ID: 21341.ztv

Mr. Eugene Farber
S&HFC Co-Chair
SAE International
31811 Vallen Court
Beverly Hills, MI 48025

Re: Request for Interpretation of S5.5.4, FMVSS No. 108

Dear Mr. Farber:

This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 2000, asking for an interpretation of S5.5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S5.5.4 requires in pertinent part that "The stop lamps shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You have asked two questions with regard to this requirement.

Your first question is whether it is "permissible to illuminate stoplamps when the service brakes are automatically applied (i.e., the driver does not depress the brake pedal) for purposes of whole vehicle deceleration." The SAE Standards on stop lamps that are incorporated by reference, J586 MAY84 and J1398 MAY85, define stop lamps as "Lamps . . . [which] indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Given that your stated purpose of either manual or automatic service brake application is to diminish vehicle speed, the stop lamp must be illuminated. Vehicles whose service brakes are applied with a resulting diminishing of speed would be noncompliant if the stop lamps did not illuminate.

Your second question is whether it is "permissible that the stoplamps be illuminated when other mechanisms such as transmission downshifting or engine retarders are used to achieve whole vehicle decelerations in excess of the normally achievable coast-down deceleration." On

April 10, 1992, this Office informed Lance Watt of the Flxible Corporation that Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated when a brake retarder is activated. We appear not to have addressed transmission downshifting, but we see no difference in functional effect between it and an engine retarder. While the Watt interpretation appears inconsistent with our views in the preceding paragraph, because, in either case, the vehicle would decelerate at a higher rate than normal coastdown, the former involves brake application, while this one does not. It is possible that, upon further review, the Watt interpretation might be superceded by rulemaking to clarify the conditions under which the stop lamps must be illuminated.

We note that S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 provides that "No additional lamp, reflective device or item of associated equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" the standard. In this case, when a vehicle is slowed by downshifting or an engine retarder, from the perspective of the following driver, it would be equivalent to what would occur if the service brakes were applied. Therefore, it would be permissible for the stop lamps to be illuminated under this scenario, since such illumination would not create any confusion in the mind of a following driver and thus would not "impair the effectiveness" of the required stop lamps.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/26/00

ID: 77-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John W. Kourik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, incorporates by reference the SAE Recommended Practice J941 as of November 1965 or as amended through February 1975.

As you note in your letter, Part 571.5 (49 CFR 571.5) of our regulations establishes guidelines for materials incorporated by reference. That section states that materials which are subject to change, such as the SAE Recommended Practice you mention, are incorporated by reference as they are in effect on the date of adoption of the standard unless otherwise specified. Standard No. 107 refers specifically to the 1965 version of the SAE Recommended Practice. Subsequent amendments of that document by the SAE Technical Committee have no effect upon the Federal standard.

Thank you for your offer of assistance in amending Standard No. 107 to reflect more recent changes in the SAE Recommended Practice. We will keep your offer in mind should we determine that a change in the standard is warranted.

SINCERELY,

April 4, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Roper Tilden

We discovered a typographical mistake on the second line of the original March 24, 1977 letter mailed to the Office of the Chief Counsel and would appreciate your substituting this attached copy for the original if it doesn't create any delay in processing the request for interpretation.

John W. Kourik

March 24, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I would appreciate a statement of interpretation concerning the use of SAE Recommended Practice J941, November 1965 in S571.107 Standard No. 107; Reflecting Surfaces.

Standard No. 107 was promulgated on February 3, 1967 [32 FR 2411] and in accordance with "S571.5 material incorporated by reference" the November 1965 J941 material was designated therin. Since that time the basic SAE 1941 document has been revised as follows: J941a August 1967 J941b February 1969 J941b June 1972 J941d February 1975

In the current Title 49 - Transportation Code of Federal Regulations, Standard No. 107 still identifies the reference as SAE J941, November 1965.

Is it a correct interpretation that the NHTSA is referencing only J941 November 1965 and does not intend J941a or any subsequent revisions to be applicable unless the Standard No. 107 reference is changed by appropriate rulemaking action and final publication of a notice in the Federal Register?

If there is an interest in exploring the rationale for the four (4) revisions to SAE J941, I would be glad to establish a contact with the appropriate SAE Technical Committee.

John W. Kourik

ID: 77-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/19/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Bankhead Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, question whether the trailer portion of an auto transporter must comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if it is manufactured after the current September 1, 1977, termination date for the exclusion of auto transporters from the standard.

As stated in a telephone conversation between you and Mr. Herlihy of this office, the current exclusion for auto transporters terminates September 1, 1977, and either portion of an auto transporter manufactured after that date must comply. Recently, the NHTSA proposed extension of the auto transporter exclusion from September 1, 1977, to January 1, 1979 (copy of proposal enclosed). The comment closing period ended July 11, 1977, and the agency hopes to reach a decision on the proposal in the near future.

SINCERELY,

BANKHEAD ENTERPRISES, INC.

June 7, 1977

Joan Claybrooks Administrator National Highway Safety Administration

Enclosed find copy of a letter from one of our customers asking us to quote on 80 new car hauling trailers for delivery after current expiration of S-121. Please note that trucks furnished by customer will be manufactured prior to Sept. 1 and without the S-121 brakes. Customer is asking if we can produce the trailer without S-121. Out current design will not accept the components for S-121. Engineering drawings will be furnished under separate cover.

It is of utmost importance that a ruling on extension of S-121 is rendered. Your prompt attention is very much appreciated.

Glenn Taylor President

May 10, 1977

Mr. Glenn Taylor, President Bankhead Enterprises

This is your invitation to bid on 80 trailers and headracks. The tractors will be conventional cab GMC's, 9500 series with tilt hoods. Specifications include 6V-92 TT engines, GMC air suspensions, tandem axle drives and disc wheels with 1122.5 tires. You should outline in your quotation the number of imports, A-bodies, B-bodies, C-bodies, compacts, pickups, vans and variations of other combinations your unit will carry. This quotation should include tractor wheelbase, also itemized price of trailer, headrack, excise tax and freight f.o.b. Dallas, Texas.

GMC has advised the tractors will be produced prior to September 1st. This will enable us to beat the deadline on 121. As the units are ready they can be shipped to your plant. However, we do not want to start putting these units in service until January 1, 1978. We would like to know if you can produce your trailers so they also will not have the 121 brake system. Equipment must comply with all federal and state regulations.

We would appreciate receiving the above information at your earliest convenience. Specification sheets are enclosed. Should there be any questions, please contact my office.

UNITED TRANSPORTS, INC.

Karon W. Thomas Director of Maintenance and Equipment

cc: RAYMOND E. SIMMONS -- UT

ID: 1984-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pekka Suuronen -- Hella Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MR. Pekka Suuronen Hella, Inc. P.O. Box 1064 Cranford, NJ 07016

This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1983, clarifying your earlier requests for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. You have asked whether replaceable bulb headlamps may be manufactured in sizes identical to the current sizes for sealed beam headlamps, provided that they meet Stardard No. 108 in all other respects.

The replaceable bulb headlamp amendment was adopted with the intent of allowing Vehicle manufacturers greater flexibility in the front end design in order to improve aerodynamics. The amendment allows an original equipment two-lamp system of no specified dimensions, and replacement lamps for these systems. It was not directed towards replacement lamps for existing headlamp systems. However, because no exterior dimensions for headlamps are specified by the amendment, replaceable bulb headlamps intended for use in a two-lamp system, with exterior dimension of sealed beam round or rectangular two-headlamp systems, would be permissible assuming that they meet all other requirements of Standard No. 108, including providing one of the two aiming pad locations specified for replaceable bulb headlamps. However, until Standard No. 108 is amended to allow a four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp system, these lamps are precluded from being manufactured to replace today's sealed beam round and rectangular sealed beem headlamps used in four-lamp systems.

I hope this provides the clarification you seek.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 30, 1983

NHTSA 400 Seventh St. NW Washington, DC 20590 ATTN: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1983, reference "NOA-30". I would like to clarify my question. I realize there is only one "legal" replaceable headlamp bulb which I call "Ford bulb", lacking a more official nomenclature.

By " six standard sizes" I mean headlamps, not bulbs. In other words, headlamps that would replace current six types 2D1, 1C1, 2C1, 1A1, 2A1, and 2B1. However, these proposed lamps would have a replaceable "Ford bulb" and a sealing just like in the Ford headlamp. In the case if Type 1 headlamp, only the high beam filament would be connected. The photometrics would meet the current SAE standards, the lamp would be mechanically rimable and the new proposed lamps would comply to all other applicable safety standards, as well.

My question is, would these kinds of headlamps be highway legal?

Please note that Racemark no longer is the importer of Hella. Please correspond to the address shown on the letterhead.

Sincerely,

PEKKA SUURONEN PS / lP

ID: nht79-2.18

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas F. Brown Mack Trucks, Inc. P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your recent letter regarding Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and several discrepancies between the standard as published in the Federal Register and as published in the "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" compilation.

You are correct in your assumption that the Federal Register version of the subject paragraphs is the proper publication. The temperature noted in paragraph S5.3.10 should read, "104oF". The heading, "S7.2 Labeling", should be included. In paragraph S7.3.6, the parenthetical phrase is out of place as you indicated, and the additional words are unnecessary editorial citations. The proper address for paragraph S5.2.2(b) should read: "Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division,...."

Thank you for bringing these errors to our attention. They will be corrected in future versions of the compilation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 31, 1979

Mr. F. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Berndt:

Subject: Discrepancies in Standard No.

106 74, Brake Hose, as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

Upon recent review of Standard No. 106-79, Brake Hose, we have found several discrepancies between the Standard as published in the Federal Register and as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations compilation.

It appears that the temperature noted in Section S5.3.10 of he compilation is incorrectly printed as "140oF" instead of "104oF".

The heading "S7.2 Labeling" has been omitted from page 7 of the compilation.

Section S7.3.6 has a phrase out of place and a few extra words.

Finally, all Sections of the Standard listing an address to which information is to be sent, except for Section S5.2.2(b), show the address as "Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division,...." Section S5.2.2(b) shows the address as "Office of Crash Avoidance, Handling and Stability Division,...."

Both the compilation and the Federal Register agree on the previous two addresses. We are wondering if the address in Section S5.2.2(b) was inadvertently overlooked. Should all the addresses be the same?

We trust that you will have these areas reviewed and advise us of your findings. We have attached the appropriate pages from the compilation for your reference.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC. Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy

Attach.

ID: nht79-3.31

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. T. F. Eagleton - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 23, 1979, letter asking whether brakes installed in vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, can be modified or disconnected.

Your question asks whether these brake systems can be rendered inoperative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) states that --

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Whether a portion of the air brake system can be rendered inoperative depends, therefore, upon whether that part of the brake system was installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has concluded that portions of the braking systems installed in compliance with the sections of Standard No. 121 that were invalidated by the court were not installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Accordingly, these devices can be disconnected by a commercial facility. In general, this means that the antilock devices installed on trucks and trailers may be disconnected or removed. However, other components of the braking system that were installed in compliance with the remaining applicable sections of the standard may not be rendered inoperative by a commercial facility. Therefore, entire braking systems cannot be removed from trucks and trailers. The NHTSA recommends that any modification of the braking systems be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

In a related question, you ask who will bear the cost of disconnecting the braking systems, the manufacturer or the purchaser. We believe that the cost of modifying the braking system, depending on the circumstances, is a matter that may be negotiated between the parties.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

August 23, 1979.

Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook: A constituent of mine has written inquiring as to the guidelines for dealing with operative 121 brake systems in view of the recission of the regulation. He is concerned that continued operation of the brakes could be hazardous, but understandably he is reluctant to disconnect the brakes without some assurance he would not be libel.

A related question has to do with the cost of disconnecting and modifying 121 brakes. Does the manufacturer bear this responsibility or is it left to the purchaser of the vehicle?

I'd appreciate having your comments on these questions at the earliest time.

Thomas F. Eagleton United States Senator

ID: nht80-2.35

DATE: 05/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Avery International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

MAY 8, 1980

Mr. Ralph F. Lundregan Government Relations Manager Avery International Specialty Materials Division 50-L Edwards Ferry Road Leesburg, Virginia 22075

Dear Mr. Lundregan:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1980, asking whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows "reflective markings (such as red diagonal stripes on a white reflective background) to be used to increase visibility on the front of trucks and heavy vehicles".

You are correct that Standard No. 108 does not directly address this question. The section of the standard that appears most pertinent to it, however, is S4.1.3 prohibiting the installation as original equipment of any reflective device "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. We would be concerned, for example, if reflective materials were installed in a manner that might cause confusion with headlamps or front turn signal lamps. We also wish to point out that under the standard the use of the color red is at the rear of motor vehicles and that its appearance in any other location might also cause confusion.

However, as a practical matter the use of reflective materials as truck and heavy vehicle equipment sold either as original equipment or in the aftermarket is governed by requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (Federal Highway Administration) which prohibit use of the color red on the front of a vehicle. You should review their requirements before proceeding with your marketing plans. (49 CFR 393.26(e)(4)).

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

AVERY INTERNATIONAL Specialty Materials Division

April 16, 1980

Mr. Stephen P. Wood Rulemaking Section Office of the Chief Council NOA-30 NHTSA 400 7th St., S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

Avery International manufactures self adhesive materials for a wide variety of uses including markings, decals, striping, etc. for various vehicles.

Although our Fasign reflective materials may be used for markings on the side and the rear of trucks and heavy vehicles, a question has been asked on whether similar reflective markings (such as red diagonal stripes on a white reflective background) may be used to increase visibility on the front of such vehicles?

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108 on lights and reflective devices does not seem to address this particular question.

Since Avery is in the process of possible marketing for such truck markings, we would appreciate a ruling, interpretation, or reference to something specific regarding this subject.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Ralph F. Lundregan Government Relations Manager

RFL:jh

ID: nht80-3.42

DATE: 08/29/80

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

TO: P. J. O'Connor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 29 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Patrick J. O'Connor P.O. BOX 905 10 East Court Street Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter of July 2, 1980, requesting information regarding manufacturing standards for front bucket seats on passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if there are any standards that were applicable to 1969-model Mustangs, particularly with respect to the pivot pin brackets on seats in these vehicles.

The initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were issued in 1967 and became effective January 1, 1968. Included in these initial standards was Standard No. 207, Anchorages of Seats--Passenger Cars (copy enclosed). Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements in terms of overall seat strength. You will note that there are no requirements for specific components of the seat, however, such as pivot pin brackets. The Federal safety standards are generally specified in terms of performance requirements which allow manufacturers to use any designs they choose. If the Mustang with which you are concerned was manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the manufacturer would have had to certify that the vehicle was in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 207.

I am also enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 as it is currently written, since the standard has been amended several times since it was first issued. I hope you will find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

July 2, 1980

David Allen, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street South West Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Manufacturing Standards-Front Bucket seats

Dear Mr. Allen:

I had written to the Superintendent of Documents in the U.S. Government Printing Office with a request for information concerning the above. On July 2, 1980 I received a phone call from Ms. Mary Chapman, a special Research Technician, advising me that I should write a similar letter of request addressed to you.

In April of 1977 Ford Motor Company initiated a voluntary recall campaign relative to driver's seat, back inboard pivot pin brackets for front bucket seats. The defect existed in 1968 and 1969 Mustangs and Cougars.

I am involved in litigation relative to a 1969 Mustang in which this defect existed. I would like to know if there are any manufacturing standards of record for bucket seats in 1969 model cars and, in particular, whether there were any manufacturing standards for the driver's seat back inboard pivot pin brackets.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Patrick J. O'Connor

PJO'C:klh

ID: nht81-2.28

DATE: 05/21/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 21 1981

NOA-30

Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 120 West Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46032

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your recent letter concerning S6.2.4 of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether section 5.2(d)(1) of Standard No. 209 is the relevant section to be used in testing the release force on buckles used on a child restraint system. The answer is yes.

Section 6.2 of Standard No. 213 sets out the test procedure for measuring the release force for buckles used in child restraint systems. Section 6.2.4 states that the buckle is to be operated in the manner described in section 5.2(d) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. S5.2(d)(1) of Standard No. 209 sets out the procedure for measuring the buckle release force. You are correct that S5.2(d)(2) and (3) set out the procedures for conducting several other requirements of Standard No. 209 which do not apply to child restraints and thus are not relevant to the buckle release force test.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 2, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Indiana Mills and Manufacturing, Inc. is a manufacturer of seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles. We make every effort to comply with the requirements of the motor vehicle safety standards set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), Child Restraint Systems, refers in S6.2.4 to S5.2(d) of Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), Seat Belt Assemblies. The buckle release mechanism mentioned in S6.2.4 (213) is to be operated in the specific manner described in section 5.2(d) of Standard No. 209. We assume that only the portion of S5.2(d) of Standard No. 209 pertaining to the method of releasing the buckle mechanism is included by reference in Standard No. 213, and we believe that portion consists of paragraph (1) beginning with the words "The buckle release force shall be measured..." through the end of the paragraph. Because S5.2(d)(2) and S5.2(d)(3) deal with subjects other than the proper method of releasing the buckle mechanism, we interpret Standard No. 213 as excluding them while including only the portion of S5.2(d)(1) described above.

We would appreciate receiving from you an official written explanation of the intent of S6.2.4 of Standard No. 213.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours very truly,

William E. Lawler Specifications Manager

WEL/jr

ID: nht80-1.23

DATE: 03/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ross Frame & Axle, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 8, 1980, letter asking whether the computers connected to the air brake systems of trucks can be disconnected.

The computerized braking systems were used by some manufacturers to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Part of that safety standard was invalidated by the court in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978). In that decision, the Court invalidated portions of the standard involving some of the road test requirements for trucks and trailers. The computer systems that you question were usually added for purposes of complying with the invalidated antilock sections of the standard.

The agency has previously addressed the question of whether the antilock systems can be disconnected in light of the court decision. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that--

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock systems or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

SINCERELY

Jan. 8, 1980

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Attn: Office of Administration

Dear Sirs:

I run a truck repair shop in southern Ohio. One of my customers has around thirty-five trucks. The largest percentage of these are equipped with the computerized braking system. Due to one accident and constant problems with the other trucks, it is their desire to disconnect the computers from their trucks braking system.

We have received word from the manufacture that this is now legal. My customer requests, in writing, a verification of this matter so they may turn it over to their lawyer for verification, so that in case of an accident, there will not be a law suit due to the disconnecting of the computerized brakes.

Any information you may have about this, please send to me so I may forward it on to my customer.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Joe Cain Ross Frame & Axle, Inc.