the body block was less than four inches from the seat back prior to the test.

The agency agrees that neither the standard itself nor the laboratory test procedure developed by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies a precise distance that the body block is to be placed in front of the seat back. However, rather than support Chrysler's argument, this fact demonstrates that the failure of the Cirrus anchorages to withstand the test loads in NHTSA's test reflects a noncompliance with the standard. In the preamble issued by the agency in connection with its 1991 r econsideration of several amendments to Standard No. 210, NHTSA reiterated its longstanding view of a manufacturer's compliance responsibilities under these circumstances (56 FR 63676, 63677; December 5, 1991):

As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions o f unspecified test conditions may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions.

In the case of the strength requirements in Standard No. 210, nothing in the language of the standard suggests that the strength requirements were only to be measured with the safety belt or other vehicle features at certain adjustment positions. Ind eed, the purpose of the standard is to reduce the likelihood that an anchorage will fail in a crash. To serve this purpose, the anchorage must be capable of meeting the strength requirements with the safety belt and other vehicle features at any adjustm ent, since those features could be at any adjustment position during a crash.

The quoted statement, which was made in response to assertions by auto manufacturers that the test procedure was not sufficiently "objective" because certain test conditions were not sufficiently specified in the standard, demonstrates the fallacy of the contention in your memorandum (at pages 6-7) that the positioning of the body block in the July 10 test "introduc[es] a variable in the compliance test procedure that is not authorized by the NHTSA standard . . ." It also completely undermines Chrysler' s assertion (at page 7) that the agency is "retroactively interpret[ing]" the standard. The industry was certainly "fairly informed" that "the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions."

NHTSA also disputes Chrysler's assertion (at page 4) that "the most natural and representative location for the body block" is against the seat back. To the contrary, that location is not consistent with any possible occupant use. Conversely, the locati on of the body block in the July 10 test conducted for NHTSA reflects the approximate belt geometry that would exist if a 5th percentile female occupied the seat. n2

n2 Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages to be installed at each designated seating position, which is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) in part as a "location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female." This is yet another indication that all anchorages should be strong enough to withstand the required test loads when occupied by a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female.

As reflected in the preamble to the 1990 amendments to Standard No. 210 (55 FR 17970; April 30, 1990) and the discussion of the petitions for reconsideration of those amendments (56 FR 63676; December 5, 1991), the agency has endeavored to have the test procedure be as representative as possible of real world crash conditions. See, e.g., 55 FR at 17976-77 (simultaneous testing of anchorages); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 1 (limits on substitute materials to "ensure that the loading imposed during compliance te sting is a realistic simulation of actual anchorage loading"); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 3 (effort to assure that reduced body block width will not be "unrepresentative of persons likely to occupy the seating position . . ."); 56 FR at 63677, Col. 1 (use of o riginal attachment hardware "to ensure that the load application onto the anchorage is as realistic as possible"); and 56 FR 63677, Col. 3 (requiring that test setups using replacement webbing "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing at the initi ation of the test "to protect vehicle manufacturers from the agency identifying apparent noncompliances based upon test conditions with unrealistic loading"). n3 n3 NHTSA recognizes that in some respects the test procedure for Standard No. 210 does not simulate real-world conditions. See 55 FR at 17972-73 (explaining why the load onset and load holding times in the standard are "orders of magnitude greater th an the corresponding time periods observed in crashes").

Your memorandum contends that an interpretation of Standard No. 210 under which a vehicle could be found noncompliant on the basis of a test with the body block several inches in front of the seat back would render the standard not "objective," and thus inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. @ 30111(a), citing Chrysler Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 675-676 (6th Cir. 1972). However, that case merely prohibits NHTSA from establishing test procedures that are based on "subjective determi nations:"

Objective . . . means that tests to determine compliance must be capable of producing identical results when test conditions are exactly duplicated, that they be decisively demonstrable by performing a rational test procedure, and that compliance is base d upon the readings obtained from measuring instruments as opposed to the subjective opinions of human beings.

NHTSA's test procedure, as implemented by its contractor in the July 10 test, clearly satisfies each of these three criteria for objectivity. There can be no dispute that it produces "identical results," as demonstrated by the fact that the anchorages f ailed in tests performed by Chrysler using that procedure. The procedure is also "rational," in that it reflects a belt geometry that is found in the real world (as opposed to the belt geometry in the body block location favored by Chrysler). Finally, the anchorage failed in a test conducted in accordance with measurable readings, rather than any "subjective opinions of human beings."

Your memorandum states (at page 4) that Chrysler's review of prior NHTSA compliance tests suggests that "the agency has also customarily located the pelvic body block against the seat back during FMVSS 210 compliance tests." Our review of the tests condu cted by the agency indicates that this statement is not correct. As I advised you approximately ten days ago, the distance of the body block from the seat is not a data point that is memorialized in the test reports. Therefore, OVSC personnel reviewed the test photos and/or films of all Standard No. 210 tests conducted by NHTSA contractors of MY 1990 and later vehicles in an attempt to ascertain the body block position in those tests. Of the 21 tests in which the body block position could be definite ly ascertained, in all but one (a test of the front seat anchorage in a MY 1992 Geo Storm), the block was not flush against the seat back.

In accordance with its usual procedures, OVSC provided Chrysler with contemporaneous reports of the Standard No. 210 compliance tests that the agency performed on its vehicles. Photos of the two Standard Nos. 207/210 tests conducted on Chrysler vehicles during the past five years (on the 1994 Dodge Caravan and the 1994 Dodge Ram Van) reveal that the test body block was placed at some distance from the seat back. Thus, Chrysler cannot legitimately claim that it was surprised by the body block location used by the contractor in the July 10 test.

In sum, although Chrysler has submitted a test that indicates that the anchorages in the 1995 Cirrus did not fail when the body block was placed against the seat back, such a result is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 210 when t he anchorage fails in tests at other body block positions, and particularly where those positions are more reflective of real world belt geometry.

Under the circumstances, if Chrysler does not promptly notify the agency that it has decided that a noncompliance exists and conduct a notification and remedy campaign in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, the Associate Administrator for Safety Assur ance would be justified in issuing an initial decision pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(a) that such a noncompliance exists. Please advise me or Michael Brownlee of your intentions immediately.

ID: nht95-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terence J. Kann -- P.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/14/95 letter from Terence J. Kann to Ricardo Martinez (occ 11392)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 14, 1995, to Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You have asked whether "pole trailers such as those used in the logging industry, [are] required to have re tro-reflective sheeting, reflex reflectors, or a combination?" If not, you asked whether NHTSA issued "any explanation for failing to extend the requirements to pole trailers."

As you noted, Section S3(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 applies to "trailers (except pole trailers) . . ." This means that pole trailers, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) are exempted from all the requirements of Standard No. 108 including thos e of Section S5.7 which specifies conspicuity requirements for "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds".

Pole trailers have always been excluded from Standard No. 108 (see 23 CFR 255.51, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Section S2, effective January 1, 1968). Thus, the agency never proposed in the first instance that conspicuity requirements apply to pole trailers, and there was no discussion of pole trailers in the preambles to the proposal and final rule. Apparently, pole trailers were defined and excluded on the basis of comments to Standard No. 108 as originally proposed late in 1966 that a sta ndardized lighting scheme might be impracticable for this category of vehicle.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).