Interpretation ID: nht76-5.74

DATE: 01/22/76

FROM: S. L. TERRY -- CHRYSLER CORPORATION VICE PRESIDENT-PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

TO: JAMES B. GREGORY -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA DOCKET SECTION

TITLE: DOCKET 70-27; NOTICE 17 NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT MVSS 105-75, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO A LETTER DATED 2/10/76 FROM JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA TO S. L. TERRY PRESIDENT PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS CHRYSLER CORPORATION; N40-30; 70-27-N17-004-A

TEXT: Dear Dr. Gregory:

Chrysler Corporation is very pleased by the direction indicated in the recent notice to amend MVSS 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, that would permit either a gross loss of pressure indicator (GLPI) or a low brake fluid level indicator (BFLI) in satisfaction of the hydraulic failure indicator requirements of 85 3.1. We strongly support that proposed amendment. In our opinion adoption of the amendment will serve the best interest of the motoring public and will not adversely affect motor vehicle safety.

As Mr. Robert Sornson of my office discussed with Mr. Richard Dyson, your Assistant Chief Counsel, we recognize that it may have been necessary for you to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act since a substantive change in the standard is being proposed. However, the procedural delay in finalizing the change in the standard because of the rulemaking process will create a substantial hardship for Chrysler Corporation and probably for the rest of the industry. Since the notice did not cancel or delay the current requirements in the standard, we now find it necessary to continue to engineer and tool a fluid level indicator device in order to be certain that we will be able to build and sell cars conforming to the present standard after 9-1-76 in the event this proposal is not adopted. To insure against this possibility Chrysler Corporation will be spending approximately $ 150,000 per month for engineering and tooling of a fluid level indicator with a total program cost in excess of $ 600,000. In the event this proposed rulemaking is adopted most of the cost and manpower that will be expended on this program could be saved. However, we are naturally reluctant to stop work on this program on the basis of the new rulemaking where the consequences of another reversal could prevent us from building(Illegible Word)

We appreciate that NHTSA understands our problem and is willing to consider an approach that will allow manufacturers to keep their options open during the rulemaking process without incurring unnecessary and wasteful spending of manpower and money. As discussed with Mr. Dyson an acceptable method to do this would be for NHTSA to provide written assurance that the requirements of the current standard for a fluid level indicator, effective 9-1-76, will be delayed in the event that the proposed amendment is not adopted. In such an event we estimate that we would require 8 months lead time after the decision is published in order for us to reinstitute our tooling and engineering program and to get the necessary volume production required to equip the vehicles we manufacture with low brake fluid indicators.

In view of the time constraints involved we would appreciate written confirmation as soon as possible indicating that NHTSA will follow the procedure outlined above in the event MVSS 105-75 is not amended as proposed.

Sincerely,