ID: nht95-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: J. Gregory Studemeyer

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Safety standards for school buses

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/27/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO J. GREGORY STUDEMEYER (A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

It is my understanding that passenger vans meeting the definition of "school bus" as defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, must meet certain safety standards. It is further my understanding that these safety standards are implemented by prohibiting manuf acturers and dealers from selling new vehicles which meet the definition of "school bus" to educational institutions.

Notwithstanding the fact that the burden of enforcing these standards is placed upon manufacturers and dealers, can you advise as to whether or not your agency or any other federal agency notifies educational institutions of these requirements.

ID: nht95-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

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

TO: Lois Castillo -- Travel Tray, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/27/94 from Lois Castillo to Joan (John) Womack (OCC 10464)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Castillo:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Womack of my staff, asking about safety regulations for the "Travel Tray," a product you wish to manufacture. The brochure you enclosed with your letter states that the Travel Tray is a plastic tray that is desig ned to lay across the top of a child's car seat. The tray attaches to the car seat by the use of straps with "velcro" ends. Children would use the tray to "play on with their toys or to eat on."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used its authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) N o. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. (This standard is found in volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.213.) Each new child restraint system, which includes "car seat s," must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213. This means that, if the Travel Tray were marketed as part of a car seat, the car seat would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard, with the tray a ttached.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 213 prohibits any fixed or moveable surface in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain a test dummy in a 20 mile per hour test. This requirement is to prevent items that could injure a child in a crash from being installed where they could be impacted by a child. Your tray is incapable of restraining a test dummy in a crash. Since the tray is unable to restrain the dummy, a car seat with the tray would not comply with Standard No. 213. In other words, a manufacturer of a car seat could not sell such a tray as a part of its child seating system.

If your tray is manufactured and marketed separately to consumers who own child seats, the tray would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. The standard applies to new child restraint systems, or car seats, that are design ed to restrain, seat or position children. Your tray sold by itself would not be designed to restrain, seat or position children and thus would not be subject to this standard.

While no FMVSS applies to the Travel Tray, your product 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 remed y 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 states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative . . . a ny 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. . . ." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in v ehicles by commercial businesses instead of car seat owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in the categories listed in section 30122, that would constitute a potential violation of the "make inoperative" provision of section 3 0122.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

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

TO: Jerry G. Sullivan, P.E. -- The Braun Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/18/94 letter from Jerry G. Sullivan to Mary Versailles (OCC 10443)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mary Versailles of this office in which you asked whether, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the driver's side front door area on n on-school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds could be credited toward the unobstructed openings requirement of section @5.2.

The opening paragraph of section S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, requires buses other than school buses to provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits which collectively amount, in square inches, to 67 times the number of designated seating pos itions on the vehicle. The same paragraph also requires that at least 40 percent of the total unobstructed opening area must be provided on each side of the bus. No single emergency exit, however, can be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement.

With regard to non-school buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, section S5.2.2(c) provides that such buses may meet the emergency exit requirements by means of doors. Accordingly, nothing in the standard prohibits crediting the driver's side door a s an emergency exit so long as it meets all emergency exit requirements of the standard, including the release mechanism and 40 percent requirements, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

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

TO: Melinda Dresser -- Manager Contracts/Transportation, Carlin Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/28/94 letter from Melinda Dresser to Philip Recht

TEXT: We have received your letter of November 28, 1994, asking whether the exterior lighting of six Oscar Mayer "Wienermobiles" that your company is manufacturing conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed diagrams showi ng the location of the exterior lighting devices.

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, the determination of whether a vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is that of the manufacturer who, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30115, must certify compliance of the ve hicle with those standards upon completion of manufacture. NHTSA has no authority to approve or disapprove specific vehicle designs. We do, however, provide interpretations of our standards to manufacturers upon request. The appropriate standard here i s Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your letter does not state whether Carlin has classified the Wienermobile as a "passenger car" or as a "truck". We believe that the vehicle is a "truck" within the meaning of 49 CFR 571.3 (b) because it appears to be "designed primarily for the transpor tation of property of special purpose equipment", rather than for the transportation of passengers, and that its overall width of 94 inches makes it more appropriate for the Wienermobile to meet wide vehicle lighting requirements. Therefore, the Wienermo bile must be equipped with the lighting equipment specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, and located as specified in Table II, the requirements for trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or more. This means that they must be equipped with the front and rear clearance and identification lamps that Table I requires for wide trucks; these lamps do not appear on your drawings.

In addition, all four-wheeled motor vehicles are required to have hazard warning/turn signal lamps and we don't see these lamps either on the drawings. With respect to front lighting equipment that is depicted, we note that supplementary lighting equipme nt such as fog lamps and the "front marker light" are permissible under Standard No. 108 if the manufacturer determines that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, in this instance, the headlamps. In the absence of a clearly erroneous determination, NHTSA will accept the manufacturer's judgement on impairment. Trucks that are subject to Table II need not be equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp or parking lamps, if that is the purpose of the front marker lamp.

We hope that these comments will be helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: nht95-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

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

TO: Barbara Kise

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/11/94 letter from Barbara Kise to Chief Consul (OCC 10499)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kise:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1994 asking whether the air bag in your 1994 Oldsmobile can be disconnected. You explained that you use oxygen for emphysema and chronic bronchitis and are concerned that your lungs might not be able to toler ate the powder ejected if the air bag deploys in a crash.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is prohibited by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. The provision provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative 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 veh icle safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperat ive" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

NHTSA has previously stated that chemical and medical tests indicate that an air bag inflation poses no respiratory system hazard, even for persons who are highly susceptible to airborne particles. However, one recent test series of persons with an asth matic condition revealed that prolonged exposure (20 minutes with the windows rolled up) to the atmosphere inside a vehicle after both the driver and passenger air bags have deployed can induce significant asthmatic reactions in some persons. Please not e that these were worst case test conditions unlikely to be found in a real world crash situation.

However, given this test, we would recommend that you consult your doctor to determine whether any significant hazard could result if you were exposed to air bag deployment by-products. I have enclosed a report on this test for you to share with your do ctor to assist in this determination. If you and your doctor decide that the risk to you offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of your air bag, and you wished to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical v iolation of the "make inoperative" prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against the person who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag b e consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufact ured. Accordingly, we urge that the air bag be reactivated prior to selling the vehicle. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle always uses his or her safety belt.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 2, 1995

FROM: Jim Cawse -- Principal Scientist; George Diehl -- Standards Engineer, General Electric

TO: Philip Recht -- Chief Counsel - NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/6/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Jim Cawse and Fred (George) Diehl (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

As GE Plastics continues to develop and introduce new products for the Automotive Lighting marketplace, it is extremely important that we continue to adhere to the SAE testing protocol as delineated in SAE J576C, to ensure that our products meet the pass /fail three year natural weathering criteria in South Florida and Arizona. The Design of Experiment (DOE) approach we discussed with you in August and September, 1994, will enable us to generate a much wider spread of data utilizing dependent and indepe ndent variables including haze. Yellowness Index (YI), color shift, thicknesses, formulations, colors, color concentrations, and coatings. This will supply very meaningful results for us and our customers in that we will be able to extract more results from less testing.

As a result of our discussions with NHTSA, AAMVA (now AMECA), and the major automotive and automotive lighting players, we have modified our initial approach to incorporate the important concerns of all parties. These include:

* The thicknesses used in the study will be at least the three minimum as called out by SAE J576C (0.062, 0.125, and 0.250 inches). We have added the 0.040" thickness as well.

* The formulations (base material recipes) used in the study will be commercial formulations and the results of the study will be usable for only those formulations (i.e., no blends of two formulations).

* Each coating will be tested at least once on each formulation.

* Each color candidate will be tested in a low and high color concentration so that interpolations can be made from the test results for color concentrations that fall in between.

* The final list of coatings is being firmed up as of this writing, and actually is being expanded beyond the list presented in previous meetings.

We would appreciate your written affirmation of our approach so that we have a mutual understanding of our new testing directions, and so that our customers are assured of your concurrence.

Sincerely.

ID: nht95-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1995

FROM: Paul N. Wagner -- President, Bornemann Products Incorporated

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

TITLE: Ref: Your letter dated December 23, 1994, copy enclosed

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/21/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO PAUL N. WAGNER (A43; STD. 207)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

Thank you very much for your response to my questions concerning seating systems, FMVSS # 207. I would like to expand this inquiry somewhat further, and request a clarification accordingly, so as to eliminate any doubt on the issue of integrated seats.

For definition's sake, an integrated seat will refer to a seating system having the seat belts mounted to the seating structure, with the "D ring" mounting located on the seat back itself (instead of the wall pillar as most vehicles have today).

To clarify the issue of FMVSS # 207 static testing, it is clear that the only adjusted position exception is the vertical movement of nonlocking suspension seats while loads are applied. You have also made it very clear that the seating structure may be tested in any adjusted position, however there is still another question.

In order to be specific, if an integrated seat is tested to FMVSS # 207, when the loads are applied, a rachet-style seat recliner mechanism may not have its adjustment teeth shear during the test, since the seat must maintain its adjusted position, and t he shearing of the recliner teeth is an adjustment change. Is this supposition correct, assuming that the shearing of the recliner's teeth is a change in detent position?

The premise above does allow for normal structure deformation that does not change the detent position.

Lastly, a question that was not proposed earlier concerns continuous engagement, which simply implies that the seat recliner or slides will always be in a locked position, even during adjustment. Some slides and recliners, for adjustment purposes, must be "unlocked," or released, allowing for the adjustment to be made, but then automatically relock when the desired position is achieved; this adjustment method is not considered to be as continuously engaged, since the mechanism is in a released state du ring adjustment.

An apparatus that might be considered to be a continuous engagement device might be a screw-drive mechanism, which can be adjusted by revolution, but would always have a locking feature, even during adjustment (and never be in a released position).

Must a seat recliner or seat slides have "continuous engagement," in order to comply with FMVSS # 207/# 208/# 210 specifications on integrated seating? What this question addresses is the time frame when a seat recliner or seat slide may be disengaged, or released, during use while a vehicle is in motion, since the seat is not locked at these adjustment times, and the seat belt system is attached completely to the seating system.

I apologize for the continued questioning on this issue, and hope for your earliest response.

Thank you very much for your consideration of the above matters, as it is very much appreciated. If I can be of service, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Again, our thanks for your help!

ID: nht95-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1995

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

TO: Mr. Michael A. Holmes -- Farmington Correctional Center

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 12/6/94 letter from Michael A. Holmes to Federico F. Pena (OCC 10596)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your letter of December 6, 1994, to the Secretary of Transportation, regarding the laws that apply to the manufacture of cars and light trucks. You have a design which you describe as "hydrogen turbine over electric."

The principal law that the Department of Transportation administers that pertains to the construction of motor vehicles is Title 49 United States Code Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety. Under its authority, we have issued the Federal Motor Vehicle Safe ty Standards and other pertinent regulations. These are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 at an invoiced cost of around $ 25. The title of the volume you want is "49 CFR Parts 400-99 9"; all our regulations are in the 500 series. The Safety Standards are at Part 571. The applicability section of each standard informs the reader as to the types of vehicles to which it applies, such as passenger cars, motorcycles, etc. However, the standards don't differentiate between propulsion sources, and there are no standards that apply to "electric vehicles," or, in your case, "hydrogen turbine over electric."

You should be aware that the Environmental Protection Agency establishes standards for motor vehicle emissions, and that the individual States are permitted to have their own standards in areas where the Department of Transportation has not acted, such a s horns and fog lamps.

If you have any further questions, they should be directed to this Office and we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely

ID: nht95-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1995

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

TO: Mary M. Mann -- Director, Federal Government Regulations, National Marine Manufacturers Association

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/15/94 letter from Mary M. Mann to Patrick Boyd (OCC 10484)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Mann:

This responds to your letter of September 15, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency. As he has told you, we did not receive a copy of it until around November 9. You ask for confirmation of your understanding of the conspicuity requirements of S5.7.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to large boat trailers, based upon a meeting you had with him and Taylor Vinson of this Office earlier in the summer. We have paraphrased your concerns for conciseness in our discussion whic h follows.

Side treatment

1. Paragraph S5.1.1.9 allows a double-faced clearance lamp to be mounted at or near the midpoint of wide boat trailers to indicate the extreme width. Paragraph S5.7.1.4, in essence, prohibits retroreflective material from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp. While the closet edge of the fender-mounted lamp will be further than 75 mm from the body-mounted retroflective material, when viewed from the side the separation distance vanishes and the material appears next to the lamp. Y ou asked whether this configuration complies with Standard No. 108.

NHTSA regards this configuration as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 since the actual physical distance between the closest edge of the lamp and the material is more than 75 mm. But the more important point is that the spacing of side conspi cuity material is a consideration only for required side lamps. The amber lamp in question is a front clearance lamp and the proximity of side facing reflectors has no effect on its visibility from the side.

2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires that the material cover at least half the trailer length and that it be distributed as even as practicable. For purposes of calculating the 50 percent minimum, you asked whether the following two applications are acc eptable:

a) The sheeting can be on the angled portion of the trailer that is the tongue, regardless of its effect on the reflectivity of the tape when viewed from the side.

NHTSA has traditionally included the trailer tongue in determining the overall length of the vehicle for compliance purposes. Therefore, sheeting applied to the trailer tongue may be used in calculating the 50 percent minimum.

(b) The sheeting need not all be on the same horizontal plane.

This is correct. If a manufacturer applies sheeting to the tongue and fender in fulfilling the 50% minimum obligation, the material need not be at the same height as the other sheeting on the trailer. However, wherever applied, each discrete portion of sheeting must be mounted as horizontal as practicable.

Rear Treatment

1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1 specifies the application of three Elements of sheeting to the rear of trailers. However, it excuses container chassis and platform trailers without bulkheads from being equipped with Element 2 treatment, and trailers without un derride protection devices from the requirements of Element 3. You asked whether NHTSA would also excuse boat trailers without bulkheads in the same manner as platform trailers, requiring compliance only with Element 1.

This is correct. The configuration of a boat trailer without a bulkhead is essentially that of a platform trailer, and it may also be exempted from providing Element 2 conspicuity treatment. Due to their low heights, boat trailers are not equipped with rear underride devices, and those trailers without underride devices are excluded from the requirement for providing Element 3 treatment.

2. Element 1 retroreflective material is to be applied "across the full width of the trailer" but under paragraph S5.7.1(a) it need not be applied to "items of equipment such as door hinges and lamp bodies." There is a cross member at the rear which wil l have conspicuity treatment across the full width; however, mounting brackets attached to the cross member obscure portions of the conspicuity treatment. You asked for confirmation that this configuration is in accordance with Standard No. 108.

The exclusionary term "items of equipment" is not limited to the two examples cited in S5.7.1(a), door hinges and lamp bodies. We believe that any equipment to which it is impracticable to apply retroreflective material may be excluded from the requirem ent. You have not included any pictures of the mounting brackets, but this will confirm that NHTSA regards the mounting brackets as "items of equipment" to which the treatment need not be applied, if it is impracticable to apply material to it. In this event, application of conspicuity treatment across the full width of the cross member meets Standard No. 108 even if the subsequently added mounting brackets without treatment obscure part of it.

3. Does NHTSA interpret "full width of the trailer" to include the rear of the fender assembly, so as to require the application of conspicuity treatment to it? You asked for confirmation that the phrase applies only to the rear of the frame.

NHTSA has defined "overall vehicle width" to exclude flexible fender extensions, but it has not adopted a definition for "full width." We understand from your first question, on the centrally mounted clearance lamp, that boat trailer fenders will be loca ted at or near the center of the trailer rather than at the rear. Under this circumstance, we interpret "full width" to include only the vehicle structure at the rear end of the trailer, including its frame and rear cross members.

4. With respect to the relative location of the edge of retroreflective sheeting to the edge of required lamps, S5.7.1.4(b) prohibits white sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp whether red or amber, while S5.7.1.4(c) pr ohibits red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required amber lamp only. You asked for confirmation "that the edge of the red portion of the sheeting may abut a rear identification lamp but that the white portion of the sheeting mu st be at lease (sic) 3mm (sic) from those lamps." (We believe you mean 3 inches).

This is correct. S5.7.1.4(c) does not prohibit red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm (3 inches) to the red rear identification lamp, and the two may abut. However, S5.7.1.4(b) does not allow the edge of white sheeting to be closer than 75 mm to the e dge of the luminous lens area of the identification lamp.

Finally, you have asked for confirmation of your understanding "that it is not acceptable for trailer manufacturers to give rolls of reflexive sheeting tape and instructions to dealers regarding its application. Rather, the sheeting must be installed at the factory."

We confirm your understanding. The manufacturer of the trailer is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon its completion and before its delivery for introduction into interstate comme rce. As this certification includes compliance with S5.7 of Standard No. 108, the conspicuity treatment must be applied as part of the manufacturing process and not delegated to dealers.

Sincerely

ID: nht95-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1995

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

TO: Ed Irvine -- Midwest Conservation Systems

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/20/94 letter from Ed Irvine to Phillip Recht

TEXT: Dear Mr. Irvine:

This responds to your letter asking whether a newly manufactured commercial utility trailer must be equipped with an emergency breakaway system. You state that your customer wishes to purchase a trailer without the battery powered breakaway system that comes with the trailer. Instead, you would like to install your solar energized breakaway system. In a December 7, 1994 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the trailers in question are typically small utility traile rs that do not rely on the use of air pressure. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicable requirements issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). You may also wish to request an interpretati on of 49 CFR 393.43 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which is the agency that issued that regulation.

By way of background information, NHTSA and FHWA are both part of the United States Department of Transportation. Each agency has the authority to issue regulations related to your question. NHTSA, which regulates newly manufactured vehicles, has the a uthority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. FHWA, which regulates the use of commercial motor vehicles, has the authority to issue Federal Motor Carrier Saf ety Regulations (FMCSRs), which are applicable to commercial motor vehicles and their operators. We have referred your letter to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Office of Motor Carrier Standards, since that agency issued 49 CFR 393.43.

While NHTSA has the authority to issue FMVSSs, the agency has not issued any FMVSS that would directly affect the braking performance of a small utility trailer, unless the trailer relies on air pressure. Therefore, if the trailers in question are not a ir braked vehicles, then you would not need to certify that such a trailer's braking performance complies with an FMVSS, since no applicable FMVSS exists.

Please note that your solar energized trailer breakaway system would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the statute administered by NHTSA. If this system contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. If you wish to contact someone in the FHWA's Office of Chief Counse l concerning the motor carrier standards, please call Charles Medalen at (202) 366-1354.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht