ID: 6983r

Mr. John Faist
DAS Fleet Services Division
City of Seattle
8618 2d Avenue, 12th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Mr. Faist:

This responds to the letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from Chris Kuczynski, Fleet Services Division, City of Seattle Department of Administrative Services, dated February 4, 1992, asking how the provisions of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 pertained to "a municipal government agency that transfers, modifies and/or fabricates custom vehicle bodies for use by it's own departments." In a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office on April 3, 1992, you stated that the vehicle modifications referred to in the letter involve only trucks, both light and heavy; that you combine both new and used bodies with both new and used chassis, endeavoring to retain the old engines, power axles, and transmissions to the extent possible; that such modifications include mounting equipment on truck chassis to create such specific-purpose vehicles as dump trucks, cranes, and the like; that some of such modifications and fabrications are done in your own shops while others are contracted out to local body shops; and that passenger cars and buses are not involved.

Before addressing the specific issues raised in the letter, some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U. S. Code, 1381 - 1431 (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or disapprove motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process which requires each manufacturer, in the exercise of due care, to ensure and certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Thereafter, NHTSA will periodically test vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards and investigate allegations of safety-related defects.

Turning now to the modifications to your trucks, we start first with the provisions of 49 CFR, Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, which provides in pertinent part:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

NHTSA has consistently interpreted that provision to mean that, by its terms, it applies only to new bodies and not to old ones, and that placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axles, as a minimum, are not new and at least two of which were taken from the same vehicle. Conversely, a new vehicle would result by placing a new body on an old chassis utilizing new, a combination of new and used, or used engine, transmission, and drive axles no two of which were taken from the same vehicle.

A new vehicle would also result by placing a body, new or used, on a new chassis. In that case the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle which is defined at 49 CFR, Part 568.3 as:

[A]n assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

By adding a body to the new chassis, you, the City of Seattle, become a final-stage manufacturer, defined in Part 568.3 as ". . . [A] person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." As such, you are required by Part 568.6(a) to ". . . [C]omplete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, . . . ." Part 568.6(b) then requires that "Each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with 567.5 of this chapter." For your additional information I am enclosing a NHTSA fact sheet entitled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT. To summarize, placing a new body on a used chassis does not make a new vehicle if, as a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axles are not new and if at least two of those components were taken from the same vehicle. A new chassis, however, is an incomplete vehicle and placing a body thereon, whether new or old, results in a new vehicle which must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the new chassis, and the final-stage manufacturer who completes the assembly of the vehicle must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR, Part 567. Accordingly, in response to your question about the applicability of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 to your truck customization program, the answer is that if you create a new vehicle, all those provisions apply. If you do not create a new vehicle, none of them do. This is true whatever procedures/steps you choose to utilize in accomplishing your vehicle customization program.

One final matter should be discussed before concluding. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a complying vehicle. That restriction does not apply to private owners, which would include municipalities, who are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the vehicles so modified comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Such restriction would apply, however, to those local body/repair shops to which you contract out some of your customization work. Accordingly, those businesses would have to be very careful to leave intact all the safety devices and features that are on the vehicles that they work on for you.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry and will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:5/19/92

ID: 001851cmc

Mr. Agus The
Amsafe Commercial Products
240-C North 48^th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85043


>

Dear Mr. The:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the Locktec child restraint buckle release meets the "two or more finger" requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, as incorporated into FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems. As explained below, the two-finger standard is a width requirement, which is not satisfied simply by the use of two fingers in actuating the buckle release.

S5.4.3.5(c) of FMVSS No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209, except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for push button application shall be 0.6 square inch [387 mm²]." You state in your letter that: "The Locktec buckle has [a sliding mechanism for release] and not a push button or a lever application." Since your buckle release is not designed for push button application, the 0.6 square inch minimum surface area requirement in S5.4.3.5(c) does not apply.

S4.3(d)(2) of Standard No. 209 reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum area of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.(Emphasis added.)

Because your buckle release is designed for slide application rather than push button or lever application, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category.

Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), your buckle must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate the release. In the photos you provided of the release being actuated, one finger is in the slide action release button and an additional finger is on the buckle base opposite of the sliding mechanism. The placement of the finger on the base merely provides support to the buckle while the release is actuated. Only one finger is accessing the slide action release button.

FMVSS No. 209 requires that a slide action release button be large enough to be accessed by a minimum of two fingers, placed side-by-side. While there is no clear indication of what is meant by "two fingers" in terms of a minimum width, the two-finger requirement of FMVSS No. 209 was included in FMVSS No. 213 to ensure that child restraint buckles are easy to operate.(See, 50 Federal Register 33722.)The buckle release mechanism must be sufficiently large enough to reduce the force to surface ratio required to actuate release. The need to conveniently unbuckle a child restraint system (CRS) is of particular importance in emergency situations when there is a need to quickly remove a child from a CRS.

The release mechanism on your buckle does not accommodate two fingers of a majority of adults. The width of the index finger of a small, 5^th percentile adult female at the knuckle nearest the hand is approximately 16 mm, and the width of the index finger of a 50^th percentile male at the same position is approximately 21 mm. [1] Given the normal reduction in finger width at the tip as opposed to the knuckle nearest the hand and approximating the combined width of the index and middle finger, "two or more fingers" for a 5^th percentile female is approximately 28 mm. The contactable surface for actuating the release on the Locktec buckle is less than 25 mm. As such, the vast majority of adults would be unable to place two fingers side-by-side to actuate the Locktec buckle.

We recognize that there is some ambiguity in the two-finger specification and that a more objective criteria, specifying a minimum linear width would be appropriate. We plan to address this requirement in future rulemaking. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Chris Calamita of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.4/25/03





---

[1] Stephen Pheasant, "Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics, and the design of work" 49 (Taylor & Francis) (1996).

ID: nht94-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Gerald Plante -- Manager, Product Compliance, Saab Cars USA, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from Gerald Plante to Barbara Gray

TEXT: Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the Saab 900 car line is a de minimis change to the device. The proposed mo dification is to be placed on the Saab 900 line beginning with the 1995 model year. As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed changes to the antitheft device are not de minimis.

As you are aware, in a Federal Register notice of July 26, 1993 (58 FR 39853), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device, to be placed as standard equipment on the MY 1994 Saab 900 line, was likely to be as effective as parts marking.

For the following reason, NHTSA concludes that the proposed changes to the antitheft device for the 1995 model year are not de minimis. In reaching this conclusion, we looked primarily at the antitheft device on which the exemption was originally based. For the MY 1994 device, locking the driver's door with the ignition key automatically locks all doors, arms the alarm system and activates the starter interrupt-relay. For the MY 1995 device, Saab plans to add a remote control device. The remote contr ol is separate from the ignition key that locks/unlocks the driver's door. Locking the driver's door with the remote locks all other doors, arms the alarm, and activates the starter interrupt-relay. While locking the driver's door with the ignition key will lock all other doors as before, it will no longer arm the alarm system or activate the starter interrupt-relay.

This is not an insignificant change like the substitution of new components for old components, each serving the same function. Further, the change does not simply involve adding a feature making the original device even more effective. With the existin g device, a single means (the ignition key) for locking the driver's door locked all other doors, armed

2

the alarm and activated the interrupt-relay. With the planned new device, the remote does not supplant the ignition key as the means for locking the driver's door; it supplements the key. Thus, there will be less certainty with the new device that lock ing the driver's door will arm the alarm and activate the interrupt-relay.

Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that Saab's proposed modification to the antitheft device in the MY 1995 Saab 900 car line is not a de minimis change.

If Saab wishes to place its proposed antitheft device on the 900 car line for MY 1995, it must file a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR @ 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for modification must provide the same information for the modified device as is required under @ 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in @ 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which an exemption is sought.

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Gray or Rosalind Proctor at (202) 366-1740.

ID: nht95-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1995

FROM: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co. Ltd.

TO: Minister, DOT.

TITLE: Re our product: Brake Condition Warning Sensor

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/10/95 LETTER FROM RICARDO MARTINEZ TO SHIH - CHIANG CHEN (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT:

Dear Sirs,

I invented the "Brake Condition Warning Sensor" and applied for the patent right of 17 countries, including my country and your country. (For instance, the patent registration number in your country is 5059947)

The special properties of this patented product distinguishes itself from the similar products available on the market. It helps the third brake lamp to generate flashes of various levels due to the different speeds of stepping the brake when drivers me et various situations happened during the automobile travel in order to warn the drivers behind. Thus the drivers behind could make proper preparations and responses to prevent accident.

It has to been emphasized that the period of flashing from the third brake lamp by using this product is very short. Besides, it will act only when the driver must step down the brake. When the automobile completely stops, the light will automatically stops flashing, but still remain lit. This feature provides drivers with great convenience and safety. Therefore, this product is very popular with automobile industries since it became available on the market.

Although many people from your country take great interests in this product, they question about the "Flashing from the Third brake lamp". They think this product is not applicable and is arguable to the relevant communication codes in your countries.

The questions presented by people in your country are not unreasonable when they are first heard. However, after strict analysis, it is a total misunderstanding to the application range of flashing action. This product only generates the flashing actio n only on the third brake lamp, not relevant to the two tail lamps.

In other words, only the third brake lamp will flash by this device when drivers step the brake to respond to the road situation. The two tail lamps remain their normal function, lit but not flashing. It will not cause confusion to drivers' judgment. Instead, it warn the drivers behind to take proper approaches.

With regard to this point, the automobile industries in my country also questioned about the legal applicability at the very beginning. I requested the ministry of Communications for a proper explanation. The result showed that it is not in contraventi on of the regulation that "The Brake Lamp is Forbidden to Flash After Automobile Stops Completely." (See the attachment for a copy of letter from the Ministry of Communications.) The argument is ceased accordingly. Therefore, this product is legally appr oved and has gained a lot of good reputations.

Because I do not completely understand the relevant communication codes in your country, I will need your assistance to have a better understanding. Your reply will be highly appreciated.

Best regards!

P.S. An instruction is enclosed.

THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

LETTER

[Illegible Words] Received By: Mr. CHEN, SHIH-CHIANG [Illegible Word] To: Mr. CHEN, SHIH-CHIANG

Insurance Date: November 10, 1993 File No.: Lu-Tai-(1983)-Chien-Tzu No. 10182

1. Thanks for your letter dated November 14, 1993.

2. Regarding you pointed out our improper regulation: "The third brake light cannot shine when the car stays still." We have checked the regulation of inspecting the third brake light. The regulation requests new small cars should have the third light device and other items necessary for inspecting when the current highway registration & inspection offices proceed all light inspection.

3. Please bring your attention.

Department of Land Administration Ministry of Communication

(Affixed with the official seal)

(Brochure and patent information omitted.)

ID: aiam5338

"Dear Mr. Rhein: This responds to your letter about the consume registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems.' I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a 'proposed format.' You first ask whether you may specify 'Please Print' on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company. You also ask whether you may use 'open box spaces' for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting 'blocked squares' for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement. Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed June 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that '(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material.' The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address space is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or overall organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card. Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4969

Dear Mr. Alexander: This responds to your letter of February 18, 199 requesting confirmation 'that forward-facing wheelchairs on school buses do not need a crash barrier located forward of each wheelchair position.' As explained below, your understanding is correct. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires 'a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point.' Under S5.2.1, the rear surface of the restraining barrier must be within a distance of 24 inches or less from the seating reference point. Standard No. 222's requirement for a restraining barrier does not apply to wheelchair positions. First, a wheelchair position is not technically a 'designated seating position,' as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Second, Standard No. 222's seating requirements apply only to 'school bus passenger seats.' See S1 of Standard No. 222. The term 'school bus passenger seat' is defined in S4 as 'a seat in a school bus, other than the driver's seat or a seat installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers.' I would also note that installing a crash barrier forward of a wheelchair securement location in compliance with S5.2.1 would appear to be impractical. First, the seating reference point could move depending on the type of wheelchair secured at the location. Second, many wheelchairs would not fit behind a restraining barrier complying with S5.2.1 as some are longer than 24 inches forward of the seating reference point. While the current requirements of Standard No. 222 do not have any requirements for wheelchair securement locations, NHTSA is concerned about providing crash protection for all students on school buses. NHTSA has recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems on school buses. The notice proposed amending Standard No. 222 to include minimum strength and location requirements for the anchorages for securement and restraint devices and minimum strength requirements for the securement and restraint devices themselves. This notice did not, however, propose to require a restraining barrier forward of wheelchair securement locations. I am enclosing a copy of the notice for your information. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam3034

Dear Mr. Bogner: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1979, asking about 'th history of the implementation of FMVSS 108 and the dates as to these proceedings.'; I assume that you are interested in the initial standards and not th many amendments that have occurred at frequent intervals since the first effective dates. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the *Federal Register* on October 8, 1966, inviting suggestions for all the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The initial motor vehicle lighting requirement were proposed on November 30, 1966 (31 FR 15212, corrected at 31 FR 15600). Standard No. 108 published on February 3, 1967, however, (32 FR 2408, establishing 23 CFR 255.21, effective January 1, 1968) applied only to vehicles whose overall width was 80 inches or more. On the same day the agency (then known as the National Traffic Safety Agency, Department of Commerce) proposed 'MVSS No. 112' to become effective January 1, 1968, to cover all vehicles whose width was less than 80 inches (32 FR 2418). The same notice also proposed amendments to the just-issued Standard No. 108 which were adopted on December 16, 1967 (32 FR 18032) with varying effective dates. Instead of adopting 'Standard No. 112', the agency also amended Standard No. 108 on December 16, 1967 (32 FR 18033) to incorporate the proposed '112' requirements, for vehicles under 80 inches in overall width, but with an effective date of January 1, 1969. At least one amendment occurred before January 1, 1969 (See 33 FR 2994, February 15, 1968), and one interpretation (See 32 FR 8808, June 21, 1967), defining 'overall width'. A petition for review of boat trailer lighting requirements was filed in 1968, and the requirements upheld (See *Boating Industry Association* v. *Boyd*, 409 F.2d 408 (7th Cir., 1969, rehearing denied).; This is the history of the early days of Standard No. 108. The onl 'documentation' that might still exist would be microfiche copies of docket comments (Docket No. 9) which are warehoused in Virginia. The head of our technical reference service, Ms. Winifred Desmond (426-2728) may be able to assist you with these.; If you have any further questions you may call me at 426-9511. Sincerely, Z. Taylor Vinson, Senior Staff Attorney

ID: aiam5503

"Dear Mr. Gough: This responds to your letter to this office askin whether the retroreflective tape required to outline school bus emergency exits can, in the case of the rear emergency door, be placed on the door itself. The short answer is no. You stated that the State of Connecticut requires that school bus bumpers be black. You further stated that one school bus manufacturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of the retroreflective tape installed on the rear bumper. You then noticed that a number of school buses from a different manufacturer had the bottom part of the tape installed on the door itself. You asked whether the language of S5.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, permitted the installation of the retroreflective tape on the door itself. Paragraph S5.5.3 of FMVSS No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) provides: 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, . . . This requirement was imposed by amendment to FMVSS No. 217 promulgated by a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). In discussing this requirement in the preamble portion of the final rule, we said at 57 FR 49421: Accordingly, the final rule requires a minimum 1 inch wide strip of retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, to be placed around the outside perimeter of the emergency exit opening, not the emergency exit itself (emphasis added). As you may know, the buses with the tape on the emergency exit doors have been recalled by the manufacturer. For information about the recall, you can contact the bus manufacturer, Thomas Built Buses, P. O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261. Enclosed for your information are two interpretative letters issued by this office on related issues pertaining to the retroreflective tape requirement. See letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, dated July 7, 1993, and letter to Mr. Turner dated March 28, 1994. I hope the above 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. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam0790

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letters of July 5 and July 18, 1972. In you letter of July 5, you ask whether manufacturers of school buses may delete any reference to seating capacity in establishing the gross vehicle weight rating in complying with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).; The definition of gross vehicle weight rating, for school buses requires the value used to include 120 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. 'Designated seating capacity' is defined to mean 'the number of designated seating positions provided,' while 'designated seating position' means 'any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats' (49 CFR 571.3). While the definition refers to the manufacturer's intent as the determinant of the number of designated seating positions, the actual test, as in other legal determinations of 'intent,' is how that intent is objectively manifested. Because it is obvious that school buses, due to their anticipated use, must have positions where children will sit while riding, a school bus manufacturer could not successfully argue that his vehicles do not have designated seating positions. Accordingly, his failure to include the designated seating capacity in his computation of GVWR would be a violation of the Certification regulations and of section 108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(3)). Violations of that section are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $400,000, and other sanctions (sections 109 & 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).; Your letter of July 18 asks whether a vehicle will be in complianc with the Certification regulations if the axle load exceeds the front or rear GAWR, but the total load does not exceed the GVWR. Because the regulations do not specify minimum criteria for GAWR, a vehicle whose actual weight on an axle system exceeds the stated value will not fail to conform to the Certification requirements. It may, however, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, depending on the actual circumstances involved, and if so, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying owners pursuant to section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402).; We will consider the possibility of establishing minimum requirement for GAWR (as we have for GVWR), in light of the facts you have presented.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5005

"Dear Mr. Mario: This letter responds to your inquiry about recen amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to trailers. That final rule (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) amended the standard by deleting the requirement for a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. It also added requirements for the retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's supply line in the event of pneumatic failure and for the prevention of automatic application of trailer parking brakes while the minimum supply line pressure is maintained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. NHTSA promulgates safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One such safety standard, Standard No. 121, specifies performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. Any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. You first asked whether a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment becomes effective on October 8, 1992. The answer is yes. While the amendment deletes a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device. Your next two questions asked which air brake system would be required on certain axles for different types of trailers. As indicated above, any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. I note that while the standard does include certain specific requirements for braking at particular axles, all of the requirements amended or adopted in the October 1991 final rule are written in terms of overall vehicle braking performance. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with these requirements, manufacturers must assess how the selection of brake designs at each axle will affect overall braking performance. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";