Skip to main content
Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: aiam3717

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