ID: nht95-2.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 12, 1995

FROM: Robert C. Maltzahn -- Attorney At Law

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

TITLE: Re: Jet Edge Mobile Equipment

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/27/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT CHARLES MALTZAHN (A43; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I am corporate counsel for Jet Edge, a company that manufactures ultra-high pressure waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Jet Edge sells the equipment throughout the United States and internationally and some of the equi pment is manufactured as a mobile trailer. I have included a piece of literature from Jet Edge which shows one of the older pumps, but the newer pumps, which are now designated as 36-250D's, are very similar and weigh approximately the same amount.

The equipment is manufactured for use in the construction industry for hydrodemolition and cleaning and for industrial use or for the rental markets where the end user does not wish to purchase the equipment. The equipment is mobile so as to be towed from job to job or from industrial site to industrial site but is not used primarily on the roadways and highways of the United States.

My question is: does the mobile equipment meet the definition of a trailer set forth in 49 CFR sec. 571.3 so as to come under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations and thus require a vehicle identification number (VIN) which would require us to meet the specifications and regulations and the content requirements for the VIN. We would prefer, obviously, because of the nature of the equipment, not to have to establish a VIN and the content requirement thereof.

Therefore, I would request from you a short letter statement as to your opinion as whether the equipment, as described, does or does not require a VIN so that I might in turn give my opinion to those infrequent individuals that so request from us. I might point out that there are less than 50 of these units manufactured per year and the total number in existence at the time of this letter is, to the best of my knowledge, less than 250 worldwide.

If you have any questions with reference to the above, please contact my office.

Enclosure - Brochure omitted.

ID: 10878r

Mr. Musa K. Farmand
Gonz555-B Blanding Boulevard
Orange Park, FL 32073

Dear Mr. Farmand:

This responds to your letter of April 27, 1995. Your letter concerns a law suit in which you represent plaintiffs injured in an automobile accident. In this law suit, the counsel for the defendant has moved to amend his answer to assert that 49 CFR 571.208, paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) requires each state to allow for mitigation of damages in any seat belt use law and that paragraph preempts the Florida mandatory seat belt law. According to your letter, the Florida law "does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt." As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees with you that the Florida safety belt use law is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2)

Before discussing the issue of preemption, I want to discuss the background and purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2). That paragraph was added to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) as part of a final rule issued July 17, 1984 concerning automatic restraints (49 FR 28962). That final rule required all new cars to have automatic protection (air bags or automatic belts) starting in the 1990 model year. The final rule included a provision that the automatic restraint requirement would be rescinded if the Secretary of Transportation determined, not later than April 1, 1989, that a sufficient number of States had enacted belt use laws meeting certain minimum criteria to cover at least two-thirds of the U.S. population (paragraph S4.1.5). Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so, in part because not enough States adopted mandatory seat belt use laws of any

sort prior to April 1, 1989. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

The minimum criteria were set forth in S4.1.5.2 of Standard No. 208 . One of the criteria was "a provision specifying that the violation of the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate damages..." (S4.1.5.2(c)(2)). However, S4.1.5 neither purported to require nor was intended to require States to enact safety belt use laws. In addition, S4.1.5 did not require that any State safety belt use laws had to incorporate the minimum criteria of S4.1.5.2. Paragraph S4.1.5 merely provided that the Secretary would rescind the automatic restraint requirement if he or she determined that a sufficient number of States enacted laws which met the criteria of S4.1.5.2 by April 1, 1989.

Preemption

The Florida safety belt use law is not and never has been either expressly or impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Standard No. 208 was issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which expressly preempts state laws only to the extent provided by section 30103. That section provides for the express preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards that are not identical to Federal standards. However, the Florida seat belt law is not a motor vehicle safety standard within the meaning of Chapter 301, since it does not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. Accordingly, the Florida law is not expressly preempted.

The Florida law is not impliedly preempted because (1) Congress has not occupied the field of regulation of the behavior of motor vehicle occupants; and (2) the Florida seat belt law does not conflict with any Federal law or interfere with the objectives of Federal law.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, 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:6/14/95 Your letter correctly notes that this provision was deleted from Standard No. 208 by a final rule issued on September 2, 1993 (58 FR 46551).

ID: nht95-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald Orlando -- Orlando World Industries

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/21/94 letter from Donald Orlando to Ed Glancy

TEXT: Dear Mr. Orlando:

This responds to your letter concerning whether your "Seat Belt Buddy" would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued by this agency. You describe the product as "a stuffed toy animal with a slit in the center of the animal where you insert the seat belt through and then into the automobile's buckle."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. We do have a standard (Standard 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. We also have a standard (Standard No. 30 2, Flammability of Interior Materials) that sets forth flammability resistance requirements for the originally installed safety belts of the vehicle. However, since your product would not be part of a new seat belt assembly, these standards would not ap ply.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 con cerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-r elated 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 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. I t appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation doe s not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. For example, they must ensure that the Seat Belt Buddy does not impair the function of the safety belt or belt retractor, or vitiate the compliance of the belts with Standard No . 302. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensu re that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. We urge you to carefully evalu ate whether your product would in any way compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system, and whether instructions to the consumer are needed to advise about the proper use of the product. Among other things, you should evaluate wh ether children are likely to play with the "Seat Belt Buddy" in a manner that either introduces excessive slack in the shoulder belt, thereby reducing the protection provided by that belt in the event of a crash, or the inadvertent unlatching of the belt system. Finally, since the originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, we encourage you not to degrade the flammability performance of safety belts.

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

Sincerely,

ID: 10439

Mr. Donald Orlando
Orlando World Industries
7 Woodside Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604

Dear Mr. Orlando:

This responds to your letter concerning whether your "Seat Belt Buddy" would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued by this agency. You describe the product as "a stuffed toy animal with a slit in the center of the animal where you insert the seat belt through and then into the automobile's buckle."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. We do have a standard (Standard 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. We also have a standard (Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials) that sets forth flammability resistance requirements for the originally installed safety belts of the vehicle. However, since your product would not be part of a new seat belt assembly, these standards would not apply.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event 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 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. For example, they must ensure that the Seat Belt Buddy does not impair the function of the safety belt or belt retractor, or vitiate the compliance of the belts with Standard No. 302. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. We urge you to carefully evaluate whether your product would in any way compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system, and whether instructions to the consumer are needed to advise about the proper use of the product. Among other things, you should evaluate whether children are likely to play with the "Seat Belt Buddy" in a manner that either introduces excessive slack in the shoulder belt, thereby reducing the protection provided by that belt in the event of a crash, or the inadvertent unlatching of the belt system. Finally, since the originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, we encourage you not to degrade the flammability performance of safety belts.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#209 d:1/5/95

ID: nht94-5.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/16/94 FROM YOSHIAKI MATSUI TO PATRICK BOYD

TEXT: We have received your letter of November 16, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency, asking for an interpretation of the final rule that amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on November 2, 1994.

The rule amended S5.1.2(c) to specify, in pertinent part, that "after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors . . . shall not show . . . haze that exceeds 7 percent. . . ." The amendment is effective November 1, 1995. You have presented two fact situations with respect to replacement reflex reflectors, and ask whether the amended haze requirement is applicable in each case. These are:

"First case - replacement reflex reflectors manufactured after the effective date, but the vehicle to which the reflex reflectors are fitted is no longer manufactured after the effective date."

Motor vehicle replacement equipment is governed by S5.8 of Standard No. 108. S5.8.1 requires that any reflective device manufactured to replace any reflective device on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standar d No. 108. Paragraphs S5.8.2 through S5.8.9 permit certain specified items of replacement equipment to be manufactured to original equipment specifications (e.g., earlier versions of SAE standards no longer specified for original equipment on motor vehi cles); however, reflex reflectors are not included among them. This means that any reflex reflectors manufactured on and after November 1, 1995, whether original or replacement, must conform with the 7 percent haze limitation, regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle.

"Second case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured before the effective date, which may be fitted to a vehicle manufactured before or after the effective date. (In this case, the same type of vehicles are manufactured before and after the effe ctive date continuously.)"

A replacement reflex reflector manufactured either before or after November 1, 1995, is subject to the requirement that the plastic materials used in them shall show no haze in a visual inspection after the outdoor exposure test because that is the requi rement in effect at the time the replacement reflex reflector is manufactured.

As a practical matter, it would appear to make no difference when the reflector was manufactured or to which specification. The amendment is not intended to change manufacturing techniques or composition of plastics materials in any way. Because it is impossible not to have some degree of haze at the end of the three-year test period, Standard No. 108 was amended to make it more objective and practicable, and the measured haze limit raised to 7 percent, at which point haze is visible to the naked eye.

ID: nht79-2.25

DATE: 10/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carolina International, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John W. Howard, III Product Engineering Manager Carolina International, Inc. 1 Hurstbourne Park, Suite 703 Louisville, Kentucky 40222

Dear Mr. Howard:

This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1979, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

The VIN format you forwarded with your letter is essentially correct. There are, however, several aspects of it which should be modified. They will be discussed as numbered in your letter.

It is important to point out at the outset that Standard 115 requires Carolina International Inc. to assign a VIN to only those vehicles for which it is the first stage manufacturer, in this case trailers. Ford and General Motors will be assigning a VIN to those vehicles for which it is the first stage manufacturer, even though Carolina is the final stage manufacturer.

I. World Identification Numbers.

The first three characters of the VIN designate the manufacturer, make, and type of vehicle. While Carolina is the final stage manufacturer for several types of vehicles, it is the first stage manufacturer for only one type. Consequently, one manufacturer identifer is sufficient. As the Agency has contracted with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to act as its agent in assigning these Identification codes (see enclosed notice), you should communicate with the SAE if your identifier was not assigned by it.

II. Vehicle Description Section (VDS).

Your proposed coding for the VDS is satisfactory, except that it encodes data relating to vehicles produced by other manufacturers who would, as explained above, assign the VIN for those vehicles.

III. Check Digit.

The mathematical values assigned to the alphabetic characters are not correct. Please consult Table IV in Notice 8 (44 PR 17489, March 22, 1979) which I have enclosed.

IV. Vehicle Indicator Section.

The format utilized in this section is correct, except that the series of trailer must be indicated in the Vehicle Descriptor Section. Perhaps this can be encoded where you previously intended to indicate chassis type (2.4).

I hope this information has been helpful. Please write or call Mr. Schwartz of my office at 202-426-1834 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

June 19, 1979

Mr. Frederick Schwartz, Jr. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification No.

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

Per our telephone conversation last week, and pursuant to the above referenced standard, attached please find an outline of Carolina International, Inc.'s proposed method to meet the above referenced standard.

Please review, and return an approved copy to me for our files. Should you have any questions, or need additional information, please call.

Sincerely,

John W. Howard, III Product Engineering Manager

JWH/nhs Encl.

ID: 18890.jeg

Mr. Meyer Snyder
5134 Bocaw Pl
San Diego, CA 92115-1717

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This responds to your letter asking whether you can have the force of the air bags on your 1995 Toyota Camry "turned down." You asked whether this can be done at your Toyota dealer and, if not, where it could be done, and whether you would have to pay for this modification.

As discussed below, there is no legal impediment to vehicle manufacturers and dealers modifying older vehicles so that they have the same kinds of redesigned air bags being offered on most new vehicles. However, such modifications would likely be very complicated and potentially expensive, and we are not aware of any vehicle manufacturers or dealers which make such modifications. You may wish to ask Toyota about whether it is possible to modify your vehicle in this manner and at what cost.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars as part of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122).

A manufacturer, dealer or other business which modified the air bags on your 1995 Toyota Camry would not violate the "make inoperative" provision if, after the modification, the vehicle continued to meet the relevant requirements in effect either on the date of manufacture or as later amended. In 1997 NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to make it easier for manufacturers to quickly redesign their air bags, e.g., by reducing the power as compared to previous years. Compliance with the amended requirements would thus not violate the "make inoperative" provision. As noted earlier, however, the modifications that would need to be made to an existing vehicle so that it would have redesigned air bags would likely be very complicated and potentially expensive, and we are not aware of any vehicle manufacturers or dealers which make such modifications.

I am pleased to hear that you do not want your air bags turned off. The vast majority of persons, including short persons, are much safer with air bags. Among other things, an air bag will minimize the risk of violently striking the steering wheel and dashboard in a moderate to severe crash.

I would also like to point out that there are a few basic steps that you can take to minimize air bag risks, including wearing your safety belts and, when driving, keeping at least 10 inches between the center of the air bag cover and your breastbone. I have enclosed an information brochure, written in the context of making an informed decision about on-off switches, which provides additional information concerning how you can reduce air bag risks.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:208
d.2/3/99

ID: aiam4292

Dear Mr. Bates: This responds to your letter on behalf of a constituent, Tatar Osman Mr. Osman was interested in learning how to get an 'approval' for a child seat. According to advertising literature you enclosed with your letter, this child seat complies with the European ECE Regulations.; In enforcing its safety standards, this agency does not follow th European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver an item of the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. Instead, as required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer *itself* must certify that each of its items of motor vehicle equipment fully satisfies all requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle standards. In the case of child seats, every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles that is sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213) (copy enclosed). This standard sets forth both performance and labeling requirements that must be satisfied by the child restraint system.; Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer' certification be based on a specified number of tests of the child restraint system or any tests at all. Pursuant to the Vehicle Safety Act, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint system complies with Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling its child restraint systems in the United States for the first time tests those systems according to the test procedures specified in Standard No. 213. Once the manufacturer has determined that its child restraint system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by placing a certification label on the child restraint, as specified in section S5.5 of Standard No. 213.; There are two additional regulations you should bring to the attentio of your constituent in the event he plans to import these child restraints into the United States. Copies of both these regulations are enclosed for your information. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This regulation requires a manufacturer (including importer) of motor vehicle equipment to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufacturers (or imports) to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured (imported into the United States).; The second regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, *Procedural Rules*. Sectio 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured child restraints to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. It is not necessary for an importer located within this country to designate its own agent as well. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent by the manufacturer must contain the following six items of information:; >>>1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and bindin upon the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,<<<; >>>2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address of the manufacturer,<<<; >>>3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's child restraint systems that do not bear its name,<<<; >>>4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,<<<; >>>5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation, and<<<; >>>6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<< Such a designation must be received by this agency before any of th manufacturer's child restraint system are imported into this country.; Should you need further information on this subject, or a clarificatio of any of the information set forth herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht72-4.28

DATE: 03/08/72

FROM: JOHN G. WOMACK FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: Volvo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1972, in which you posed three questions concerning the test procedures of Standard 209.

Your first question concerns the passage in S5.2(j) which states that the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.70 within a period of 50 milliseconds. . . . ' Your question is whether the measurement of withdrawal begins at the caset of acceleration or at the point at which an acceleration of 0.70 is achieved. Our answer is that the measurement begins at the onset of acceleration. The withdrawal that occurs within the 50 millisecond rise time will be included in determining whether the 1 inch limit has been exceeded.

Your second question concerns the sequence in which the retractor locking mechanism will be activated under S5.2(k). It is your understanding that the 10,000 locking cycles will be evenly distributed among the total 50,000 cycles. Because the standard is silent as to the sequence of testing, an even distribution is not the only test method that could be used. At the present time, the agency has one contractor who is testing in this manner and one who is testing with 40,000 cycles of extension and retraction followed by 10,000 lockup cycles. If it should prove that the latter method is more severe, however, due to the excessive wear on the same spot that you anticipated, we would (Illegible Word) to use that method and conduct our tests by evenly distributing the lockup cycles.

Your third question concerns the manner in which lockup is to be achieved during the cycling test for retractors that lock either by acceleration or by tilting. The intent of the cycling procedures is to duplicate the usage actually encountered by a retractor in a vehicle. If the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal and to the acceleration of the vehicle, then the lockup mode that would be (Illegible Word) often stressed over the retractor's lifetime would be the webbing withdrawal mode and the 10,000 cycles would be cycles of lockup through webbing withdrawal. If the retractor is sensitive only to vehicle acceleration and to tilting,the most frequent cause of lockup would be vehicle acceleration and our tests will be conducted by accelerating the retractor. This is not to say that you are compiled to cycle year retractor by accelerating them. If the locking mechanism is the same for both modes (e.g. a pendulum), it may make little difference whether the retractors are accelerated or tilted. However, if our tests disclose a cycling failure, you will be obliged to show that your method was in fact equivalent to ours.

ID: aiam5260

Dear Mr. Paradis: 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 yo 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 th '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 sid of the identification lamps, with red material used in the remaining outboard areas. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;