ID: 1983-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corp. -- Arnold Van Ruitenbeck, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. van Ruitenbeek:

This responds to your recent letter asking for an interpre-tation concerning Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked whether your company could label two maximum load ratings on the sidewall of certain motorcycle tires it manufactures. One maximum load rating would be applicable at the tire's top-rated speed, while the other would be applicable at a speed of 60 miles per hour. Such labeling would violate Standard No. 119.

Section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewall of all tires to which the standard applies. Section S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on all motorcycle tires, shown as follows:

Max load lbs at psi cold.

The maximum load rating on the tire's sidewall, as the name implies, is intended to alert the consumer to the tire's maximum capabilities. Allowing tire manufacturers to specify more than one maximum load, based on various vehicle speeds, would dilute the value of the maximum load information to the consumer, by introducing the possibility of confusion and uncertainty about the actual maximum load the tire could carry while in use on a particular trip. To avoid this, the agency has stated on each occasion when questions have arisen in this area that only one maximum load rating may appear on the sidewall of tires.

Please understand that the agency does not doubt that these tires can carry higher loads at lower speeds. Further, it does not have any objection to your publicizing those loads in your advertising literature, which you enclosed with your letter. However, the purpose of the labeling requirements on the sidewall of tires is not to give the consumer information for all possible operating conditions for the tire. Indeed, there is not enough space on the sidewall of the tire to do this. The purpose of the labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. In the case of the maximum load information, this necessitates providing only one maximum load rating on the sidewall of the tires.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 21, 1983

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION 200 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are requesting an advisory opinion on motorcycle tire sidewall markings as required by FMVSS 119.

Continental motorcycle tires are made in Germany where there are no speed limits on the Autobahn.

Motocycle tire load ratings are governed by the speed rating of the tire: the higer the speed rating, the lower the load and, visa versa, the lower the speed the higher the load.

Our SuperTwin tire (see attached brochure) have a V-rating for 150 MPH and the load rating molded into the tire is for this speed. At 60 MPH the load rating is aproximately 52% higher - as is shown in the last column of the enclosed brochure.

In our program are two sizes that are mainly used on touring bikes, usually ridden with one extra passenger and extra luggage.

We are now asking for your permission to engrave, in addition to all required DOT markings, the higer 60 MPH load capacity on the sidewall of the tire, underneath where the DOT load rating for 150 MPH now appears.

The proposed sentence is: For size 30/90 V 16 TK44 : At 60 MPH the load capacity is 880 lbs at 40 PSI. For size 130/90 V 17 TK44 : At 60 Mph the load capacity is 900 lbs at 40 PSI.

This information is very helpful for the rider and contributes to the safe operation of the motorcycle. We look forward to hearing from you.

Very truly yours,

Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President

ID: nht80-2.43

DATE: 06/02/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brown Motors Volkswagen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne

TEXT:

Mr. Robert Slagle Parts Manager Brown Motors Volkswagen 5 West 18th Street at National City Boulevard National City, California 92050

Dear Mr. Slagle:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the Federal requirements that would be applicable to the manufacture and installation of auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in passenger cars. I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issued last August which discusses the general implications of such installations under Federal law.

Your letter asked whether it will be necessary for you to crash test vehicles that have the auxiliary tanks installed. As indicated in the enclosed interpretation, if the tank is added to a new vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person making the alteration will have to certify that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 301-75. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a manufacturer (including an alterer) to exercise due care to assure that a vehicle certifies is in fact in compliance with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the manufacturer to determine how he will establish due care and, in this case, whether he will crash test a vehicle or use some other method to ensure the compliance of the vehicle. The test procedures in Safety Standard No. 301-75 are not obligatory, only the performance requirements. The test procedures do, however, state how the agency will test a vehicle to determine compliance.

In answer to your question number 4, I can state that it will not be necessary for you to crash test each vehicle which has a tank installed in order to establish due care. If by your question you meant one car of each car "model," once again, it is up to the manufacturer how he establishes due care.

In answer to your question number 3, the information contained in the enclosed interpretation includes discussions of all the Federal safety requirements that would be applicable to your company's activities. There may, of course, be other general Federal laws regarding the conducting of a business which would be pertinent. For example, Federal Trade Commission regulations regarding advertising could affect your activities. You are probably aware of these general regulations, however, since you are already an established business enterprise.

Regarding your final question, all vehicle manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, have performed crash tests to determine compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. Since your company is a Volkswagen dealership, I suggest you contact Volkswagen regarding its compliance testing program for Safety Standard No. 301-75.

If you have any further questions after reviewing this information, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

[8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted]

April 24, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation National Hwy. Traffic Safety Adm. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are in the process of having auxiliary diesel fuel tanks made of aluminum for us by a company who makes many items, such as ducting, vents, water tanks, fuel tanks, etc. These tanks are for automobiles that use diesel fuel only, not gasoline. We make up a kit including all necessary parts and installation instructions for this to be installed in diesel driven vehicles only.

These auxiliary diesel fuel tank kits will be sold to automobile dealers for sale over the counter or may install in their own shop; also sold to repair shops, auto parts stores, etc, We will install these auxiliary tanks in our agency also.

Our tanks are constructed of 12 gauge non-corrosive aluminum-Heliarc welded and each tank is pressure tested. Some are made to fit in to the spare tire well and some fit in the trunk of the car. Each tank is secured by (4) four or more bolts thru specially welded brackets on each tank.

We are prepared to notify customers if necessary, should we find a defect, also should a leak occur, we will replace the tank.

I would appreciate a response to the questions listed below:

1. Will federal motor vehicle safety standard FMVSS No. 301-75 apply to our company's activities?

2. Will it be necessary for us to crash test a car?

3. Will any other federal law apply to our company's activity?

4. Will it be necessary for us to crash test each car we make diesel tanks for?

5. Can you furnish any information to us on manufacture's that performed crash tests as to federal standards FMVSS 301-75?

Our desire and intent is to build a safe auxiliary diesel fuel tank and maintain fuel system integrity.

I would appreciate any response to this letter and any suggestions you might have for this project.

Sincerely,

Robert Slagle Parts Manager

ID: nht81-2.31

DATE: 06/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: North American Classics Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1981, asking two questions with respect to the temporary exemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) and implementing regulations (49 CFR Part 555).

Your first question is:

(1) Assuming North American Classics designs the total engineering of the Thunderbird reproduction; selects all components to be incorporated therein; retains primary control over quality control, testing, FMVSS compliance in design; and manufacturing assembly sequence; and markets the produced vehicles on its behalf to its customers, does North American Classics remain eligible to apply for exemption from meeting certain FMVSS requirements for this vehicle in the event that the actual responsibility for the assembly of the vehicles is contracted by North American Classics to a manufacturer which produces more than 10,000 motor vehicles per year?

Although you have not said so, I understand from Taylor Vinson that the manufacturer with whom you would contract is a foreign corporation which has never produced motor vehicles for the American market. We also understand that it may be less expensive to have your car built abroad than at home.

Under the circumstances you describe, the foreign corporation appears to be nothing more than your agent in fabricating the vehicles and returning them for sale. This would not affect your eligibility for exemption. You would retain the responsibility for certification, as we understand it, even though the name of the foreign manufacturer would also appear on the certification label, as required by 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1).

Your second question is:

(2) In the event that North American Classics enters into an agreement to have such vehicles produced or assembled by a major automotive manufacturer, who would not be so eligible, and if such agreement provides for the sharing of profits derived from the sales of the finished product between North American Classics and such manufacturer, as a means of providing North American Classics assurance that projected costs of such manufacturer do not increase beyond North American Classics' ability to survive financially, in such event would North American Classics retain its eligibility status, assuming North American Classics retains control of the functions outlined in paragraph?

We do not believe that a profit-sharing agreement per se would affect your eligibility for exemption. Were the foreign company to receive a majority share of the profits or to purchase sufficient stock in your company to give it effective control, however, we would have substantial questions about which party actually exercises primary control.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

North American Classics Corporation

April 15, 1981

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel (NOA-30) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing on behalf of North American Classics Corporation, a Michigan Corporation, formed in July of 1980 for the purpose of initially engineering and designing; assembling; and marketing motor vehicles which resemble the 1957 Ford Thunderbird. In September 1980, as attorney for the Corporation, I met with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office concerning North American Classics' project.

The purpose of this letter is to request of your office a written opinion concerning the following inquiries:

(1) Assuming North American Classics designs the total engineering of the Thunderbird reproduction; selects all components to be incorporated therein; retains primary control over quality control, testing, FMVSS compliance in design; and manufacturing assembly sequence; and markets the produced vehicles on its behalf of its customers, does North American Classics remain eligible to apply for exemption from meeting certain FMVSS requirements for this vehicle in the event that the actual responsibility for the assembly of the vehicles is contracted by North American Classics to a manufacturer which produces more than 10,000 motor vehicles per year?

(2) In the event that North American Classics enters into an agreement to have such vehicles produced or assembled by a major automotive manufacturer, who would not be so eligible, and if such agreement provides for the sharing of profits derived from the sales of the finished product between North American Classics and such manufacturer, as a means of providing North American Classics assurance that projected costs of such manufacturer do not increase beyond North American Classics' ability to survive financially, in such event would North American Classics retain its eligibility status, assuming North American Classics retains control of the functions outlined in paragraph?

As the inquiries intimate, North American Classics is considering having the actual asembly work of the vehicle completed by an automotive manufacturer that now produces more than 10,000 vehicles per twelve calendar months. It is uncertain at this time what the agreed upon terms of such an agreement might be that satisfies the interest of both parties. My primary concern in requesting an opinion is to assure myself that North American Classics does not inadvertently contract away its rights to apply for certain exemptions from FMVSS should the need to do so arise.

I thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard.

Thomas W. Elkins Secretary

ID: 08-002063as

ID: nht88-2.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING, MAZDA

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION - 49 CFR PART 512, CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO SADATO KADOYA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; STD 108; ALSO ATTACHED, MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION-FMVSS 108 - LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT - AUXILIARY LAMPS

TEXT: Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc. and its parent company, Mazda Motor Corporation ("Mazda"), request that the attached document, in its entirety, be afforded confidential treatment as specified in 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business Information. In accordance with the guidelines provided in 49 CFR Part 512.4(b), included below is information supporting Mazda's claim that release of the attached document to the public meets the substantive standards of 49 CFR Part 512.5(a).

The attached document requests a NHTSA interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment in regards to Mazda plans to develop new lighting technology. The following supports Mazda's claim of confiden tiality, as required by 49 CFR Part 512.4(d).

1. The information relates to future unannounced product plans, projecting not more than three years into the future. Mazda has determined that the release of such information to the public would likely result in significant competitive harm. The i nformation specifically relates to the standard equipment features which will be made available on a yet unannounced product introduction. Obviously, release of this information will place Mazda at a competitive disadvantage due to the absence of such c lear and first party information regarding the product plans and policies of our competition.

2. The information contained within is known only to Mazda and has not been disclosed or otherwise made available to any person, company or organization outside of Mazda, its agents, and the supplier with which Mazda is working to develop the new tec hnology.

3. Mazda requests that the information contained within be considered confidential until such time as Mazda formally agrees to its public release, makes a formal public announcement or initiates mass production, whichever comes first.

Mazda has made a diligent inquiry to determine that the information contained in the attached document has not been disclosed, or otherwise made publicly available. Should this request for confidential treatment be denied, please contact us prior to the release of this information.

For any further information or clarification of this request, please contact Mr. Sadato (Ted) Kadoya at the letterhead address or telephone number above.

ATTACHMENT

ID: nht69-1.24

DATE: 05/28/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Cony America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 2, 1969 in which you asked whether the Cony vehicle, model AF11SFC, which you import, must be equipped with a windshield defrosting and defogging system in compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103.

You describe the vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle having an open cab configuration, and your letter states that defrosting and defogging of its windshield is accomplished by natural air currents while the vehicle is operating. You also indicate that the vehicle will be operated on the public highways.

On the basis of the information contained in your letter and study of the two photographs of the Cony that accompanied it, it is our view that, subject to the exceptions noted below, models of this vehicle that have windshield or are fitted for installation of windshields must also have windshield defrosting and defogging systems.

Vehicles which are operated in the continental United States may encounter icy or snowy conditions in which the absence of a windshield defrosting system may pose an unreasonable safety hazard. The fact that the vehicle lacks an enclosed cab does not appreciably reduce that hazard. However, we do not interpret Standard No. 103 as requiring a defrosting and defogging system in a vehicle that has no windshield and on which a windshield cannot be installed without such major modifications as would make the installer himself a motor vehicle manufacturer. One of the photographs you submitted shows your vehicle without a windshield, but it does not contain enough detail to enable us to determine whether the vehicle falls into the latter category I have described.

You should be aware of two exceptions to the requirements of Standard No. 103, either of which may apply to the Cony. First, section 371.7 of our regulations provides that the standards apply only to vehicles which have a curb weight of more than 1,000 pounds. Hence, the Cony need not conform to the requirements of the standard if its curb weight is 1,000 pounds or less. Second, Standard No. 103 applies only to vehicles manufactured for sale in the continental United States. Therefore, your vehicle could be imported into jurisdictions such as Hawaii and the Virgin Islands even though it fails to conform to the requirements of that standard. The contents of your letter do not furnish enough information to permit us to ascertain whether either exception would apply.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesistate to call upon me for it.

ID: nht95-6.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1995

FROM: Yoshiaki MATSUI -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Stanley Electric Co.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Accessory Lamp with LEDs

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/9/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Yoskiaki Matsui (Std. 108)

TEXT: We, a Japanese manufacturer of automotive lighting devices, are now developing a new type of combination rear lamp that contains red LEDs as accessory lamps. (Please refer to the attached drawing). Would you please advise us about the categorization of this kind of LED accessory lamps.

The operating condition of the LED accessory lamps are as follows,

a) Construction of the combination rear lamp

Tail & stop lamp and turn signal lamp vertically arranged. Red LEDs are disposed along the outer edge of the combination lamp to be used as accessory lamps.

Light source Colour of Colour of the lens light emitted Tail & stop Incandescent bulb Red Red Rear turn Incandescent bulb Amber Amber signal

b) Operating condition for the accessory lamps

When the tail lamp is switched on, the Accessory Lamp A of red LEDs, which is adjacent to the tail lamp, and the Accessory Lamp B of red LEDs, which is adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp, are lit.

Question 1: Red LEDs adjacent to the tail lamp (Accessory Lamp A)

The tail lamp is designed to comply with FMVSS No. 108 using incandescent bulb only, therefore red LEDs need not to be lit for the purpose of the regulatory requirements. Moreover, when the tail lamp and the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp A) are lit together, the intensity of the light emitted from them does not exceed the maximum intensity specified for one lighted section tail lamp.

In such a condition, we believe the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp a) could be regarded as an accessory.

As for the safety, red LEDs (Accessory Lamp A) will contribute to safety by improving the comspicuity of the vehicle, when lit with the tail lamp.

If our interpretation is not acceptable, please inform us of the conditions required in order to regard the red LEDs portion (Accessory Lamp A) as an accessory.

Question 2: Red LEDs adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp (Accessory Lamp B)

Q2-1: As for the red LEDs adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp (Accessory Lamp B), the LEDs emit a red colour light through the amber lens. The lighted section of the red section of the turn signal lamp by a parting rib prepared in the housing, so that the red light from red LEDs will not be emitted through the lens area of the lighted section of the rear turn signal lamp. Therefore, we believe the light from the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) will not adversely affect the rear turn signal function even if the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) continues to operate when the rear turn signal lamp is operated. Please advise us if our interpretation is acceptable.

Q2-2: If our interpretation described in the above A2-1 is not acceptable, are the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) regarded as an accessory provided that the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) are turned off during the rear turn signal operation?

Following table shows the lighting condition of Accessory Lamps and our interpretation.

Tail lamp ON Operating Accessory Lamp A ON condition Accessory Lamp B ON OFF Rear turn signal lamp ON OFF ON OFF STANLEY's question Q2-1 Q2-2 Question STANLEY's interpretation OK OK OK OK NHTSA's answer

Your answer will be highly appreciated.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht90-3.59

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 16, 1990

FROM: Edward R. Heussner -- Consultant, Comp U Tence

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Interpretation of Requirements for FMVSS 219 - Windshield Intrusion Zone

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-4-91 to Edward R. Heussner from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 219; VSA 108(b)(2)

TEXT:

I am working on the compliance documentation for an automobile manufacturer.

In the process of studying the data, charts and films of the impact tests I noted the windshield wiper would pass thru the "protected zone" on some tests. I called your office on Friday August 10 and talked with Dorthy Nakama. My initial question of he r was is the windshield wiper considered to be a component . . . "normally in contact with the windshield" . . . as per the standard. She assured me that the wiper fits that definition and thus is not a problem.

We then discussed the next phrase regarding "penetration." The standard states that in the area immediately below the protected zone ... no such part of the vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the DLO, bel ow the protected zone.

My question revolves around what constitutes penetration? Specifically does penetration occur when the windshield is deformed in the region . . . or does some vehicle component have to actually protrude thru and puncture the "glass-plastic" in the area in question? I used the analogy of a bowling ball being dropped on a windshield. The dimple so created would certainly protrude inward yet I would not have considered it to have penetrated. Thus, in order for penetration to have occurred does some veh icle component have to go thru the windshield or is "obscuring" of the glass sufficient to demonstrate failure in this instance?

I have one other question regarding the test procedure for FMVSS 219. The standard defines a protected zone, degree of penetration and method of measurement. It is my understanding that many organizations test vehicles for several standards simultaneou sly (i.e. 208, 212, 219 & 301) and consequently considerable data is lost when the protected zone styrofoam template is glued to the windshield. Thus it is quite common to use the results of this multi-standard test to prove compliance to 219 under a NH TSA approved deviation to the stated approach.

Is engineering judgement acceptable to the agency in this instance. That is to say that analysis of the films could easily show nothing came near the protected zone. However, if some vehicle component did in fact "approach" the zone would another test, just for 219, be required.

Film analysis is quite advanced today, but tracing the path of an object to within 1/4" of an "imaginary surface" is probably expecting too much. Your comments on this issue would be welcome. If in fact the practice is to not

use the styrofoam template, perhaps the standard should be revised to reflect this. The alternative is very costly. Full vehicle barrier tests cost in excess of $100,000. At a nominal $1000 profit per sale, this translates into 100 sales just for that test. I would suspect that $100,000 plus dollars could be better spent towards a safer vehicle.

Thank you for your consideration of these questions, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated. Keep smiling and have a super day.

ID: nht92-4.20

DATE: 09/02/92

FROM: JAMES A. WESTPHAL --OSHKOSH CHASSIS DIVISION, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-03-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO JAMES A. WESTPHAL (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to seek clarification as to which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for brake systems must the vehicles described herein comply.

Oshkosh Chassis Division of Oshkosh Truck Corporation is a manufacturer of incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab). The chassis being addressed in this letter are sold to manufacturers who complete and sell the vehicles as "motor homes". The chassis for which we are requesting clarification are the "X" and "V" models both of which are over 10,000 pounds GVWR but no larger than 26,000 pounds GVWR.

We plan to install brake systems in these two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disk brakes at each wheel. This system is commonly known as "air-over-hydraulic" brakes. Please refer to the attached diagram showing the service brake system logic. The air components of the system include an air compressor and pressure governor, air dryer, air reservoirs, service brake control (treadle) valve, parking brake control valve and spring applied/air release parking brake chamber, and piping/valves/gauges/switches as required. Energy from the compressed air is transmitted to the hydraulic fluid through two air/hydraulic converters (brake boosters). The converter/booster increases the output hydraulic pressure approximately 16 times greater than the input air pressure. The hydraulic components of the system include disk brakes at each wheel, fluid reservoirs, and piping between the air hydraulic converters and disk brakes. Split service brake systems will be used.

Please answer the following compliance questions concerning the vehicles and brake system described above:

1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of FMVSS 121 applicable to trucks?

2. Must the brake system comply with requirements of FMVSS 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles?

3. If SS121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disk brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system-dynamometer tests?

4. If compliance to parts of both SS121 and SS105 is required must the system meet the requirements of SS105 Sections S5.1.2 Partial failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp?

Thank you for your consideration and response to these questions.ATTACHMENTS (TEXT AND GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

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