Interpretation ID: 1983-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: David I. Fallk; Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

David I. Fallk, Esq. Robert W. Munley, P.C. Floor Eight, Penn Security Bank Building P.O. Box 1066 Scranton, PA 18503

Dear Mr. Fallk:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1983, concerning Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and the PACCAR case. The answers to your questions are as follows.

Your first question was whether, following PACCAR, a manufacturer was required to comply with the applicable 121 standard for trucks which had been assembled but not delivered. The answer to that question is no, for the portions of the standard that were invalidated by the court. As noted in an enclosed letter (dated March 4, 1980), NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances had been invalidated from the effective date of the standard. Therefore, after PACCAR, no manufacturer was required to comply with those invalidated portions of the standard, whether or not a vehicle had already been assembled.

Your second question concerned whether a manufacturer or anyone else if properly informed was prevented from disabling the anti-lock system, before it was put into service. The answer to that question is no. That issue is fully explained in two enclosed letters (dated September 11, 1979, and March 4, 1980). These letters explain the relationship of what your letter refers to as the section of the vehicle safety act to prevent disabling and Standard No. 121, in light of the PACCAR case.

I have also enclosed a letter (dated November 29, 1979), which discusses the nature of Standard No. 121 as a performance standard. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

July 11, 1983

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 ATTENTION: Ed Glancy

Dear Mr. Glancy:

I am in need of certain information that I am told your office can supply. I represent a party who was severely injured in accident involving 121 air brake anti-lock failure. We have initiated a suit against the manufacturer and the Chief Judge of the District Court has continued the case, pending certain information being gathered.

The accident involves a truck which was ordered and assembled prior to the Paccar decision, but not delivered until six months after Paccar. At the time of delivery, the anti-lock system was intact and no warnings or information concerning Paccar was made available to the purchaser. It has been asserted that the manufacturer was compelled by government regulation to install the system and could do nothing, even after Paccar about it. My questions are therefore as follows:

1. Following Paccar was a manufacturer required to comply with the applicable 121 standard for trucks which had been assembled but not delivered?

2. Was the manufacturer or anyone else if properly informed prevented from disabling the anti-lock system, before it was put into service?

It is my understanding that there was a memorandum or Opinion offered to the effect that the applicable section of the vehicle safety act to prevent disabling did not apply to the air brake standards. I would like to have a copy of that document and any other opinion or document which would relate to my above questions.

As indicated above, I am under direction of the District Court and a constraint of time is upon me. Therefore, prompt attention to my request would be greatly appreciated.

If there are any questions, please do not hesistate to telephone me.

Very truly yours,

DAVID I. FALLK

DIF/rpc