ID: nht76-5.39

DATE: 10/28/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Jack B. Schiff

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 8, 1976, concerning odometer statements issued by auction companies.

As we have indicated in previous letters to you, the statement "no mileage guarantee" does not conform to section 580.6 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, the disclosure form. Therefore, any transferor of a motor vehicle who gives such a statement to his buyer is in violation of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. This applies equally to all transferors of ownership in motor vehicles, including individuals, dealers, distributors, and auction companies.

At first glance, the odometer disclosure statement issued by Floyd Hauhe Auto Auction appears to be in violation of the Federal law because it clearly states that mileage is not guaranteed. However, upon closer inspection, such is not necessarily the case. You will note that their statement says "warranty and mileage are not guaranteed to be good or correct on any car purchased thru this auction." (Emphasis added) Additionally, it says that "this sale is solely a transaction between the buying and selling dealer." This language changes the facts significantly. The vehicle appears not to be as you state in your letter, purchased "from" the auction company. It was instead purchased through the auction, and Floyd Hauhe was not, apparently, a tranferor of ownership in a motor vehicle as defined in Part 580.3 of title 49.

The responsibilities of an auctioneer with regard to the Federal odometer law vary depending upon the capacity in which he is operating. If the auctioneer is conducting business with both the buyer and seller present, the seller is required to disclose the mileage to the buyer at the time of sale and the auctioneer is essentially a by-stander as far as the Federal requirements are concerned. If the auctioneer buys a vehicle, then auctions it, he becomes the transferor and must disclose the mileage. In this case, the auctioneer would not be permitted to state that mileage was not guaranteed. If the auctioneer is acting as consignee for a seller who is not present and who may have delivered the vehicle from hundreds of miles away, he will have to obtain some assurance from the seller concerning the mileage on the vehicle at the time it left the owner's premises before a disclosure is made. As owner, the seller is ultimately responsible for the disclosure statement, but he may have to rely on his driver or the auctioneer to make out the statement at the auction.

It is unclear from the Floyd Hauhe Auto Auction statement as to the capacity in which they are operating. The language on the face of the statement appears to indicate that they are not tranferors and thus are not responsible for issuing odometer statements. If however, they are requested to do so absent sellers, their form is in violation of the Act because it does not provide the transferor's name, address or signature, and because it states that mileage is not guaranteed.

I hope that this information clarifies your questions. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

ID: nht76-5.4

DATE: 07/23/76

FROM: HERLIHY FOR S.P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Celanese Fibers Marketing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1976, recommendation that paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, be amended to clarify that the temperature specified in the "resistance to light" test procedure is intended to be "black panel" temperature rather than "bare bulb" temperature.

The procedures outlined in Standard No. 209 for the "resistance to light" test were adopted from the Bureau Standard's procedures for testing seat belts. The standard was developed by an industry and government group, which included Celanese Fibers, as a simplification and improvement of the A.S.T.M. Designation E42-64 procedure. The "resistance to light" test was established to test nylon webbing, which was the standard material used in seat belt webbing at that time.

We recognize, however, that the industry now uses decron and polyester materials in seat belt webbing, and that the Standard 209 test procedure developed to test nylon does not give meaningful results for these new materials. Therefore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not enforce the requirements of paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209 in the case of seat belt webbing made of dacrons and polyesters, and will not until appropriate testing procedures can be developed and incorporated in the standard for these new materials.

Procedures for testing systems containing materials other than nylon are under development and we plan to initiate rulemaking to incorporate these procedures into standard 209. You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

We would appreciate any data you may be able to provide regarding colorfastness tests for fabrics other than nylon.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht76-5.40

DATE: 03/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Joseph S. Russo

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1976, requesting an opinion as to whether documents enclosed with your correspondence would satisfy the requirements of the disclosure provisions contained in Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) and 49 CFR Part 580.

It appears that both documents contain all of the information necessary to comply with the odometer disclosure requirements.

SINCERELY,

LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH S. RUSSO

January 29, 1976

Department of Transportation

Enclosed herewith are documents we propose to supply our clients for their use in transferring titles to motor vehicles.

Please advise this office as to whether or not these documents are in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act Public Law 92-513 86 Stat. 947 (15 USC 1988 and 49 CFR 580.1).

This additional information on the forms is required by LSA-R.S. 32:726.1 of the Statutes of Louisiana.

Joseph S. Russo

STATE OF LOUISIANA

PARISH OF JEFFERSON

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared who, after being duly sworn, deposed that he donates the automobile described below to to whom he has already transferred possession thereof. The approximate value of this vehicle is .

Odometer Mileage Statement (Federal Law Requirement)

(Federal regulations require you to state the odometer mileage upon transfer of ownership. An inaccurate statement may make you liable for damages to your transferee, pursuant to Section 409(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513.)

I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described below is miles.

(Check the following statement, if applicable:)

[] I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown. MAKE BODY TYPE YEAR MODEL VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER LAST PLATE NUMBER

Transferor's address:

Transferor's signature:

Date of this statement:

Odometer Mileage Statement (State Law Requirement)

To the best knowledge and belief of transferor, the odometer mileage given above is the true mileage, unless otherwise indicated above. If otherwise indicated above, the true mileage to transferor's best knowledge and belief is .

Transferor

THUS DONE in my office on the day of 19 , in the presence of the undersigned competent witnesses and me, Notary.

EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE. WITNESSES:

NOTRAY PUBLIC

BILL OF SALE

I, , do hereby sell and convey unto the following described automobile for the price of :

Odometer Mileage Statement (Federal Law Requirement)

(Federal regulations require you to state the odometer mileage upon transfer of ownership. An inaccurate statement may make you liable for damages to your transferee, pursuant to Section 409(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513.)

I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described below is miles.

(Check the following statement, if applicable:)

[] I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown. MAKE BODY TYPE YEAR MODEL VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER LAST PLATE NUMBER

Transferor's address: Transferor's signature:

Date of this statement:

Transferee's signature:

Odometer Mileage Statement (State Law Requirement)

To the best knowledge and belief of transferor, the odometer mileage given above is the true mileage, unless otherwise indicated above. If otherwise indicated above, the true mileage to transferor's best knowledge and belief is .

Transferor

Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of .

NOTARY PUBLIC

ID: nht76-5.41

DATE: 04/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mark Andrews; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1976, requesting our comments on an inquiry from one of your constituents, Mr. Pat Milloy, concerning the proper format for disclosure of odometer mileage information in compliance with the Federal odometer disclosure regulation (49 CFR Part 580).

Mr. Milloy states in his letter that a Colorado dealer, ordering odometer disclosure forms, has indicated that the required Federal format has been changed. The format referred to by the Colorado dealer differs from the Federal form which Mr. Milloy and his client, Globe-Gazette Printing Company, believe to still be in force.

The Federal odometer disclosure regulation has not been amended since its initial enactment. The format requested by the Colorado dealer (form "B" enclosed in Mr. Milloy's letter) fails to comply with the current Federal odometer disclosure requirements in several respects. The statement referring to the mileage indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer must be phrased to indicate that the disclosure document was executed at the time of the vehicle's transfer, not at some later time. In addition, the statement must be written in such a manner that it is clear it is to be completed by the transferor alone. To satisfy these criteria the statement should read:

"I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described above, at the time of transfer to is as follows:"

The portion of the document provided for disclosure of the odometer mileage and a statement as to its accuracy is also deficient. Instructions are necessary on this part of the form to ensure that it is completed in a consistent manner by all persons. The number of miles indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer need not appear a second time if the form includes the statement recommended above. If the seller wishes, he may indicate on the form that the actual mileage is over 100,000 miles. In addition, the statement concerning the accuracy of the vehicle's reflected mileage must be more complete than the one included in form "B." Completion of the disclosure document in accordance with these directions may be accomplished as follows:

"(Where applicable, complete line 1 and/or check line 2:)

1. total cumulative miles (if over 100,000).

2. [] I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown."

The odometer regulation's provisions do not require that the transferee sign the statement nor do they make it necessary to have the document notarized. In addition, the date on which the transferor purchased the vehicle need not be provided.

As long as the requirements of the disclosure regulation are satisfied, there is no limitation on including additional information in the disclosure statement. Thus, modifying the statement "B" format to meet the Federal requirements in the manner described above would be sufficient for compliance by the Colorado dealer. The additional information appearing in form "B" may be retained without affecting compliance.

I hope this letter answers Mr. Milloy's questions concerning the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

March 19, 1976

Mr. Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Jacob, of my staff, informs me that he spoke to you about the matter detailed in the attached (Illegible Word), and that you agreed to respond to it.

I appreciate your cooperation in our effort to clarify what Federal Odometer Disclosure Form should be printed.

I look forward to your response.

MARK ANDREWS Congressman for North Dakota

ID: nht76-5.42

DATE: 06/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 8, 1976, asking for an amendment of S4.1.1.21 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to allow a plus tolerance of 7.5 percent on maximum wattage requirements for Type 1A and 2A headlamps.

I enclose a copy of an interpretation furnished the General Electric Company which states that such a tolerance is allowed. However, to clarify our intent we plan to amend Standard No. 108 in the near future in the manner that you suggest.

ID: nht76-5.43

DATE: 03/19/76

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

TO: F. A. McNiel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On February 12, 1976, this agency denied your petition to amend S4.5.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to read:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle."

You have now re-petitioned us on February 16, 1976, to amend S4.5.4 to read:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. This action may be supplemented by other beneficial means which will improve the performance of the stoplamps without impairing the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle."

This petition is unnecessary, because as you have now worded your suggested amendment it essentially reflects the present requirements of the standard. We do not view S4.5.4 as prohibiting a means of stoplamp activation supplemental to activation by application of the service brakes.

Any supplemental lighting device, however, is subject to the general prohibition of S4.1.3 against installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. For example, a positioning device that activates the stoplamps whenever the accelerator pedal is released would impair the effectiveness of the stoplamps by providing an ambiguous signal, as release of the accelerator does not always signify that the vehicle operator intends to brake.

You also questioned whether NHTSA desires to see improvements in motor vehicle stoplamp systems. Docket No. 74-5 represented a tenative effort to provide better systems on an optional basis, but on the basis of comments to the docket and our research contracts, we are re-evaluating the entire subject. Your denial must also be considered in this context, and at the present time radical changes in rear lighting are simply premature.

The remainder of your letter was also of interest. Dr. Haddon remarked that performance standards afford the private sector optimum flexibility in designing to meet the Federal standards. His comment reflected a statutory mandate which this agency continues to adhere to in its rulemaking actions. However, as I wrote you on February 12, any performance standard is design restrictive to some extent, with the restrictions ideally only as narrow as reasonably necessary to achieve the desired safety performance. In some areas (e.g. the occupant protection provisions for vehicle interiors in impacts, Standard No. 201) a great deal of design freedom is afforded, while others (e.g. the headlighting requirements of Standard No. 108) may be quite restrictive because safety-related factors such as availability of replacements, uniformity of color and location, and detection of function are more important than design freedom.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

F. A. McNeil 611 Bouldin Avenue Austin, Texas 78704

FEBRUARY 16, 1976

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Appeal of Petition Denial - Re: N40-30

Gentlemen:

In reply to your letter of February 12, 1976 wherein you deny my petition for the correction of subsection S4.5.4 and S4.6 (b) as set forth by the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, I offer the following comments.

In relation to S4.5.4, I agree with your statement that a signal to other drivers that the service brakes are being applied is precisely the performance being sought in S4.5.4. The possibility of an improvement over this 'one shot' stoplamp warning system is what I am endeavoring to get incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, subsection S4.5.4.

As for subsection S4.6 (b) I agree that from the standpoint of traffic safety there is no need for the amendment that I have proposed. My proposal was based primarily on economy. If for any conceivable reason the flashing of the headlamps and the side marker lamps for signaling purposes could enhance traffic safety, cutting a flasher unit directly into the existing lighting circuit would be much less costly than the installation of the additional wiring and switching means that would be required to isolate the headlamps and the side marker lamps from the conventional lighting circuit.

My suggested amendment to S4.5.4 stated - "The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle." - I regret that my choice of wording could be construed to indicate any intent that activation of the stoplamps upon application of the service brakes could be deleted under any circumstances. Such an act would very definitely impair the vehicle's lighting system, and so would therefore be unacceptable under such revised standard. - However, to make my proposal crystal clear, I am rephrasing my petition to amend FMVSS No. 108, subsection S4.5.4 to read as follows --

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. This action may be supplemented by other beneficial means which will improve the performance of the stoplamps without impairing the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle."

Such an amendment would provide a standard against which any means that would improve the performance of a vehicle's stoplamp warning system could be tested -- such as a means to signal other drivers that the brakes are going to be applied (prior to the time of the actual application of the brakes) in the event that a 'panic' or other sudden stop is going to be made.

The reason cited for denying my petition for amendment of S4.5.4 was - "Since the requirement is limited to the desired safety performance, we find it valid" - Does this statement mean - as it implies - that the NHTSA has no desire to see any improvement in a motor vehicle's antiquated stop warning system? - I find this to be extremely odd in view of the fact that your department previously informed me that "rear end collisions account for 10 per cent of the fatal motor vehicle accidents and 49 per cent of all motor motor vehicle accidents". - As for validity, the reasons for your denial of my petition are certainly not valid in relation to the statements made by Director Haddon December 14, 1967.

Again, I strongly urge that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approve my revised petition for the amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.108, subsection S4.5.4 as set forth above.

Respectfully,

Fred A. McNiel Traffic Safety Advocate

copy: Hon. J. J. Pickle

ID: nht76-5.44

DATE: 01/13/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: GENERAL Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 2, 1975, asking this agency's opinion as to whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number, would preempt any differing State law or regulation specifying the content of a vehicle identification number. You asked the question in the context of a Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission action recommending such a regulation to the States.

Standard No. 115 requires a vehicle identification that is unique to a manufacturer during any ten-year period. It does not specify the length or the content of the number. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standard on vehicle identification numbers was intended generally to cover all aspects to those numbers, and preempt any differing State rules, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV S74-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U. S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U. S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that the safety standard on vehicle identification numbers, No. 115, is intended to cover all aspects of vehicle identification numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applies, and that any aspects for which there are no specific requirements were intended by this agency to be left to the discretion of the manufacturers. State regulations differing from the Federal standard on this subject are found to "impair the federal superintendence of the field," within the meaning of the Florida Lime doctrine, and any such State regulation would be preempted under section 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

November 14, 1975

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DEAR DR. GREGORY:

Re: Preemption and FMVSS 115

The Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) will hold a hearing on December 11, 1975 in Kissimmee, Florida preliminary to adoption of a regulation entitled "Minimum requirements for the design of a vehicle identification number system for passenger cars". The regulation, if adopted at the VESC meeting, would apply to passenger cars registered in States that in turn adopt the VESC regulation.

Due to the relationship between the VESC and its member States [discussed in detail below], the December 11 hearing raises the real concern that one or more States will adopt the proposed VESC regulation as a part of their vehicle code within a few months thereafter. Thus, the VESC regulation can be expected to very quickly become part of the vehicle law in several states.

The proposed VESC regulation is not identical to the performance requirements of FMVSS 115, "Vehicle Identification Number". The difference will be discussed in detail below.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 states in part:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

General Motors is of the opinion that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intended FMVSS 115, "Vehicle Identification Number", to be a comprehensive, uniform and exclusive safety standard applicable" to all aspects of vehicle identification numbering; that generally those State vehicle identification numbering requirements which apply to passenger cars and which are not identical to FMVSS 115 are preempted by FMVSS 115 under

authority of Section 103(d) as quoted above; and that specifically those provisions dealing with the content of the digits and letters used in the vehicle identification number are preempted by FMVSS 115 under authority of Section 103(d). GM anticipates that NHTSA holds the same opinion in the matter as GM does and requests that NHTSA express its opinion on this important subject in response to this letter and to the VESC prior to the December 11 meeting.

VESC AND ITS MEMBER STATES

The Beamer Resolution, Public Law 85-684, August 20, 1958, gave Congressional assent to agreements or compacts among States for "cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the establishment and carrying out of traffic safety programs, including but not limited to, the enactment of uniform traffic laws . . . and . . . for the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they deem desirable for the establishment and carrying out of such traffic safety programs". Attached is a copy of the Beamer Resolution.

The Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact was subsequently developed as the mechanism by which States could compact with one another for the purposes stated in Public Law 85-684. Attached is a copy of the Compact.

Article III of the Compact creates the VESC as the agency of the member States.

As stated in Article I, subsection (b)(1), of the Compact, one purpose of the Compact is to "promote uniformity in regulation of and standards for equipment". Article V of the Compact authorizes the VESC after hearings to adopt "rules, regulations or codes embodying performance requirements or restrictions for any item or items of equipment covered in the report [indicating the need for regulation]". (This provision appears in the Compact notwithstanding the fact that the Beamer Resolution relegates compact activities in the field of "safe automobile . . . design" to research only.) Under Article V of the Compact, once a regulation has been adopted by the VESC, each party State must duly consider it for adoption.

Sections (e), (f), and (g) of Article V of the Compact provide that member States may adopt or reject VESC regulations by administrative or legislative action as appropriate under individual State constitutions and statutes.

Forty-two States and the District of Columbia are now members of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact. The eight states that are not members are Alabama, Alaska, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

In thirty of the member States, a VESC regulation becomes a mandatory State equipment requirement only after the individual State's Legislature enacts it into law.

A VESC regulation, however, can be adopted by administrative action alone in the following twelve States: Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland (deemed approved in absence of legislative disapproval), New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia.

Under the procedure followed by VESC, the December 11 hearing may be the final administrative step before adoption by VESC of this regulation. Indeed, the first line of the attached Notice of Public Hearing states that the hearing is preliminary "to final adoption" of the regulation. Following VESC adoption, as many as twelve States can adopt the VESC regulation administratively without legislative action, whereupon the regulation acquires the force of law immediately in those States. In those twelve States, six months is the maximum time within which to act but no minimum time is specified.

The twelve States not only may adopt the VESC regulation but are required by statute to do so unless "the public safety" requires otherwise. Article V, section (g) of the Compact, which has been incorporated in the statutes of the member States, so provides. If only "public safety" is relevant in the State hearing prior to adoption of the regulation by an individual State, an objection that the regulation is preempted by FMVSS 115 under authority of Section 103(d) might not be heeded.

Since its establishment, the VESC had adopted a number of regulations. Among them are Regulation V-1, New Tires; Regulation (Illegible Word) Minimum Requirements For Motor Vehicle Connecting Devices and Towing Methods; Regulation VESC-6, Minimum Requirements For School Bus Construction and Equipment; and VESC-9, Safe Operating Condition of Truck and Bus Type Tires.

VESC can adopt the regulation soon after the December 11 hearing and thereby trigger simultaneous action in forty-two States and the District of Columbia to adopt the regulation as law. If the NHTSA does not express its opinion on preemption at the VESC hearing or prior to adoption by VESC of the regulation, it will be necessary for each of the forty-three member jurisidictions to consider the merits of the preemption argument individually with possibly differing results.

Thus, urgent need exists for the NHTSA to express its position on preemption at or soon after the December 11 VESC hearing.

DIFFERENCES IN CONTENT BETWEEN PROPOSED VESC REGULATION AND FMVSS 115

FMVSS 115 and the proposed VESC regulation apply to the same class of vehicles, namely, passenger cars. See paragraph 2, Scope, of proposed VESC regulation.

The attached yellow pages from the VESC proposal deal with the passenger car regulations. The pink pages deal with a proposal for non-motive power recreational vehicles which is included for information only.

Paragraph 6 of the proposed VESC regulation sets forth the basic requirements. These require the VIN to contain in sequence exactly two digits called the Make Code Field, five or fewer digits called the Identifier Field, and exactly eight digits called the Indicator Section.

FMVSS 115 does not expressly address the make-up of the vehicle identification number. However, it is GM's understanding that FMVSS 115 is intended by the NHTSA to be a comprehensive, uniform, and exclusive standard covering all aspects of vehicle identification numbering. As such, the absence of an express requirement concerning the make-up of the vehicle identification number does not permit a State to impose such a requirement. This understanding is supported by your letter of November 8, 1973 to Mr. W. Pudinski of the Department of California Highway Patrol concerning FMVSS 108. See Attachment. In that letter you stated:

The implication of the California opinion is that any mode of design or performance that is not expressly dealt with in the Federal standard is open to regulation by

the States. Such a position is impractical, where the agency's intent is to have a comprehensive, uniform regulation in a given area . . . Congress clearly intended the NHTSA to establish a single set of uniform standards to which manufacturers must comply, and that intent would tend to be defeated by the position taken in the California opinion. Federal regulation has a negative as well as a positive aspect: in determining that there should be certain requirements in an area, we also are deciding against imposing others. The only way to effectuate such a decision is to declare, as we have done here, that our regulation is intended to be exclusive, and to describe as necessary its outer limits. [Emphasis added]

POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH FUTURE NHTSA PLANS

If it is assumed for sake of argument only that preemption is not present, adoption of the VESC regulation in any of the VESC member jurisdictions could result in serious practical complications of future NHTSA plans.

In September 1975, the International Standards Organization (ISO) adopted two vehicle identification number standards: Vehicle Identification Numbering System 3779

and World Manufacturer Identifier Coding System 3780, which apply to all "road vehicles" including passenger cars. The text of the officially adopted standards will issue in January 1976. The European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market Council, at its November 7, 1975 meeting, began considering these ISO standards for incorporation in the proposed EEC Council directive for statutory places and inscriptions for motor vehicles and trailers. Once the Common Market Council has incorporated the ISO standard, all Common Market countries must within 18 months "accept" the standard, i.e., recognize the standard as the exclusive or an alternative method of compliance with vehicle identification numbering requirements.

The ISO standard sets a maximum of 17 digits in the VIN. Although the standard can be met by fewer than 17 digits, one or more of the Common Market countries may adopt the standard in a way that requires no more and no less than 17 digits. Regardless of whether this happens, there is a direct conflict between the ISO standard which sets a maximum of 17 digits and the proposed VESC regulation which sets a maximum of 15 digits.

The ISO standard includes a World Manufacturer Identifier in the vehicle identification number which makes it possible to identify the country of origin as well as the manufacturer. This feature of the standard presumably will facilitate efforts to curtail international taffic in stolen cars. For that reason, it may be favored by the Interagency (DOT-Justice) Committee on Auto Theft Prevention. If curtailing international traffic in stolen cars prevents some car thefts from occurring in the United States, it may be that the NHTSA would also favor incorporating the ISO standard in FMVSS 115. If so, there will be a

head-on conflict with any VESC member jurisdiction that has adopted the VESC regulation because the VESC regulation requires two and only two digits in the Make Code Field, whereas the ISO standard requires three.

In the absence of Federal preemption in this matter, if any of the Common Market countries adopt the ISO standard in such a way that the 17 digits permitted by that standard are mandatory, adoption of the VESC standard in any of the VESC member-state jurisdications would require domestic manufacturers to have two separate VIN systems, one for vehicles sold in the United States and another for vehicles sold for export. This would be a confusing, wasteful and untenable situation.

GM respectfully requests NHTSA's opinion regarding FMVSS 115 in relation to the VESC regulation and the adoption thereof by any State or the District of Columbia. Your opinion should also be conveyed directly to the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission either at the December 11 meeting or at the VESC headquarters in Washington.

Frank W. Allen -- Assistant General Counsel, GENERAL MOTORS

ENCS.

ID: nht76-5.45

DATE: 03/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

COPYEE: J. CARSON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, to Mr. Fred Vetter, expressing your concern about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is well aware of the importance of the VIN and its use in requirements for certification, defect investigation, recall campaigns, inspection and registration. We are also well aware of its importance to other users such as State administrations, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies and vehicle manufacturers. The VIN is crucial to the identification of stolen, junked and recycled vehicles.

It was NHTSA's intention with the initial issuance of FMVSS No. 115, to include within its scope all aspects of vehicle numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applied, and to leave any aspects for which there were no specific requirements to the discretion of the manufacturers until such requirements could be issued. This, of course, is the basis of our position that any state rules in this area must be the same as the Federal standards.

We agree, however, that the VIN may be more effective if it is standardized in structure, format, and information content. The NHTSA, through its personnel who are members of the Society of Automotive Engineers and International Standards Organization Committees, has been participating in the efforts to develop a worldwide VIN system for several years. The NHTSA plans to issue in the next few months an NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 115 that will specify requirements for a standardized, uniform identification numbering system for all motor vehicles on a worldwide basis. We welcome all help and recommendations in this action.

I sincerely hope that VESC will provide comments and recommendations to the docket as we proceed in our rulemaking action.

ID: nht76-5.46

DATE: 05/11/76

FROM: VETTER FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 4, 1976, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number.

As I advised you on March 1, 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends to issue within a few months a notice of proposed rulemaking relating to a standardized Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). At that time, it is our intent to contact directly a number of interested organizations, including the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, the International Standards Organization, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and seek comments regarding the proposal.

I believe this procedure will satisfy the requirement in section 103(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) for NHTSA to consult with the Commission in prescribing standards under the Act. Regarding this requirement, the conference committee stated:

In the administration of this provision it is expected that the Secretary will, to the extent consistent with the purposes of this act, inform the VESC and other agencies of proposed standards and amendments thereto and afford them a reasonable opportunity to study and comment thereon. (Emphasis added.) (H. Rep. No. 1919, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1966))

Informing the VESC of proposed rulemaking, i.e., proposals issued by the agency, and providing an opportunity to comment, is the practice that the agency has been following and intends to continue following pursuant to section 103(f).

If a final rule relating to a VIN format is promulgated, we would expect all manufacturers to comply with the requirements of the amended standard and therefore do not anticipate litigation on our part. Consequently, should litigation ensue, as you suggest in your letter, it is my expectation that it would emanate from a manufacturer faced with differing requirements.

NHTSA has been considering the preemptive effect of Standard No. 115. As you know, the standard requires a VIN that is unique to a manufacturer during a ten-year period. It does not specify the length or content of the number. The question, therefore, becomes whether the standard was intended generally to cover all aspects of those numbers, and preempt any differing State rules. The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avacado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142, (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines enunciated in cases as Thorne v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that Standard No. 115 is intended to cover all aspects of VIN's relative to the vehicles to which the standard applies, and that any aspects for which there are no specific requirements were intended by this agency to be left to the discretion of the manufacturers. State regulations differing from the standard on this subject are found to "impair the federal superintendence of the field," within the meaning of the Florida Lime doctrine, and any such State regulation would be preempted under section 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

Should you have any other questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Maryland Department of Transportation

March 4, 1976

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

I appreciate your letter of March 1, 1976 advising me that you Administration intends to issue, within the next few months, an NPRM to amend the existing FMVSS No. 115 to standardize the vehicle identification numbering system for all vehicles on a worldwide basis.

I shall certainly advise my colleagues who serve with me on the Executive Committee of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's intent in this regard. I presume, and it certainly will be my recommendation, that the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission proceed with the promulgation of the Vehicle Identification Number Standard that was the subject of VESC hearings in Orlando, Florida in early December.

As I indicated in my correspondence to General Vetter, as soon as the VESC Standard is promulgated, and assuming it is, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration will promulgate rules and regulations adopting the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission's standard as its own and require manufacturers to comply with the Maryland standard as a condition for the titling and registration of vehicles within this jurisdiction. This action on my part naturally assumes that the pre-emption provision does not apply in this matter and that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not complied with the Congressional mandate that it consult with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission in the promulgation of equipment standards.

I presume, on the basis of your correspondence, that I can anticipate litigation in this matter and I have instructed counsel to prepare for this contingency.

With kindest regards, I am

Sincerely,

EJNER J. JOHNSON -- Administrator

CC: Joseph P. Murphy;

George O. Stevens;

Robert R. Harrison

ID: nht76-5.47

DATE: 11/10/76

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

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your August 12 and September 28, 1976, letters to our Office of Standards Enforcement concerning possible noncompliance of certain air-braked school buses with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. At issue is the functioning of a "double check valve" between the two tanks of an air brake system designed to meet S5.7.2 of the standard (as it was in effect prior to September 1, 1976). The valve serves to provide air pressure from either supply reservior to hold off the spring brakes while guarding the air brake system from air loss through either one of the reservoirs. The identified problem stems from construction or installation of the valve such that it does not necessarily operate to seal off the brake system from a loss of air in one of the tanks, permitting loss of air from both reservoirs unless the rate of air loss is substantial. Your letter advises that the State of California is permitting the continued operation of the school buses in question pending receipt of a response from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

I would like to address the findings you raise in the order in which they are listed on page two of your letter. I interpret your first finding to be that the "split system" designs used in compliance with Standard No. 121 may be incapable of meeting the stopping distance requirements set forth in S5.7.2. You question whether S5.7.2 adequately specifies a "back up" braking capability that is not cancelled out by a single failure of air pressure components, citing cases where a substantial rate of loss from one tank (introduced as a failure in accordance with S5.7.2.3) draws down the air pressure in both halves of a split system.

The general requirement of S5.7.2.3 (of the now superseded text) is that the vehicle, in one out of six attempts under specified conditions, must be capable of stopping from 60 mph within a distance of 613 feet "with a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid. . . ." To provide this performance (and meet the other requirements of S5.7.2) manufacturers have provided "split systems" modulated by the service brake control. As a matter of general compliance with this requirement, you have asked if any single failure (other than failure of common components) can be introduced into the system as a test of its compliance. The answer to your question is yes. The NHTSA does not know the basis of Ford Motor Company's contention that the "failure" introduced in the system must be at least 50 psi/min from an initial reservoir pressure of 120 psi.

A noncompliance with S5.7.2.3 occurs only if the vehicle, with the failure introduced, is incapable of stopping within the prescribed distance in one out of six attempts. Thus, an extremely small failure which is easily overcome by compressor pressure would be one way of testing for compliance with S5.7.2.3, but it would not, in all likelihood, result in the demonstration of a noncompliance. As you noted in the second paragraph of page 3 of your letter, a noncompliance with stopping distance requirements may depend (largely because of a compressor's ability to overcome air loss) on the rate of leakage introduced and the time allowed between introduction of the failure and application of the emergency brake. The standard does not (except for the provision of S6.1.14 for towing vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1976) provide detailed specification of procedures, particularly the time between failure and brake application. The agency therefore must utilize a reasonable procedure that does not unfairly test the system. In this case, the agency considers the introduction of any size leak, followed by brake application as soon as the low pressure warning activates, to be a reasonable procedure, approximating what would occur in the event of actual failure on the highway. The agency would find a noncompliance with S5.7.2.3 if the school buses are incapable of stopping within the required distance when the described procedure is followed.

Your second finding is that a particular double check valve installation can cause noncompliance with S5.7.2.3. Consistent with our general discussion of compliance with S5.7.2.3, stopping tests are the means to discover whether the buses in question comply. We are analyzing your data, and a noncompliance investigation has been opened. We have notified Ford Motor Company of its commencement. We have also forwarded data to our Office of Defects Investigation to see if the check valve problem constitutes a safety-related defect apart from the issue of compliance.

Your last three findings address the separate question of whether the concept of a split system is adequately interfaced with the parking brake requirements of Standard No. 121. First you make the general point that, if S5.7.2.3 permits a substantial loss of air from both sides of a split system, the benefit of redundant lines is negated and the split system requirement is unjustified. The agency understands your position and believes that a stricter control on the amount of permissible leakage (perhaps by means of a limitation on compressor replenishment or a longer period before emergency brake application) may be justified. Particularly important is your point that a compressor loses capability as it grows older, and that this is not accounted for in new-vehicle tests. At the same time, however, larger failures do occur and we continue to view the split system as extremely important for these cases. The split system provides extremely good protection against failures such as rupture of a line or brake chamber diaphragm.

With regard to your point that split systems do not guard against failure of components common to the two systems as they are presently constructed (such as the compressor drive belt), I must agree with your point that no brake system can guard against every conceivable failure completely. It is for these cases, in fact, that the agency considers the automatic application of the parking brake system beneficial following loss of the other two capabilities.

You make the further point that, in cases of marginal compliance (i.e., the compressor can replace most but not all air loss from both sides of the split system), the gradual loss of system pressure permits parking brake application that interferes with modulation of the emergency capability. While S5.7.2 was designated as "Modulated emergency braking system", no specification for modulation was set forth in its requirements. The agency intended that a system conforming to S5.7.2 would be controlled by the driver instead of by automatic application. Our review of the systems you tested indicates that they are "modulated systems" as contemplated by the agency.

The present emergency brake requirements only state that the system "be applied and released, and be capable of modulation, by means of the service brake control." While further specification of this requirement may be in order, I believe it is the early application of the parking brake that actually concerns you, as it affects the application and release of the emergency braking capability.

You make the observation that early application of the spring brakes in response to air pressure loss permits them to drag, become overheated, and fade, making them useless before they can be utilized. A related issue is that the spring brakes will apply shortly after emergency brake availability (even before activation of the low air pressure warning), immobilizing the vehicle with no capability to release the parking brakes. You suggest implementation of a parking brake arrangement that would keep the spring brakes off longer or provide an isolated source of air pressure to permit their release when they do lock up.

Analysis of your test reports leads me to agree that some specification to limit the early application of spring brakes would be in order. Of course, as you are well aware, notice to interested persons of any change in the standard is required, along with an opportunity for comment. I believe that such rulemaking could be joined with the earlier rulemaking undertaken in response to a California Highway Patrol (CHP) petition (Docket 75-16, Notice 04).

Your final point is that, as long as early application of the parking brake is permissible, an isolated tank of air should be available to permit release of the parking brake from the driver's position. With regard to an isolated tank, the NHTSA continues to maintain its view set forth in our November 29, 1974, letter to Donald Gibson of the CHP that the second side of the split system provides more capability than the old systems (with an isolated tank) to avoid a lockup following a service brake failure. However, you have clearly demonstrated that the capability can be essentially negated by early application of the parking brake. I believe that limitations on early application of the parking brake would be a superior correction to the problem than the addition of more components (and complexity) to the existing systems.

Because school buses are involved in the problems you cite, you are no doubt aware that @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while preemptive of State regulations or laws of general applicability that are not identical to Federal standards on the same aspect of performance, does not prevent a State or political subdivision from specifying a higher level of brake performance in vehicles "procured for its own use." Thus, the State of California may wish to order school buses with the additional isolated reservoir that you have recommended. The addition of a third tank to a system that complies with the standard's requirements would not be prevented by @ 103(d).

I appreciate the constructive approach being pursued by the State of California in enforcement of Standard No. 121. Our Office of Standards Enforcement will keep you advised of the results of its investigation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 28, 1976 File No.: 1.A218.A3107

Francis Armstrong -- Office of Standards Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

In this Department's letter of August 12, 1976, we brought to your attention a problem with the air brakes on school buses built on Ford chassis. We since have allowed the buses to temporarily continue in operation pending a decision by your agency as to their compliance with FMVSS No. 121.

At a meeting on September 2, in Sacramento with engineers from Ford Motor Company and Bendix-Westinghouse, this Department took the position that the Ford system did not operate as required by FMVSS No. 121 and did not protect the brakes against a single failure. Ford contended that the system was safe and complied with FMVSS No. 121. They further were of the opinion that a leak in a hose, fitting, or diaphragm of less than 50 psi/min from an initial reservoir pressure of 120 psi was not a "failure" as contemplated in FMVSS No. 121 and, in any event, could be overcome by the continuous operation of the air compressor.

The matter was pursued in considerable detail with no meeting of minds. It was found that the vehicle manufacturers' conclusions were based solely on laboratory and static tests and that no failures involving a continuous leak had been simulated on a moving vehicle. They were of the opinion that the usual vibration of the moving vehicle might result in the check valve responding more rapidly in normal service than in static tests. Although we believed the buses did not comply with FMVSS No. 121, we did not desire to keep them out of service if it could be reasonably avoided. On the other hand, we did not wish to allow them to operate if they were imminently unsafe, even if they complied with FMVSS No. 121.

We immediately scheduled dynamic tests for the following day to obtain some of the answers. Our investigation showed that the system did not function any better in tests of the moving vehicle than in stationary tests. The same situation was found to exist on other makes of school buses using similar designs. In our opinion, the systems on these buses do not comply with FMVSS No. 121 or are otherwise deficient for the following reasons:

1. It is highly doubtful that the vehicles can meet the emergency stopping distance in FMVSS No. 121 with a single failure in the air system.

2. Some double check valves are so mounted that they shuttle rapidly in one direction and are essentially inoperative in the other direction.

3. The emergency system is not capable of modulation by the service brake control as required by FMVSS No. 121 when loss of air in the service brake reservoirs results in the spring brakes beginning to apply.

4. If the driver does not react rapidly to a low pressure indication, the spring brakes can drag and overheat so as to be ineffective when they are eventually fully applied.

5. Upon failure of a compressor belt, as in the Martinez accident, the depletion of air in the service brake system upon a few brake applications could cause the spring brakes to lock with the vehicle in a hazardous location such as in a tunnel or on railroad tracks.

The results of our tests on Ford, International and Gillig buses are shown in the enclosed report. We found that all of the buses had insensitive double check valves between the primary and secondary split system. Although the buses were released for operation by the school district, we still have serious concern that this type of system does little good as an emergency brake system.

We ask that you give immediate consideration to a recall investigation to determine if air brakes using the double check valve piping system comply with FMVSS No. 121 and have an effectively-operating emergency stopping system. Our request is based on the following observations during our dynamic tests:

1. The double check valves are not sensitive enough to protect one-half of the dual system against either a mild or substantial air leak in the other half. A leak through a broken hose at a brake chamber with either partial or full foot-brake application did not cause the check valve to shuttle. If the vehicle was going downgrade with the brakes applied, the air would leak out of both systems down to the pressure at which the compressor could keep up with the leak. This ineffective dual system is a waste to the bus or truck operator, as he is no better off than with a single system with no double check valve.

2. It appears questionable whether the vehicles will meet the 60 mph, 613-foot stopping test of Section 5.7.1 of FMVSS No. 121 with a leak equal to the maximum before shuttle movement when the reservoir pressure is stabilized at the compressor output volume. If the vehicles in fact meet this performance requirement under these conditions, the "dual" components are a nonfunctional appendage. With this size leak, the pressure in the "protected" system will eventually be no higher than that in the failed system. Passage of the stopping distance test apparently depends entirely on how quickly the brake pedal is applied after the failure is initiated.

3. Double check valves are installed at the factory in mounting positions that interfere with their operation and any effectiveness that they might have. Some valves were installed with the shuttle axis vertical so that a leak needed to shut off air flow to one reservoir is far less than that at which air flow is shut off to the other reservoir. One ball-check valve was mounted at about a 45-degree angle so the ball immediately shut off a very small leak on the down-hill side but would not shut off the maximum leak that we could reproduce on the uphill side. As a vehicle gets older, contaminates and corrosion products in the system could cause the normally inactive double check valve to hang up when most needed. Even in our tests on a comparatively new vehicle, one of the check valves did not operate nearly as well upon the first simulated leak as on subsequent ones.

4. When a leak occurs, both systems drain down to the point where the spring brakes begin to drag just before the low air pressure indicator comes on. If the driver does not react to the signal, the spring brakes drag more and more as the pressure slowly drops, thereby overheating the linings and drums and destroying the effectiveness of the brakes when they finally are completely on.

5. The driver cannot modulate the brakes with a moderate leak in a supply line in either side of the dual system. The air pressure drops to the point where the spring brakes come on, even with no brake application by the driver. He can then apply the brakes harder by the foot valve, but he cannot release them below the force applied by the spring brakes. The FMVSS No. 121 amendments that became effective September 1, 1976, removed all reference to automatic emergency stopping systems which, if used, were previously required to be releasable by the driver after at least one full application. This feature apparently was intended to be taken care of in the current standard by the modulation requirement. In the systems we tested, the spring brakes could automatically apply with no action by the driver and then could not be released by the modulated treadle valve.

We realize that no system can protect against every conceivable possibility and that compromises are necessary because economical protection against one problem may result in an unavoidable creation of a smaller problem. A brake standard cannot meet every need of users and manufacturers under every possible situation, but the standard should be precise enough so users can follow its requirements and are aware of the limited assumptions on which it is based. To this end, we offer the following items that came to light in our tests. If during your investigation, you also find them to be a problem, you might wish to propose solutions to the Office of Crash Avoidance for consideration during the next revision of FMVSS No. 121.

1. Ford Motor Company contended that a leak through a damaged line, hose, diaphragm, etc., was not a "failure" as intended in FMVSS No. 121 unless the line or hose completely severed to produce a pressure drop of at least 50 psi/min from an initial reservoir pressure of 110 psi. We believe a much smaller initial leak of, say, 6 to 10 psi/min should be considered a failure for which the emergency system must compensate. With these differences of opinion, it is essential that the size of leak that constitutes a failure be specifically defined by NHTSA.

2. The stopping distance test conditions of the emergency system should be spelled out in more detail in FMVSS No. 121. The systems we checked would not isolate the protected half of the dual system under the more common failures of hoses and diaphragms. Also, the functioning of the double check valves was dependent upon their mounting position. A manufacturer's test that might be conducted to show compliance with the stopping distance standard with one system completely vented and the other with full air pressure (as would be assumed if the check valve was sensitive) is not realistic.

3. Ford Motor Company contends that their dual system is modulated as required by the standard. We contend that the system is not modulated, or only partially so, when an air leak developes which stabilizes the pressure at less than the 68-psi spring brake initial pressure. The regulation should spell out test conditions sufficient to control the intended degree of modulation.

4. The Ford system depends on compressor output to limit the extent of pressure drop in the system and, consequently, the amount of uncontrolled spring brake application. A new compressor with a 12 cfm rating can, when in good condition, keep up with a considerable air leak, but the emergency stopping system should not be dependent upon this factor. Some compressors are almost too small for some systems and many lose much of their capacity after they are in service over a period of time.

The deficiencies in the present split-air system would not be so important if a protected air tank was added to allow the spring brakes to release after the automatic application that occurs when one leak causes the air to be drained from both systems. The driver would then be able to release the spring brakes to remove the vehicle from a potentially hazardous location. Other modifications might be desirable such as the use of pressure protection valves shown in the enclosed Bendix-Westinghouse school bus system which was developed in accordance with California law a few years back.

I am sure you are aware of the intense national interest in school bus defects since the Martinez charter bus accident in which 29 persons were killed. The news media is sensitive to matters of school bus operation and may request information concerning our evaluation and recommendations to your agency. The possibility of such inquiry provides additional reason for your expeditious review and resolution of this matter.

I urge you to take immediate steps to require air brake systems of the types described in the enclosed report to be redesigned to comply with FMVSS No. 121 and to effectively protect the vehicles against brake failure.

Very truly yours,

G. B. CRAIG -- Commissioner

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

INSPECTION OF DUAL AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS ON SCHOOL BUSES

ENFORCEMENT SERVICES DIVISION

SEPTEMBER 1976

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT 1 BACKGROUND 1 PROCEDURE 4 TEST RESULTS 4 I. Tests of 1976 Bluebird School Bus on a Ford Chassis 4 II. Tests of 1976 Superior School Bus on a Ford Chassis 6 III. Tests of 1975 Ward School Bus on an International Chassis 8 IV. Tests of 1976 Gillig School Bus 10 DISCUSSION 11 CONCLUSION 14

[REPORT OMITTED]