ID: GF001832

Mr. E. Paul Daniels
Pirelli Tire North America
406 Ridge Road
Orange, CT 06477




Dear Mr. Daniels:

This responds to your letter dated January 26, 2005, asking whether S6.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119 permits a motorcycle tire treadwear indicator height of greater that 0.8 mm.You asked about the possibility of raising it by as much as 0.6 mm, i.e., to 1.4 mm on new molds.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

The Federal standard applicable to your question is FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.The relevant portion of that standard reads as follows:

"6.4  Treadwear indicators Motorcycle tires shall have at least three such indicators which permit visual determination that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 0.8 mm (1/32 of an inch)."

The treadwear indicator requirement in S6.4 sets forth a specific standardized treadwear indicator height.A higher treadwear indicator is not permitted.We note that if the treadwear indicator height were raised to 1.4 mm, consumers would not be able to visually determine when the tire wore to a depth of 0.8 mm.

We further note that in a document published on January 30, 1996, the agency denied a petition for rulemaking from Herzlich Consulting, Inc. to increase the treadwear indicator height requirement for passenger car tires (see 61 FR 2991).The agency explained that the treadwear indicator height limit was based on a long-standing industry practice, and that NHTSA adopted this industry practice.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:119
d.3/24/05

ID: 9556

Mr. Adam A. Freund
Manager, Testing Services
Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc.
Post Office Box 592
1845 Harsh Avenue, S.E.
Massillon, OH 44648

Dear Mr. Freund:

This responds to your letter addressed to the attention of Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, contains certain errors.

You pointed out in your letter that Table I of FMVSS 119 specifies a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch for motorcycles, and 3/4 inch for 12-inch or smaller rims other than motorcycles. Table II, on the other hand, leaves blank the plunger diameter space in the motorcycle column, but lists 5/16 inch plunger diameter in the 12-inch or smaller rim column. You indicated your belief that the inconsistency is due to a typographical error in those columns of Table II and asked us to confirm your interpretation.

Your observation is correct. A November 13, 1973 rule adopting Tables I and II (38 FR 31299) (copy enclosed) specifies the 5/16-inch diameter plunger for motorcycle tires, and the 3/4- inch diameter plunger for 12-inch or smaller tires and 17.5- inch or smaller light truck tubeless tires. Accordingly, the plunger diameter for the motorcycle column in Table II should read 5/16. Similarly, the 12-inch or smaller column in the current Table II is in error in specifying a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch. The correct plunger diameter for that column in Table II should be 3/4 inch to correspond with the plunger diameter specified for 12-inch or smaller rims in Table I.

Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The agency will issue a correction to avoid any further confusion.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:119 d:4/12/94

ID: 24473.drn

J. C. Powell, Esq.
Powell & Majestro PLLC
405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200,
P.O. Box 3081
Charleston, WV 25331

Dear Mr. Powell:

This responds to your letter to Stuart Seigel, Safety Compliance Engineer at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting written confirmation that there is no "Federal Regulation requiring manufacturers to equip manual transmission vehicles with a starter interlock, also known alternatively as a neutral safety switch, starter safety switch, clutch safety switch, and clutch pedal position switch." Since you are asking for a legal opinion with respect to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) (49 CFR Part 571), I am responding on Mr. Seigels behalf. Your understanding that no FMVSS requires a starter interlock for manual transmission vehicles is correct.

As you are aware, Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect (49 CFR 571.102), applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Standard No. 102 specifies the requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers [25 miles] per hour.

Paragraph S3.1.3 specifies a starter interlock only for vehicles with automatic transmissions. Standard No. 102 specifies requirements for manual transmission vehicles at paragraph S3.2 Manual transmissions. Paragraph S3.2 does not include a requirement for starter interlocks.

Please note that Standard No. 102 has never included a requirement for starter interlocks on manual transmission vehicles. Hence, in 1989 and in 1990, there was no manual transmission starter interlock requirement in Standard No. 102.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:102
d.6/26/02

ID: 77-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes Company's November 29, 1976, question whether an antilock valve (incorporating the function of a relay valve) is subject to the requirement of S5.7.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that a truck or bus be capable of stopping within a specified distance following failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (with the exception of certain parts that are common to both sides of a "split" service brake system).

From your description, the antilock valve in question, whether or not it incorporates the function of a relay valve, is a part of the service brake system designed to contain compressed air, and would be one of the components whose failure would be subject to the requirement of S5.7.1. I assume that the value would be in the subsystem to the front axle or to the rear axles of a truck or bus and, as such, would not be a value that is common to both sides of a "split" service brake system.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

November 29, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Request For Interpretation FMVSS-121 Air Brake Systems S 5.7.1 Emergency Brake System Performance

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Kelsey-Hayes Company hereby requests an interpretation of the above cited provision. Specifically, we ask whether an antilock air valve, which incorporates the function of a relay valve, constitutes a part designed to contain compressed air, such that a failure of this valve requires conformance to the emergency brake system performance requirements.

Your prompt attention to this request will be appreciated.

Very truly yours, John F. McCuen -- COUNSEL

ID: nht94-6.37

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Adam A. Freund -- Manager, Testing Services, Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Massillon, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/10/94 from Adam A. Freund to Walter Myers (OCC 9556)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to the attention of Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, contains certain errors.

You pointed out in your letter that Table I of FMVSS 119 specifies a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch for motorcycles, and 3/4 inch for 12-inch or smaller rims other than motorcycles. Table II, on the other hand, leaves blank the plunger diameter space, in the motorcycle column, but lists 5/16 inch plunger diameter in the 12-inch or smaller rim column. You indicated your belief that the inconsistency is due to a typographical error in those columns of Table II and asked us to confirm your interpretation.

Your observation is correct. A November 13, 1973 rule adopting Tables I and II (38 FR 31299) (copy enclosed) specifies the 5/16-inch diameter plunger for motorcycle tires, and the 3/4-inch diameter plunger for 12-inch or smaller tires and 17.5- inch or smaller light truck tubeless tires. Accordingly, the plunger diameter for the motorcycle column in Table II should read 5/16. Similarly, the 12-inch or smaller column in the current Table II is in error in specifying a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch. The correct plunger diameter for that column in Table II should be 3/4 inch to correspond with the plunger diameter specified for 12-inch or smaller rims in Table I.

Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The agency will issue a correction to avoid any further confusion.

ID: nht94-2.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Adam A. Freund -- Manager, Testing Services, Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Massillon, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/10/94 from Adam A. Freund to Walter Myers (OCC 9556)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to the attention of Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, contains certain errors.

You pointed out in your letter that Table I of FMVSS 119 specifies a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch for motorcycles, and 3/4 inch for 12-inch or smaller rims other than motorcycles. Table II, on the other hand, leaves blank the plunger diameter space, in the motorcycle column, but lists 5/16 inch plunger diameter in the 12-inch or smaller rim column. You indicated your belief that the inconsistency is due to a typographical error in those columns of Table II and asked us to confirm your interpretation.

Your observation is correct. A November 13, 1973 rule adopting Tables I and II (38 FR 31299) (copy enclosed) specifies the 5/16-inch diameter plunger for motorcycle tires, and the 3/4-inch diameter plunger for 12-inch or smaller tires and 17.5- inch or smaller light truck tubeless tires. Accordingly, the plunger diameter for the motorcycle column in Table II should read 5/16. Similarly, the 12-inch or smaller column in the current Table II is in error in specifying a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch. Th e correct plunger diameter for that column in Table II should be 3/4 inch to correspond with the plunger diameter specified for 12-inch or smaller rims in Table I.

Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The agency will issue a correction to avoid any further confusion.

ID: nht91-4.45

DATE: July 11, 1991

FROM: David A. McClaughry -- Harness, Dickey & Pierce

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Richard L. Carlson

TITLE: Re Our Ref.: 0364-50108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David A. McClaughry (A38; Part 571.7(c))

TEXT:

I am writing to request an interpretation of the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to a sale of motor vehicles to the United States Navy.

A client that we represent is interested in bidding on a zero-emission vehicle contract. The design according to the proposed specifications may not meet some FMVSS. In order to accurately bid the project, an estimate of the required testing to certify the vehicle design is needed.

We are aware of the waiver provisions for the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle in 15 U.S.C. S1410(a)(1)(C). In addition, the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 C.F.R. S571.7, provides a military vehicle exemption:

(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

I am interested in understanding the scope of this exclusion. What is your interpretation of the definition of a "military vehicle?" Is a "military vehicle" confined to vehicles used in combat, vehicles that remain on military bases or any vehicle which the military purchases? Does this exclusion extend only for FMVSS or all safety standards? Are there other military safety standards that the vehicles must satisfy? Should the client attempt to obtain a certification exemption under 15 U.S.C. S1410(a)(1)(c)?

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance.

ID: 001646drn

Teresa Stillwell, Public Relations Director
ACF, Inc.
P. O. Box 730
Marsing, ID 83639

Dear Ms. Stillwell:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, applies to used school buses that your company wishes to carry forest fire-fighters and fire-fighting equipment.

In your letter, you write that the used school "buses in our fleet range from 1980 to 1992" as the dates of manufacture. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated the used school buses range from 45 to 63 in passenger capacity, and thus are over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) in gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You will modify the buses to carry 22 passengers (including the driver).

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to used motor vehicles. That is, persons selling a used vehicle are not required to sell vehicles that meet the FMVSSs. Thus, there is no NHTSA requirement that the modified buses meet FMVSS No. 217.

There is a limit in Federal law on the modifications that certain commercial businesses may make to vehicles for compensation. This "make inoperative" provision is discussed below.

Making Safety Devices and Elements Inoperative

Section 30122(b) of 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. states, in relevant part:

Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this section prohibits the entities listed in 30122 from removing, disabling or otherwise "making inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, with regard to modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from school bus to bus [1] ), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has interpreted the provision to hold that the modifications do not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition as long as the converted vehicle complies with the safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type. Applied to the situation you present, and assuming that ACF is modifying the buses for compensation, this means that ACF would have to ensure that the buses meet the "bus" emergency exit requirements to preclude a violation of 30122.

The emergency exit requirements that apply to "buses" are explained in an enclosure to this letter. As you requested, the enclosure also explains the requirements for "school buses."

The make inoperative provision does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, if ACF is modifying used school buses for its own use, there is no NHTSA requirement not to make inoperative the safety systems or devices installed in the vehicle. However, NHTSA urges owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Storing Fire-Fighting Equipment

You told Ms. Nakama that fire-fighting equipment (such as axes, shovels, and chain saws) would weigh between 2,300 to 3,000 pounds and would be secured in the bus by storage in cages. Separate cages can be designed for opposite sides of the bus, leaving a clear aisle to the rear emergency exit door. You stated that it was also proposed to put one large storage cage in such a way as to block the rear emergency exit door. In your letter, you ask whether, if the rear exit is blocked, installing a roof exit in front of the cage door fulfills the required number of exits. You asked Ms. Nakama whether Federal law permits blockage of the emergency exit door.

We assume for this answer that you are regulated by the "make inoperative" provision of 30122. Because your company would change the vehicle type (i.e., from school bus to bus), and there is no requirement for rear emergency exit doors for buses, NHTSA law would not prohibit the blockage of the rear emergency exit door with a permanent structure such as the cage, as long as a roof emergency exit is provided. If you are modifying your own vehicles and are thus not regulated by the make inoperative provision, you are not required by NHTSA to install an exit. If an exit is not provided, we strongly recommend that the emergency exit label be removed from the rear door.

Your final question to Ms. Nakama was whether it would be permissible to transport gasoline on the buses for fueling forest fire-fighting equipment such as chain saws. The Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA) of the Department of Transportation has regulations that may apply to transport of gasoline. You can contact RSPAs Office of Hazardous Materials Standards toll free at 1-800-467-4922 for information about RSPA regulations. We also suggest that you contact your State motor vehicle administration for information about any State regulations in this area.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.5/21/03





---

[1] By NHTSAs definition, a bus is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." (See 49 CFR 571.3, "Definitions.")

ID: 1983-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo White Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 27 1983 NOA-30

Mr. J. W. Lawrence Manager, Compliance and Recall Volvo White Truck Corporation P.O. Box D-1 Greensboro, NC 27402-1200

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether standard's identification and illumination requirements are applicable to an optional windshield wiper control you are planning to make available on some heavy duty trucks.

By way of background information, the agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is up to the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The following interpretation represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. It also takes into account information provided in a follow-up telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office.

The standard wiper controls for the vehicles in question consist of two knobs which independently control the left and right wipers. These controls provide both the on-off function and variable speed. According to your letter, these controls are identified and illuminated as required by the standard.

The proposed optional control, the specific subject of your letter, would provide a time delay for windshield wiper operation during light mist conditions. The control would be a knob which, if turned to the left, would provide no pause, and if turned toward the right, would offer a variable time delay.

We are unable to agree with your suggestion that the control is not covered by Standard No. 101. As discussed below, Standard No. 101 requires that this control, like the standard controls, be identified and illuminated in accordance with the standard's requirements. Additional words or symbols may be provided for the purpose of clarity.

Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires, among other things, that each truck manufactured with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 meet the requirements of the standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control. One of the controls listed by S5.1 is "windshield wiper." Also, "windshield wiping system" is among the controls listed in column 1 of Table 1. The issue raised by your letter is therefore whether an optional control for intermittent wiper operation is within the meaning of "windshield wiper" control and/or "windshield wiping system" control. It is our interpretation that such a control is within the meaning of both terms.

Neither the term "windshield wiper" control nor "windshield wiping system" control is limited to specific wiper functions, such as on-off, variable speed, etc. Since a control for intermittent wiper operation controls one function of windshield wipers, it is a "windshield wiper" control or "windshield wiping system" control. Such a control is therefore subject to the standard's requirements for location, identification and illumination.

We would note that while section S5.2.1 and Table 1 require such a control to be identified by the symbol specified for windshield wiping system controls, additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for purposes of clarity. Since your vehicles would have three windshield wiper controls, you may wish to provide such additional words or symbols to explain the function of each.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 30, 1983

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Subject: Request for Interpretation FMVSS-101 Controls and Displays

Volvo White Truck Corporation of Greensboro, North Carolina, a manufacturer of heavy duty trucks 26,000 lbs. and greater GVWR, requests an interpretation of FMVSS-101 as it applies to these classes of vehicles. In specific, we request an interpretation of S 5.3.1 and Table 1 for an optional windshield wiper control available on some of our vehicles.

Volvo White's standard wiper controls are identified and illuminated as required by S 5.3.1 and Table 1 of the Standard. We also are making available an additional control that allows the driver to "time" the wiper sweep by delaying the wipe cycle for vehicle operation during light mist conditions. The control is separate from the wiper control and selects only the desired time delay for the intermittent wiper operation.

Considering that this control operates the time delay feature only but is similar to a wiper control, Volvo White considers it should be identified as follows:

1. The control is not covered by Standard 101, therefore, the identification is at the discretion of the manufacturer.

2. Standard 101 does not prohibit the use of the symbols in Table I for similar type controls. Volvo White may use the symbols and/or words in Table I or other appropriate identification.

3. The control, when mounted on the instrument panel may, but need not, be illuminated.

Volvo White would appreciate, at your earliest convenience, confirmation or clarification on the three issues noted above.

Very truly yours,

J. W. Lawrence Manager, Compliance and Recall

ID: 1984-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sylvia A. Knouse -- Title Clerk, Truck World, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. According to your letter, you are in the business of remanufacturing trailers, stripping the original trailer down to the original frame and redoing the rest of the trailer, leaving the original braking system intact. You stated that a customer purchased two of these reconstructed trailers and then refused to pay for them unless you put maxi-brakes on them. According to your letter, the customer has argued that maxi-brakes are required by Standard No. 121, while you understand that the trailers meet Standard No. 121. In telephone conversations with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personnel, a member of your company's staff indicated that the term "maxi-brakes" was meant to refer to a spring brake, i.e., a mechanically applied parking brake. As discussed below, remanufactured trailers must meet all applicable current safety standards, unless they fall within an exception set forth at 49 CFR 571.7(f). Standard No. 121 is applicable to the vast majority of air-braked trailers and requires such trailers to have a parking brake.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and in telephone conversations with NHTSA personnel.

49 CFR 571.7(f) reads as follows:

(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer --

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle,

Thus, each trailer that you have remanufactured is considered new unless each of the following statements is true with respect to the trailer: (1) the trailer running gear assembly was taken from an existing trailer, (2) the identity of that trailer is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number, and (3) you are selling or leasing the trailer to the same person who owned or leased it prior to remanufacture. Assuming that the trailers are considered newly manufactured, they must meet all current safety standards.

Section S3 of Standard No. 121 provides that the standard is applicable to trailers equipped with air brake systems, with several very limited exceptions. (You can check that section to see if your trailers come within any of the exceptions. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your convenience.) Assuming that the standard is applicable, section S5.6 requires new air-braked trailers to have a parking brake. The requirement that air-braked trailers have a parking brake has been in effect since January 1, 1975. Manufacturers have met the requirement virtually exclusively by means of spring brakes. If your trailers are considered new under our regulations, they must have a parking brake regardless of whether they had a parking brake when they were originally manufactured.

If the trailers are not considered newly manufactured under 49 CFR 571.7(f), they would not be required to meet current safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does require that businesses such as yours not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with any safety standard.

ENC.

TRUCK WORLD, INC.

OCC-1061

August 15, 1984

Fred Berndt Office of Chief Council USDOT (NHTSA) NOA 30

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are requesting the legal opinion of your office concerning a current problem that has occured in the operation of our business.

We sell new Marmon tractors, used tractors, and used trailers. In the course of this business we have remanufactured trailers, stripping the original trailer down to the original frame and redoing the rest of the trailer, leaving the original braking system in tact.

These FRP's, as we call them, are then inspected by one of our licensed inspection mechanics and registered with the state of Pennsylvania as reconstructed trailers.

Our problem arises in the fact that a customer purchased two of these FRP trailers and will not pay for them unless we put maxi-brakes on them. He states that under the 121 braking system maxi-brakes are required by Federal law. We have constructed the FRP's with the understanding that they meet FMVSS121.

I have called and discussed this situation with Pat Quigley with the Federal Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in Harrisburg, Pa., John Shaw with the same bureau in Washington, D.C., and Mr. James Clements with the National Highway Traffic System. These gentlemen are of the opinion that I need the assistance of your bureau to resolve this problem.

Any help that you can render in this situation will be greatly appreciated. Time is of the essence, and I would need a reply as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sylvia A. Knouse Title Clerk